Political Science: Introduction & Concepts PDF

[ **Chapitre 1 General introduction and foundational concepts**] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. 1. ***1.1. a multifaceted object*** ***1.2. Polity,politics,policy*** [Polity] = Form of political organization or system of government within a s...

[ **Chapitre 1 General introduction and foundational concepts**] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. 1. ***1.1. a multifaceted object*** ***1.2. Polity,politics,policy*** [Polity] = Form of political organization or system of government within a specific geographical area [Politics] = activities, processes, and discussions related to governance, public affairs, and exercise of power and authority within a society or government [Policy] = set of principles, rules, or guidelines that govern decision-making and actions within an organization, government, or institution In summary, **policy** i related to the rules and guidelines, **politics** deals with the activities and processes of governance, and **polity** refers to the system or structure of government in a particular region or society "What politique is?" → that which relates to the government of a society as a whole (Lagroye, François, Sawicki) 2. ***2.1. Political science; a social science*** ***a scientific approach or: what political science is not*** **Political science** is an academic discipline which aim is to understand on a scientific basis the political functioning of societies. ***What is a social science ?*** 3 Majors characteristics : - - - ***2.2. Political science : a crossroads discipline*** Several branches : - - - - B. Power, Authority and Legitimacy ***1.1. Plural approach to what power is*** *[The substantialist approach]* = power as something that one can possess or lose *[The institutionalist approach]* = identification of power with the State and with institutions *[The relational (or interactionist) approach]* = power as a relation, you have power over someone ***1.2. Power and Authority*** *[Authority]* = legitimized and stabilized power relations - *[Legitimacy]* = the recognition granted to the one who exercises power *[Constraint]* = the guarantee of achieving, through various means, the achievement of one's will in the absence of legitimacy or when it is insufficient ***Why do individuals show "a minimum of will to obey"?*** By simple habit; For emotional reasons; For material reasons; By ideal ***2.1. The notion of ideal-type according to Max Weber*** → A set of abstract concepts derived from observation and from "de-composition" thanks to the sociological analysis of concrete social situations → Extracting ideal-types like a physicist isolates atoms → A stylized reconstruction of reality in order to understand different cases when compared to the ideal-type (i.e. political parties, electoral regimes, political systems, etc.) Sociologists create a set of abstract concepts by observing and breaking down real-world social situations into their fundamental components. Just as a physicist isolates atoms to understand their properties, sociologists extract ideal-types to analyze the essence of social phenomena. An ideal-type is a simplified and stylized model of reality, used to compare and better understand real-world examples such as political parties or electoral systems. ***2.2. The 3 types of legitimate authority*** **Traditional authority** - - - **legal-rational authority** - - - **charismatic authority** - - - →Charismatic authority often emerges in exceptional or transitory situations, such as during a crisis or revolutionary period, where traditional structures are inadequate. This type of authority is linked to the belief that a leader possesses extraordinary qualities or a unique ability to solve problems. According to Weber, charismatic authority is inherently unstable because it depends on the ongoing recognition of the leader's exceptional qualities, making it precarious. ***3.1. The specificities of political power*** - - - ***3.2. Political power and state*** - →The State can impose obligations and implement sanctions →State sanctions are decided by political institutions and applied by judicial and administrative institutions, they are "institutionalized" = considered as legitimate **classical questions, new light** - - - o Naturalization (women "naturally" unfit for the exercise of political power) 1. ***1.1. The theory of the 3 criteria*** Beginning of the 20th c., German and French legal scholars (Jellinek, Laband, Carré de Malberg) = there is a State when, on a territory where a population resides, a legally organized power is exercised *[A legally organized injunction power:]* State : capacity to impose unilateral acts + all the rules of law derive from it + it alone guarantees the effectiveness of legal rules (it may impose sanctions and enforcement is guaranteed by coercion) \> Today, the State is no longer the only one to have this power of injunction A territory: The 3-dimensional space where the legal rules laid down by the rulers apply The domain of the spatial validity of legal norms (Hans Kelsen) Importance of the borders (make it possible to separate 2 areas of application of legal norms) \> Size of the states; vertical extension of the boundaries; Secession, cession, annexation \> Today, what of the notion of frontier? **\ ** A state\'s territory is the 3-dimensional space where the legal rules established by its rulers are enforced. Hans Kelsen defined a territory as the domain where legal norms have spatial validity, meaning the laws of a state are applicable only within its defined borders.**\ ** Borders are crucial because they delineate where one set of legal norms ends and another begins, ensuring clarity in jurisdiction.**\ ** The size of a state, the vertical extension of its boundaries, and processes like secession, cession, or annexation all influence the scope and application of legal norms within a territory.**\ ** *[A population:]* The individuals who are under the jurisdiction of the State are those who are legally subject to it "The people of the state is the domain of personal validity of the State legal order" (Hans Kelsen) 2 categories: the nationals + the foreigners Also an active definition (vs subjects of a legal order): citizens who enjoy the right to participate in public affairs. Citizenship as a means of transcending all the factors of disparity among a population in order to stimulate the sense of belonging common to the large group \> Today, this feature seems also somewhat eroded: European citizenship, immigrants' right to vote, multiple allegiances among individuals **\ ** Citizenship is actively defined as the status of individuals who have the right to participate in public affairs. Citizenship serves as a unifying force, transcending disparities such as ethnicity, religion, or class to foster a shared sense of belonging within the larger community. In modern times, the unifying nature of citizenship has been somewhat eroded by factors like the emergence of European citizenship, debates over immigrants' voting rights, and the reality of individuals holding multiple allegiances. *[A government:]* The most important criterion "since all the others depend on it" (Crawford, 2006): the functions of a State are actually performed by a government. An effective government (vs. the notion of failing/failed state) An exclusive government (China at the UNGA, etc.) *["3 criteria" VS Legal formal perspective:]* Montevideo Convention, on rights and duties of States, 1933 \"\[t\]he state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. » =\> international relations and the (political) issue of recognition The issue of the enforceability of an international situation - - - - - Rights and obligations arising from recognition Asymmetry of international law at stake... & creativity... or political rather than (and in addition to) legal concerns. ***1.2. The State as a monopolistic institution*** State was formed in Western societies thanks to the establishment of a certain number of monopolies: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. *[Weber's definition: a State is "a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"]* = not the only nor the usual means of action to enforce its orders -- at least in a democratic context. However, violence is the specific means of action available to the State and to the State alone. Use of physical constraint: Rule of law, to combat arbitrariness Always more controlled and moderate: \> Process of civilization (Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process, 1939), development of self-restraint and pacification of societies In a democratic context, violence is not the only or usual means for the State to enforce its orders, but it remains the specific tool exclusively available to the State to maintain order when necessary.The use of physical constraint by the State is regulated by the rule of law to prevent arbitrariness and ensure justice is applied fairly.According to Norbert Elias in *The Civilizing Process*, the use of physical constraint has become increasingly controlled and moderate over time, reflecting the development of self-restraint and the pacification of societies.