Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (114)

defined as a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper.
-makes it possible for states to carry out its basic functions
-Legitimacy confers authority and power.
-In absence of legitimacy, states must rely on coercion to retain their power. With legitimacy, people obey the law, even in face of slight punishment
-As states provide security and other benefits, they can engender a reciprocal responsibility to the state.
-Legitimacy thus creates power that relies not on coercion but on consent. Without legitimacy, states would have to rely on the constant threat of force to maintain order
According to Weber - legitimacy comes in three basic forms
One - Traditional
Two - Charismatic
Three - Rational-Legal
-Traditional legitimacy rests on idea that someone or something is valid because "it's always been that way." Viewed as part of the historical identity of people themselves
-Traditional legitimacy embodies historical myths and legends as well as the continuity between past and present.
-Overall, traditional legitimacy is based on history and continuity - strongly institutionalized
-Charismatic legitimacy is opposite of traditional legitimacy - based on the power of ideas or beliefs. Typically embodied by individuals that can move and persuade the public through ideas and how they articulate them.
-Charismatic legitimacy is not institutionalized and therefore is fairly tenuous - but can be transformed into traditional legitimacy through creation of rituals or values\
-Charismatic legitimacy, power it gives individuals can corrupt
-Rational-Legal legitimacy is based on a system of laws and procedures that are presumed to be rational. Leaders gain legitimacy by the procedures / rules that allow them to come into office.
-Thus, its the office, not the individual that possesses the power, therefore unlike traditional and charismatic legitimacy, authority resides with a set of rules, not the individual, thus its strongly institutionalized
-World of modern-state is built on a rational-legal foundation
State Capacity = the ability of the state to wield power in order to carry out the basic tasks of providing security and reconciling freedom and equality
-High Capacity = able to formulate and enact fundamental policies that ensure stability and security for itself and its citizens -- requires money, organizations, legitimacy and effective leadership
State Autonomy = the ability of the state to wield its power independently of the public or international actors.
-Highly Autonomous State = may act on behalf of the public, pursuing what it believes are the best interests of the country, irrespective of public opinion.
-Low Degree of Autonomy = act largely at the behest of private individuals, groups or other states.
-High Capacity and Autonomy (China) usually come at expense of individual freedom (undermine / prevent democracy). Able to fulfill basic tasks easily because power is highly centralized
-High Capacity and Low Autonomy (US) = lower autonomy due to federal structure, fulfill basic tasks, but more personal freedom allows public to influence policy-making which constrain central authority. Thus the state may be unable to develop new policies or respond to new challenges due to the power of opposition
-High Autonomy, Low Capacity (Russia) = Its capacity to complete basic tasks faces few limitations, but state may lack the ability to complete these tasks. State can be ineffectual, thus limiting development, which provokes public unrest
-Low Autonomy, Low Capacity = States lack ability to fulfill basic tasks, subject to direct public control and interference - power highly decentralized among state and nonstate actors, weak state--- too low a level of capacity and autonomy may lead to internal state failure
-Describe views regarding the necessary pace and scope of change in the balance between freedom and equality.
-Attitudes are typically broken down into categories of radical, liberal, conservative and reactionary
-Distinct from political ideologies
-Particularistic, relative to the specific context of a given country. A view that is radical in one country, may be conservative in another
-Radicals = believe in dramatic, often revolutionary change of the existing political, social and economic order
Radicals = current system is broken, can't simply by improved or repaid, believe that politics can only be improved when entire political structure has been fundamentally transformed, remaking political institutions, government, regime and state -- thus they are more inclined to favor violence as necessary or unavoidable.
Liberals = believe that there is much to be improved in current political, social and economic institutions. However, they favor evolutionary change -- progressive change can happen through changes within the system, doesn't require the system to be overthrown. Sometimes change occurs over long periods of time and are skeptical that institutions can be replaced or transformed quickly, need constant effort to create dramatic change
Conservatives = question whether any significant or profound change in existing institutions is necessary. Skeptical of view that change is good in itself, but instead that it can be disruptive and lead to unforeseen outcomes.
Conservatives = existing institutions are key to providing basic order and continuity, too much change could result in the undermining of the legitimacy of the system
Reactionaries = similarly opposed to further evolutionary / revolutionary change, yet they view current order as totally unacceptable
Reactionaries = seek to restore political, social and economic institutions, advocate a restoration of values, a change back to a previous regime or state that they believe was superior, some focus on envisioned past ideal
Aristotle argued that human beings are political by nature
-Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau all argued human beings aren't naturally social, society is artifice that allows people to achieve what they cant on their own
All three thinkers were wrong that humans in nature were isolated individuals where society wasn't natural.
-Hobbesean Fallacy = idea that human beings were primordially individualistic and they entered into society at later stage in development only as result of rational calculation that social cooperation was best way to achieve individual ends
-Premise underlies contemporary neoclassical economies, builds on models that assume human beings are rational, want to maximize their utility
-Truth is individualism, not sociability developed over course of human history
-Human brain is hardwired with faculties that facilitate many forms of social cooperation --> Communal organizations come naturally, not as a result of conscious, rational decision
Two natural sources of cooperative behavior = kin selection and reciprocal altruism
Kin Selection = individuals of sexually reproducing species will behave altruistically toward kin in proportion to the number of genes they share - nepotism is socially and biologically grounded reality
Reciprocal Altruism = ability to cooperate with genetic strangers, social cooperation depends on an individual's ability to solve what game theorists label prisoner dilemma's games
Humans & Chimps are remarkably similar
-Chimps raise families in hierarchies - politics of dominance rule - require building consensus of supporters
-Authority = the ability to settle conflicts and set rules based on their status within the hierarchy
-Human brain grew as rapidly as it did so humans could cooperate and compete with other humans
-Game theory / cooperation = requires individuals to remember, know to cooperate with those who have shown to be honest, reliable, anticipate their future behavior
-Humans have ability for language, allow or greater cooperation and cognitive development - can communicate who was honest
-Language also allows for abstraction and theory, which are critical for humans - make mental models - ability to create mental models and attribute causality to invisible abstractions is basis for religion
-Religion = source of social cohesion that permits humans to cooperate far more widely and securely than if they were simple rational, self-interested agents.
-Collective action begins to break down as size of cooperating group increases. Large groups, harder and harder to monitor the individual contributions of members, free riding behavior becomes more common
-Religion solves this collective action problem by presenting rewards and punishments that greatly reinforce the gains from cooperation.
