Introduction To Political Science PDF

Accountability of Kings: ○ If kings no longer ruled by divine mandate, then they must be accountable to the people. ○ The King should rule for the people’s good: This marked a significant shift in the relationship between rulers and the governed. Major...

Accountability of Kings: ○ If kings no longer ruled by divine mandate, then they must be accountable to the people. ○ The King should rule for the people’s good: This marked a significant shift in the relationship between rulers and the governed. Major Breakthrough: ○ The idea that the king is accountable to the people and must justify his choices to them became central to modern democratic thought. 6. 19th Century Struggles for Democracy Democracy in Republics and Constitutional Monarchies: ○ By the 19th century, many republics and constitutional monarchies had emerged, but democracy was not yet universally accepted. ○ The rediscovery of Athenian democracy through works like George Grote's History of Greece (1846) inspired a revival of democratic ideals. Abraham Lincoln's Definition of Democracy (1863): ○ "Government of the people, by the people, for the people": Of the people: Government officials come from the people. By the people: The people elect their representatives. For the people: The government acts for the common good. ○ Democracy became politically acceptable and desirable. The Classic View on Democracy: ○ Democracy as a decision-making process: The people themselves decide on political issues, or they elect representatives to carry out their will. 7. Democracy in the 20th Century Contemporary Views: ○ Joseph Schumpeter (1942): Democracy is an institutional arrangement where individuals gain power through a competitive struggle for votes. Key elements: Political competition: Candidates must compete freely for the people's vote. Majority vs. Common Good: Democracy often involves balancing majority rule with the pursuit of the common good. Minimal or Procedural Definition of Democracy (Schumpeter): ○ Democracy is primarily defined by the electoral process—i.e., free and fair elections. ○ Problems: Electoralism Fallacy: Merely holding elections does not guarantee a true democracy, as highlighted by Karl and Schmitter (1991). 8. Pluralist Approach to Democracy Robert Dahl's Pluralist Definition (1971): ○ Dahl introduced two major dimensions of democracy: Contestation: The ability of candidates to compete in free and fair elections. Citizens must have the right to oppose and criticize the government. Participation: All adult citizens must have the right to vote and participate in political life. Importance: ○ Democracy is more than just elections; it includes broad participation and contestation that ensures accountability and transparency in governance. 9. Conclusion and Continuation Class Continuation: ○ The discussion of democracy will continue in the next class, focusing on its various classifications and further developments in the 20th century. Lecture 4: Democracy Classification 1. Introduction to Democracy Classification Ancient Democracy vs. Modern Democracy: ○ Ancient democracy (e.g., Greek city-states) and contemporary democracy have distinct historical developments. ○ Democracy is seen as a historical phenomenon that can be invented and reinvented under suitable conditions (Robert Dahl). ○ Ongoing tension between what democracy is (the reality of democratic systems) and what democracy should be (the ideal principle). 2. Contemporary Views of Democracy (20th Century) Minimal or Procedural Definition of Democracy (Joseph Schumpeter, 1942): ○ Democracy is an institutional arrangement where individuals gain power to make decisions through a competitive struggle for the people's vote. ○ Key characteristics:  Political competition: Between parties and individuals. Conflict between the majority and the common good. Clear distinction between democratic and non-democratic regimes. Issues Raised: ○ Fallacy of Electoralism: The mere existence of elections does not guarantee genuine democracy (Karl and Schmitter, 1991). ○ Recognizing differences within democracies is crucial. 3. Pluralist Approach to Democracy (Robert Dahl, 1971) Two Key Dimensions of Democracy: ○ Contestation: Free and fair competition between candidates, with citizens having the right to criticize and replace their government. ○ Participation: All adult citizens must have the right to vote and engage in political life. 4. Types of Democracy 1. Historical Context of Democracies By 1974, less than one-third of independent states were democratic (27.5%). By the early 2000s, most countries claim to be democratic, but this group has become heterogeneous. 2. Lijphart’s Typologies (1984/1999) Majoritarian Democracies: ○ Executive power is concentrated in a single majority party. Consensus Democracies: ○ Power-sharing among multiple parties forming a coalition. 