Lecture 1
1. First undertsanding/studying own country, then some started with other countries: comparative
scholars
2. Then became a research method, how do you compare/select cases etc, focused more on
methods than on substance. Lijphart
3. Now those two are combined: substance and method
More overlap with IR
Why comparison?
Gather knowledge abt other countries, then you also (subcontious) gather info abt own
country
Methodological theories: Create classifications and develop typologies. Level of abstraction
to meaningful compare.
When you have classifications, then you can formulate and test hypotheses and theories
(and -duvergers-law and the iron-law of olichargy).
With these outcomes, make predictions abt the future
Pitfalls of comparison
Requires a lot of background information, understand contemporary systems you need
historical background
Different meaning of concepts in different cultural and linguistic contexts
Ethnocentrism = tend to judge on the basis of your referentiekader/home country where you
were socialized, comes with stereotypes
Selection bias, some countries receive much more attention than others. Smaller countries
tend to be excluded in comparative politics.
Stereotypes
Over-generalized belief abt certain group of people, mental shortcut
Part of shared/collective knowledge, powerful so be aware!
Can encourage prejudice and discrimination
The state
Main unit of political organization in the world
All territory is formally part of a state except antartica
Distinction between: state - country - government
Features of the state (since peace of Westphalia)
o Territory
o Population
o Sovereignty (internal: monopoly of force and external: able to enter relations with
others)
Anomalies
Supranational organization (EU)
o State-like, certain characteristics, features of a state
Partially rerecognized states (Taiwan, Palestine)
De facto states (somaliland), not recognized but in practice functions like a state
Failed states (somalia, south sudan), dont have internal sovereignty, no monopoly of use of
force. Do have external sovereignty
, Non-sovereign territories (greenland, Puerto Rico), former colonial territories that still have
link with former colonizer country
The nation
Imagined (people have to believe they are part of that nation) community with territorial
claim.
Social construct; intersubjective fact
Seeks self-determination: sovereignty
Nationalism: modern force; right of the nation to be sovereign
French revolution: each nation should have a state; birth of the nation-state ideal
Nationalist push to eridacate (ethnic) differeces - homogenize nation and differentiate from
other nations
Nationalism and ethnicity
Ethnicity also mostly a social construct; common descent and heritage
Ethnicity: internal or cross-cutting, national and state boundaries
Ethnic groups dont necessarily seek political sovereignty
Calhoun:
o ethnicity can overlap with the nation, or conflict with it.
o Nationalism often has an ethnic foundation - old ethnic identities are resilient and
have not disappeared
Ethnicity and nationalism are invoked by political leaders to generate mobilization and
legitimacy
Nations, states, and nation-states
Did the state create the nation, or the nation the state
Differs for each case; Depends also on the foundation of the nation:
o Ethnnicity
o Language
o Religion
o Ideals/ideology
= determines the extend to which a nations are open, can you become a member?
Nation-building: transforming a state into a nation-state
Contemporary classifications
Democracy on the one hand and authocracy on the other hand; black and white
Grey zone: hybrid/illiberal regime; Diamond
Nowdays no totalitatian regimes except North-Korea (China to be?)
Democratic regimes
Strong positive connotation, everyone calls itself a democracy
One of most hotly contested concepts in political science
'rule by the people'
Strong element of political equality; everyone has a voice
Direct vs representative democracy
o Nowhere a complete direct democracy, Switzerland comes closest with referanda.
Direct is impossible on the scale of a country, only possible to some extend on a local
level.
o Representative democracy: people select representatives to rule on their behalf;
creates distinction elites and masses. But: enables democracy on a large scale,
professional class of rulers.
Schumpeter: democratic elitism; this is not democracy, you choose them but
only once in 4/5 years.
Majoritarian vs liberal democracy
o Majoritarian
, majority of people decides
o Liberal
As many people as possible decide
Freedom, rule of law & protection of minorities are more important than
majority preference. Trias politica (Montesquie), checks and balances.