-Religion - biblical morality - returning favors for favors
-Survival benefits conferred by enhanced social cohesion = reason that religious belief is hardwired into human brain
-Human being developed certain emotional responses that amount to autopilot mechanism promoting social behavior = thus emotional reactions often produce the rationally correct response
-These emotions often make humans conformist, norm-following animals --> faculties for norm following are genetically based
-Humans invest so much emotion in abiding by a norm that it becomes irrational with respect to self-interest
-That, humans become attached to certain rules, not to achieve short-term goals, but as ends in themselves greatly enhances stability of social life
-Problematic though because rules may apply over large number of cases, but irrelevant under specific circumstances and become dysfunctional when conditions cause them to change
-Institutional rules are "sticky" and resistant to change, which is one of chief sources of political decay.
-Desire for recognition and status-seeking behavior has become genetically coded in human brains but only humans can seek recognition or abstract things
Demands for Recognition = identity politics
Identity Politics = modern phenomenon that arises mostly in fluid, pluralistic societies where people take on multiple identities
-Coerced Recognition isn't meaningful - political leadership emerges because a community admires a particular individual --> if politics is a struggle over leadership, also about followership
-As political systems develop, recognition is transferred from individuals to institutions - rules or patterns of behavior that persist over time
-Political order is based on legitimacy and authority that arises from legitimate domination.
-Legitimacy means that the people who make up the society recognize the fundamental Justice of the system as a whole and are willing to abide by its rules
-Political power is ultimately based on social cohesion --> not only product of resources, number of citizens that society commands, but also degree to which the legitimacy of the leaders and institutions is recognized
-Human beings are rational, self-interested creatures and will learn to cooperate out of pure self-interest, but human nature provides certain structured paths towards sociability
-Inclusive fitness, kin selection and reciprocal altruism are default modes of sociability --people favor relatives, friends
-Human beings have capacity or abstraction and theory, generate mental models of causality - basis for religious beliefs
-Humans have proclivity for norm following
-Humans desire recognition
-Recognition when granted becomes the basis of legitimacy and legitimacy permits the exercise of political authority
-Higher-level institutions are in some sense unnatural, when they break down, humans revert to earlier form of sociability - basis for patrimonialism
-Tendency to invest mental models / theories promote social stability, allow society to increase in size, also means that societies are highly conservative and will fiercely resist challenges to dominant ideas
-Conservatism of societies with regard to rules is a source of political decay
-Rules or institutions created in response to one set of environmental circumstances become dysfunctional under later conditions, but can't be changed due to people's heavy emotional investment --- social change isnt linear, rather follows pattern of prolonged stasis followed by catastrophic change -->violence is central to political development
-Political power ultimately rests upon recognition - the degree to which a leader / institution is regarded as legitimate and can command respect of followers
-Connected to the rise of early agriculture or pastoral nomadism -- domestication of plants, food
-Greater productivity supports larger groups (population boom)
-Property is owned communally by kin group, not individual, it is held in trust for descendants of lineage
-Justice: no 3rd party enforcement, but nonbinding arbitration, Revenge or reparations are obligations of kinsmen
-2 Features define Tribes: Segmentary organization and ancestor worship
Tribes have no need for states because:
-relations are based on family and lineage, power and authority based on family or basic skills
-These primary relationships do not disappear as more elaborate forms of political organization evolve - they remain present in the background and may re-emerge if higher forms decay or fail
Segmentary Organization = small-scale social units, no overall centralized political structure, not subject to division of labor,
-Each segment is self-sufficient, they come together for common purposes such as self-defense
-Tribes took hold across human societies was due to religious belief - ancestor worship
-Development of lineages, religion becomes more complex and institutionalized, which affects other institutions like leadership and property
-Religion and kinship are closely connected in tribal societies
-Ancestor Worship is particularistic, no common gods worshiped
-The individual is tied to both dead ancestors and unborn descendants, thus his existence as a person is necessary but insignificant besides his existence as a representative of the whole
-Ideas, in the form of religious beliefs, have a huge impact on social organization
Rousseau = inequality first based in privatizing of property
Modern neoclassical economist = strong private property rights are source of long-term economic growth
-History - communal ownership undermined incentives to use property efficiently (Tragedy of Commons)
-Earliest forms of private property were not held by individuals, but by lineages, kin groups - motivation was economic as well as religious and social
-Property was held as kind of trust on behalf of dead ancestors and unborn descendants --> couldn't be sold
-Property and kinship closely connected - way to care for your family
-Extent to which tribally owned property is well / poorly cared for is function of inner cohesion of tribe
-Tribal societies have weak centralized sources of authority, thus much less ability to coerce individuals
-Tribes possess no 3rd party enforcement of rules associated with modern legal system
-Justice is matter of self-help & negotiation between decentralized units that constitute effectively sovereign decision makers
-All tribal societies have comparable institutions for seeking justice - obligations on kinsmen to seek revenge or restitution for wrongs, a nonbinding system of arbitration for settling disputes, customary schedule of payments for wrongs committed
-3rd-party enforcement of judicial decisions had to await the emergence of states -- but tribal societies did develop increasingly complex institutions for rendering judgments in civil and criminal disputes
-Human highly developed social skills & ability to cooperate are precondition for violence - vulnerability of isolated individuals to get attacked by marauding gangs made those who were able to cooperate with others to defense themselves more likely to survive and pass their genes
-Agriculture made possible higher possible densities --> created a need for organizing societies on a larger scale
-Agriculture also created the need for private property, which became heavily intertwined with complex kinship structures
-Also transitioned to tribes due to the problem of warfare
-Agriculture = humans living in much closer proximity, generate surpluses, more to protect and steal
-When tribal-level societies were succeeded by state-level societies, tribalism didn't disappear.
-State institutions were layered on top of tribal institutions and existed in an uneasy balance.
-Mistake of early modernization theory is that politics, economics, culture had to be congruent with each other
-Only place tribalism was fully superseded by more voluntary and individualistic forms of social relationship was Europe (Christianity was critical in undermining kinship)
-Underlying social relationship between politician and their supporters is same as in a kinship group - based on reciprocal exchange of favors between leader and followers, where leadership is won rather than inherited, based on leader's ability to advance the interests of group --> Russia in 1990s-2000s
Pristine State Creation (in theory)
-Sufficient abundance to create surpluses
-Must have large enough scale, but physically constrained
-Motivation to give up tribal form of organization, surrender freedom, accept inequality
-More often religion and war are the answers - no case of pristine state formation exists

