POL101 Study Guide PDF

Definition Theoretical Empirical **Politics:** Politics is the competition for public power, and power is the ability to extend one's will. You have private and public, authoritative and voluntary. Public politics is public decision-making that beling to the public, and decisions can be made w...

Definition Theoretical Empirical **Politics:** Politics is the competition for public power, and power is the ability to extend one's will. You have private and public, authoritative and voluntary. Public politics is public decision-making that beling to the public, and decisions can be made within a community, or a system that apply to members of a certain territory. Private is what you choose to do at home, with your kids, friends, neighbors. Authoritative politics are binding to what they do, and force can be used to implement it Voluntary politics mean that politics are voluntary **Governments** Are organizations of individuals who are legally empowered to make binding decisions on behalf of a particular community. Why governments? - We believe we need governments to create and maintain a stable and peaceful community (Nation building) - Protect property and other rights (even protect our lives) - Promote Economic Efficiency and Growth - Promote Social Justice and Protect the Weak Critics of the government - Destruction of natural communities (the government is destroying these natural communities, with all of their social policies) (anarchism) - Violation of basic rights, you are born free and can make up your mind on what you can do, and don't want a government to say what I can and can't do. (extreme individualism, liberalism) - Economic inefficiency. Only a completely free market will deliver the results. - Will always govern for private gain (corruption) even if all the other points are good, people are just awful when they get into power, they use public power for private gain **How to study Politics** Research hypotheses Research method 1\. The Statistical Method 2\. The Experimental Approach 3\. The Case Study Method 4\. The Comparative Method - Synchronic comparisons is among space - Diachronic is across time Answer **Dependent Variable (What can be explained, why this?)** **Independent Variable (explanatory factory, because this)** Ex: High Democracy = Low Corruption Example: Scandinavian countries are among the most democratic countries, and they score well on the corruption perception index, meanwhile North Korea has no democracy, and high corruption. **Most Similar System** You pick two cases that are similar in almost everything except for differences on the [independent] variable Perfect example is the two Koreas, and your independent variable is level of democracy **Most Different System** You look for two systems that have completely different variables, such as location, religion, colonial history, and if the dependent variable is the same, then the past variables are not the reason for this dependent variable. **What do we Compare in Political Systems** 1. Public Policies 2. Political Behavior - Voting behavior (87% of Danes vs only 60% of CAD) Behavior of political leaders 3. Governmental institutions **Why do we Compare Political Systems** 1. To widen our understanding of politics in other countries - We assume countries do the same thing as years ago. If you don't know anything about politics, you may think other people are better than others, rather than affected by wider processes in a country 2. To enable us to learn from other countries - Scandinavian used to be homogeneous, they used to produce immigrants, but nowadays it has a positive net immigrant country. They looked to countries like Canada to learn to manage immigration. Helps to learn consequences of actions from other countries 3. To develop more sophisticated understanding of politics in general **Potential Shortcomings of Comparisons** 1. Problems of overgeneralizations - Individualist fallacy (when you take information at the individual level and generalize to the entire population) - Ecological fallacy (you take information from the broad level, and you apply it to the individual) 2. Problems of over-assumption - Political ethnocentrism (ex: Bush assumed the Iraqi would embrace liberal democracy, that it was the best, but didn't think the people would prefer peace over liberal democracy being forced upon them.)Challenges or problems in Comparative Research **Challenges or problems in Comparative Research** 1. Controlling a large number of variables 2. Controlling for the interaction between variables 3. Limited number of cases to research - We have limited cases, 200 countries in the world, and if you want to study a smaller group (ex: Africa) the number of cases you can use becomes very small 4. Limited access to information from cases - If you want to do proper international studies, you probably want to travel to those spaces. Language problems. 5. Uneven research across cases and regions - Over the past 50 years, there have been more than 30x more political articles about Sweden than about Indian 6. Cases selected on the bases of effect and not cause (selection bias) - We selected cases on the corruption they had, then we said that democracy is the independent variable 7. Variables may both be cause and effect in relation to each other (endogeneity) - For example is it possible that the level of corruption actually determines the level of democracy in a country Efficiency vs Legitimacy of a government - For example, in a dictatorship, they can wake up and immediately change the law, but is it legitimate. In a pure democracy, the process can take a very long time, but it is very legitimate. However, it may take so long that it becomes illegitimate. - Legitimacy can be defined as whether a state is accepted by the public, as right and proper **A state is:** - The organization that maintains the monopoly of force over a given territory - A set of political institutions that generates and executes policy - Must be able to deal with internal and external threats **Regimes** Fundamental norms and rules of politics regarding where power should reside and how it should be used For example, democratic regimes should have the power in the people A constitution can be a part of a regime, which consequently is a rulebook, and limits the powers of all authorities **Traditional, charismatic and legal-rational legitimacy** - Traditional is based on habits, customs, and historical traditions - Queen Elizabeth was seen as a legitimate, her stature was based on traditional legitimacy - Also in North Korea, the leader is following his father and his grandfather before that - Charismatic is based on the qualities of the person in charge, the force of ideas of certain leaders - Donald Trump and Hitler and Gandhi are all examples of charismatic leaders - Can be good or bad - Legal-rational is based on the rules and procedures that we are following, usually written down in a constitution, sometimes has a parliament, and elections - Like Justin Trudeau **Democratic Regimes** Parliamentary democracies a system of government in which people elect representatives to a parliament to make laws For example, Canada, GB, Presidential democracies, where people vote for a head of state For example, USA Presidential-parliamentary systems Where you have both a president, and a prime minister For example, France **Transitional regime**  a temporary