Oral Examination: Key Concepts in Political Science and Modernization Theory

Views of Democracy and Types of Dictatorships

Oral Examination: December 4th

1. Explain what a polyarchy is and how this concept can be empirically useful to explain
   variations across policies. (WEEK 2)

• Realistically "ideal" form of government where there are high levels of public
  contestation AND inclusion in political procedure (Concept introduced by
  Robert Dahl)
• Contestation refers to the ability of citizens to choose among competing
  alternatives or organise themselves into competing blocs in order to
  influence policy direction.
  Aspects of this include:
• Freedom to form political parties;
• Freedom of speech and assembly;
• Free and fair elections to select leaders.
• Inclusion refers to the extent to which citizens can participate in selecting
  leaders and influencing decisions (i.e., who gets to participate in the
  democratic process).
• Dahl created this term to bridge the gap between what an ideal democracy is and
  what presently existing ones are - he believed that the substantive view of
  democracy was not sufficient in finding real-world examples of democracy, and
  polyarchies can be more useful empirically
• The concept of polyarchy makes it easier for political scientists to compare
  different political systems and regimes because it is minimalist and flexible
  concept, however does not account for characteristics of a true democracy such
  as perfectly protected political rights and equality of political influence
• Variations in inclusion and contestation can help explain differences in policy
  outcomes:

Polyarchy and Policy Outcomes

• Polyarchy helps explain why countries with similar political structures can
  produce vastly different policies by focusing on the interaction of
  contestation and inclusion.
  Example:
• Countries with high contestation but low inclusion may adopt
  policies favouring elite preferences (e.g., corporate-friendly
  economic policies, tax policies favouring the wealthy).
• Countries with high inclusion but lower contestation might focus on
  redistributive policies but lack competitive political dynamism.
• The concept of polyarchy also explains how the level of contestation and
  inclusion can lead to different patterns of policy stability and change.
  Example:
• Highly contested and inclusive regimes are more likely to
  experience gradual, negotiated policy changes as various political
  actors and the broader public influence decision-making
  processes (seemingly more democratic by our general perception
  of democracy - based off of minimalist view)
• In contrast, regimes with limited contestation or exclusionary
  practices might experience more abrupt or top-down policy shifts,
  often responding to elite interests or pressure from concentrated
  power groups rather than the general public. (public has less say,
  fits into "less" democratic view)

Minimal Definition of Democracy

1. Explain the main characteristics of the minimal definition of democracy. (WEEK 2)
   -> Minimalist definition:
• Focuses on political procedure and election processes rather than outcomes
  of leaders' actions/policies
• Definition articulated by political theorist Joseph Schumpeter, and it reduces
  democracy to its core procedural elements, stripping it of any normative or
  substantive commitments
• Facilitates empirical research on regime dynamics
• Election protocol:
• Ex-ante uncertainty: inability to predict results
• Ex-post irreversibility: ability to have competition/inability to
  contest results
• Periodicity: must be regular elections
• Two essential parts:
• Government (chief executive, legislative branch)
• Electoral competition (alternation in power shows robustness of EC)
  Exclusions to definition:
• Democracy must NOT focus on economic outcome or fulfilling one party's
  agenda, as policies or other outcomes are not concern of this metric
  -> Substantive definition by comparison:
• Substantive view of democracy gives a much broader interpretation of what is
  democratic, more qualitative and less empirical and objective
• Substantive relies on social outcomes/actions of political leaders

Dahl and Przeworski: Definitions of Democracy

1. Dahl and Przeworski both define democracy around procedures, however, what are the
   main similarities and differences in their definitions of democracy? (WEEK 2)
   Similarities:
• Both adopt the minimalist view of democracy or the procedural view of democracy, which
  focuses on free and fair elections, rather than the substantive view of democracy which
  emphasises political outcomes instead of political procedure
• Political competition is a key principle of democracy to both scholars - Dahl believes that
  contestation of the political process is important while Przeworksi believes that
  intra-party competition and possible turnovers of political power help maintain a
  democracy
• Both scholars emphasise the importance of elections in order to make the government
  accountable to the people, and they stress that political participation from citizens is key
  to maintaining a democratic system (however Dahl emphasises more strongly the
  importance of civil engagement)
  Individual concepts:
• Dahl: "Democracy is a procedural process"
• Believes that democracy/polyarchy is defined by the extent to which the public
  participates in and contests the political system (inclusion and contestation)
• Adopts a minimalist view of democracy (more empirical)
• Believes that true democracies don't exist, but that polyarchies are the closest
  we've gotten to a democracy via gradual democratisation, and a comparative
  means of determining what are modern democracies (multidimensional concept)
• Przeworski: "Democracy is a system where parties lose elections. There are parties:
  divisions of interest, values and opinions. There is competition, organised by rules. And there are periodic
  winners and losers."
• Przeworksi adopts a more stringent minimalist definition of democracy, focusing
  on elections' ability to remove incumbents from office and whether or not political
  parties and leaders respect the rules of the game - without necessarily requiring
  other liberal democratic features like civil liberties or excess external participation