State - Voluntary Social Contract
-Hobbes - in return from exiting state of nature, giving up right to do what one pleases, the state through monopoly of force guarantees each citizen basic security / provides other public goods
-Tribes provide limited public goods due to lack of centralized authority
-Suggests that the chief motivating issue were simply economic like protection of property rights or provision of public goods
-Highly unlikely that tribe would go this way

-Hydraulic theory of the state
-Wittfogel expanded on Marx's theory of Asiatic mode of production, providing an economic explanation for emergence of dictatorships
-rise of state in Egypt, China, Mexico driven by need for large-scale irrigation, which could only be managed by large centralized bureaucratic state

Population Density
-population increase and high population densities = important drivers of of technological innovation
-Population increase promotes state formation by permitting specialization and a division of labor between elites and nonelites
-Low-density, tribal-level societies can mitigate conflict simply by moving away from each other, dense populations don't possess this option --> scarcity of land/ resources likely to trigger conflicts - require more centralized forms of political authority
-Population increase = result of technological innovation such as agricultural revolution

Product of Violence and Compulsion
-transition from tribe to state involves huge losses in freedom and equality
-Readily explained by threat posed by organized violence
-Hierarchy and state could emerge when one tribe conquered another one, took control of its territory, needed centralized repressive institution (administrative bureaucracy) to control conquered tribe

Geographical Environmental Factors
-areas allowing for agriculture - circumscribed valleys allow for more concentrated military formations to be raised thus they can project their power over larger areas, especially if horses are domesticated
-size and accessibility of the area - protection from enemies

Product of Charismatic Authority
-Religious ideas were critical to early state formation = could effectively legitimate the transition from hierarchy and loss of freedom enjoy by tribal societies
-Religious authority allows a particular tribal leader to solve large-scale collective action problem of uniting various autonomous tribes -- explain why free tribal people would willing to make a permanent delegation of authority to a single individual
-Requires new form of religion that overcomes inherent scale limitations of ancestor worship (Emergence of Mohammad - Arab state)
-Every state has relied on religion to legitimate itself
Clear progression over time in complexity, scale and energy use of societies - converging general evolution at work as disparate societies found similar solutions to common problems of social organizations
Primordial form of human social organizations = tribal
-Early social life - understood in terms of complex kinship groups
1) Bands
-Hunter-gatherer societies that preceded agricultural ones based on small groups of nomadic families comparable in scale to primate bands - still exist (Eskimos, Aborgines)
-No private property, inhabit a territorial range that they guard, sometimes fight over
-Basic unit is the family or a few families grouped into clans
-Bands are small because land wont support large concentrations of people
-Leadership is based on individual qualities & achievements - leaders emerge based on group consensus
-No centralized source of coercion / no law
-Experience "Tyranny of Cousins"
Tyranny of Cousins = social world was limited to the circles of relatives surrounding you, who determined what you did, whom you married, how you worshiped, etc.
-Moral rules directed against those who refuse to share, not those who steal
-Society is highly-egalitarian

2) Tribal Society
--Connected to the rise of early agriculture or pastoral nomadism -- domestication of plants, food
-Greater productivity supports larger groups (population boom)
-Property is owned communally by kin group, not individual, it is held in trust for descendants of lineage
-2 Features define Tribes: Segmentary organization and ancestor worship
-Segmentary Organization = small-scale social units, no overall centralized political structure, not subject to division of labor,
-Each segment is self-sufficient, they come together for common purposes such as self-defense
-Tribes took hold across human societies was due to religious belief - ancestor worship
--Religion and kinship are closely connected in tribal societies
-Ancestor Worship is particularistic, no common gods worshiped
-The individual is tied to both dead ancestors and unborn descendants, thus his existence as a person is necessary but insignificant besides his existence as a representative of the whole
-Ideas, in the form of religious beliefs, have a huge impact on social organization
-Tribal societies are far more powerful militarily than band-level ones
-War did not first make the state, it made the tribe as well
-Tribal societies are far more organized, greater organizational flexibility
-Loose, decentralized system of organization is source of both strength and weakness --> networked organization can generate enormous striking power, able to range over enormous distances and conquer huge territories
-Lack of permanent leadership, looseness of ties binding segments, absence of clear rules of succession doomed tribal societies to long-run weakness and decline
-Without permanent political authority and administrative capacity, they could not govern the territories they conquered, depended on settled societies to provide administration

3) States
-1) the state possesses a centralized source of authority - creates hierarchy of subordinates that enforces rules for all of society
-centralized authority trumps all others in sovereignty. All administrative levels within the state derive their authority from association with sovereign
2) Source of authority is backed by a monopoly of the legitimate means of coercion - army or police - prevents segments, tribes from separating (differentiates from chiefdom)
3) Authority of the state is territorial rather than kin based
4) States are far more stratified and unequal than tribal societies with the ruler and his administrative staff separating themselves from society.
5) States are legitimated by much more elaborate forms of religious belief.
-In a state, kinship becomes an obstacle to political development --> threatens return of political relationships to small-scale, personal ties of tribal societies
-Hierarchy and state could emerge when one tribe conquered another one, took control of its territory, needed centralized repressive institution (administrative bureaucracy) to control conquered tribe
-Religious ideas were critical to early state formation = could effectively legitimate the transition from hierarchy and loss of freedom enjoy by tribal societies
-Religious authority allows a particular tribal leader to solve large-scale collective action problem of uniting various autonomous tribes -- explain why free tribal people would willing to make a permanent delegation of authority to a single individual
-Requires new form of religion that overcomes inherent scale limitations of ancestor worship (Emergence of Mohammad - Arab state)
-Pristine state formation = confluence of factors
1) needs to be sufficient abundance of resources to permit creation of surpluses
2) Absolute scale of society has to be sufficiently large to permit the emergence of a rudimentary division of labor and a ruling elite
3) Population needs to be physically constrained so that it increases in density when technological opportunities present themselves and in order to make sure that subjects can't run away when coerced
4) Tribal groups have to be motivated to give up their freedom to the authority of the state --> can result from coercion or charismatic authority of religious leader
-Huntington - no reason to assume that political development was any more likely than political decay
-Political order emerges as a result of the achievement of some equilibrium among the contending forces within a society.
-As time goes on, change occurs internally and externally, actors who established the original equilibrium themselves evolve or disappear, new actors appear, economic and social conditions shift, the society is invaded from the outside or faces new terms of trade or imported ideas.
-As a result, preceding equilibrium no longer holds, political decay results until existing actors come up with a new set of rules and institutions to restore order
-Corruption: a major source of decay
-Institutional rules are "sticky" and resistant to change, which is one of chief sources of political decay.
--Higher-level institutions are in some sense unnatural, when they break down, humans revert to earlier form of sociability - basis for patrimonialism
-Patrimonialism: the re-emergence of personalistic ties (as in a kinship group) and the reciprocal exchange of favors between a leader and followers as the basis of political order. The leader's authority is based on his ability to advance the interests of this group of supporters.
[O'Neil's definition of patrimonialism: A form of personal rule based on co-optation, in which a ruler distributes benefits to a (small) group of regime supporters inside the state itself. The ruling group gains direct benefits in return for enforcing the leader's will. The state elite swear allegiance to the leadership in return for personal profit. A form of clientelism, but with benefits limited to a small group of personal supporters of the ruler.]
-Tendency to invest mental models / theories promote social stability, allow society to increase in size, also means that societies are highly conservative and will fiercely resist challenges to dominant ideas
-Conservatism of societies with regard to rules is a source of political decay
-Performance Failure
-Emergence of new actors, national interests
-Environmental Conditions (China), Self-Coup -- reverted back to patrimonial aristocracy - eventually patrimonialism returned as organizing principle of Chinese politics
-Inverse relationship between strength of centralized state and strength of patrimonial groups
-Tribalism in various forms, remains a default form of political organization, even after a modern state has been created
-Military decay - extended too far,
-Erosion of Social Capital
-Economic decline
-However a full revolution is that the exception to the rule that a centralized state will devolve to earlier forms of political organizations
-While revolution's may arise due to state failure, it differs from it in that it is a contest for control of an existing state structure. The long-term result of a revolution is almost always an increase in the power of the state.
1) Economy Slowed Down
-No more cheap inputs, manpower, raw materials
-Unit costs of production went up
-Transaction costs rose
-No technological innovation outside of military - heavy military spending, disproportionate - basic technology, consumer goods lagged behind the West, rest of the World
-Overall, system failed to generate growth and wealth
-people were skeptical of communism
-

