Appunti integrati con studio manuale di Comparative Politics

COMPARATIVE POLITICS

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 23

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS COMPARATIVE POLITICS?

It’s one of the main subfields of political science, together with political theory and international relations and

public policies analysis, and it focuses on THREE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS of political systems:

1. INTERNAL POLITICAL STRUCTURES (institutions).

2. ACTORS BEHAVING WITHIN THESE STRUCTURES.

3. PROCESSES, SO THE LINKS BETWEEN ACTORS AND ALSO BETWEEN ACTORS AND

INSTITUTIONS.

Comparative politics examines empirically (because it’s always based on data) the political systems and it

tries to describe, explain and predict the variety of different phenomena across the political system.

But first of all, let’s take one step back to describe WHAT POLITICS ARE?

Politics is the human activity of making PUBLIC AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS. Here we have two

different features: public and authoritative, that are both very important to understand what politics is.

➢ So, these decisions made by humans are public, because they concern every aspect of a society’s life,

so they affect a collective body (society), and authoritative, because decision makers have also the

power to make these decisions binding, and also, they have the power to sanction, or to not apply

them or, even worse, to behave against them. In other words, break the law. In fact, very often these

public policies are laws. Decision makers, through human activity, makes public authoritative

decisions which are the laws that we are bound to follow. So, politics is the exercise of power of

making these public authoritative decisions.

At the same time, politics is also ACQUIRING THAT POWER; so, political science and comparative politics

study also the processes of acquirement of it, not only the exercise, but also the activity of maintaining it. In

other words, politics is the conflict, or the competition, for power and the use of that power once it’s acquired.

Who makes political decisions? Another one could be how they acquire the power to make them? Where does

this authority to make them come from? And so on. So, some of the main questions of comparative politics

are which decisions are made? How are decisions made? And who makes, or influences, such decision? Or

who put them there to make them?

WHAT DO WE STUDY?

We study the organizations in which power is organized, the actors involved in decision making, the

processes of decision making, but also of the acquirement of the power to make them, so who set the agenda

(decides what to decide about, which is the agenda power), and also the process of maintaining that power

for as long as possible.

In comparative politics (CP) we compare, which means that we focus on similarities and differences

between cases. The subject describes the world in which we have a high level of variety of all the elements,

like legislative assemblies of all countries, so how they work, how they are elected, which are things that

varies a lot.

CP describes the world and tries to make classifications and typologies of different elements, which are

organizations, actors and processes, according to different variables, factors within them. So, besides

describing similarities and differences, we try to explain these ones, understanding reasons of the

phenomenon analyzed.

➢ For example, why did the revolutions take place in France and Russia, but not in Germany and Japan,

why there’s not a socialist party in the Us? Why are the governments in Britain so stable compared to

the Italian ones?

By making comparisons we’re trying to understand the factors that affect the functioning of institutions, the

behavior and the relationships between actors within them and the nature of processes, which are often

different. So, in general, phenomenon among countries, but comparative politics focuses also on national

cases comparing them in time.

➢ For example, I can compare the Italian political system of today (party system or parliament) with the

one of the 80s. So, the comparison can be even within the country.

WHICH IS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THIS COMPARISON?

It’s to understand relations behind a specific behavior or the functioning of a specific institution; so, to

generalize through causalities. Assuming that a relation between variables exist, like the between an electoral

and a party system of a country, and between this last one and the government stability, implies collecting

data, verifying assumptions, and either confirming the hypothesis made or negate it. Since it’s a science I

have to expect both positive and negative outcomes.

So, CP means also to formulate predictions: making hypothesis, testing them through data empirically and

trying to verify or not the relationship on some specific elements of the political system.

There are different types of CP related to the different methods that we use in order to carry out our research.

So, the term originates from the way in which the empirical investigation is done: comparatively. The

investigation is one by comparing different cases. But CP can include three different traditional WAYS OF

INVESTIGATION:

1. THE STUDY OF SINGLE COUNTRIES: if I want, for example, to verify the relation between the

success of radical right parties and the economic situation of a country, I have to analyze just one case.

It’s still CP because I’m testing a theory through the study of a single country.

2. METHODOLOGICAL TRADITIONS that concern the rules and the standards that I should apply

to comparative analysis. So, it has to do with the how the analysis is carried out, how do I verify

my hypothesis empirically.