3. Gerring’s Classification (2005) Decentralized Democracies: ○ Power is dispersed across different levels of governance. Centripetal Democracies: ○ Power is concentrated at a more centralized level of government. 5. Classic Institutional Approaches and Complex Typologies Classic Institutionalist Approach (Duverger, 1978): ○ Three types of democratic governance systems: Presidentialism.  Semi-presidentialism. Parliamentarism. Multi-Criteria Typologies (Lijphart, 1999): ○ Democracies are classified based on multiple criteria: executive-legislative relations, electoral system, and government structure. 6. Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy (1999) 1. Executives-Parties Dimension Executive Power Distribution: ○ Concentrated power in a majority party (majoritarian democracies). ○ Power-sharing among multiple parties (consensual democracies). Executive-Legislative Relationship: ○ Executive dominance in majoritarian democracies. ○ Balance of power between executive and legislature in consensual democracies. Party System: ○ Two-party system in majoritarian democracies. ○ Multi-party system in consensual democracies. Electoral System: ○ Majoritarian system in majoritarian democracies. ○ Proportional representation in consensual democracies. Role of Interest Groups: ○ Pluralism in majoritarian democracies, with free competition among groups. ○ Corporatism in consensual democracies, where interest groups collaborate to reach compromises. 2. Federal-Unitary Dimension Government Organization: ○ Unitary and centralized in majoritarian democracies. ○ Federal and decentralized in consensual democracies. Legislative Power Distribution: ○ Single dominant house in majoritarian democracies. ○ Two equally strong legislative houses in consensual democracies. Constitutional Flexibility: ○ Flexible constitution in majoritarian systems, amendable by simple majority. ○ Rigid constitution in consensual systems, requiring special majorities for amendments (often via referendum). Judicial Review: ○ No strong judicial review in majoritarian democracies. ○ Judicial review exists but may be weak in consensual democracies. Central Bank Independence: ○ Dependent central bank in majoritarian systems.  ○ Claims rooted in historical-religious authority, socio-economic performance, or consistent ideology. Co-optation: ○ Autocratic regimes build loyalty by co-opting important actors (e.g., opposition leaders) through jobs, payments, and benefits. 9. Global Trends The rise of electoral autocracies in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Increase in regimes that employ limited multi-party systems but still maintain authoritarian control. 10. Types of Regimes Liberal Democracy: Full contestation, participation, and executive limitations. Electoral Democracy: Participation and contestation but weaker individual rights and horizontal accountability. Electoral Autocracy: Participation with limited political pluralism. Closed Autocracy: No meaningful political participation or contestation. Conclusion Autocratic regimes vary in terms of how they legitimize and maintain power, whether through repression, co-optation, or claims of legitimacy. The distinction between democracy and autocracy is not always clear-cut, as seen in hybrid regimes and electoral autocracies. Lecture 6: Democratization and Autocratization 1. Introduction to Democratization Definition: ○ Movement towards democracy (Whitehead, 2002). ○ Involves a transition to a democratic regime and changes in a democratic direction. ○ Two approaches: Quantitative: Measures progress towards democracy. Qualitative: Examines the shift from autocracy to democracy. 2. Waves of Democratization and Autocratization (Samuel Huntington, 1990) Democratization Waves: ○ First Wave (1828–1926): Early democracies like the U.S. and Western Europe. ○ Second Wave (1943–1962): Post-World War II, with decolonization efforts. ○ Third Wave (1974–1996): Fall of dictatorships in Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe. Autocratization Waves: ○ First Wave (1922–1942): Rise of fascism and totalitarian regimes. ○ Second Wave (1958–1975): Military coups and authoritarianism in the developing world. 3. Defining Regime Types: Democratic to Autocratic Spectrum Types of Regimes: ○ Liberal Democracy: High contestation, participation, and executive limitations. ○ Electoral Democracy: Participation and contestation but weaker individual rights. ○ Electoral Autocracy: Limited pluralism; elections are neither free nor fair. ○ Closed Autocracy: No meaningful participation or contestation. Trends: ○ Rise of electoral democracies since the 1970s but setbacks in many regions. ○ Examples: Autocratization: Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua. Progressive democratization: Chile, Uruguay, Panama. 