2) Incentives Disappeared
-Due to poor economy, lack of surplus, state planning became cumbersome
-economy became too large to manage, unable to enable more autonomy at mid-managerial level to remain responsive at local level
-Made the lag behind the West obvious --> Soviets wanted foreign goods, couldn't possess them
-Perestroika = Gorbachev economic reforms - free market policies added, but failed businesses resulted due to price controls kept in place. With price ceiling limiting profits, incentive to produce sufficient quantities was removed
-Lack of economic incentives to encourage innovation, ambitious productivity

3) Political System became Corrupt and Contemptible
-Corruption, Bad policies, poor planning, rigid, isolated system of Soviet power with restricted movement and incredible levels of bureaucracy
-Glasnost - Gorbachev tried to show more transparency into secretive government, this backfired, public learned of long-standing cover-ups
-true extent of economic problems, eroded support for the regime


4) Younger generation wasn't as motivated to continued Cold War, liked the appeal of foreign goods, capitalism, wasn't impressed by current system, wanted reforms and didn't buy into political system, communist ideals
-Ideology is outdated
-Consumerism conquered Communism
O'Neill defines the nation state as a sovereign state encompassing one dominant nation that it claims to embody and represent - most of the multiethnic empires that dominated Europe would be destroyed, replaced by nation-states that were dominated by distinct ethnic groups and political identities
-Ambition of the nation-state is to foster a common national identity, typically based on a uniform language
-The most noticeable characteristic is the degree to which nation states use the state as an instrument of national unity, in economic, social and cultural life.
-More centralized, public administration
-Create uniform national culture through state policy
-Soviets created a pseudo-federal system based on ideology and a centralized communist apparatus
-Ideology: Soviet communism turned out to be the least and highest stage of Imperialism --->
-Create imperial nationalism based on the ruling people
-Russification
-In reality, Russia intentionally then and still continues to suppress ethnic differences
-"Soviet Nationality" promoted -->
-when ethnic differences subtly encouraged and exploited
-Outbreaks of "ethnic cleansing" follow break-up of empire
-Anti-semitism a constant
-Isolation from outside world reinforces views
-Chechen Conflict
Stalin
-Destroyed Russian village culture, created Soviet Industrial Empire
-Erected Iron Curtain, isolated Soviet Union from the World
-Created one centralized ideology
-Overall, Russia is not a conventional nation-state
-Originally, an empire that was forced by an external conquest by one people over its neighbors
-Ethnically diverse, not ethnically similar population
Revolution:
-A long build-up; delegitimization of the existing regime
-Failure to accommodate rising classes, economic systems
-Failure to respond to demands for mass participation
-Failure to adjust to new ideas about legitimacy (e.g., subject to citizen)
-A terminal crisis; massive performance failure (often in war)
-Contest for the control of existing state machinery, often resulting in a stronger state
-Marxist elements of revolution: driven by technological and economic change; occurs when exploited class becomes aware of itself and rises against oppressors; occurs only when situation is ripe - one stage of production gives way to the next, etc.
-Key components of a "social revolution," according to Skocpol: a rapid, basic transformation of a society's state and class structures, accompanied and supported by class-based revolts from below. Social revolutions (for Skocpol) transform state organizations, class structures, and ideologies and lead to the consolidation of stronger states.
a public seizure of the state in order to overturn the existing government and regime
-involve some element of public participation
-there are typically leaders, organizers, instigators of revolution
-revolutions gain control of the state
-objective of revolution is not simply the removal of those in power, but the removal of the entire regime --> seek to fundamentally remake the institutions of politics, economic, social institutions
Skocpol
-Unique since basic changes in social structure and political structure occur together in mutually reinforcing fashion
-state has its own interests, is autonomous body, stresses that revolutions only happen when state is disadvantaged relative to other states
-structural perspective - class based revolts - peasants
-both domestic and international environments -- seek to reform to increase autonomy and capacity, hoping changes to domestic institutions will boost international power - greater state centralization --> threatens status quo, undermines entrenched elites, angers public, creates resistance.
-While revolution's may arise due to state failure, it differs from it in that it is a contest for control of an existing state structure. The long-term result of a revolution is almost always an increase in the power of the state.