\ ***1.3. From the authority of the State to its sovereignty*** Essential link between the State and sovereignty \> the State is the highest form of authority in a society and in a particular territory Concept of sovereignty: Jean Bodin (16th c.), William Blackstone (18th c.) Internal AND external sovereignty (no internal higher authority + no external challenge to this authority) Difference between constitutional theory and reality, between de jure and de facto sovereignty = "Sovereignty has been an important and useful concept for legal analysis, but it can be a misleading notion if applied uncritically as a political idea" (Held). See the example of "failed States", unable to perform the functions of sovereignty 2\. WHY THE STATE? THE PROCESS OF STATE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT How did the State appear? How has it evolved? Reminder: The concept of State is not universal, the State is not the "natural" framework of political activity Historical and geographical diversity of the forms that the State takes = a form of exercise of power among others Nevertheless, a number of common processes can be identified \> from hundreds of princely houses to a few dozen States in only a few centuries ***2.1. Socio-genesis of the State in the Western world: the factors of State construction Feudal political system:*** Weak institutionalization of power (only direct relations between individuals + strong patrimonialization of power) Important fragmentation Low stability of the political units Not sovereign, authority shared (aristocracy, Church) The modern State is in all respects opposed to these characteristics. How was the constitution of this new political centre established in a society where power was so fragmented. \> A long, complex, historical process. *[3 sets of factors: ]* Economic factors: development of market capitalism, role of the bourgeoisie which supported the creation of a centralized power, ensure the protection of trade and security in cities Religious and cultural factors: role of the gradual separation between political and religious power, creation of a differentiated, autonomous temporal power; role of the Reformation, cultural uniformity, non-contradictory religious and political identification, legitimization of State power (Stein Rokkan and Seymour Martin Lipset, Party Systems and Voters Alignments, 1967) Political and military factors (Norbert Elias, On Civilising Processes, State Formation and National Identity, 1939): a competitive dynamic, from the 12th to the 18th c., gradual reduction of the number of political units = war \> establishment of a bureaucracy (coordinate military activities) \> taxation (legitimate to finance the armed forces: security of the territory + in favour of a public institution) \> institutionalization of the State ***2.2. Institutionalization and bureaucratization: the processes of State development*** According to Max Weber, affirmation of the State as the dominant political organization, accompanied by: Its institutionalisation = the process by which an organization is constituted in a structure differentiated from the rest of society and not reduced to the individuals who animate it at some historical period Its bureaucratization = organization of a structure according to a number of formalized and rationalized rules, such as hierarchy, dissociation between the function and its holder, recruitment on the basis of competence, etc. ***2.3. The emergence of the Nation-State*** Another dimension of the genesis of the State is the emergence of the Nation-State = a form of political and social system in which the institutional system coincides with the nation, which is a community of adherence to this system At its peak in the 19th c. A distinction between a State and a nation, which is based on a feeling of belonging A nation can precede a State (i.e. Italy) A State can precede a nation A State can exist without a nation A State can contain several nations A State can contain movements that seek to create new States Ernest Gellner (1983): how the State participates in the realization of the nation? Role of the State institutions ("educational machine", the army, the Church, the judiciary) for the socialization of individuals + national symbolic policies (flags, hymns, etc.) + public policies that have a nationalization effect (social policies, road construction, etc.) Benedict Anderson (1983): the nation as "an imagined community" that mentally unites individuals who will never know each other 3\. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE STATE: A CONTEMPORARY DECLINE? The State is not a static reality, constantly evolving For around two centuries, the nation-state -- and the following forms of State -- has been the political system of reference, with political power first and foremost situated at the State level (closed space, homogeneous space, self-centered space) \> Political, economic and social transformations over the last 4 decades have led this configuration to be called into question Bob Jessop: thesis of the "hollowing out" of the State = erosion of State's power and sovereignty ***3.1. A deterritorialization of power*** Reduction of the borders and of their role Loss of centrality of the State in the process of political socialization (link) Shift of the focus of politics and activism Decoupling between policy and politics ***3.2. A decentralization of power*** The State is no longer the only reference, it must compose in 2 directions: At the supra-state level: an increasing number of interventions in the internal affairs of States; regionalization phenomena; international organisations and special case of the EU (strong delegation of sovereignty and competence); multinational corporate companies; international criminal networks; etc. At the sub-state level: emergence of new levels of power with a new division of powers (decentralization and regionalization throughout Europe); emergence and development of secessionist and communitarian movements that challenge the power of the State; development of the individual as a direct (e.g., Human Rights) and indirect (e.g., International Criminal Law) subject of public international law. ***3.3. A questioning of the "hollowing out" thesis*** Some authors have argued that the "hollowing out" thesis exaggerates the reality and that sovereign States still have a great deal of autonomy Factors that support this re-assertion of the central role of the State: - - - States must nevertheless cope with the existence of other centres of power \> Notion of "governance" = States in partnership with a wide range of social and economic institutions at different levels of power, overlapping system of governance CONCLUSION: A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE ON THE STATE Feminist theorists were initially rather sceptical about it and little interested in it. At the outset, they focused on the relationship of power in the private sphere. It was not until later that the State emerged in gender studies in political science. 1970s, 1980s: little interest or negative vision \> The State as a patriarchal tool Starting from the 1990s: a "renaissance" of the concept of State in gender studies, a more positive view Importance of the Welfare State Role of "femocrats" PART 2. POLITICAL REGIMES 2.2. TOTALITARIAN AND AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES ------------------------------------------- 1\. THE NOTION OF POLITICAL REGIME ***1.1. Origins and definition*** The political regime as a mode of organization of powers Organization of powers established by the State = all the rules or practices according to which in a given society people are governed "The set of ideological, institutional and sociological elements that concur to form the government of a given country during a given period" (Jean-Louis Quermonne) ***Originally, a classificatory and normative perspective*** Political philosophy and the search for "good government" Example: the classification of regimes by Rousseau (The Social Contract, 1762) : numerical and moral criteria \> A classificatory ambition (describing) AND a normative ambition (judging)  ***[Criticism of political regimes: ]*** 1. 2. 3. 