4. Regional Analysis of Democratization 1. Latin America: Significant democratization since the 1970s. Current dynamics: ○ Liberal democracies: Chile, Uruguay. ○ Electoral democracies: Ecuador, Colombia. ○ Recent autocratization: Venezuela, Nicaragua. 2. Sub-Saharan Africa: Autocracies dominated until the late 1980s. Mixed progress:  ○ Liberal democracies: South Africa, Ghana. ○ Military coups and fragile regimes: Mali, Burkina Faso. 3. Western Europe and North America: Stable liberal democracies but emerging challenges to democratic norms. 4. Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Post-communist democratization in the 1990s. Recent trends show diverging paths with lingering autocracies. 5. Asia and the Pacific: Consolidated democracies: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. Strong autocracies persist: China, North Korea. 6. Middle East and North Africa: Arab Spring (2011): Limited democratization; many countries reverted to autocracy or conflict. 5. Structural Approaches to Democratization 1. Modernization Theory: Economic development drives democracy (Lipset, 1959). Mechanisms: ○ Higher education: Informed citizens demand rights. ○ Redistribution: Reduced inequality lessens elite resistance to democracy. Criticisms: ○ No automatic link between development and democracy (e.g., Singapore). ○ Rentier states: Resource wealth hinders democratization. 2. Social Class Theory (Barrington Moore, 1966): Democratization depends on interactions between: ○ Peasantry. ○ Bourgeoisie. ○ Aristocracy. Outcomes: ○ Bourgeois revolutions: Liberal democracy (e.g., France, U.S.). ○ Revolutions from above: Fascism (e.g., Germany, Japan). ○ Revolutions from below: Communism (e.g., Russia, China). Criticisms: ○ Overemphasis on the bourgeoisie. ○ Less applicable to 20th-century democratization. 6. Strategic Approaches to Democratization 1. Transition Models (O’Donnell & Schmitter, 1986): Emphasis on strategic interactions between elites and masses. Phases: ○ Liberalization: Relaxation of authoritarian controls. ○ Transition: Institutional changes towards democracy. ○ Consolidation: Establishing democracy as the "only game in town." 2. Modes of Transition (Karl & Schmitter, 1991): From above: Elites impose democratization. From below: Masses demand reforms. Pacted transition: Compromise between elites and opposition. 7. Democratic Consolidation Definition: ○ Democracy becomes deeply rooted in behavior, attitudes, and institutions (Linz and Stepan, 1996). ○ Criteria: No significant groups engage in rebellion. Institutions operate within democratic norms. Citizens broadly support democracy. Five Arenas for Consolidation: ○ Functional state: Ensures stability and governance. ○ Political society: Competitive and autonomous. ○ Rule of law: Guarantees rights and freedoms. ○ State bureaucracy: Efficient and accountable. ○ Economic society: Institutionalized and regulated. Criticisms: ○ Democracy consolidation is nonlinear and not equivalent to high-quality democracy. 8. Comparative Analysis: Structural vs. Strategic Approaches Structural: ○ Focus on long-term factors (e.g., economic development, class dynamics). ○ Criticism: Deterministic and often overlooks agency. Strategic: ○ Emphasis on short- and medium-term interactions between actors. ○ Criticism: Underestimates structural constraints. Conclusion Democratization and autocratization are complex, dynamic processes influenced by structural factors (economic, class-based) and strategic actions (elites, masses). Successful democratization requires strong institutions, societal support, and effective governance mechanisms. Lecture 7: Executives 1. Introduction to Executives Definition: ○ The term "government" often refers to the central political executive of a country. ○ The executive is not limited to enforcing laws but is also responsible for ruling and decision-making. Key Questions: ○ What are the different types of government? ○ How is the internal structure of government organized? ○ How autonomous is the executive in relation to parties and bureaucracies? ○ What determines the government’s capacity to act? 2. Types of Government Historical Evolution: ○ Governments emerged by separating judicial and legislative powers (12th century England). ○ Despite the separation of powers, these functions are often intertwined, with executives holding significant legislative powers. Foundations of Democratic Governments: ○ Connection to the electoral process. ○ Constitutional constraints on power. A. Forms of Government 1. Presidentialism: ○ Head of state = Head of government (President). ○ Directly elected by the people. ○ Not politically accountable to the legislature.  ○ Appoints members of the government. 2. Parliamentarism: ○ Head of government ≠ Head of state. ○ The prime minister is selected (appointed or elected) and is politically accountable to the legislature. ○ Members of the government are typically not chosen by the prime minister alone. 