In some ways liberal democracy is less democratic, majority doesnt alsways
decide, always checks that protect position of minorities
o Debate reflected in all democratic systems
Authoritiarian regimes
Strongly negative connotations; although someone who lives there doesnt necessarily finds it
bad
Highly diverse category; non-democracy; e.g. absolute monarchy, theocracy, one-party state,
authocracy, totalitarian state.
No competition for power: limited freedoms; differences they can make between people:
e.g. treating women differently.
Types: armed forces, despotism/dictatorship, monarchy, one-party state (communism),
theocracy (rules in place of god).
Hybrid/Illiberal regimes
In-between cases (esp after third wave)
o Diamond: 'the grey zone'
Many varieties of hybrid regimes, differs per case, eg with media/freedom etc.
Some countries appear to be progressing, others regressing
o Regime = unstable, countries switch/move around. Massive political turmoil.
Totalitarian regimes (20th century)
Fascists, communists
Subtype (or distinct category?) of authoritarianism, extreme
Makes attempt to transform society on a ideological basis; re-socializatrion of citizens,
invading private sphere of peoples' lives. Authoritarians dont engage in peoples lives, just
want to rule.
Participation is encouraged or enforced; mass mobilization (like in China, Mao).
State controls all aspects of public and private life; omnipresent.
Syste of terror enforced by secret police, keep people permanently afraid
Single mass party, often led by a charismatic dictator
Lecture 2
Cleavage: social division creating a collective identity among those on each side if the divide
Many cleavages are not (strongly) politicized
When cleavages create divergent political interests > likely to become politically salient
Cleavages are dimensions/tendencies that can create conflict within democratic borders (not
as heavy as civil war etc)
Crosscutting cleavages (stability) vs. Overlapping/parallel cleavages (double division, political
instibality)
Sorts of cleavages:
Centre-periphery
o Originated in french revolution
o Urban vs rural
Religious
o Originated in french revolution
o Conflict new elites vs church
, o Religious rights and role in public life (education)
o Can also refer to conflict between denominations, different strands of religion
Class
o Originated in industrial revolution
o Owners capital and elites vs. Working class
o Conflict abt economic conditions, political rights, redistribution
o Present in virtually all democracies
o Strength depends on opportunities for mobility
o Created (left-winged) parties socialists/soc.dem./communist vs. (right-winged)
Conservative/liberal/religious parties
Ethnic
o Post-colonial countries, emerge in ethnically diverse societies with weaker national
identities
o Overlap with linguistic, religious or center-periphery cleavages
o Conflict abt cultural rights sovereignty, seperatism
Ideology: collection of beliefs and values
Can be invoked to mobilize people around cleavages
Heuristic: Left and right, result of french revolution, revolutionaries vs conservatives
o Social constructions, can change and has changed, shifting meaning
Transformation of cleavages
'freezing hypothesis'; cleavages 1920s and 1960s are alike
Alignment: party identification on basis of cleavage structures and ideologies
Realignment: shifting party identification
Dealignment: declining party identification, not replaced
Result: apathy and cynisism, electoral volatility, changes from election to election
The 'silent revolution' (60s/70s)
Inglehart: value change in postindustrial democracies
Shift from material to post-material values, ideational/normative
o Democracy, human rights, environment, pacifism
o Prominent among younger and wealthy voters, opportunity to think/care abt these
values bc they already reached enough wealth.
Party system change: emergence of the new left (green) parties
A transnational cleavage?
Response to immigration and EU-integration
Winners vs losers of globalisation
In some countries integrated in existing party system
Electoral volatility, winners green? and far right
Cleavages in new democracies
In theory cleavage concept should travel to new democracies but new democracies don't
have same cleavages that can be seen in the west.
Explanations: no large scale processes of change, no contestation for suffrage, greater role
for individual politicians (agency), due to absense strong social organisations.
o Charisma is important
Ethnicity, not nation: still most identification.
Results: high electoral volatility (e.g. person not present anymore), personalistic politics,
patron-client linkages and clientalistic politics.