State Decay / Failure
-Institutional rules are "sticky" and resistant to change, which is one of chief sources of political decay.
--Higher-level institutions are in some sense unnatural, when they break down, humans revert to earlier form of sociability - basis for patrimonialism
-Tendency to invest mental models / theories promote social stability, allow society to increase in size, also means that societies are highly conservative and will fiercely resist challenges to dominant ideas
-Conservatism of societies with regard to rules is a source of political decay
-While state decay occurs not when regime is overthrown but when state are not well institutionalized and lack authority and legitimacy.
-Possesses limited power, at an extreme, very structures / institutions of the state may become so weak that they break down
-Have low capacity and low autonomy
-All political regimes eventually decay and fail. There is a constant process of competition, testing and challenge - a form of "survival of the politically fittest"
-Eventually states do decay, fail due to internal collapse or conquest from the outside.
-As states fail, political life reverts back to earlier forms of political organization (or disorganization) - patrimonialism
-State failure is always a possibility
-revert back to kinship
-Institutions have been hollowed out, an unhealthy reliance on the booms and busts of commodity cycles has become a de facto national budgetary reality, and stratospheric levels of bureaucratic incompetence, corruption, and mismanagement have worsened
-Putin's decision to imprison one-time richest Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky on trumped-up charges of financial crimes. This oligarch - a great beneficiary of the absurdly under-priced fire sale of state energy infrastructure assets - used his billions to both expand a business empire (primarily through the implementation of various efficiencies that greatly enhanced the extraction capabilities of Soviet oil and gas mega-plexes) and bankroll anti-Putin activities. With an ego and ambition to match his outsized pocketbook, Khodorkovsky was unwilling to bow to Putin's call for a state-centric natural resource development trajectory - a call that would curtail Khodorkovsky's monetary returns, usher in a new high-taxation regime and enrich a cadre of routinely predatory bureaucrats. This stubborn stance cost him greatly, as he was made an example of when Putin finally arrested the tycoon on his private jet. Shaken, the other oligarchs learned an important lesson: Putin's United Russia will not tolerate insubordination or resistance from anyone - including the most powerful or seemingly untouchable.
-The "vertical of power" Putin created to order after the chaotic 1990s became, in the absence of functioning institutions, a "vertical of loyalty" and corruption, binding together incompetent but venal bureaucrats
-Judah does an excellent job of examining the weakness in the opposition. Since the nineties, Moscow has transformed into an increasingly European city with a strong middle class. The city now houses the opposition movement. However, Judah argues, there is no leader and no goal—only anti-Putin sentiment. The opposition is too fragmented and disorganized to change the leadership
-
Social Revolutions have transformed state organizations, class structures and dominant ideologies.
-Give birth to nations whose power and autonomy markedly surpasses their own prerevolutionary pasts and outstripped other countries in similar circumstances
-Social Revolutions are rapid, basic transformations of a society's state and class structures and are accompanied / in part carried through by class-based revolts from below
-Social revolutions are set apart from other sorts of conflicts and transformative processes by the combination of two coincidences:
1) the coincidence of societal structural change with class upheaval
2) the coincidence of political with social transformation

-state has its own interests, is autonomous body
-Stresses that revolutions only happen when state is disadvantaged relative to other states --> may have just lost wars, vulnerable to attack --> emerge from these situations, then leaders appear - take hold
-Ideology is key - mobilizes support, keeps people involved, won't predict outcome of revolution
-Revolution only finished when you have new state organization --> change in class structure, ideology
-Administrative and coercive interests that are separate from society and ruling classes
-State goes beyond regime and government
-structural perspective - class based revolts - peasants
-both domestic and international environments -- seek to reform to increase autonomy and capacity, hoping changes to domestic institutions will boost international power - greater state centralization --> threatens status quo, undermines entrenched elites, angers public, creates resistance.

-Rebellions, even if successful, may involve the revolt of subordinate classes, but do not involve structural change
-What is unique to social revolution is that basic changes in social structure and in political structure occur together in a mutually reinforcing fashion

Differing Definition:
1- identifies complex object of explanation
2 - makes successful sociopolitical transformation - actual change of state and class structures - part of the specification of what is to be called social revolution, rather than leaving change contingent in the definition of revolution

Social revolutions analyzed by structural perspective - with attention devoted to international contexts and to developments at home and abroad that affect the breakdown of the state organizations of old regimes and the buildup of new, revolutionary state organizations

Aggregate-psychological theories = attempt to explain revolutions in terms of people's psychological motivations for engaging in political violence
Systems-value consensus theories = attempt to explain revolutions as violent responses of ideological movements to severe disequilibrium in social systems
Political-Conflict Theories = argue that conflict among governments and various organized groups contending for power must be placed at the center of attention to explain collective violence and revolutions

Chalmers Johnson-When they succeed, what revolutions change above all are the core-value orientations of a society. Yet such a movement will not emerge unless the existing social systems comes into crisis.

Social Revolutions require:
1) Analyst take a nonvoluntarist, structural perspective
2) Social revolutions can't be explained without systematic reference to international structures & world historical developments
3) To explain causes / outcomes of social revolutions, it is essential to conceive of states ad administrative and coercive organizations - that are potentially autonomous from socioeconomic interests / structures