3. Semi-Presidentialism: ○ Combines elements of presidentialism and parliamentarism. ○ The president is directly elected, appoints members of the government, and can dissolve the legislature. ○ The prime minister operates as a separate head of government. 4. Directorial Government: ○ Government members are individually elected by the legislature. ○ The head of government rotates annually and is politically independent of the legislature. 5. Directly Elected Prime Minister: ○ The prime minister is directly elected and politically accountable to the legislature. ○ Requires a parliamentary vote of confidence to maintain the position. 3. Internal Workings of Governments Flexibility in Functioning: ○ Constitutions often provide little detail about internal decision-making, allowing political actors to develop conventions. A. Presidential Systems: Centralized executive power in a single individual. Cabinet acts as an advisory body but lacks collective decision-making authority. B. Parliamentary Systems: Cabinet Government: ○ Collective decision-making with the prime minister as "first among equals." Prime Ministerial Government: ○ More centralized, resembling presidentialism. Ministerial Government: ○ Power is fragmented among individual ministers, each acting as a "policy dictator." 4. Autonomy of Governments Relationship with Political Parties:  ○ Governments often rely on party support but maintain varying degrees of autonomy: Dominance: One entity dominates (party or government). Autonomy: Party and government operate independently. Fusion: Party and government are indistinguishable. Influence of Political Parties: ○ Party Programs shape government priorities. ○ Cabinet Member Selection influences decision-making. ○ Duration of Party Control impacts government stability and autonomy. Role of Bureaucracy: ○ Bureaucracies shape the political agenda by defining issues and presenting solutions based on their expertise and preferences. 5. Political Capacity of Governments A. Unified vs. Divided Government: Unified: Presidency and legislature are controlled by the same party (common in presidential systems). Divided: Different parties control the executive and legislature, creating challenges for policymaking. B. Majority vs. Minority Governments: Majority Governments: ○ Stable and efficient. Minority Governments: ○ Perceived as unstable but often durable. ○ Occupy the ideological center, dividing opposition. C. Single-Party vs. Coalition Governments: Single-Party Governments: ○ Homogeneous, faster decision-making but prone to internal rivalries. Coalition Governments: ○ Require compromises, slowing decision-making but ensuring broader representation. 6. Bureaucratic Capacity Weberian Model of Bureaucracy: ○ Personnel: Lifelong, merit-based employment ensures professionalism. ○ Organization: Functional division and specialization promote efficiency. ○ Procedure: Impersonal rules ensure consistency. A. Problems with Bureaucracy: Parkinson’s Law: Bureaucracies tend to grow indefinitely. Bureaucrats may prioritize personal interests: ○ Leisure-shirking: Doing less work than expected. ○ Dissent-shirking: Not fully implementing policies. ○ Political sabotage: Actively opposing government policies. B. Politicians’ Responses to Bureaucracy: 1. Spoil Systems: ○ The ruling party replaces bureaucrats with loyalists. ○ Pros: Ensures commitment to government goals. ○ Cons: Encourages corruption and reduces institutional knowledge. 2. New Public Management: ○ Introduces competitive recruitment for top positions. ○ Promotes entrepreneurial approaches and sub-unit competition. 7. Conclusion Governments differ significantly in structure, autonomy, and operational dynamics. The relationship between executives, parties, and bureaucracies plays a crucial role in shaping political capacity and decision-making efficiency. The next focus will explore legislatures and their role in balancing executive powers. Lecture 8: Legislatures 1. What is a Legislature? Definitions: ○ Assembly: A gathering of people for any purpose. ○ Legislature: An assembly with a political purpose and tasked with making laws. Types of Legislatures: ○ Parliaments (in parliamentary systems): The executive is selected from and by the legislature. The executive can be removed at any time. Mutual dependence between executive and legislature. ○ Congresses (in presidential systems): Executive and legislature are independently elected.  Neither can dissolve or remove the other (except for legal incapacity or impeachment). 