4. ***1.2. Contemporary typology of political regimes*** 2 criteria: degree of citizen participation + degree of political pluralism \> Authoritarian regimes / totalitarian regimes / pluralistic democracies Totalitarian and authoritarian dictatorships = absence of open, pluralistic and organized political competition at regular intervals for access to positions of political power (definition by the negative) Juan Linz: 4 criteria to classify dictatorships \> 2 major types of dictatorships : totalitarian regimes / authoritarian regimes 2\. TOTALITARIANISM ***2.1. Main characteristics*** A "political religion" (official, central ideology) Ideology: set of ideas, opinions and beliefs, established as a doctrine, and influencing individuals and collective perceptions and behaviours Definition by Raymond Aron: "politicization, ideological transfiguration of all possible faults of individuals and, in conclusion, a terror linked to police and to the ideology" Emilio Gentile: "political religion" Totalitarian regimes as ideocracies: systems organized around the implementation of an ideological project to which everything else is subordinated Strong social control Mechanism for the control of individuals and their activities \> identify and punish all forms of resistance, dissent, disobedience or anti-conformism Requires the active participation of the population A fully mobilized population Population recruitment, controlled mobilization and active participation of the population Criticism and expression of disagreements made impossible Political denunciation encouraged and considered as a citizen duty Organizations of the totalitarian movement penetrate all social groups and develop a generalized mistrust in society \> "atomization of civil society" (Hannah Arendt): - - - - Terror Terror as the "essence" of totalitarianism (Hannah Arendt) But, implies a very restrictive definition + possibility of "totalitarianism without terror" (J. Linz) \> Mechanisms of social and political control as the main criterion ***2.2. The totalitarian system*** What are the tools or instruments to "achieve" totalitarianism"? The single party and all collateral organizations Supervision of the population, education of the masses, worship of the leader, training of the "new wo/man", selection of the elites. Importance of youth organizations Incentives to engage \> control over the whole of society A totalitarian leader and his cult Charismatic leader, embodiment of the regime \> Result of techniques of exercising power: cult of personality, no emergence of autonomous centre of political power (elimination of competitors, surveillance by the political police, etc.) The central ideology Monopoly on all forms of public expression, destruction of existing institutions, religions and philosophies, designation of 'objective' enemies, targeting of a category to be eliminated The excessive development of the repressive machinery Arbitrariness of criminal incriminations, everyone as a potential suspect = increases fear and makes total domination possible ***2.3. The critique of the notion of totalitarianism*** Comparison between Nazism and Stalinism Possibility of an analogy? Creation of one unique concept risks masking specific trajectories and differences Capacity of totalitarian regimes to "atomize" civil society Place for society in the analysis? Ideological grip does not eliminate all impulse of inertia or resistance Ian Kershaw = no "atomization" or fragmentation of society, a popular opinion remains \> A key concept in the analysis and understanding of the 20th century "inescapable for political theory, in order to draw up a typology of forms of power (...), insufficient for historiography, confronted the materiality of events" (Enzo Traverso) 3\. AUTHORITARIANISM Notion of authoritarianism developed in the 1950s and 1960s to designate a type of hybrid regime, which can be close to pluralistic democracy, while borrowing elements from totalitarian regimes. With authoritarianism we are "in-between". A residual concept: all regimes which are neither democracies, nor totalitarian regimes ***3.1. Main characteristics*** Controlled political institutions Elections abolished, prohibition of any form of organized political activity Possibility of some sort of multi-party system and regular electoral consultations, but do not concern the mandate of the leader or lection controlled and distorted "Limited pluralism" (Juan Linz) Groups with +/- autonomy and own legitimacy can participate to the functioning of the regime A certain degree of pluralism is tolerated, but limited: - - Then, they can defend certain interests or point of view, which can lead to "semi" opposition ("tribunitian function") Weak mobilizations and political ideologies Limited organizational networks and no mass participation Authoritarian regimes encourage rather depoliticization of the population, political activity restricted to the elites Regimes of order, rather than change of social structures and beliefs \> poor quality and banality of authoritarian discourse (general values already present in society) = absence of total enrollment of the population (vs. totalitarianism) However, use of coercion to prevent or combat political protest or contest of the regime = political repression and high degree of violence (even genocides) 3.2. The diversity of authoritarian regimes Apart from the fact that they are not democracies, these regimes have little in common and the category of authoritarian regimes is very diverse A heterogeneous and negatively defined category How to make sense out of this diversity \> defining subtypes (Juan Linz), according to 2 criteria: - - Example of a typology of authoritarian regime: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. \>\> Typologies as a guide for navigating a much more complex reality than the models intended to reflect it (hybrid nature) \+ regimes in permanent transformation ***3.3. Authoritarianism and the regression of the standards of liberal democracy: an illustration*** 4\. THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIZATION To understand the presence of democracy in some countries (and its absence absence in others), necessary to analytically distinguish between: the establishment of democracy: democratic transition (when an authoritarian regime adopts a democratic regime) its survival: avoidance of democratic breakdown (vs. when a democratic country slide back into authoritarianism) "Why some countries have democracy and other do not?" = not a single explanation to this question, but rather a combination of variables 4.1. Structural explanations (Rousseau, The Social Contract and the influence of the climate on democracy...) - Modernization theory: economic development promotes democratization, strong correlation between economic development and levels of democracy Theory questioned: economic development rather prevents breakdowns of democracy + reverse causality (better institutions facilitate economic growth) - Theories of inequality: social inequalities hinder democratization (economic elites resist democratization, fear of redistribution of income in favour of the poor) Criticisms: not all dictatorships favour the rich, not all democracies favour the poor + income inequalities have been growing in advanced industrial democracies since the 1970s (Piketty, 2014) ***4.2. Institutional explanations*** For some, presidential democracies more likely to breakdown than parliamentary democracies Analysts of authoritarian regimes = dictatorships with parties and legislature are more resilient than military regimes ***4.3. Political actors*** Importance of individuals, organizations, social movements to be taken into account in the transformation of political regimes Leaders committed to democracy foster transitions and resist breakdowns Nonviolent strategies by social movements more likely to trigger transition to democracy than violent resistance ***4.4. International forces*** See the graphs: 'waves', i.e. historical cycles of democratic expansion, periods when the worldwide levels of democracy grow considerably in relatively short span 'Waves' of democratization are hard to explain if focus only on domestic factors Role of external factors which influence domestic democratization through diffusion These external factors can play an important role in different ways (international organizations, use of foreign aid to support democratic groups) 2.3. Democracy -------------- 1\. ORIGINS AND DEFINITION Democracy in Greece (6th c. BC), the Athenian regime: Moses Finley (1973), differences between "ancient" and "modern" democracies  ***1.2. A few preliminary words on gender and democracy*** ***[The exclusion of women from political citizenship ]*** Biblical perspective (St Paul's Epistle): « As the Church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything » Ex: theories of the social contract = John Locke (1632-1704), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778 ) = even if their visions of the political order are stated in neutral terms, they are implicitly based on the principle of subordination of women and their confinement in the private sphere The inclusion of women in formal citizenship: a long and conflicting history From the end of the 18th century, the exclusion of women from the public sphere met resistance: Condorcet (De l'admission des femmes au droit de Cité, 1790), Olympe de Gouges (Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne, 1791), Mary Wollstonecraft (A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 1792), John Stuart Mill (The Subjection of Women, 1869). From the second half of the 19th century, the demands for political inclusion of women took on a collective dimension \> emergence of movements fighting for gender equality, esp. right to suffrage = paradoxical discourses, trapped in the "Wollstonecraft dilemma" ***[A typology of the trajectories of women access to suffrage ]*** "Nordic and Anglo-Saxon" countries \> around the First World War and in the interwar years "Countries under the influence of the Napoleonic Code" \> after the second World War How to explain this diversity of trajectories? 