-Find the emergence of a revolutionary situation within an old regime, then identify the objectively conditioned and complex intermeshing of the various actions of the diversely situated groups - that shapes the revolutionary process and gives rise to the new regime --- most look at domestic and international relationships
-Consolidation of stronger states after revolution
-features class based revolts
Hobbes recommends third-party enforcement by the Leviathan - coercive enforcement is expensive, third-party must be trustworthy
-game theory - cooperation should be easier when players engage in repeated games
-Cooperation favored when # of players are limited, information about player's past behavior is abundant
-Role of formal institutions in reducing "transaction costs," costs of monitoring and enforcing agreements - enabling more careful control of opportunism and shirking
-Cooperative communities will enable rational individuals to transcend collective dilemmas
-Voluntary cooperation is easier in a community that has inherited a substantial stock of social capital in form of norms of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement
Social Capital = features of social organization, such as trust, norms, networks that can improve efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions
-social capital is productive, makes possible achievements of certain ends that would be unattainable in its absence
-Critical to keep up obligations - have reputation for honesty and reliability
-Small, personalized communities - threat of ostracism from socioeconomic system is powerful sanction
-Social networks allow trust to be transitive and spread
-Most forms of social capital (trust) = "moral resources" - supply increases rather than decreases through use, depleted if not used
-Social capital = a public good
-Trust is essential component of social capital --> social trust has long been a key ingredient to sustained economic dynamism and government performance
-Trust creates cooperation, greater level of trust within community, greater the likelihood of cooperation --> cooperation breeds trust --> but in larger, more complex are, more impersonal, indirect form of trust is required
-Social trust arises from 2 sources: norms of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement
-Norms essential to social trust evolution because they lower transaction costs and facilitate cooperation
-Bridging - a social tie that brings together individuals of dissimilar backgrounds/identities (e.g. bowling leagues)
-Bonding - a social tie that brings together individuals with similar backgrounds/identities; often with the explicit goal of perpetuating the interests of that group (e.g. exclusive clubs)
-Horizontal - a social tie that brings together agents of equivalent status and power and helps facilitate reciprocal ties and trust
-Vertical - a social tie between unequal agents that is asymmetric, hierarchical, dependent, and not as conductive to trust
-Reciprocity, either "balanced" (specific) or "generalized" (diffuse)
-Balanced Reciprocity = simultaneous exchange of items of equivalent value
-Generalized Reciprocity = continuing relationship of exchange, that at some time is unbalanced, but involves expectations that everything will be equal in the future --> highly productive component of social capital
-Generalized Reciprocity serves to reconcile self-interest and solidarity --> likely associated with dense networks of social exchange
-Any society, authoritarian or democratic, is characterized by networks of interpersonal communication and exchange.
-Networks of civic engagement are essential form of social capital --> increase potential costs to a defector in individual transaction
-Networks foster robust norms of reciprocity, facilitate communication, improve flow of information about trustworthiness of individuals
-Vertical networks, no matter how dense, cannot sustain social trust and cooperation -- flows on information are less reliable
-Networks of civic engagement are more likely to encompass broad segments of society and help strengthen collaboration at the community level --> more horizontally structured an organization, the more it should foster institutional success in broader community
-Norms of generalized reciprocity and networks of civic engagement encourage social trust and cooperation because they reduce incentives to defect, reduce uncertainty and provide models for future cooperation
-Trust is emergent property of the social system and social capital in the form of trust, norms and networks tends to be self-reinforcing
-Virtuous cycles result in social equilibrium with high levels of cooperation, trust, reciprocity, civic engagement and collective well-being --> define civic community
-returns on opportunism, cheating and shirking rise in complex societies --> importance of social capital to deter these things increases as economic development proceeds
-Reciprocity and trust vs. dependence / exploitation (authoritarian government) each can hold society together, but at differing levels of institutional performance
-Path dependence (US) colonialism - inherited civic traditions from English, not centralized authoritarianism of the Spanish
-More civic the context, the better the government - collective institutions work better in the civic community
-Democratic government is strengthened, not weakened, when it faces a vigorous civil society
-Citizens in civic communities expect better government - they demand more effective public service and are prepared to act collectively to achieve their shared goals
-Performance of representative government is facilitated by the social infrastructure of civic communities and the democratic values of both officials and citizens.
-Most fundamental to civic community is social ability to collaborate for shared interests
-norms and networks of civic engagement are lacking, outlook for collective actions appears bleak.
-For political stability, for government effectiveness and even for economic progress, social capital may be even more important than physical or human capital.
-In absence of social trust, there can be no certainty in contracts and no force to the laws, thus society in that condition is effectively reduced to a state of semi-savagery
More civic the context, the better the government - collective institutions work better in the civic community
-Democratic government is strengthened, not weakened, when it faces a vigorous civil society
-Citizens in civic communities expect better government - they demand more effective public service and are prepared to act collectively to achieve their shared goals
-Performance of representative government is facilitated by the social infrastructure of civic communities and the democratic values of both officials and citizens.
-Most fundamental to civic community is social ability to collaborate for shared interests
-norms and networks of civic engagement are lacking, outlook for collective actions appears bleak.
-For political stability, for government effectiveness and even for economic progress, social capital may be even more important than physical or human capital.
-Societies that rely heavily on the use of force are likely to be less efficient, more costly and more unpleasant than those where trust is maintained by other means
-Political systems with weak or "bad' (exclusive) social capital --> there is a stable equilibrium of negative expectations - i.e. generalized mistrust
-A ruler's claim to legitimacy is viewed as suspicious, his performance dismissed as deception
-Legitimacy is eroded, state paralysis threatens (state failure - worst case scenario) - corruption is the effect and cause


-Horizontal networks of civic engagement that encompass broad segments of society are essential to building collaboration at the regional level
-Weak ties (shared acquaintances, shared membership in groups) are more important in sustaining community cohesion and collective action
-Weak ties link members of different small groups --> networks of civic engagement that cut across a variety of groups nourish wider cooperation
-In absence of social trust, there can be no certainty in contracts and no force to the laws, thus society in that condition is effectively reduced to a state of semi-savagery
-Social trust has long been a key ingredient in the ethos that has sustained economic dynamism and government performance.
-Trust lubricates cooperation - greater the level of trust within a community, the greater the likelihood of cooperation --> creates self-perpetuation cycle - more cooperation = more trust
3 Types of Power:
1) Simple-minded Power = Intended and Observable Results - A gets B to do something that B would not otherwise do, often by appealing to motives of fear or greed
2) Negative Power (Power of Non-Decisions)
-power to block, derail, subvert, quash (classic power of lower-level bureaucrats)
-This face of power is often invisible, therefore non-measurable, you know it's there, but can't prove it.
3) Manipulation of Wants and Beliefs
-socialization
-The shaping of people's wants, preferences, incentives and conceptions of what is possible (education, media, advertising, myths, symbols, etc)
-Power at this level may or may not be deliberate
-Power is only beneficial if it's organized - greater the concentration, the more dangerous it is (Totalitarianism)
--Politics is the competition for public power, and power is the ability to extend one's will
--fukuyama = political power is based ultimately on social cohesion

Authority = less obvious variant / form of power
-Authority exists when A appeals to more subtle motives in B
-Max Weber identified 3 such motives
-B thinks A is God, has magic powers, will stop bullets - "charisma"
-B obeys A because it has always been that way "tradition'
-B obeys A because the order is legal or "rational"
-Fukuyama = political order is based on legitimacy and the authority that arises from legitimate domination.

State must have authority as well as power
-State needs to have their power legitimated by authority
-Legitimacy confers authority and power.
-In absence of legitimacy, states must rely on coercion to retain their power. With legitimacy, people obey the law, even in face of slight punishment
-Power can reinforce authority, and authority is one of the primary sources of power.
-Power goes hand in hand with authority because a person with power will often have more authority over individuals or groups of people in an organization.
-Authority involves the duties that are delegated to an individual while power is the possession of control that allows an individual to influence the actions of others. Most individuals who are in positions of power often have some type of authority
-Modern day - all social institutions from international credit markets to regional government depend on how collective action problems are resolved

For political stability, for government effectiveness and even for economic progress, social capital may be even more important than physical or human capital.
-Social capital critical to making a democracy work
More civic the context, the better the government - collective institutions work better in the civic community
-Democratic government is strengthened, not weakened, when it faces a vigorous civil society
-Citizens in civic communities expect better government - they demand more effective public service and are prepared to act collectively to achieve their shared goals
-Performance of representative government is facilitated by the social infrastructure of civic communities and the democratic values of both officials and citizens.
-Most fundamental to civic community is social ability to collaborate for shared interests
-norms and networks of civic engagement are lacking, outlook for collective actions appears bleak.