2. Roles of Legislatures Linkage and Representation: ○ Linkage: Acts as an intermediary between citizens and the central government. More effective in single-member constituencies. Crucial in systems where the executive is indirectly elected (parliamentary systems). ○ Representation: Delegates: Legislators act as agents directly reflecting voter interests. Trustees: Legislators act in the interest of society as a whole. ○ Debating: Provides a public forum for discussing political issues. ○ Legitimacy: Confers legitimacy on the political system. Oversight and Control: ○ Monitoring the Executive: The legislature acts as a principal, ensuring checks on the executive. More extensive in parliamentary systems where the executive is accountable to the legislature. ○ Budget Oversight: Ensures policy budgets are appropriate and implemented correctly. Uses tools like question-time, hearings, investigative committees, and reports. Policy-Making: ○ Legislatures influence policies through consultation, delay, veto, amendment, and initiation. ○ Types: Arena legislatures: Little direct influence on policy-making. Transformative legislatures: High degree of direct influence on policy. 3. Internal Organization of Legislatures Chamber Systems: ○ Unicameral: Single legislative chamber. ○ Bicameral: Two chambers with distinct functions: Lower house: Represents the population. Upper house: Represents social or territorial groups. Bicameralism: ○ Symmetric: Equal power between both chambers. ○ Asymmetric: Unequal power distribution. Members:  ○ Factors influencing legislative power: Size of the legislature. Professionalization of members. Turnover between elections. Committees: ○ Permanent and specialized committees play a critical role in shaping policies. ○ Committees provide expertise and resources to influence legislative decisions. Decision-Making Structures: ○ Proportional representation vs. Winner-takes-all distribution of internal roles. ○ Trade-offs: Proportional systems favor compromise but are slower. Winner-takes-all systems are efficient but can polarize. 4. Assessing Legislative Power Autonomy: ○ Institutional Independence: Parliaments have less autonomy due to their accountability to the executive. Congresses have greater autonomy but face challenges in passing legislation. ○ Member Independence: Influenced by party organization and electoral systems. Party-centered systems (proportional representation) limit member independence. Factors Determining Power: ○ Institutional structures: Type of legislature and political system. ○ Partisan independence: Role of parties and electoral rules. 5. Types of Legislative Architectures Architectural Layouts and Their Symbolism: ○ Semicircle: Inspired by antiquity; fosters unity and shared responsibility (France, Germany). ○ Opposing Benches: Encourages debate and confrontation between government and opposition (UK, Punjab). ○ Horseshoe: Combines elements of semicircle and opposing benches for balanced debate (South Africa, Bangladesh). ○ Circle: Represents democratic equality; less common (Slovenia, West Germany).  ○ Classroom: Regimented rows focused on a central speaker, often seen in authoritarian systems (China, Russia, North Korea). Conclusion Legislatures play a critical role in linking citizens to government, overseeing the executive, and shaping policy. Their structure, autonomy, and internal organization significantly influence their ability to function effectively and independently. Understanding these dynamics is essential for assessing the balance of power in different political systems. Lecture 9: Elections 1. Introduction to Elections Purpose of Elections: ○ Elections are held because direct participation of all citizens in decision-making is not feasible. ○ Elections act as a link between the people and their representatives. ○ They provide: Legitimacy: By achieving representation and accountability. Government Formation: Electoral outcomes determine the composition of governments. Impact of Electoral Systems: ○ Influence party systems, government formation, intra-party dynamics, and representation. 2. Electoral Systems and Democratic Theory (Seiler, 2000) Two Models: ○ Governing Democracy: Focus on decision-making and governmental stability. Goals: Stable government, majoritarian rule. Means: Bipolar parliament, single-party or stable coalition governments. ○ Representative Democracy: Emphasis on social cohesion and consensus. Goals: Inclusive representation, multipolar parliaments. Means: Proportional representation, post-electoral coalitions. 3. The Electoral System Definition:  ○ A set of rules that convert votes into legislative seats. ○ Core systems: Majoritarian Systems: Candidate with the majority wins. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems: Seats allocated proportionally to votes. Mixed Systems: Combine elements of majoritarian and proportional systems. 4. Types of Electoral Systems 4.1. Plurality/Majority Systems 1. Single-Member Plurality (SMP) / First Past the Post (FPTP): ○ Voters select one candidate in single-member districts. ○ Candidate with the most votes wins, even without a majority. ○ Common in the UK, USA, India, and Canada. ○ Advantages: Simple and straightforward. Clear choice between candidates. Strengthens links between constituents and MPs. ○ Criticisms: Excludes smaller parties and minorities. Susceptible to gerrymandering. 