3 main elements: The weight of feminist movements is an important parameter Major historical events have often played a catalytic role The type of regime can also explain the different temporalities in access to suffrage ***1.3. The defining features of modern democracy*** 1\) Free and fair elections Legislature (elected by the people) + executive branch (head of government elected by the people or by the majority in parliament) Electoral process recurrent, free, and fair 2\) Universal participation Right to vote and run for office without exclusion (income, education, gender, ethnicity, religion) for the adult population Exclusion of some adults (based on place of birth or criminal records) Standards of inclusion have expanded over time (women, minors) 3\) Civil liberties No human rights violations against citizens, no censorship, no ban on the organization of legitimate political parties or interest groups Codification of citizen rights and government authority = constitution Independent judiciary and institutions of accountability protect citizens' rights against government encroachment 4\) Responsible government Elected civilian authorities unconstrained by unelected powers (monarch, militaries, foreign gov., religious authorities) Constitutional court may overturn some decisions to protect civil liberties Executive leaders answer to the elected representatives in the legislative branch + both executive and legislative responsible to voters ***[4 general conditions \> diverse institutional arrangements \> 3 implications ]*** Modern democracies can be quite different from each other No society has "invented" modern democracy (institutions and elements that originate in different countries and historical periods) Democracy is a continuous variable: a continuum between authoritarian regimes and full democracy with many intermediate stages (and a threshold) \> Subtypes created to conceptualize political regimes that fall in the 'grey area' (restrictive democracy, delegative democracy, illiberal democracy...) ***[Rule of Law and Democracy ]*** Modern concept with ancient roots (Aristotle) Rule of Law as a condition for democracy RoL as a combination of different factors Principle of legality / respect for the hierarchy of norms (Kelsen) ; Legal certainty Equality (of citizens) before the law Effective judicial protection (independent and impartial courts / fundamental rights) Separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers in particular, no arbitrary exercise of the executive power State of Law vs. State of Police ***[1.4. Two conceptions of democracy ]*** Minimalist conceptions: Mistrust of the masses Argument that low participation = better stability Ex: Schumpeter's vision of democracy as based on competition; Bolivar and the 1826 Constitution of Bolivia (lifetime president) Ungovernability and complexity of societies \> give power to non-elected institutions Maximalist conceptions: Advocates of a participatory ideal (participation of every individuals to decision-making) Advocates of a deliberative ideal (exchange of arguments enabling consensus on the definition of the general interest and the common good \> elections are not legitimate just because they are the expression of the majority but because information has circulated and the confrontation of arguments has been ensured) \> 2 conceptions that co-exist today ("government of experts" vs. tendency to direct democracy) 2\. TYPOLOGY OF DEMOCRATIC REGIMES ***[2.1. Parliamentary or presidential? ]*** Parliamentary democracy Emerged from the historical transformation of absolutist monarchies into democratic regimes Presidential democracy Originated in the USA's effort to create a continental republican government in 1787, then the constitutional model spread to other parts of the globe \+ institutional arrangements that mix elements of the 2 models: semi-presidential regimes (combine a directly elected president and a prime minister responsible to parliament) ***[2.1. Majoritarian or consensus? ]*** Arend Lijphart: some democratic regimes are organized to facilitate majority rule, others to protect minorities (and thus promote decision-making by consensus) = different conceptions of the democratic process translated into different constitutional features 2 criteria: Balance of power between the executive and the legislative branch Balance of power between the central government (national majority) and the local government (sub-national or regional minorities) = ideal-types Most of the time, combination of majoritarian and consensus elements. Ex: USA: majoritarian for the executive/legislative organization and consensus for the national majority/regional minority organization But, some countries close to the ideal-type (UK and the Westminster model as a majoritarian model vs. Belgium and Switzerland as consensus models)  3\. CONCLUSION: SOME CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL DYNAMICS Raffaele Simone: is democracy failing us? - - - - The questioning of representative democracy = "directization" of representative democracy (Ian Budge, 1996) - - The expansion of citizenship The history of democracy is that of the progressive expansion of citizenship to groups previously excluded from the political process Cf. property and literacy (19th c.), women and ethnic minorities (20th c.) - - - PART 3. POLITICAL ACTORS ***3.1. POLITIC AL PARTIES: GENEALOGY AND ORGANIZATION*** Important question for political science + for law = special privileges and obligations Criteria by La Palombara and Weiner (Political Parties and Political Development,1966): Lasting organization that aims to survive its leaders (vs. networks of supporters) Local levels of the parties are in close contact with the national centre, a form of "nationalization" (vs. parliamentary groups, committees of notables) Explicit desire to have access to political power (vs. interest groups) \> presentation to the elections Deliberate will to find popular support (vs. "thought clubs", think tanks) \> A political party is a sustainable organization, established throughout the territory, whose goal is to gain political power, thanks to popular support 1\. WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF PARTIES? ***1.1. Manifest functions*** Programmatic function: the parties present competing programs and structure the political debate, while allowing voters to identify themselves in the political space Selection function: parties recruit political professionals by nominating candidates for elections (process of investiture) Supervisory function: the parties supervise and control the actions of the elected representatives to whom they have given their investiture, notably through the parliamentary groups ***1.2. Latent functions*** the function of social integration: they constitute places of sociability, shared values, social ascension, etc. the "tribunitian" function (cf. Georges Lavau), which involves speaking for the people, voicing the dissatisfaction of the people, defending social categories excluded or feeling excluded the function of legitimizing and stabilizing the political system: by accepting to evolve within a given political regime, by accepting its rules, they help to legitimize it, an extremely powerful tool of socialization that makes citizens internalize democratic behaviour \> acceptance and reproduction of the system A number of these functions are now in decline: The programmatic function: the tendency of the major "governing" parties to propose similar policies and options (blurring of the Right / Left cleavage). The selection function: new channels of recruitment of political professionals have developed (weight of opinion surveys and media, organization of primaries elections). The function of social integration: decline of large mass parties (fall in membership) and decline of socialization in parties (see decline of communist parties which endorsed this role). However, parties still maintain a key role in the democratic system 2\. HOW TO CLASSIFY PARTIES? ***2.1. A classical typology*** Maurice Duverger, Political parties, 1951: The cadres party (or elite party): organizations composed mainly of notables, action centred mainly on the elections, attract especially members of the social elites, poorly developed, weakly centralized organizational devices, not very disciplined and weakly hierarchical, few members. The mass party: search for the largest number of members, which are one of the main resources of the organization, the membership fees make it possible to finance activities and the electoral campaigns + provide the party members and permanent staff. They are born with universal suffrage. They allow actors without personal