These questions matter because all 3 of these items are essential to the flourishing of the state. Countries that possess few civic traditions and limit civic engagement risk reducing the citizens' trust in the ruling body, which can serve to undermine their legitimacy thus hurting their ability to exercise their power and authority to govern.
-Globalization and globalized institutions complicated the ability of states to maintain sovereignty.
-According to Weber:
-state = an organization that maintains a monopoly of force over a territory
-typically highly institutionalized --> set of political institutions to generate and carry out policy
-Characterized by such institutions as army, police, taxation, legal and social welfare system
-essential that it possesses sovereignty - the ability to carry out actions and policies within a territory dependent of external actors and internal rivals.
-needs to be primary authority over its territory, people who live there, passing and enforcing laws, defining and protecting rights.
-state needs power, typically, not only physical power - needs to defend its territory from outside actors / other states, runs the risk that rivals will interfere with its authority.
-Nation-states are under attack from several sources:
-Regional independence or autonomy movements, disillusionment with "patriotism"
-"Transnational" organizations that bypass, undermine national governments (notably large international corporations) - GE, others - Tax Collection
-Globalized flows of money, drugs, weapons, people, information, which states can't control
--In general, domestic politics become subject to international forces, while international politics become increasingly affected by domestic politics. It becomes more difficult for national governments to maintain "monopolies of power," such as control over borders, monetary policy, property (including intellectual property).
-Major drivers of evolution of political forms:
-Economic advances: from hunter-gatherers to agriculturists to metallurgists
-Capacity Increases: The development of writing and bureaucracy
-Cultural Changes: From ancestor worship to organized religion
-Challenges the ability of states to protect their citizens from physical and ecological harm (e.g. global disease; lead in toys)
-Challenges the ability of the state to combat crime and protect its citizens from harm and fraud (e.g. human trafficking; fraudulent goods)
-Challenges the ability of states to extract taxes due to offshore sheltering and complex international tax law.
-Challenges the ability of states to provide a robust safety net for its citizens and/or help workers adapt to changing global conditions (states become leaner and meaner).
-Challenges the ability of states to protect its citizens from severe financial depression when it can't effectively regulate the globalization of finance
-nation-state may longer remain the most viable method of consolidating power - given these challenges, state's can't effectively maintain true sovereignty --> more likely that states, institutions become delegitimized
-more difficult for sovereign actors to function without oversight from other organizations
-see political globalization as pathway to peace and participation as source of dangerous fragmentation and weakened democracy --> terrorist groups and globalized criminal organizations
-state and state functions become more diffused as power shifts to the global level
-For national governments, political isolation becomes difficult/impossible
-EU was born out of the ruins of WW2 and a divided Europe
-Initial development took place took place in an uniquely favorable economic environment
-It's core purpose was Franco-German reconciliation --> in this objective, it has been remarkably successful
-It is the rarest of political animals - a successful confederation and has surmounted one challenge after another
-Unions (E.U.) - Customs Unions are considered weak forms of states

Jean Monnet - Father of the EU
-son of a family of cognac merchants
-widely traveled, knew the US well
-In Washington during WW2, shortened the war by 1 year by persuading FDR to support England and France
-Author of the European Coal and Steel Community (forerunner of the Common Market)
-Held no high office, worked behind the scenes, favored a gradual approach to the Union

Issues in the Evolution of the EU:
-From the beginning, there has been a running conflict between those whose goal is federalism and those who want a looser customs union
-The tactic used by federalists was to create a series of economic agreements that would eventually lead to political union
-This "technocratic" approach was successful in creating a "single market," a strong European court, and now since 1990, a monetary union
-But attempts to deepen the political union may face mounting opposition from national elites and publics, who find themselves enmeshed in a union they (mostly) never voted for

The Commission and European Court of Justice:
-In 2013, European's Commission's Competition Directorate fined Microsoft $732 million for failing to implement a promise to enable Windows users to download other browsers
-The Competition Directorate has police powers, can conduct "dawn raids," haul away computers and documents and impose huge fines
-The defendant can appeal to the European Court of Justice but the ECJ almost always backs the Commission
-Member-nation governments and courts tend to abide by the ECJ's rulings
-The result: strong competition law
-Latest Target: Russia's Gazprom

Has EU Run out of Steam?
-So long as the goal was to overcome Franco-German enmity, there was strong public support
-But once the Soviet Union fell, the goal shifted to that of overcoming the division of Europe
-The result is a much larger and more diverse community
-It's more difficult to make decisions when you have 28 members instead of 12
-Eastern Europe has much different political traditions and culture than Western Europe
-In addition, UK has always been lukewarm and has pressed for a weaker entity with loopholes (opt-outs)
-Will the creation of the Euro turn out to have been a bridge too far?

Margaret Thatcher:
-The UK always has seen itself as the "center of 3 circles" (the Atlantic, the Commonwealth and Europe)
-It has always jealously guarded its sovereignty and insisted on various opt-outs on key issues, such as the Euro
-Thatcher was a fierce opponent of expanded powers for the Commission
-The UK has favored broadening the EU so as to prevent its deepening
-But the UK hasn't come close to leaving the EU until now

David Cameron & UK
-Prime Minister Cameron promises an "in or out" referendum in 2017 if conservatives are re-elected
-In meantime, he plans to renegotiate the terms of UK's membership
-Its a desperate attempt to deal with the vocal Europhobes within his party
-Cameron is betting that most Britons actually support the UK's membership in the EU and that they will vote to stay in
-But the outcome may be a break-up of the Conservative Party - and the end of Cameron's career

The Euro - A Bridge Too Far
-In 1990, 17 members of the EU created a monetary union with a common currency - the Euro
-In theory, there were strict requirements to join - and to stay in
-But in practice, the bar was set too low, and then widely disregarded
-During the boom years to 2008, the monetary union created a false sense of security
-The "PIGS" (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) borrowed and spent with abandon at artificially low rates
-The crash of 2008 revealed the contradiction at the core of the Euro
-The contradiction is that running a unified currency effectively requires unified sovereign powers - control over budgets, deficits, interest rates, bank regulation, etc.
-When Eurozone members surrendered their power over exchange rates, they gave up the power to devalue their currencies, so they cant inflate their way out of debt or improve their terms of trade
-The weaker members of the Eurozone are trapped in a spiral of economic decline, saddled with debts they cant repay.