2. Two-Round System (TRS): ○ Similar to FPTP but requires an absolute majority to win. ○ If no majority is achieved, a second round is held. ○ Advantages: Allows voters a second chance. Encourages coalitions and compromise. ○ Criticisms: Costly and time-consuming. Similar disadvantages to FPTP. 3. Block Vote (BV): ○ Used in multi-member districts; voters cast as many votes as there are seats. ○ Candidates with the most votes win. ○ Advantages: Voters can choose individuals. Encourages strategic candidate selection. ○ Criticisms: Risks party fragmentation. Candidate selection can be complicated. 4. Party Block Vote (PBV): ○ Parties create lists of candidates; voters select a party. ○ Seats allocated to the party's candidates. ○ Advantages: Simple and strengthens party organization.  Facilitates minority representation. ○ Criticisms: Suffers from disproportionality. Limits voter choice. 5. Alternative Vote (AV): ○ Voters rank candidates in order of preference. ○ If no candidate achieves a majority, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated, and votes are redistributed. ○ Advantages: Encourages compromise. Reduces tactical voting. ○ Criticisms: Complex system. Less effective in larger districts. 4.2. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems Principle: ○ Translate votes into seats proportionally. ○ Ideal proportionality: X% votes = X% seats. 1. List PR: ○ Parties create ranked lists of candidates. ○ Voters choose a party; seats are distributed according to vote share. ○ Advantages: High proportionality. Facilitates representation for smaller parties and minorities. Allows for gender and diversity quotas. ○ Criticisms: Weakens ties between constituents and representatives. Concentrates power within central party organizations. 2. Single Transferable Vote (STV): ○ Voters rank candidates in multi-member districts. ○ Surplus votes are redistributed until all seats are filled. ○ Advantages: Combines individual and party choice. Proportional and fair results. ○ Criticisms: Complex and requires literacy. Can create intra-party competition. 4.3. Mixed Systems Mixed Member Proportional (MMP): ○ Combines single-member districts with compensatory proportional seats. Parallel Systems:  ○ Similar to MMP but without compensatory mechanisms between district and proportional votes. 5. Evaluation of Electoral Systems 5.1. Majoritarian Systems Pros: ○ Simple and clear-cut. ○ Encourages strong, stable single-party governments. ○ Reduces extremist representation. Cons: ○ Excludes minorities and smaller parties. ○ Can distort public opinion in results. ○ Vulnerable to gerrymandering. 5.2. Proportional Representation Systems Pros: ○ Fairer representation of votes. ○ Allows diverse party representation. ○ Encourages coalition-building. Cons: ○ Fragmented legislatures can cause instability. ○ Coalitions dilute accountability. ○ Minority parties may gain disproportionate power. 6. Conclusion Electoral systems are the foundation of modern democracy, shaping representation, governance, and political dynamics. The choice of an electoral system reflects a balance between representation and governance stability. Lecture 10: Elections: Electoral Systems II 1. Introduction to the Effects of Electoral Systems Purpose of Analysis: ○ Understand the impact of electoral systems on political outcomes, governance, and representation. ○ Examine case studies of countries with distinct electoral frameworks.  Core Questions: ○ How do electoral systems shape party competition? ○ What is the relationship between electoral rules and the stability of governments? 2. Impact on Election Results A. Duverger’s Three Laws 1. Plurality (First-Past-The-Post): ○ Leads to bi-partisan competition (e.g., the UK). 2. Majoritarian Two-Round System: ○ Results in two blocs with potential for multi-partism (e.g., France). 3. Proportional Representation (PR): ○ Encourages multi-party systems (e.g., Belgium). B. Lavau’s Perspective The electoral system is a minor variable. Electoral rules are shaped by social and political conditions, not vice versa. C. Example: France Pre- and Post-1957 Transition from Proportional Representation to Two-Round Majoritarian System: ○ Pre-1957: 22 prime ministers between 1947 and 1959 (average tenure: 6 months). ○ Post-1957: Greater stability, 22 prime ministers from 1959 to 2018 (average tenure: 2 years 9 months). ○ Examples: 1951 Elections: Coalition of 7 parties ("Republican Front"). 1968 Elections: Single-party government (UDR) with 293 seats out of 487. 3. Determining Factors of Electoral Systems A. Mechanical Effects Electoral rules impact: 1. Degree of proportionality. 2. Number of parties represented. Key Variables: 1. Electoral Formula: PR > Majoritarian > FPTP in terms of proportionality. 2. District Magnitude: Larger districts in PR increase proportionality.  