Democracy as Equilibrium and Dictatorships

1. Use the idea of democracy as an equilibrium to discuss why conflicts are more likely
   to be observed in dictatorships than in democracies. (WEEK 2/3)
   [Przeworski, Adam. 2005. "Democracy as an Equilibrium."]
   Democracy as equilibrium:
• There are always participants in the democratic process who are winner and losers
• Key concept: winners will not try to get rid of losers and losers will not get rid of
  the winners -> when this standard is met, democracy reaches an equilibrium
• Citizens and parties maximise their utility when they are winners in democratic elections
• Even if they do not win, the possibility of being able to win in the future keeps people
  participating in democratic processes, so the losers accept being losers
• When you have democracy, it perpetuates further democracy, and the alternations of
  political parties/leaders keeps up engagement in future political processes - the
  elections release and political tensions by giving participants opportunity to engage
• Example: [CSES2 model - also corroborate Anderson's model]
• When there is less political transition/regime turnover, or when citizens
  are constant losers in political game, citizens show a lower satisfaction
  and trust in democracy
• Electoral alternation matters because (Cho believes) reduces democratic
  durability gap amongst winners and losers -> causes both parties to have
  equal faith/satisfaction with democracy
• Przeworski says democracy is stable when all actors/people engaged believe that
  engaging with the political process is worthwhile, political elites see democratic process
  as more valuable to uphold than autocratic rule when public is satisfied by it

Instability in Dictatorships

Why dictatorships are less stable:

• Highly concentrated power leads to disequilibrium
• Political tensions manifest as coups, insurgencies, or civil wars as there are fewer tools
  to oppose political rule and expression political tensions
  Examples:
• Monarchy:
• Monarchies are the most stable dictatorship because of established norms and
  institutions and tight familial networks
• However, rules for succession can create internal unrest and conflict or
  power struggles
• Monarchies are also reliant on economic rent provided to elite class in
  exchange for regime support; while this makes the support base more
  stable it leave the monarchy vulnerable to internal breakdown if there is
  issue with the distribution process
• Example: The emir of Qatar's appointments in the 1990s ensured that his family
  members had access to the most lucrative sectors of the economy (defence,
  finance, petroleum), preventing dissent. But this also creates a zero-sum game,
  where those excluded from key positions might attempt to challenge the
  leadership via coups or internal divisions.
• Military:
• Very vulnerable to breakdown as power is highly concentrated in small groups,
  like juntas, which can suffer from infighting and coups due to:
• Divergent economic, political, distributive views etc.
• A lack of a cohesive ideology that creates allegiance to a regime - lack of
  loyalty to regime can be an issue (leaders are self-serving)
• Threat of military coup or abdication can lead to military regimes ending in
  negotiation or in violence to end conflict of interests
• Personalist:
• Power and loyalty directed towards one person instead of party, can be unstable
  if:
• Ruler ceases to maintain power/influence over the people due to
  economic crises/internal dissident/disasters, and as there is no
  succession protocol this often leads to power struggle
• Creates a personality cult behind the dictator
• This may make it difficult for opposition group to sense enmity
  towards leader and organise
• Yet once there is crack in the public image of the leader and their
  regime, this can lead to violent rebellion
• (E.g., Gaddafi in 2011, Hussein in 2003, Ceausescu in
  1989, Mugabe in 2017).
• No room for negotiation or power sharing with opposition groups,
  making conflict more likely
• Dominant Party:
• Often a lack of expression of opposition to the regime due to fear of oppression
  or violence leads to pretence falsification, difficult to tell true public sentiments
• Elites who are closely tied to the party's regime face great risk (imprisonment,
  death) if the regime were to fall, making them resistant to challenge the regime
  (stakes are high)
• (E.g. Mao's China)
• Without a way to form viable opposition group in one-party system, elites in
  dominant-party dictatorships will fight until the ends are met, often violently
• (E.g., Syria under Assad)