3. The third one combines the two previous ways: the EMPIRICAL SUBSTANCE and the METHOD,

and it has to do with numbers. CP analysis can be based on a large or small research. It means that I

can compare many cases to each other in order to confirm a hypothesis I’ve made or not, or I can

decide to compare just two countries, or countries of a specific region, like Balkans, Baltics, exc. In

that case, I have to apply a different method. The fewer cases I have, the more qualitative analysis I

can make. The more cases I have, the more statistical will be my analysis.

So, for example, I cannot analyze qualitatively data if I have all the 27 Eu countries to analyze, I will

use a statistical method. The method can be either qualitative, quantitative or a mix of both.

WHAT CAN WE COMPARE?

NATIONAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS, even if they are very hard to analyze as a hole, because it’s made of

many elements. So, usually we analyze non-national political systems, national political systems, or

supranational units, such as the Eu. We can analyze different kinds of political systems: democratic vs

authoritarian in terms of economic performance, or majoritarian electoral systems vs proportional electoral

systems in terms of duration of the process of formation of the government.

And finally, CP compares SINGLE ELEMENTS of political systems, that means the majority of the CP

research cases, like parties, which can be radical leftists or rights, opposition parties or majority parties,

or interest groups too, social movements, the courts and their impact on the decision-making process, how

powerful they are, the executive-legislator relationship and so on.

We will focus on the MANY INSTITUTIONS within POLITICAL SYSTEMS, like parliaments and

governments in particular, parties, interest groups, the actors within these institutions and these

parties/interest groups, how they behave, how they interact with each other in the different political systems.

And then the PROCESSES: the policy making, how it’s made, what is important to know about it, who is

mostly influent in the policy making process, who is not at all, how to acquire influence and power in policy

making, and in the end, at the supranational level, we’ll see how also the Eu can be seen and studied as a

proper political system.

CHAPTER 6 – AUTORITHARIAN REGIMES

For many years, AUTHORITARISM has been considered in Comparative Politics as a RESIDUAL

→

CATEGORY (Comparativists mainly focused on Democracies). Any NON-DEMOCRATIC regime was

labelled as “AUTHORITARIAN”.

➔ However, in RECENT DECADES, a series of Studies have been initiated to analyse them, since

AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES exhibit SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM!

Example: Authoritarian Regime in SINGAPORE: This is an authoritarian regime (It has

o never experienced a change of government by the ruling party) with High Standards of Living

and Low Levels of Corruption.

Example: Authoritarian Regime in CHAD: This is an authoritarian regime characterized by

o High Repression, Arbitrary Laws, and a population living in extreme poverty.

GENERAL DEFINITION of AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES: These are REGIMES WITHOUT

EXECUTIVE POWER TURNOVER, WITHOUT ELECTIONS (where they exist, they remain

controlled), and the GOVERNMENT represents the INTERESTS OF THE ELITE IN POWER!

➔ Clearly, although this is the General Definition, as we will discuss in this chapter, Authoritarian

→

Regimes display differences among themselves. For example, one of the most Extreme Forms

of Authoritarianism corresponds to TOTALITARIANISM (present in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s

USSR). The analysis and categorization of this form of Authoritarianism represent one of the first

o efforts to DISTINGUISH the VARIOUS TYPES of AUTHORITARIANISM.

Today, Contemporary Research Strands (on the study of Authoritarianisms) are DIVIDED into 2

CATEGORIES: →

a) CONTINUOUS TYPES. These types illustrate the DEGREE OF AUTHORITARIANISM!

→

b) CATEGORICAL TYPES. These types differentiate BETWEEN AUTHORITARIAN

REGIMES!

In particular, these types help understand WHO HOLDS POWER in an Authoritarian

o Regime, explaining how this can influence the regime’s longevity.

According to Recent Studies, ELITES are IMPORTANT for the SURVIVAL OF THE

o REGIME, because based on the strategies they employ, they can PREVENT COUPS

D’ÉTAT.