resources to engage in electoral competition thanks to the collective resources of the organization ***[Long dominant typology. ]*** Duverger predicted the gradual disappearance of the cadres parties, for the benefit of new mass parties. However, this prophecy did not materialize: decline of the cadres parties (in their traditional historical form), but also of the mass parties ***[This crisis of activism / membership resulted from 4 factors: ]*** Societal transformations (decline of the working class) Socio-economic transformations at work in the parties themselves (parties are increasingly financed by the public authorities, party members lose their importance) Crisis in the form of traditional partisan activism (rise of a commitment "à la carte") Negative image suffered by political parties Mass parties, therefore, have not definitively won the battle of political parties, but they have been supplanted by "lighter" parties composed mainly of political professionals. \> Need to update Duverger's typology in order to bring it more in line with contemporary reality ***2.2. Characterizing the transformation of the political parties*** Catch-all parties (Kirchheimer, 1966) (also electoral-professional parties as a variant): in both strategy and organization, catch-all party looks very much like the adaptation of the old cadre parties Cartel parties (Richard Katz and Peter Mair, 1995) Anti-cartel parties or the anti-party-system party (Richard Katz and Peter Mair, 1995) = the cartel party's challenger  To remember: These models are ideal-types Classifications mainly elaborated in a European or North-American context Many, many, many different (and competing) models and labels! Other possible classifications: The different models of political parties we have just seen are mainly built on the analysis of the organization of the parties. However, other types of variables are used to classify parties: The main aim or objective of the party: vote-seeking, office-seeking or policy-seeking parties (Müller and Strom, 1990) The life-cycle of the party: what is its degree of novelty of a specific party (Pedersen, 1982, Barnea and Rahat, 2011) The place of the party within the party system of a country: mainstream vs. small or "niche" parties. 3\. PARTY SYSTEMS AND THE THEORY OF CLEAVAGES ***3.1. What is a party system?*** Giovanni Sartori (Parties and Party System, Cambridge University Press, 1976): Party systems and their analysis is more interested in the interaction between parties than in individual parties: they are a whole which is more important than its parts. Party systems are set of parties or structures that compete and cooperate with the aim of increasing their power in controlling government. Party system allow to analyse the functioning of the system of political representation, that is to say that it is appropriate to speak of a party system only in democratic contexts, in which several parties compete for votes in open and plural elections. Analysing political parties in their environment allows to ask questions central to political science: - Which and why parties exist? What is the origin of party systems? = genealogy - What is the format of party systems? Why are some systems composed of 2 large parties and others of many small ones? = morphology ***3.2. The genealogy of party systems*** Notion of "cleavages" developed by Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, Party Systems and Voter Alignments, 1967 Socio-historical perspective on the origins of political parties (role of the "building elites of the nation-State") in Western Europe. Party development linked to the existence of social and ideological divisions(i.e. cleavages) expressed during elections. NB: Lipset & Rokkan's model has a theoretical ambition of allowing historical comparisons. It does not mean that every European country has a party system where every cleavage produced a distinct political party!   ***[Variation in space: ]*** Why do some cleavages exist in some countries while not in others? Lipset-Rokkan model \> whereas the left-right cleavage exists everywhere, the State-church, rural-urban and centre-periphery cleavages vary across countries. Differences in objective factors Extent to which socio-economic and cultural divisions have been politicized by parties Relationship between cleavages ***[Variation in time: ]*** Great stability since the 1920s \> Lipset and Rokkan, the "freezing hypothesis": party systems continue to reflect the original conflicts from which they emerged However, over the last ten to twenty years: rise of populist parties, the decline of established parties... \> the "defrosting of cleavages" ***3.3. The morphology of party systems*** The organization and strength of competing parties: (Caramani, 2017) ***[a gendered perspective on political parties Political parties as male strongholds: ]*** History + non-conducive environment + organization of the parties \> Women are structurally underrepresented in the governing bodies of the parties = in the EU, in 2018, only 18,4% of political parties are headed by a woman The role of electoral systems and electoral laws: Majority and single-member vs. proportional electoral systems \> Women occupy 18.3% of the seats in the proportionally elected chambers, compared to 13.8% in those elected by majority vote (2007) ***[Women's resistance strategies: ]*** Organization to introduce gender quotas at party level 2 main sorts of quotas: legislated and voluntary party quotas - \> Quotas as a decisive factor in explaining the differential performance of countries in terms of women's representation in parliament.  Voting is a central feature of political participation in democracies, even if political participation is not limited to voting (see previous session) "Habit leads us to confuse voting and elections and to identify these with democracy" (René Remond): voting goes beyond politics (ex: penal courts, co-owners meetings, the Oscars...) voting goes beyond the establishment of the universal suffrage, election is not the only possible mode of selection of representatives in democracy (random lot, cooptation...) Why studying voting as a contemporary political activity? It is the founding act of the democratic pact, which allows the election and renewal of the rulers at regular intervals. It is the most common political activity. It is by far the most studied political behaviour and the models and methods to analyze it have evolved over the last twenty years. 1\. SOME PRELIMINARY ELEMENTS ON ELECTIONS AND THE ACT OF VOTING ***1.1. The framework of voting: the rules of the game*** Definition of the electorate (= those who are entitled to vote) is a moving and historically evolving process (gender, voting age, nationality, etc.) Question of the compulsory, or not, nature of voting. The length of the terms and mandates ***1.2. Why do people vote?*** The paradox of voting (Downs' paradox): \> people should not vote = Rationally, people should not vote: the costs of voting exceed the expected benefits (Anthony Downs) \>\> Voting cannot be reduced to the mere designation of the government or to the expression of a political choice. It is invested with other, equally substantial, dimensions Voting as expression of a political choice: Voting is a means of expression for citizens, a way of expressing political convictions Voting and the selection of representatives and the legitimation of the authority of those in power: Voting also centrally organizes competition between competing political parties and allows the selection of holders of positions of power Voting as a ritual: The banalization of the act of voting cannot make us forget other dimensions of the vote, explored thanks to more anthropological, sociohistorical, psychological, even psychoanalytical analyses Ritual and analogy with mythical discourse: transformation of a complex universe (politics) into an intelligible universe thanks to simple operators A ritual of pacification? Voting and the role of emotions and identity: Psycho-affective satisfactions (self-esteem, identification, frustrations...) Assertion of various social identities Reassurance of belonging to the national civic community Moments of celebration Playful practices \> Link between voting and in-group feeling Voting / election as tantamount to democracy =\> foreign policy ?!?! 