Structuralism is an approach to political science that stresses the importance of deeply rooted social, economic and political conditions to determine the ability for a state to develop economically or democratically. Structuralists also look at these factors to explain a state's susceptibility to revolution or ethnic conflict. Structuralists minimize the influence of individual actors, believing that with similar conditions and an absence of these particular people, similar outcomes would result. Lipset is a structuralist with his theory of modernization about development. Other theorists that are structuralists include Skocpol, Marx and Huntington.
Voluntarists emphasize the importance of individual actors in determining the outcomes of a particular state. They believe that leadership and the personal characteristics of national figures greatly affect the direction in which a state moves more than the structural characteristics of that particular state. Di Palma, in his essay on democratization, emphasizes the importance of individual leaders in crafting coalitions that support democracy. Examples include Lenin in USSR, Castro in Cuba, Mao in China, Mandela in South Africa, Khomeini in Iran, and Ghandi/Nehru in India.
The core and the periphery are terms often used by dependency theorists to describe the behavior of rich and poor nations, respectively, in a global capitalist environment. The core nations are Western economic powers such as the United States and Western Europe, while the periphery are the developing nations which are taken advantage of by the core. According to the theory of dependent development, countries do not develop in a vacuum, and as a result, the nations of the periphery do not have the luxury of developing in the same market-led approach taken by England. Proponents of Dependency Theory argue that rather than aiding in the development process of Third World nations, developed nations are, in fact, hindering them from industrializing. Gershenkron showed the importance of historical timing in the economic development process, and from this study, others, such as Andre Gunder Frank, have concluded that developing nations may need to break away from their economic ties with the core nations in order to avoid exploitation and unsuccessful industrialization. According to Modernization Theory, industrialization is the driving forces behind economic development and democratic development. Political change is driven by industrialization, and all societies more or less follow the same path to development. Rostow, a classical proponent of Modernization Theory, outlined five steps to economic development for developing nations that he believed all countries follow.
Lerner, another Modernization theorist, uses the theory to predict the eventual modernization of the Middle East. He concludes that since social mobility is accepted by the bourgeoisie, mass media will expand psychic mobility and encourage a desire for a better way of life. Urbanization, coupled with the effect of literacy and mass media, will lead to greater political participation in the Middle East and thus the establishment of modern societies.
In addition to predicting the ability of a society to develop economically, Modernization theory has been applied to democratization. In general, Modernization Theorists conclude that industrialization provides the foundation for democracy because it provides the social, cultural, and political changes favorable for democracy. Industrialization encourages:
o Education - (Lipset)
o Expansion of Communication
o Cross-cutting cleavages
o Civil Society
A term coined by Gershenkron, relative backwardness compares the various stages of development of nations in a given time period. When one nation modernizes, its neighbors feel the necessity to modernize quicker, in order to catch up to the level of advancement achieved by the former nation. Gershenkron studied the effects of relative backwardness as it applied to the development of England, Germany, and Russia. England, the first nation to modernize took a market-led approach, which was a slow process over the course of several centuries, to develop. Germany, with its plethora of banks, followed a bank-led approach. Russia began industrialization even later than Germany followed still a third path to industrialization because it could not use the slow capitalist path and it did not have the banking system already in place in Germany. Its state-led approach involved the heavy centralized guidance of the state in directing the nation in a direct path towards development, and this method achieved its goal very quickly because by 1950, Russia was a modern military power with a strong industrial base. Both Germany and Russia had the advantage of following England in that it could borrow England's technology in order to speed up the industrialization process, but there were a number of disadvantages that resulted from their relative backwardness as well. Since both Germany and Russia incorporate more state-driven methods, both nations had stronger authoritarian influences. Liberalism is the ideology which champions the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective or the state. Cultural theorists often argue that a liberal culture provides conditions favorable to democracy and economic development because liberalism has several characteristics which sustain economic and democratic development. For example, in liberal societies, the ultimate authority rests with the individual and not with the ruler. In addition, a liberal culture provides the foundation for acceptance of the idea that certain inalienable rights rest in the hands of the individual and should not be given to a governing authority. Liberalism promotes egalitarianism, as well, in which members of a society subscribe to the idea that all citizens are equal before the law. Furthermore, competition