6.1 TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

As previously mentioned, there are IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES between AUTHORITARIANISM and

→

TOTALITARIANISM. One of the MOST IMPORTANT Works on TOTALITARIANISM is “The Origins

of Totalitarianism” by HANNAH ARENDT, who argues that it is a NEW and EXTREME FORM OF

DICTATORSHIP. →

QUESTION: What is the fundamental Aspect of Totalitarian Regimes? Hannah Arendt (analysing the

cases of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR) emphasizes that the Fundamental Aspect of Totalitarian

→

Regimes is the DESIRE FOR LEADERSHIP to TRANSFORM human NATURE! This aspect

translates into a series of KEY ELEMENTS of TOTALITARIANISM:

→

1) TOTAL CONTROL. In fact, unlike other dictatorships (which aim ONLY at seizing Power),

TOTALITARIAN LEADERS seek to achieve COMPLETE CONTROL over SOCIETY,

dominating EVERY ASPECT of LIFE through TERROR to ensure CONFORMITY!

Question: How is control maintained in these Regimes? Answer: Control is maintained

o thanks to the presence of a CHARISMATIC LEADER, a SINGLE PARTY, and a

→

SECRET POLICE FORCE. In this way, a HIGH LEVEL of REPRESSION is exercised.

→

2) THE IMPORTANCE OF AN IDEOLOGY. Another fundamental element of TOTALITARIAN

→

REGIMES is the IDEOLOGY! In fact, the Ideology, promoted through Propaganda, allows the

Regime to create a LOYAL CITIZENSHIP and LEGITIMIZE itself.

To strengthen the Ideology within the country, strategies of INDOCTRINATION are

o implemented, inserting Ideological Messages into SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES, and

MEDIA.

Question: Is Ideology important in AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES? Answer:

o Authoritarian Regimes assign LOW IMPORTANCE to ideology, which is generally

modified as needed, leading to changes in Alliances and Principles with ease.

▪ Ex. UGANDA under IDI AMIN: Initially, Amin’s Uganda had good relations with

Western Countries and Israel, BUT later he changed alliances to approach Islamic

Countries such as Libya.

→

3) THE PARTICIPATIVE NATURE. Citizen PARTICIPATION is an essential element of

Totalitarian Regimes, which require the MASS ADHESION to the PARTY and DOMINATED

ORGANIZATIONS!

In these Regimes, the PARTY and other Organizations actively MOBILIZE the

o POPULATION, allowing the CONTROL to be EXTENDED and STRENGTHENED.

▪ For Totalitarian Regimes, this is functional to COMPLETELY REBUILD the

SOCIETY (by modifying human NATURE).

Question: Is citizen participation important in AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES? Answer:

o In Authoritarian Regimes, there are FEW OPPORTUNITIES for Citizens to ACTIVELY

PARTICIPATE in Society and the State.

▪ In fact, Authoritarian Regimes tend to DEMOBILIZE and DEPOLITICIZE

CITIZENS, preferring an APATHETIC and Disinterested Population,

→

avoiding any challenge to the Authoritarian Government. For this reason,

these regimes allow the existence of a LOW LEVEL of PLURALISM (Ex.: they

ensure “elections” with low competition).

POL POT'S CAMBODIA: AN EXAMPLE OF TOTALITARIANISM

In Cambodia, POL POT and the KHMER ROUGE (1975–79) established a TOTALITARIAN REGIME,

with which they tried to REVOLUTIONIZE society through the COLLECTIVIZATION (of PRIVATE

GOODS).

➔ To achieve this goal, they implemented a series of Policies such as the FORCED DEPOPULATION

OF CITIES (Deportation was necessary to gather the workforce to be employed in the countryside),

AGRARIAN REFORMS, and the BAN OF RELIGIONS (Buddhists and Muslims were persecuted

and killed).

➔ Furthermore, the REGIME promoted the AGRARIAN COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY to reach these

objectives, going as far as eliminating any opposition (Teachers, Merchants, and almost the entire

→

intellectual elite were murdered). Moreover, they BURNED books (those considered against the

ideology), CLOSED schools and hospitals, and ABOLISHED money!

In this process, EVERY INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM was ELIMINATED (People could not

o travel, family members could not speak to each other, and people could not eat privately but

only in communal settings). →

CAMBODIA TODAY: FROM TOTALITARIAN REGIME TO AUTHORITARIAN REGIME. For

over three decades, the PARTY OF THE PEOPLE of CAMBODIA, led by Hun Sen, has GOVERNED

→

the COUNTRY! However, like many other AUTHORITARIAN Regimes, it was decided to introduce

REGULAR ELECTIONS (in which the Opposition can also participate).

➔ Although HIGH LEVELS of POLITICAL REPRESSION still persist, people have Freedom of

→

Movement and Association. Moreover, the Regime no longer makes efforts of Indoctrination

and Active Mobilization of the Public, rendering the Communist Ideology meaningless.