2\. TO VOTE OR NOT TO VOTE At each election, a variable proportion of the electorate does not vote. Compared to voting, this act of not voting, of withdrawal from the election, has for a long time not really been studied It "also had civic morality against it: the fact of standing outside electoral consultations betrayed what was considered as an eminently reprehensible state of indifference to political society" (René Remond) ***2.1. Registration, non-registration, mal-registration*** Electoral sociology distinguishes: the potential voter who fulfills the prerequisites for enrolment (nationality, majority, enjoyment of civil and political rights), and the registered voter can effectively claim the exercise of the right to vote after being registered on the voting lists \+ phenomenon of mal-registration, a result of modernity, less a deliberate refusal than an indifference to politics ***2.2. Voters non-turnout*** A general movement in all Western democracies over the last 60 years Graph: Voter turnout in countries with and without compulsory voting the constant non-voters are a minority and represent about 10% of the registered electorate, systematic voters oscillate between 45 and 55%, and intermittent voters between 35 and 40 %. Explaining non-turnout: Social explanations Contextual explanations Political explanations 2 main categories of non-voters (Jaffré and Muxel, 2000): "Out of the game" non-voters (protesters who can be sensitive to the extremes, taking part in a logic of refusal of political and social systems) "In the game" non-voters (their abstention is mostly intermittent) = There is a diversity of voting patterns, but also of non-voting patterns The notion of voter suppression: "A common public policy goal in most democracies is to maximize voter turnout to the highest achievable level, in order to have an electorate that is as representative of the citizenry as possible and thus enhance the legitimacy of the democratic process." (Henry Brady, 2006) Voter suppression techniques: Making it more difficult for people to register (i.e. barriers to same day registration and voting) Making it more difficult for people to vote (i.e. barriers to voting by mail, to early voting, reducing polling stations, etc.) Gerrymandering in Belgium? Beware: after 1899, no majority system, but rather proportional! (1899 and choice to adopt a system of list proportional representation with d'Hondt method of apportionment) However, two instances of redistricting - - ***2.3. Blank voting*** Demands for the recognition of blank voting as a citizen's act, distinguished from non-voting, since the voter went to his/her polling station, and as a political act, meaning the impossibility of choice or the refusal of choice by the voter in the face of a political offer deemed unsatisfactory \> Netherlands, Spain, Colombia, etc. 3\. ANALYTICAL MODELS OF VOTING & ELECTION FORECASTING \- US Pol Sci fascination for mathematic modelization / applied statistics \- 2012 presidential election (binary model, very different from House election, or non-US elections) \- Why is election forecasting important / relevant? \- Democratic value: how voters are holding elected personnel accountable \- Engage the public : interest ! Fill the democratic gap \- Main drivers? \- Weak role of campaign ads and personal gaffes \- The economy \- Partisanship \- Incumbent vs. challenger (clearer for House race than presidential race) \- Comparison with weather forecast \- Rough impression with lots of random fluctuation \- Technology allows to make more connexions, to complexify the model... but still a lot of uncertainty 3 main periods in electoral studies: Early XX° : Electoral geography or the "ecological" approach Granite votes to the right and limestone votes to the left Post ww2 : Development of opinion polls =\> "heavy variables" of electoral sociology (social class and religion) : Columbia Model : "index of political predisposition" social status + religion + place of residence = "People think politically as they are socially" Michigan Model : funnel of causality and role of partisan identification (group loyalty and influence of friends and the media compensate to a certain extend the social drivers) Alford and class vote in the UK (1960's, British workers and Labour Party) Post 1970's : individualistic, more rational, and more critical =\> electoral behaviour appears less determined and more autonomous The end of the sociological determination of the vote? Crisis of the "heavy variables": should we speak of the end of the sociological determination of the vote? From class voting to educational voting Decline of class voting (Butler and Stokes), complexity of socio-professional structures in post-industrial societies \> While the left used to be the political arm of the under-educated, it has become the domain of the educated - - From religion to religious practices Secularization and retreat of religion: the bases of a religious vote seem to shrink over time, however, the importance of religion in voting resists. But, religious practice (church-going practices) as one of the most relevant indicators for electoral behaviour New sociological cleavages Independent workers / wage-earners cleavage Public sector / private sector cleavage "Patrimony effect" "winners" / "losers" of globalization cleavage (Hanspeter Kriesi) = cleavages persist but they are re-composed = sociological determination of the vote still seems relevant, but in a transformed way A more individualistic voter A new context: Development of individualism Crisis of partisan identities Electoral behaviour less and less predictable Models aimed at capturing the "new voter": Theories that try to capture and to analyze this new voter, more individualistic and rational The economic approach to voting: \> consists in applying to the electoral behaviour the axioms of economic theory: a rational elector acts according to his/her interests, s/he seeks to maximize his/her gains and to minimize his/her costs, the parties are political enterprises that seek to maximize votes in their favour The "issue voting" model: Idea that specific issues can determine the voting choices of individuals 3 conditions to be met: the issue must be high for large segments of the electorate the candidates or the parties in competition have to take distinctly different positions on this issue necessity of "responsive voters" \> Conditions rarely met, pure issue voting is therefore relatively rare 4\. CONCLUSION: WHAT ABOUT THE GENDER GAP? In most Western democracies, women's electoral behaviour has evolved into 4 distinct stages: The "traditional" gender gap, which begins in the years 1945-1950 (until the 1970s). Women are more often absent from the electoral game, showing less interest in politics. When they vote, they give their support to conservative and ChristianDemocratic parties, showing their reluctance to choose left-wing parties, including Communists Beginning in the 1980s, the "second age" of gender gap led to a kind of alignment of the behaviour of both sexes. While the non-voting rate of women tends to approach that of men, a gradual shift of women voters to the left is observed. From the 1990s on, the "modern" gender gap began in post-industrial countries. Now women voters vote as often as, or even more often, than men, in favour of the leftwing Social Democratic parties and the Greens. Moreover, in countries where the extreme right has an electoral breakthrough, women are less likely to vote for this political family. Today, the gender gap beyond voting: gender is no longer a decisive marker of the left / right orientation of voting behaviours, nor of non-voting behaviours. But, still a gap on the rate of voter registration and other political behaviours + differences in opinions \> How can we explain that these differences in political behaviour continue beyond voting? Role of the socialization transmitted by the family and the school Role of the economic inequalities that remain between women and men INTRODUCTION: CITIZENSHIP FROM A POLITICAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE Citizenship: a central concept for the theoretical and empirical analysis of the links between individuals, institutions and the State ***1.1. Origins and definition*** A citizen: "a member of a political community, endowed with the prerogatives and entrusted with the responsibilities which are attached to this belonging" (Michael Walzer) Rights and duties Legal condition + sociological and historical reality Emergence with the American and French revolutions, 18th century ***1.2. T.H. Marshall and the stages of citizenship*** Citizenship and Social Class, 1950 Historical development of modern citizenship: 18th c. \> civil rights \> cf: the rule of law 19th c. \> political rights \> cf: Parliaments 20th c. \> social rights \> cf: Welfare State \> corresponds to the English and American cases, not so well to the German and French cases \> But important idea: citizenship as a combination of civil, political and social rights + historical and incremental construction ***1.3. Some remarks on citizenship*** Rights and duties: the citizen is "endowed with prerogatives and in charge of responsibilities" Moral dimension, "good citizen", virtue and "civism" Citizenship and nationality: No systematic association: Minors of age, persons who have lost the right to vote and be eligible European citizenship Citizenship and the Welfare State: Marshall: social citizenship as the supreme stage of "complete" or "total" citizenship "formal" vs. "real" citizenship: idea that, under certain economic and social conditions, citizens do not possess the dignity necessary to the exercise of citizens' rights ***1.4. Gender and citizenship*** Gender studies: questioning of the universal character of citizenship Ex: Sylvia Walby and her discussion of T.H. Marshall \> The different types of citizenship have not followed the same historical development for women as for men \> The design of a single process of citizenship development based on a so-called universal and abstract model, in fact masculine, introduces a bias 1\. CITIZENS AND POLITICS (1): POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION ***1.1. What is political socialization?