and choice are closely related to a liberal culture, and a tradition of these characteristics allows capitalism and democracy to, in theory, be more sustainable in a given environment. The classical cultural theorist, Max Weber, argues that the tradition of a liberal culture brought by Protestantism in Western Europe can be used to describe the economic development of Protestant areas relative the lack of development in Catholic and other places in which a liberal culture was not established. The Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs) are the countries which have recently been able to escape the economic destitution of the developing world and managed to industrialize. Interestingly, the success of the East Asian NICs, such as Taiwan and South Korea, has confounded both Modernization theorists and proponents of Dependency theory. The path to industrialization that the East Asian NICs have taken is very different from the single path detailed in Modernization Theory. Rather than completely opening their markets to Western trade, Taiwan and South Korea engaged in state-led, Export-Oriented Industrialization. Working in accordance with the traditional heavily centralized, collectivist nature of Confucian culture, these countries selectively opened their markets to certain industries while using the guidance of the government to develop certain domestic industries. According to state-led theorist, Wade, the "intense and almost unequivocal commitment on the part of government to build up the international competitiveness of domestic industry—and thereby eventually to raise living standards" was the key to their success. Export promotion required labor costs to be minimized, and for this to occur, a developing state needs to be internationally competitive. Thus, unions, worker benefits, and worker rights need to be repressed in order to maintain low costs In 1949, the fleeing Chinese nationalist party, the Kuomintang (KMT) fled mainland China and established itself in Taiwan. Its leader, Chaing Kai-Shek became President of Taiwan and set up a state-centered path towards economic development. The government limited many civil liberties, such as free elections, and worker rights in order to rapidly industrialize. The government gave Taiwanese citizens land and then told them what to do with it. In the 50s, economic development came mostly from state-owned companies. By the 60s, the government began to engage in Export-Oriented Industrialization and slowly began to liberalize the country economically. Within several decades, Taiwan was able to transform from an agrarian society to an economy comparable to many Western powers. It is important to note, however, the individual circumstances which aided Taiwan in this transformation. For practically the entire period of time that the state led development, the island had to fear invasion from the Communist mainland, and the state authorities used this fear to instill cooperation from the Taiwanese people. Also, since the United States viewed anti-Communist Taiwan as a bulwark to Communism, the US heavily aided the country by providing it more than $6 billion in foreign aid. Chile was a country with a long tradition of democratic rule in the 1960s. Economic troubles under democratically elected Socialist Allende, however, prompted a military coup led by Chilean General Augusto Pinochet and supported by the CIA on September 11, 1973. The successful coup established Pinochet as the dictator of Chile, and he pursued aggressive economic policies to try to turn around the hyperinflation and other economic problems which had been furthered under Allende's administration. With the help of the Chicago Boys, a group of neoclassical economists from the University of Chicago dedicated to the principles of the Washington Consensus, Pinochet quickly reversed Allende's Socialist policies and transformed Chile's economy into one of the most open economies in the world. Pinochet did this, however, while he brutally repressed his people and limited their civil liberties. His tenure lasted for another 17 years, and while economic difficulty continued throughout the 70s, Chile's economy grew steadily during the 80s even though most Latin American countries (who mostly followed ISI policies) were suffering from terrible economic problems. Labor repressive agriculture is a characteristic common in agrarian bureaucracies that contributes to the vulnerability of the state is agrarian societies. In agrarian bureaucracies, says Skcopol, the peasants are subject to the unchecked authority of both the landed elite and the state, and neither has autonomy over the other. Thus, the grievances instigated by such a system encourage the peasants to amass a social revolution, and the weak state is less able to stop the insurrection. In addition, because the state does not have autonomy over the landed elite, they cannot tax the wealthy citizens, forcing them to squeeze as much as they possibly can from the peasantry. However, there is a limit to this process, and the agrarian bureaucracy cannot compete with other more technologically advanced states. Eventually, these states get dragged into a war in which they cannot win, further weakening the state from its abilities to repress peasant rebellion. (Skocpol) When India gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were integral in the establishment of a democratic Indian state. India plunged into civil war, leading to the formation of Pakistan, and the economic situation was more destitute than many African states. However, these independence leaders gathered support through the Indian Congress Party to strengthen the existing democratic institutions leftover from the British occupancy. India, with its 20 different linguistic groups and 3 major religions, was an extremely fragmented, and these cross-cutting cultural cleavages (Lipset) created conditions conducive to the establishment of democracy in India despite low expectations. In addition to the advantages of having a democratic system already put in place by the British, the leaderships of Gandhi and Nehru provide good examples for voluntarist arguments (Di Palma, for example). The Indian Congress Party was committed to secularism, and under Gandhi, it became the leading force in the independence movement. Nehru came into power and served as PM until 1964. He respected the rule of law and strengthened democratic institutions. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini incited the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which ousted the pro-Western, secular Shah from power. The Shah, who had run a severely repressive police state which was propped up by the Western powers, sent Khomeini into exile when he started to speak out against the Shah's government. However, even from exile, Khomeini help to orchestrate resistance to the Shah's government. This resistance was organized through the mosques by the Muslim clerics, and after Khomeini's son died, the clerics used a 40 day mourning period to instigate a protest in which 10% of the entire population participated. The Shah fled, and although a provisional government was set up, it was clear that Khomeini possessed the true political power. A new theocracy was set up in which a religious authority (in this case, Khomeini himself) had considerable authority over the rest of the government. The Iranian Revolution, with its unique ideologically-based origins, offers a counterargument to Skocpol's view that revolutions can be examined by focusing on the structural arrangements of the state. • Primordialism is a theory of ethnicity which posits that ethnicity is invariable and is defined by one's "primordial attachments," which stem from the "assumed givens of social existence." (Geertz). Primordialists view ethnicity as something that is deeply rooted and triggered by ancient hatreds. People have a basic human need for identity because a sense of belonging is critical to one's self-esteem. Even when competing ethnic groups have sustained peace for long periods of time, primordialists believe that ethnic conflict can still be instigated by certain triggers. For example, primordialists explain the ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia in the 90s to be the resurgence of deeply rooted hatreds which had been briefly quelled under Tito. This structuralist explanation views these primodial attachments to be the reason for the violence, not leaders like Milosevic who simply ride the wave of ethnic conflict. Thus, primordialists are pessimistic about the future of pluralistic states, because, sooner or later, cultural pluralist societies are going to line up along ethnic lines, and violence will occur.
• Instrumentalism, on the other hand, is a theory of ethnicity which views it to be a strategic choice one makes in order to obtain political and material ends. While some characteristics like skin color may be impossible to choose, societies can control the extent to which innate characteristics are emphasized. According to Bates, people find that grouping along ethnic lines is a good way to secure access to valuable resources, as is the case in much of Africa. Inter-ethnic grievance, instrumentalists believe, is the result of inequality, scarcity, and fear. One sees ethnic conflict to arise often in areas where certain underprivileged groups desire the same advantages as other groups or when one group expresses physical insecurity. But, when economies are doing well and people do not have to compete for survival, ethnic conflict seems to fade. Instrumentalists also argue that ethnicity persists because it is useful for people to capitalize upon it, and examples such as Hitler and Milosevic demonstrate to instrumentalists the ability ethnic entrepreneurs have to use ethnicity to achieve their political goals. Politicians often emphasize ethnicity because it is simply the most efficient way to pursue power, playing upon ethnic grievances to amass votes from a dominant group. As a result, instrumentalism coincides with voluntarism because ethnic identities are very fluid, and the extent to which they are emphasized depends upon the individuals with power in a given society. However, if this was the case, opponents of instrumentalists, argue, ethnic change ought to occur much more frequently than it does. Instrumentalism also fails to explain why people often form ethnic groups in situations where no benefits can be found or why people from some ethnic groups readily embrace their leaders while others do not.
• Constructivism, while rejecting the primordialist notion that ethnicity is fixed or inherent, recognizes that ethnic conflict cannot be explained entirely through instrumentalism. Constructivists believe that ethnicity is socially constructed and is part of the context in which we are born and raised. While there is some degree of fluidity to ethnicity, ethnic groups are indeed formed, at least to some extent, from one's family and kinship ties, and as a result, not simply the sole product of strategic choice. In addition, Nagel argues that "political structural arrangements that spotlight diversity institutionalize ethnic differences, and increase the level of ethnic mobilization and conflict." Thus, certain institutions may encourage people to align along ethnic lines. For example, because the British possessed the power in their colonies, the ethnic lines that they set up had to endure because there was no other way to get ahead. Over time, these identities were strengthened, eventually leading to the tense relationships that currently exist among the various groups in the former British colonies. The same situation occurred when the Belgians encouraged the division of the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda.