TOTALITARIAN REGIMES TODAY: NORTH KOREA AND ERITREA

As of today, there are FEW TOTALITARIAN REGIMES, among which are:

→

A- NORTH KOREA. As of today, this country maintains a HIGHLY MOBILIZED SOCIETY

and is COMPLETELY engaged in SUPPORTING the KIM JONG-UN REGIME!

→

THE PRESENCE OF AN IDEOLOGY. The NORTH KOREANS are continuously

o INDOCTRINATED to believe in the IDEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES of the REGIME,

known as “JUCHE” or “AUTOSUFFICIENCY” (This ideology subordinates Society to the

Will of the State). →

CONTROL OF THE MEDIA. The regime completely controls the MEDIA and

o PROPAGANDA, forcing citizens to listen to the STATE RADIO CONTINUOUSLY

(Without being able to turn down the volume).

→

B- ERITREA. In this country, there is also the presence of a TOTALITARIAN REGIME; in fact,

Eritreans DO NOT HAVE POLITICAL RIGHTS and CIVIL LIBERTIES (Traveling without

authorization risks imprisonment or death). →

ACTIVE MOBILIZATION OF THE POPULATION in SUPPORT of the REGIME.

o CITIZENS are OBLIGED to ENLIST in the ARMY and to WORK in COMPANIES

CONTROLLED BY THE REGIME (Non-compliance results in arrest by the police and

immediate execution).

6.2 BEYOND TOTALITARIANISM: UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENT

AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES

As previously mentioned, there are 2 TYPES OF RESEARCH LINES on AUTHORITARIANISM,

namely: →

a. CONTINUOUS TYPES. These types differentiate regimes based on their "DEGREE OF

AUTHORITARIANISM". →

b. CATEGORICAL TYPES. These types focus on the HETEROGENEITY present among the

VARIOUS AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES.

6.2.1 CATEGORICAL TYPOLOGIES

Contemporary Literature on CATEGORICAL TYPOLOGIES has led to the development of

CLASSIFICATIONS of AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES that are based on the STRATEGIES adopted

by the AUTHORITARIAN LEADER to stay in Power or on the STRUCTURE of the Regime itself.

➔ BARBARA GEDDES has CLASSIFIED AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES into: PERSONALIST

REGIMES, ONE-PARTY REGIMES, MILITARY REGIMES and MONARCHIC REGIMES.

These AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES differ from each other based on WHO

o CONTROLS ACCESS TO POLITICAL POSITIONS and WHO INFLUENCES

→

DECISIONS. In Personalist Regimes: there is a single Individual; in One-Party

Regimes: there is a Hegemonic Party; in Military Regimes: there are the Armed Forces; in

Monarchies: there is a Royal Family.

Therefore, based on Geddes' Classification, AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES can be divided into 4 TYPES:

→

1) PERSONALIST REGIMES. In these regimes, LEADERS exercise POWER WITH ALMOST

NO LIMITS (It is difficult to distinguish the Leader from the State), WEAKENING other

INSTITUTIONS (Parliament: only role to confirm government decisions; Army; etc.). →

POLITICAL PARTIES are ONLY superficial tools to support the Leader. Moreover,

o the Leader POLITICIZES the JUDICIARY, using it as a TOOL AGAINST the Opposition;

also, the MEDIA are under his CONTROL.

→

Question: Is there an IDEOLOGY? Usually, there is NO FORMAL IDEOLOGY, but

o in some cases (such as Mobutu in Congo Zaire), Leaders create a sort of PERSONALITY

CULT of themselves.

EXAMPLES OF PERSONALIST REGIMES:

o ▪ →

CURRENT PERSONALIST REGIMES. Today, there are various Personalist

Authoritarian Regimes such as: PUTIN'S RUSSIA; DEBY's CHAD;

LUKASHENKO's BELARUS.

▪ →

HISTORICAL PERSONALIST REGIMES. There have been several in the

past, including: IDI AMIN's UGANDA; SADDAM HUSSEIN's IRAQ;

SALEH's YEMEN. →

Question: HOW DO THEY MAINTAIN POWER? Personalist Dictators use various

o strategies to stay in Power, such as: surrounding themselves with LOYAL INDIVIDUALS

and RENEWING the TOP LEADERSHI