1. First undertsanding/studying own country, then some started with other countries: comparative
scholars
2. Then became a research method, how do you compare/select cases etc, focused more on
methods than on substance. Lijphart
3. Now those two are combined: substance and method
More overlap with IR
Why comparison?
Gather knowledge abt other countries, then you also (subcontious) gather info abt own
country
Methodological theories: Create classifications and develop typologies. Level of abstraction
to meaningful compare.
When you have classifications, then you can formulate and test hypotheses and theories
(and -duvergers-law and the iron-law of olichargy).
With these outcomes, make predictions abt the future
Pitfalls of comparison
Requires a lot of background information, understand contemporary systems you need
historical background
Different meaning of concepts in different cultural and linguistic contexts
Ethnocentrism = tend to judge on the basis of your referentiekader/home country where you
were socialized, comes with stereotypes
Selection bias, some countries receive much more attention than others. Smaller countries
tend to be excluded in comparative politics.
Stereotypes
Over-generalized belief abt certain group of people, mental shortcut
Part of shared/collective knowledge, powerful so be aware!
Can encourage prejudice and discrimination
The state
Main unit of political organization in the world
All territory is formally part of a state except antartica
Distinction between: state - country - government
Features of the state (since peace of Westphalia)
o Territory
o Population
o Sovereignty (internal: monopoly of force and external: able to enter relations with
others)
Anomalies
Supranational organization (EU)
o State-like, certain characteristics, features of a state
Partially rerecognized states (Taiwan, Palestine)
De facto states (somaliland), not recognized but in practice functions like a state
Failed states (somalia, south sudan), dont have internal sovereignty, no monopoly of use of
force. Do have external sovereignty
, Non-sovereign territories (greenland, Puerto Rico), former colonial territories that still have
link with former colonizer country
The nation
Imagined (people have to believe they are part of that nation) community with territorial
claim.
Social construct; intersubjective fact
Seeks self-determination: sovereignty
Nationalism: modern force; right of the nation to be sovereign
French revolution: each nation should have a state; birth of the nation-state ideal
Nationalist push to eridacate (ethnic) differeces - homogenize nation and differentiate from
other nations
Nationalism and ethnicity
Ethnicity also mostly a social construct; common descent and heritage
Ethnicity: internal or cross-cutting, national and state boundaries
Ethnic groups dont necessarily seek political sovereignty
Calhoun:
o ethnicity can overlap with the nation, or conflict with it.
o Nationalism often has an ethnic foundation - old ethnic identities are resilient and
have not disappeared
Ethnicity and nationalism are invoked by political leaders to generate mobilization and
legitimacy
Nations, states, and nation-states
Did the state create the nation, or the nation the state
Differs for each case; Depends also on the foundation of the nation:
o Ethnnicity
o Language
o Religion
o Ideals/ideology
= determines the extend to which a nations are open, can you become a member?
Nation-building: transforming a state into a nation-state
Contemporary classifications
Democracy on the one hand and authocracy on the other hand; black and white
Grey zone: hybrid/illiberal regime; Diamond
Nowdays no totalitatian regimes except North-Korea (China to be?)
Democratic regimes
Strong positive connotation, everyone calls itself a democracy
One of most hotly contested concepts in political science
'rule by the people'
Strong element of political equality; everyone has a voice
Direct vs representative democracy
o Nowhere a complete direct democracy, Switzerland comes closest with referanda.
Direct is impossible on the scale of a country, only possible to some extend on a local
level.
o Representative democracy: people select representatives to rule on their behalf;
creates distinction elites and masses. But: enables democracy on a large scale,
professional class of rulers.
Schumpeter: democratic elitism; this is not democracy, you choose them but
only once in 4/5 years.
Majoritarian vs liberal democracy
o Majoritarian
, majority of people decides
o Liberal
As many people as possible decide
Freedom, rule of law & protection of minorities are more important than
majority preference. Trias politica (Montesquie), checks and balances.