The Hutu and the Tutsi are two ethnic groups in Rwanda, which suffered a period of devastating ethnic conflict in 1994. In Rwanda, the Hutu represent about 80 per cent of the population while the Tutsi are about 10 to 15 per cent. When the Belgians colonized Rwanda, they favored the Tutsis by giving them better governmental positions and systematically denying Hutus equal rights. Over time, the two groups began to buy into the ideology. Angered, the Hutus began to rebel against the Tutsi and right before the Belgians left, they switched sides and began to empower the Hutu. Eventually, a single party dictatorship was established which began to discriminate against the Tutsi in 1973, but the dictator did not actively promote violence. In the 80s, the economy crashed, and support for the dictator waned. The government was then opened to multiparty elections, and various groups began vying for power. At the same time, the Rwandese Patriotic Army from Uganda, which was dominated by Tutsi, began to invade Rwanda and fight the Hutu-dominated Rwandan army. Looking for ways to obtain power, the hardline mafia-like group, the Madame's Clan, began to espouse Hutu supremacist ideology that openly called for violence against the Tutsi. Hutus from neighboring Burundi began to flee to Rwanda because "Tutsi aggression" had led to the assassination of their Hutu president. On April 6, 1994, the Hutu dictator was killed, and genocide was in motion. Machetes were imported to the extent that one three Hutus were given one. Militias went village to village, and Hutu who refused to participate were killed themselves. Within 6 weeks, 2/3 of Tutsis died, which amounted to 20,000/day or 5 times the rate of the Nazis. By the end of May, few Tutsi were left. The event can provide an example of constructivism. During WWII, two anti-Nazi groups emerged, the Chetniks and the Partisans. The Chetniks advocated a return to Serbian dominated society, while the Partisans, led by Josip Tito, desired a more tolerant government that worked with all ethnic groups, not just Serbs. The communist leader sought a federal system, which he hoped would prevent the emergence of ethnic conflict. The proposed system would be decentralized with separate republics that were free to use their own language and culture. Within the republic of Serbia would be a semi-autonomous province of Kosovo, which was a small region with a Kosovar Muslim majority within Serbia. In addition, Tito advocated the protection of ethnic minorities within republics, and desired a system of redistribution, where wealthier provinces would subsidize poorer ones. In the collective presidency, Tito dominated, but after he died, power rotated amongst republics and needed consensus. During Tito's tenure, Yugoslavia was remarkably stable. The economy boomed, and living standards were higher than any other communist state in the communist world. It even seemed that people were beginning to identify as Yugoslav before their traditional ethnicities of Croat, Serb, and Slovene. However, when Tito died in 1980, he left a power vacuum, and ethnic tensions began to resurface. After Tito died in 1980, the Yugoslav economy suffered. By 1989, living standards were a mess, and there were growing calls for democracy and free elections. Serbs felt that their economic growth was being used to bolster the less productive Kosovo region, which were controlled by Albanian Muslims, and at the same time, the Serbian minority in Kosovo felt threatened. In April of 1987, a mid-level politician, Slobodan Milosevic, was sent to solve the problem in Kosovo, and with this opportunity, he made himself a nationalist hero by declaring to a crowd of angry Serbs that "no one should ever dare to beat you." Almost overnight, moods shifted, and he quickly became the most popular politician in Serbia. In addition, the Slovenes quickly began to oppose federalism because they were the wealthiest, most Westernized region in the Balkans. Thus, it can be argued that Milosevic's actions sparked the ethnic conflict which plagued the region throughout the 90s (ethnic entrepreneur), giving credence to the instrumentalist/constructivist notions of ethnicity. Kosovo is a small region of Serbia with has an Albanian Muslim majority. Feeling threatened, the Serbian minority listened as Milosevic played on their fear and incited nationalism in the Serbian people across the republic. The Albanian majority wanted an independent state, but It had no army to resist Serbian control. In 1995, the Dayton Accords said that Kosovo would still be under Serbian control, which allowed the Kosovo Liberation Army, a militia wanting armed struggle, to gain more support. Acquirin arms that had been looted from Albania, the KLA launched a guerilla war in 1998. Milosevic sent troops, and as a result, 2,000 people were killed and 250,000 Albanians were displaced. These actions prompted the US to demand that Milosevic pull out of Kosovo, and when he refused to back down, NATO started bombing for 78 days. NATO created an autonomous region under UN peacekeepers, and they are still there today. Milosevic was forced out of power in 2000. Shows ethnic security dilemma. Semi-presidentialism is a form of government which combines aspects of both presidentialism and parliamentarism. Presidential systems feature an executive which is elected separately from the legislature. He is directly elected by voters and has cabinet members who he can personally appoint. In addition, the president and his legislature each have their own electoral mandates, leading to what Linz calls dual legitimacy. Presidents are in office for fixed terms and may only be ousted through an empeachment process. On the other hand, parliamentary systems do not have a separate electoral process for the executive. In most states, no party has a majority