*** Socialization: how does society shape and transform the individuals who make it up? Political socialization: "the processes of formation and transformation of individual systems of political representations, opinions and attitudes" (Annick Percheron) ***1.2. The determining role of the family in the processes of political socialization*** Does one inherit or not his/her political opinions? Does the family determine the political choices of individuals? Do all families have the same weight? Are families the only socializing agents? \> Importance of the family in the construction of the political identity of individuals: one of the major results of political sociology and studies on political socialization \> Notion of "political affiliation" (Anne Muxel): analyzing the part played by family inheritance in the structuration of political opinions - - The acknowledgement of inheritance: All young people recognize the importance of their parents' influence in shaping their political choices (father as an important figure: 65% of students, mother: 63%) Factors that promote inheritance: Parents' interest in politics The structuring and strength of parental preferences The homogeneity of parents' choices Visibility of parents' choices = transmission is not automatic, can be more or less strong ***1.3. An unequal legacy*** Transmission is important but it is not automatic: there is inheritance but it is unequal according to the context and the social environment which one comes from Depending on the social and cultural environment: Role of the level of education Weight of religious socialization Depending on the context: Evolution of the society De-dramatization of politics within the family But, remember that only 2/3 of the individuals inherit the political preferences of their parents: what about the other places of political socialization? 1.4. One inheritance among others: the role of the other "socializing institutions" Role of school (content of the learning programmes, place of apprenticeship, learning certain forms of social relations) Role of the media Role of the peers Political socialization is a dynamic. It is the result of complex negotiations, multiple transactions, cross-fertilization of diversified experiences, etc. Our political identity: between inheritance and experimentation. (// to Berger & Luckmann, but they do not consider the political dimension of socialization: primary (childhood) and secondary (adult life) socialization) Ex: what Anne Muxel calls "the political moratorium of the youth years": experimentation, testing, adaptation, transition, construction: indecision, withdrawal, instability, etc. = Political socialization is an operation of selective re-appropriation of inheritance 2\. CITIZENS AND POLITICS (2): POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Political participation can de defined as "the set of activities, by which citizens try to influence the government and politics" (Lester Milbrath, 1965) ***2.1. The first works on political participation*** Lester Milbrath, Political participation. How and Why do People Get Involved in Politics (1965) The activities that constitute political participation are interrelated and hierarchical + a cumulative process  Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (1963) It is the combination of minority activism and majority indifference that ensures the stability of democratic systems and allows elites to govern = the "democratic myth" \>\> These first two studies on political participation highlight public apathy and political incompetence: they belong to the "minimalist paradigm" (see previous session on democracy) Sidney Verba and Joseph S. Nye, Participation in America (1972) -- or the SES model (socio-economic status) Political participation is unevenly distributed among the population. The number of participation activities increases with socio-economic status and participation helps those who are already the most advantaged. The most advantaged are therefore over-represented among gladiators and are more likely to attract the attention of the elites. 2.2. A limited conception of political participation A vision which does not take into account the political and social context Ex: role of the Civic Rights Movement A vision which does not take into account the multiple dimensions of political participation Necessary to consider : \- long-term participation \- local participation (Verba and Nye: the inactives, the voting specialists, the communalists, the campaigners, the parochials, the activists) \> Different possible models A vision which does not take into account non-participation \- Individuals cannot participate (resources) \- Individuals do not want to participate (commitment) \- Individuals have not been asked to participate (recruitment) \> grassroots citizens are not as apathetic or irrational as the early work on political participation suggests A vision which only takes into account legal and conventional participation Ex: demonstrations do not appear in the first classification of political behaviour: according to Milbrath, violent and protest actions are not part of the normal functioning of a democracy \> Change with the 1970s and the diversification of modes of protest and new actors start to participate using these new means (young people, minorities) \>\> Need to rethink political participation The Belgian case \- the issue (and specific challenges) of compulsory voting \- Citizen participation: \- the municipal level (information -- consultation -- concertation -- coconstruction, up to a participatory budget in the municipal budget, e.g. manage a citizen's driven project) \- The regional level : Brussels Region & deliberative commissions 45 citizens + 15 MP's \- Feb. 2021 -- 5G Connexion in Brussels \- March 2021 -- Homelessness in Brussels \- May 2021 -- Role of Brussels citizens in a crisis \- Feb. 2022 -- Biodiversity in the city, taking into account the different functions of a city \- Feb. 2023 - Noise in urban environments 2.3. A broader approach to political participation Gradually, behaviours and activities that were previously considered unconventional or illegitimate will be incorporated into conventional political participation Alan Marsh, Protest and Political consciousness, 1977: \- Legal participation but with a protest dimension (demonstrations, petitions). \- On the edge of legality participation (boycott behaviours). \- Non-official strikes. \- Illegal actions with violence against property or persons (e.g.: uprooting of transgenic maize plans, kidnapping of company managers, terrorism, etc.). Samuel Barnes and Max Kaase, Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies, 1979 = include all types of political participation in their survey \> Broadening the range of possible political activities helps to relativize citizens' civic and political apathy INTRODUCTION. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, COLLECTIVE ACTION, MOBILIZATION, PROTEST, CONTENTIOUS POLITICS: WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? Diversity of denomination: results from the long and complex history of this field of study Social movements and political science For a long time, a neglected object of political science: Minority of individuals vs. all citizens Not easily analyzed through large opinion polls and surveys (vs. electoral behaviours) Risks of violence and threat to democracy Not included in the first theories of political participation (vs. conditions for the stability of democratic regimes) Do not seem relevant in post-WW2 in Western democracies: economic growth and political stability = a question that appeared less legitimate to take into account and to analyse But, a turn in the 1960s-1970s, waves of protest in the West raised a new interest in social movements + protest activities viewed as a "normal" political activity, standardization, routinization (see session on political participation) Defining social movements Social activities which have 3 complementary characteristics: Collective activities (not such a self-evident truth!): Where do the observed movements come from? Why and how are multiple individuals converging towards coordinated action? Are collective movements instituted beforehand, during or after mobilization? How do they structure themselves more or less permanently? Activities oriented towards social change (not so self-evident either!): What kind of change is exactly targeted by the actors who are mobilizing? Why are they not satisfied with the present order of the world? To what extent are their inclinations towards change effectively shared among large groups? A logic of claim, a cause behind each social movement (large-scale social projects oriented at profound changes or desire to resist changes and defend localized issues). Activities with a conflictual dimension: mobilizations involve a relationship of opposition and confrontation with an adversary more or less clearly identified \> mobilizations cannot be grasped in isolation, but in relation with their environment (partners, rivals, media, public authorities...) !Attention! = all collective, protest and contentious actions do not form a social movement 2 more characteristics to take into account: Existence of an, at least minimal, form of organization: scale, time, structuring. One demonstration does not make a social movement =\>Civil disobedience? Existence of a voluntary project A\) WHY PEOPLE MOBILIZE? EXPLAINING THE DYNAMICS OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS The "WHY" question = Objective: explaining the factors at the origins of the initiation of social movements Example of questions and types of social phenomenon which are analysed: Why does a revolution break out on that specific date in a given country? Why is the end of the 1960s marked by a multitude of social movements? Why is it that a particular social group tends, much more easily than others, to mobilize in order to have its protesting voice heard? 