government that manages a period of political change Some people call Russia a transitional Regime **Hybrid** Presidential-Parliamentary systems (semi-presidentialism) Such as France's system, with a president who appoints a PM **Non-democratic** Traditional - Monarchies and theocracies - Vatican City Military - Military rules the country - Sudan, Myanmar Dominant-Party Regimes - The ruling party is so dominant that other parties wouldn't have a chance **Ethnic Identity** A set of specific attributes and societal institutions that make one group of people culturally different from others Language, Religion, geographic location, history, etc... It is a social identity, not a political one For example, I'm anglophone, a person can be atheist **National Identity** A sense of belonging to a nation and a belief in its political aspirations Fore example, in Quenec, you could be a French speaking Catholic, Quebec's history is different to the rest of Canada's, and so it might make you form a Quebecois national identity, and so you might wish for a different country **Nation** A group that desires self-government through an independent state OR People with a common culture and history that produce an identity Nations within the political boundaries of a territory, for example Quebec, and FN Nations which cross political boundaries, such as the Abenaki, from TR to Vermont Nations with same geographical boundaries as countries, closest example is Japan, as it is homogenous **Political Culture** Political Culture refers to the basic norms for political activity in a society Includes the citizens' orientations towards political systems, process and policy outcomes Can be consensual, or conflictual In Scandanavia, 3 big ones are Local democracy, Consensus, and Egalitarianism **Political Violence** Violence outside of the state's control, that is politically motivated Institutional (for example discrimination against specific people), Ideational (where violence is seen as legitimate) and Individual explanations (psychological issues, and some people believe they are entitled to using violence to obtain their goals.) **Cross Cutting** Where different people have cross-cutting similarities, and this typically doesn't lead to political violence **Mutual Reinforcing** Differences run along separate lines, leading to political violence For example, before in Quebec, the English were richer, lived in different places, were protestant, and spoke English, while the French were poorer, lived in different places, were catholic, and spoke French. This can be why there was political violence earlier in Quebec. **Political Socialization** Process by which individuals acquires attitudes, beliefs, and values relating to the political system. It can be direct and indirect, they continue throughout life, patterns of political socialization can be unifying, or divisive. Agents of socializiation include 1. Family 2. Schools 3. Religious institutions 4. Peer groups 5. Mass media 6. Interest groups 7. Political parties 8. Political elites (legislators/executives) **Political Ideology** Basic values held by an individual about the fundamental goals of politics, and fundamental processes and goals, these values to a certain extent they compose a system of values that fit together - Communism - Liberalism - Social democracy - Fascism - Anarchism - Marxism - Socialism - Populism - Environmentalism - Nationalism - Conservatism - Libertarianism **Political Liberalism** Tendency to favour change Great belief in human reason Willingness to use fovernment to improve human condition, associated with welfare state **Political Conservatism** Resistance to Drastic change More skeptical of human reason More skeptical of the use of government to improve human condition **Democracy** A political system which political power is exercised either directly or indirectly by the people **Developed Democracy** A country with institutionalized democracy and a high level of economic development Examples are countries in the EU **Legislature** a deliberative assembly with the legal authority to make laws for a country, or nation on behalf of the people therein. Some of the oldest institutions we have Vary in size, time, structure, organization, and functions **Unicamel** Means there is only one legislative body For example, China only has the National People\'s Congress **Bicamel** Two legislative bodies, for example in the United States you have Congress, and the Senate **Executive** Most countries have multiple executives Symblolic roles performed by the head of state, such as the King of England Political roles performed by the head of government such as the PM, Chancellor or state representative There are two basic models for political executives, the parliamentary, and the presidential system. Parliamentary is practices by most Western European countries, and the Presidential is used a lot in the Americas **Rule of law** A system in which all individuals and groups, including those in government, are subject to the law, irrespective of their power or authority **Judiciary** Judicial Review is the power of the court to declare a law or regulation invalid because itconflicts with a country's constitution, and not all countries have it, and not all judicial branches have the same power For example in Canada it has a significant role, in Sweden it is not as significant **Legal Cultures** Deeply rooted, historically conditioned attitutdes about the role of law in society You have Romano-Germanic Systems (Civil Law Systems) - Civil law is a set of rules that govern how disputes between people or organizations are resolved. Common Law - a system of laws that is primarily based on judicial decisions, or precedents, rather than legislation. Non-Western Legal Systems - Sharia Law **Political Parties** Parties that seek to place their designated representatives in governmental positions Competitive, where two or more parties contend in competitive elections Dominant-Party, elections where it is obvious which party will win Candidate Choice, you vote for a candidate to win Acclamatory, without a ballot **Party Models** Particularistic parties - Trying to appeal to one specific segment of the population, such as the Green party, who prioritize the environment "Catch-all" parties - Try to appeal to as many as possible - Tone down their ideology Liberal Party of Canada is an example **Multi-party Systems** Is when a country 3 or more parties that have a legitimate chance to win An example of this is Denmark **President Elections** Direct election, you vote for the president Electoral college system **Parliament Elections** Single-member or plurality system Proportional Representation **Referendums** When citizens directly vote for a change or policy, instead of their representatives For example, the Quebec referendums The Swiss are known for their frequent referendums Seen as legitimate **Plurality Systems** Can be either a single or multi-member constituencies Have one or two rounds of voting Simple, leads to stavle government (can be more effective) Closeness between representatives and the people (Can be) Unrepresentative for the voters' wishes (might lack legitimacy) Britain, Canada, Mexico, Russia, US **Proportional Systems** Multi-member constituency One round of voting Many small parties- difficult to form a stable government People don't know their representatives Proportional results ("fair")