and must form a coalition in order to form a majority. The cabinet is not separate from the parliament and the prime minister does not get to appoint his own cabinet. The executive can be removed at any time with parliamentary vote of no confidence, thus weakening the power of the executive relative to the power of his parliament. Semi-presidential systems, such as those in France, Poland, and Portugal, have both presidents and parliaments. In addition to a presidential leader, these countries have a prime minister who obtains his legitimacy from his parliament. Usually in these systems the prime minister handles day to day issues whereas the president deals with bigger issues like foreign policy. In plurality systems, the legislative or executive seat is determined by the candidate who receives the most votes (Carey). This arrangement is most compatible with presidential regimes, and there are both benefits and drawbacks to a voting system solely determined in this fashion (Carey ). Coinciding with the nature of presidential regimes, plurality systems operate in a "winner-take-all" fashion. This system unfortunately discourages political actors from participating if their support only represents marginal electoral support (Carey). Also, under plurality systems, the tendency for candidates to "cultivate personal reputations among voters" is high because voters directly elect candidates rather than parties or ideologies (Carey). As a result, party cohesion is weaker, which allows candidates to make cross-party coalitions on various issues and reduces the tendency for legislative deadlock (Carey). However, because candidates must invest time to establish their personal reputations among voters, the quality of public policy suffers (Carey). Another important characteristic is that plurality systems often promote the establishment of a two-party system, a phenomenon known as Duverger's Law (Carey). While this arrangement can, again, encourage the formation of interparty agreements, it can also create more instability within the legislature.
• At the other end of the spectrum is proportional representation (PR), an electoral voting system more commonly associated with parliamentary systems (Lijphart). Under this type of system, seats in parliament are divided according to the percentage of votes that each party receives (Lijphart). Accordingly, PR systems give rise to multiparty systems because barriers to enter the political area are lower than in plurality systems (Lijphart). Instead of having to amass the required votes to beat all opponents, the target for a particular candidate is only the amount required to reach a predetermined quota (Lijphart). Thus, PR systems avoid the conflict initiated by majority rule, which is especially important in ethnically divided states (Lijphart). In addition, multiparty arrangements are better for divided societies because they encourage the formation of coalitions (Lijphart). '"It was no accident...that the earliest moves toward proportional representation (PR) came in the ethnically most heterogeneous countries"' (Lijphart). While these benefits are important, PR also has some drawbacks. Critics argue that PR systems institutionalize the ethnic divisions within society (Lardeyret ). In addition, in many PR formats, party leaders are given considerable power because they often can select which candidates within the party are given the seats in parliament (Carey ). This arrangement encourages strict adherence to party doctrine, weakening the incentive for members of parliament to willingly reach across the aisle (Lardyret ). The formation of coalition governments, as a result, takes considerable time, which may not be a luxury in matters of national security and other pressing issues (Lardyret).
• Trying to get all the parties together at the table
• Iraq - parliament gets elected --> presidential council, one from Kurds, Sunni, Shi'a. they help select a PM.
• Want to have all the players at the table, system in Northern Ireland
• Not 100 % democratic
• Rarely proportional
• More of a quota system
• Multi-member districts
Voted for a party but not necessarily a
• Consociationalism is a set of institutions through which ethnic groups explicitly share power and resources. It has five key characteristics:
Parliamentary systems with PR
Grand Coalitions - in order to make sure that no ethnic group is left out of the political process, the government must be made up of broad coalitions.
Quota systems - for positions like parliamentary seats, judicial appointments, jobs, contracts, and education spending, and equal or proportional division of funds among each ethnic group.
Mutual Veto - power to veto the majority rule-- granted to each ethnic group, regardless of size, mutual veto power to insure that no ethnic groups gets slighted.
Segmental Autonomy - ethnic groups are allowed to attend to their own matters(issues like education and social policy are left to each group to decide)., while issues like foreign policy, defense, and macroeconomic policy are handled by the government,
• Critics of consociationalism argue that the system is not very democratic because quota systems and mutual vetoes place limits on democracy. In addition, to avoid dispute, certain issues are not addressed even when the majority of the population may feel a certain way. Also, critics argue that consociationalist governments aren't very effective because they must appease everyone. According to Lipjhart, these problems are necessary in ethnically divided states. Consociationalism proves effective in the Netherlands but it failed greatly in Lebanon, many attribute this to the rigidity of the system. In the Netherlands many of these rules were informal and could therefore evolve in time, in Lebanon, their codification had awful results leading to Civil War