5 approaches ***1.1. The psycho-sociological approach*** France, end of the 19th century: Gabriel Tarde (The Opinion and the Crowd, 1903), Gustave Le Bon (The Crowd, A Study of the Popular Mind, 1895) Irrationality of social movements Role of contagion between individuals Favourable context: collection of individuals \> crowd (a collective soul) Importance of the leaders Starting in the 1970s, criticisms addressed to this approach: Psychological explanation \> confusion between individual and collective determinants of action Focus on irrationality, neglect strategic behaviour Social movements seen as exceptional phenomena ***1.2. The relative frustrations approach*** Ted Gurr (Why Men rebel?, 1970) and James C. Davies (The J-Curve of Rising and Declining Satisfaction as a Cause of Great Revolutions and a Contained Rebellion, 1974) : Collective movements = setting in motion of wills to respond to a set of frustrations. These frustration at the origins of mobilizations are relative: the perceived gap between the actors' aspirations (the goods they expect), and what they are able to obtain (accessible goods)  "Relative frustration" approach: allows to better identify some factors of the mobilization But: what are the concrete conditions of the participation decision taken by an individual? ***1.3. The paradox of collective action and the resources mobilization approach*** = Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, 1965: Instead of starting out with the structural and collective conditions of mobilization \> focus on the individual and his/her decision to participate, or not, in collective action The individual is considered as "rational" in the economic sense of the term (evaluation of costs and benefits of participation) Conclusion of Olson's reasoning = even if dissatisfied with his/her situation, the most rational choice for an individual is not to participate in a mobilization \> "free rider strategy": an individual rationally chooses the solution that maximizes his/her profits without increasing his/her costs, i.e. non-participation \> Consequence of this reasoning: any mobilization impossible, yet there are mobilizations = this is the paradox of collective action Olson's solutions to the paradox: Influence of the size of the group (the smaller the group, the more visible is nonparticipation, and the more pressure from the group to participate) Concept of "selective incentives": positive and negative selective incentives used by the organizers of mobilizations to encourage individuals to participate and to overcome the "free rider" problem = resources mobilization paradigm Accumulation of resources by the organizers, injection of these resources into the mobilization to lower the cost of individual participation (Mac Carthy and Zald, The trends of Social Movement in America: Professionalization and resource mobilization, 1973) Characteristics of the resources mobilization approach: Importance of the organization: structures the group, gathers resources, provides demands and claims Resources can be gathered within the movement (members, time, money, networks, arguments...), or outside the movement (media) In all social movements, a growing professionalization (contesting as a profession) 1.4. The political approach to social movements Necessary to re-introduce the political dimension on the analysis of social movements Main concept = Political opportunity structure (POS) \> Triggering and unfolding of the mobilizations are influenced by the opportunities that open to them, depending on the political context \> Importance of the political system to understand the potential influence of social movements Variables of the POS: Type of State (strong or weak) Degree of openness of the political system Degree of territorial centralization Electoral system (proportional or majority) Partisan system (number of parties, fragmentation...) Support from within the political and administrative system Strategies of political authorities with regard to the movement (confrontation or cooperation) Etc. Example: France vs. Switzerland 1.5. The question of identity 1990s: bring back the question of identity, ideas, values, beliefs in the analysis of social movements =\> An introduction to a decolonized perspective on social movements! Example: Doug Mac Adam, Freedom Summer, 1990 Summer of 1964, white American students mobilize to defend the civil rights and right to vote of the black population in the South of the USA \> Mobilization with high risks, but no material gain: how to explain this with the classical analytical tools? = the dynamics of identity (values, symbolic reward, social context) "rewards of activism": militancy is not only a cost B). HOW PEOPLE MOBILIZE? EXPLAINING THE MODES OF ACTION OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS ENTREPRENEURS Analysis of social movements: not only the WHY of social movements (factors, circumstances, contexts that favour their activation at one specific moment within one specific group of people) = also, the HOW of social movements, especially the role and work of "mobilization entrepreneurs" (a term that comes from the resources mobilization approach) ***2.1. The repertoires of collective action*** What are the strategies and the concrete forms of action used by the groups to defend their claims? \> The means of action available to a given group in a given context are plural but limited The notion of "repertoires of collective action" = Charles Tilly, The Contentious French, Harvard University Press, 1986: "Every population has a limited repertoire of collective actions, that is to say means of acting together on the basis of shared interests. These various means of action compose a repertory, a little in the sense that we hear it in theatre and music, but rather resembles that of commedia dell'arte or jazz than that of a classical ensemble" \> there is a link between the mode of action mobilized by the protestors and the political, social, historical and institutional context in which the social movements are developing The transition from the "ancient" to the "modern" repertoire thus reflects the advent of social and political modernity: progress in the means of communication, completion of State centralization, industrial revolution Composing from a repertoire: Depending on the context, mobilization entrepreneurs will choose a type of action within the repertoire or mix a number of them \> Role of strategy, tactical evaluation of the respective advantages of the movement 2.2. Contemporary repertoires of collective action Michel Offerlé \> 3 main types of contemporary repertoires: Number (i.e. demonstrations) Expertise (i.e. production of reports, organization of conferences) Scandal (i.e. looking for media coverage, indignation) C\) THE CHANGING FACES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS ***3.1. The members of the social movements*** More occasional involvement, multi-participation From a member of a group to an individual: several feelings of belonging Importance of skills and experience ***3.2. The cause*** Limited objectives Medium-term temporality ***3.3. The repertoire and means of action*** Widening of the repertoire, different combinations Importance of the media (visibility vs. number) ***3.4. The scale of the action*** Transnational dimension of collective action (role of the Internet) = an open debate in the academic literature ***3.5. Belgian contemporary illustrations*** 1\) October 2023 & Van Quickenborne bill on a reform of the penal code to create a new penalty for rioters (loi anti-casseurs) 2\) Adelaide Charlier, "the Belgian Greta", cofounder of Youth for Climate Belgium on the power of collective action (Brussels TED talk, )