3. Thresholds: Higher thresholds reduce proportionality. B. Psychological Effects Electoral systems influence the behavior of: 1. Parties and Candidates: Fewer competitors in majoritarian systems. More alliances in PR systems. Majoritarian systems favor catch-all parties; PR encourages ideological parties. 2. Voters: Majoritarian: Strategic vs. sincere voting. PR: Strategic voting in the presence of thresholds. 4. The Ballot and Its Effects Structure of the Ballot: ○ Impacts election campaigns: Candidate-centered systems encourage direct interaction with citizens. ○ Shapes the linkage between voters and elected officials. ○ Influences partisan discipline: Candidate-centered systems weaken party discipline. 5. Quality of Democracy and Electoral Systems Impact of Voting Systems: ○ Government Formation: Majoritarian systems enable quicker formation. Majoritarian systems have more stable governments (average 32.9 months vs. 21.2 months in PR systems). ○ Voter Participation: PR systems see higher turnout (82.12%) compared to Majoritarian (77.6%) and Plurality (73.6%). ○ Representation: PR systems achieve better representation of women and minorities. 6. Case Studies A. France Form of Government: Semi-presidential system.  ○ Features dual popular legitimacy of the president and parliament. ○ Power dynamics shift during periods of cohabitation: Without cohabitation: Presidential dominance. During cohabitation: Parliamentary dominance. Legislative Power: ○ Bicameral system (National Assembly and Senate). ○ National Assembly: 577 members elected by majoritarian system. ○ Senate: Indirectly elected by local representatives. Electoral System: ○ Two-round majoritarian system for legislative elections. ○ High disproportionality and polarization between rounds. B. The Netherlands Form of Government: Parliamentary democracy. ○ Parliament holds sole legitimacy and controls the government. ○ Governance characterized by party cooperation and consensus-building. Legislative Power: ○ Bicameral system: Eerste Kamer: Elected by provincial councils. Tweede Kamer: Directly elected (150 members). Electoral System: ○ Proportional representation in a single national constituency. ○ Low threshold (0.66%) promotes multi-partism. C. Germany Form of Government: Parliamentary democracy. ○ Parliament (Bundestag and Bundesrat) controls legislative and executive functions. Electoral System: Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP). ○ Voters cast two votes: First vote: Candidate in single-member constituencies (majoritarian). Second vote: Party list (proportional). ○ Effects: Reduces fragmentation while ensuring proportionality. 5% threshold limits excessive multi-partism. D. India Form of Government: Federal state with a parliamentary system. ○ President as ceremonial head of state. ○ Prime Minister exercises executive powers.  Legislative Power: ○ Bicameral parliament: Lok Sabha: Directly elected by FPTP system. Rajya Sabha: Indirectly elected by state legislatures. Electoral System: ○ FPTP for Lok Sabha elections (543 single-member constituencies). ○ State-level elections use various methods like STV. 7. Comparative Analysis France: High disproportionality but clear majoritarian tendencies. Netherlands: High proportionality, consensus-driven governance. Germany: Balance between proportionality and stability. India: Simplicity of FPTP but limited proportionality. Conclusion Electoral systems profoundly shape political dynamics, governance stability, and representation. Each system reflects a trade-off between efficiency, fairness, and stability, tailored to the historical and societal needs of a country. Lecture 11: Political Parties and Party System 1. Introduction to Political Parties What are Political Parties? ○ Political parties are organizations that perform central functions in representative democracies. ○ They serve as intermediaries between citizens and the government to ensure representation and governance. Historical Origins: ○ Intra-parliamentary origin: Early parties emerged within parliaments to coordinate legislative actions and gain control over the executive. ○ Extra-parliamentary origin: Created to organize the politically excluded (e.g., working-class movements). Pressured traditional parties to expand suffrage. ○ Modern trends: Entrepreneurs and prominent individuals establish parties for electoral purposes. 2. Functions of Political Parties 2.1. Coordination Parties coordinate: ○ Within government and parliament to ensure stable leadership and governance. ○ With society to organize political activity. ○ Between government and society, anchoring democracy and creating a link between citizens and institutions. 2.2. Contesting Elections Supporting candidates for elections. Formulating policy positions and electoral programs. 2.3. Recruitment and Selection Recruitment: Identifying and selecting candidates, experts, and leaders ("right person in the right place"). Integrating new members into politics (e.g., youth movements). 