In some ways liberal democracy is less democratic, majority doesnt alsways
decide, always checks that protect position of minorities
o Debate reflected in all democratic systems
Authoritiarian regimes
Strongly negative connotations; although someone who lives there doesnt necessarily finds it
bad
Highly diverse category; non-democracy; e.g. absolute monarchy, theocracy, one-party state,
authocracy, totalitarian state.
No competition for power: limited freedoms; differences they can make between people:
e.g. treating women differently.
Types: armed forces, despotism/dictatorship, monarchy, one-party state (communism),
theocracy (rules in place of god).
Hybrid/Illiberal regimes
In-between cases (esp after third wave)
o Diamond: 'the grey zone'
Many varieties of hybrid regimes, differs per case, eg with media/freedom etc.
Some countries appear to be progressing, others regressing
o Regime = unstable, countries switch/move around. Massive political turmoil.
Totalitarian regimes (20th century)
Fascists, communists
Subtype (or distinct category?) of authoritarianism, extreme
Makes attempt to transform society on a ideological basis; re-socializatrion of citizens,
invading private sphere of peoples' lives. Authoritarians dont engage in peoples lives, just
want to rule.
Participation is encouraged or enforced; mass mobilization (like in China, Mao).
State controls all aspects of public and private life; omnipresent.
Syste of terror enforced by secret police, keep people permanently afraid
Single mass party, often led by a charismatic dictator
Lecture 2
Cleavage: social division creating a collective identity among those on each side if the divide
Many cleavages are not (strongly) politicized
When cleavages create divergent political interests > likely to become politically salient
Cleavages are dimensions/tendencies that can create conflict within democratic borders (not
as heavy as civil war etc)
Crosscutting cleavages (stability) vs. Overlapping/parallel cleavages (double division, political
instibality)
Sorts of cleavages:
Centre-periphery
o Originated in french revolution
o Urban vs rural
Religious
o Originated in french revolution
o Conflict new elites vs church
, o Religious rights and role in public life (education)
o Can also refer to conflict between denominations, different strands of religion
Class
o Originated in industrial revolution
o Owners capital and elites vs. Working class
o Conflict abt economic conditions, political rights, redistribution
o Present in virtually all democracies
o Strength depends on opportunities for mobility
o Created (left-winged) parties socialists/soc.dem./communist vs. (right-winged)
Conservative/liberal/religious parties
Ethnic
o Post-colonial countries, emerge in ethnically diverse societies with weaker national
identities
o Overlap with linguistic, religious or center-periphery cleavages
o Conflict abt cultural rights sovereignty, seperatism
Ideology: collection of beliefs and values
Can be invoked to mobilize people around cleavages
Heuristic: Left and right, result of french revolution, revolutionaries vs conservatives
o Social constructions, can change and has changed, shifting meaning
Transformation of cleavages
'freezing hypothesis'; cleavages 1920s and 1960s are alike
Alignment: party identification on basis of cleavage structures and ideologies
Realignment: shifting party identification
Dealignment: declining party identification, not replaced
Result: apathy and cynisism, electoral volatility, changes from election to election
The 'silent revolution' (60s/70s)
Inglehart: value change in postindustrial democracies
Shift from material to post-material values, ideational/normative
o Democracy, human rights, environment, pacifism
o Prominent among younger and wealthy voters, opportunity to think/care abt these
values bc they already reached enough wealth.
Party system change: emergence of the new left (green) parties
A transnational cleavage?
Response to immigration and EU-integration
Winners vs losers of globalisation
In some countries integrated in existing party system
Electoral volatility, winners green? and far right
Cleavages in new democracies
In theory cleavage concept should travel to new democracies but new democracies don't
have same cleavages that can be seen in the west.
Explanations: no large scale processes of change, no contestation for suffrage, greater role
for individual politicians (agency), due to absense strong social organisations.
o Charisma is important
Ethnicity, not nation: still most identification.
Results: high electoral volatility (e.g. person not present anymore), personalistic politics,
patron-client linkages and clientalistic politics.