2.4. Representation Acting as the voice of the electorate and social groups: ○ Representing class interests, religious groups, or ideological positions. 3. Models of Party Organization 3.1. Cadre or Elite Parties Origins: Emerged during the early stages of modern parliaments with restricted suffrage. Characteristics: ○ Dominated by elites and not based on mass mobilization. ○ No need for extensive party membership (“party on the ground”). ○ Central office subordinate to the party in public office. 3.2. Mass Parties Origins: Late 19th century, extra-parliamentary movements. Characteristics: ○ Represent specific groups (e.g., working class). ○ Power derives from the number of members mobilized. ○ Built on existing organizations (e.g., trade unions). ○ Extensive party structures, dominated by the party elite. 3.3. Catch-All Parties  Post-WWII transformation of mass parties. Characteristics: ○ Professionalization: Increasing role of experts and consultants. ○ Weaker ideological orientation to appeal to broader groups. ○ Looser connection between parties and their core interest groups. Pressure on Catch-All Parties: ○ Growing reliance on state resources. ○ Decline in party activism. ○ Formation of cartel parties: Cooperation among mainstream parties to protect their power. 3.4. Anti-Cartel Parties Formed in opposition to mainstream cartel parties. Characteristics: ○ Often organized around ideas or single issues rather than social classes. ○ Examples: Left-libertarian parties, green movements, new-right populist parties. 3.5. Business-Firm Parties Created by entrepreneurs or wealthy individuals. Purpose-built for elections (e.g., En Marche in France, PVV in the Netherlands). 4. Party Systems 4.1. Definition A party system is determined by: ○ Type and size of parties. ○ Competitive and cooperative interactions between parties. 4.2. Key Questions: Which parties exist? How many parties exist? How do parties behave? 5. The Genealogy of Party Systems 5.1. Key Historical Events National Revolution (Early 19th century): ○ Created cultural and administrative cleavages:  4. Centre-Periphery Cleavage: Conflict between centralized states and peripheral regions. Example: Scottish National Party (SNP), Swedish People’s Party in Finland. 5. State-Church Cleavage: Tensions between secular states and religious institutions. Example: Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Germany. Industrial Revolution (Late 19th century): ○ Created socio-economic conflicts: 3. Rural-Urban Cleavage: Trade policy disputes between agrarians and industrialists. 4. Example: Polish People’s Party, Australian Country Party. 5. Workers-Employers Cleavage: Division between labor (workers) and capital (employers). Gave rise to social-democratic parties (e.g., British Labour Party). Soviet Revolution (1917): 5. Communist-Socialist Cleavage: Split in the workers' movement over revolution vs reform. Post-Industrial Society (1960s–1970s): 6. Post-Materialist Cleavage: Conflict over new values like environmentalism, pacifism, feminism, and civil rights. - Example: Rise of Green Parties. Globalization (21st century): 7. Open-Closed Cleavage: Division between the “winners” and “losers” of globalization. - Issues: Immigration, cultural backlash, inequality. - Example: Rise of neo-populist parties (right-wing in Europe; left-wing in Latin America). 6. Types of Party Systems 6.1. Dominant-Party Systems One party consistently wins more than 50% of votes over decades. No alternation of power, though theoretically possible. 6.2. Two-Party Systems Two major parties share 80% of votes. Power alternates between the two in a highly competitive system. 6.3. Multi-Party Systems Moderate Multi-Party Systems: ○ Small ideological distance, centrist coalitions, and coalition governments. ○ Example: The Netherlands.  Polarized Multi-Party Systems: ○ High ideological distance, rise of anti-system parties, centrifugal competition. ○ Example: Pre-WWII Germany. 6.4. Bipolar Systems Two large coalitions alternate in power. Coalitions are often made up of smaller parties. 7. Conclusion Political Parties: Central to modern democracies for representation, recruitment, and policy-making. Party Systems: Shaped by historical cleavages, socio-economic changes, and electoral rules. Understanding party systems requires analyzing party behavior, size, and competitive dynamics. 8. Exam Structure Duration: 1.5 hours. Format: 50 questions. Examples: 1. Multiple Choice: "From which cleavage did the left-right alignment emerge?" 2. Multiple Response: "Please select two categories of PR systems." This summary provides a structured and comprehensive overview of political parties, their evolution, functions, organizational models, and the resulting party systems. It also outlines the key historical events shaping modern party systems.