Democracy Deficit or Excess of Democracy
-In the last parliamentary elections (May 2014), turnout rates hit a record low --> This favored radical splinter parties
-A recent court decision in Germany banned the 5% threshold in effect in the last election for Germany MEPs
-So many of Germany's MEPs represent small fringe groups.
-Two dangers to watch:
1) Victories by right-wing radicals send a signal throughout the EU
2) Increased membership of splinter parties make the Parliament even less effective

EU in CPS Perspective
-A unique kind of political creation: a confederation that has taken on many (but not all) functions of a state
-But it is not a nation-state. Nor is it even a full-fledged "federation". Its powers derive mainly from the consent of the member national governments ("the Council")
-It doesn't have all the monopoly attributes of a sovereign state (means of self-defense, control of borders, administration of justice, protection of persons and property)
-What is the basis of its authority? Not charisma or tradition. A shaky legal-rational claim. Performance not brilliant but compared to an alternative?

strength and weakness on its stealth basis - built by technocrats and lawyers - based on regulatory aspects, founders trying to duck federation, sovereignty, has been extraordinarily successful - European Court of Justice has asserted authority over local countries supreme court's but in other areas in military and foreign policy, EU is incomplete - greatest weakness is byproduct on building stealth construction - most Europeans don't feel themselves to be citizens of EU - don't think European parliament as their parliament, consider Brussells to be far off place with technocrats, look to national governments for most of normal politics (electoral politics) - french, germans, brits - don't think about outcomes of European parliamentary election - British election about to determine whether Brits seriously debate leaving the European Union - crucial flaw is more serious now than ever - Europe is turning away from the European identification as we get rise of right-wing movements - as part of government already in Hungry, could be part of government in France - greatest challenge on fundamental level ever
-If member states wanted to pursue common policies in certain fields / policies to be settled by agreement between national governments - EU found compromise --> created the European Commission - was charged with drafting political proposals and implementing policies once agreed.
-Separate institution - Council of Ministers - consisting of representatives of national governments take most decisions on basis of Commission proposals
-Interplay of an institution charged with represent the common interest and those composed of reps from national governments (Council) or citizens (Parliament) is the essence of what has become know as the "community method"

Commission's Jobs:
-represents the general interest of the EU
-acts as guardian of the Treaties (to defend their letter and spirit)
-Ensures the correct application of EU legislation
-Manages and negotiates international trade and cooperation agreements

-Commission's Power is exercised most dramatically in 4 areas:
1) exclusive right to propose policy
2) its lead in international trade talks
3) its role in competition policy (has power to vet / veto mergers - even of companies based outside of the EU)
4) duty to ensure compliance with European law.

-most powerful international administration in existence and it makes many contentious decisions
-Capacity to act autonomously is more limited than that of a government in a national context

Commission = College of Commissioners (powerhouse portion, 1 for each member state, nominated by their president or prime minister and the administrative Commission (its permanent services) - EU recruits own civil servants, don't rely much on national appointees)
-Commission President is elected by the European Parliament on proposal of European Council - need to choose a candidate capable of commanding a parliamentary majority --> President then distributes policy responsibilities except for Vice President of the Commission, who is the Union's High Rep for foreign policy
-Parliament can dismiss Commission early in a vote of no confidence
-how much an individual commissioner can shape policy is limited by the principle of collegiality - all policy proposals are agreed collectively be the entire College - Once a decision is made, if necessary by majority vote (nearly always by consensus), it become the policy of the entire Commission. Each commissioner must support it or (in principle) resign
-Commission illustrates one of the central ironies of the EU - its institutions are more powerful than they are autonomous
-Growing size of Commission with enlargements has risked turning it into miniature assembly - one member per country - shows more concern for Commission's legitimacy (one member who speaks each country's language and can appear in national media) than its efficiency
-Controversy surrounding portfolio assignments / cabinet appointment shows defense of national interests in Commission can never be entirely removed - they never abandon their national interests --> Sometimes serves as point of contention - commissioner supporting position of national government loses credibility within the Commission but if they dont, will face criticism at home
-Commission has roughly as many officials as work for a medium-sized national government department - large proportion spend time translating into Union's 23 languages
-Dividing line btw. civil servants and commissioners isnt always self-evident -- many matters are handled further down in the administration and much of the Commission's agenda is set for it by the EU's treaties / other commitments
-Major challenge for Commission = stretching its limited resources to cover the wide range of tasks that member states have conferred upon it --> can sometimes squeeze more prerogatives despite its limited competence

Council of Ministers
-created as the EU's primary decision-making body - exercise legislative and budgetary functions and carry out policy making & coordinating functions
-Both a legislative chamber of states and the body in which governments of member states come together to meet, to resolve issues of Union policy, foreign policy and coordinate policies that are primarily a national responsibility, such as macroeconomic policy --> national interests are represented and articulated
-Council is a complex system - 10 different configurations of the council, aided by a Secretariat of 2,500 officials - brokers deals, crafts compromises between member states
-Easy to conclude that the Council is purely intergovernmental, but its regular ministerial meetings, informal contacts & close cooperation between executives from member states has constructed a sort of collective identity that is more an amalgamation of national views.

VP of Commission / High Representative for Foreign & Security Policy
-Merged two posts --> some see it as logical step towards bringing the tasks of former Council High Rep fully into the Commission, ending the anomaly of foreign policy being different from other external policy sectors --> others see it as a raid by the Council on the Commission's external representation role - reality is an uneasy compromise - potentially enables Union's external relations to draw on both its traditional methods in more unified way
-High Representative is most explicit case of seeking to combine the supranational and intergovernmental in one institutional post

Council Presidency
-Chaired by a minister from the member state holding the rotating Presidency of the Council - member states take it in turns to chair Council meetings for 6 months each
-Job to build consensus and move decision-making forward
-Holding the presidency places the country concerned in the media spotlight and gives them added influence -- can set agenda, determines which issues given priority
-Disadvantages = time required of national office is daunting, especially for smaller states, much can go wrong in 6 months when they arent responsible --> President's scope for action is limited and its agenda is largely inherited or often dictated by events

Council Voting
-most policy areas, a qualified majority approve a Commission proposal, whereas unanimity is required to amend it - critical feature of the community method
-Some policy areas require unanimity to approve any measure --> sensitive areas such as tax harmonization, anti-discrimination legislation, foreign and security policies, constitutional question - joining of new members
-Triple or double majority is required after addition of smaller states - not just requisite number of weighted votes, but also positive votes from a majority of Member states that represent at least 62-65% of the EU's population

Coreper
-Eah member state has its own Permanent Representative - has ambassadorial status - much policy is worked out by groups at these levels called the Committee of Permanent Representatives - Coreper
-Prepare work of the Council and try to reach consensus or suitable majorities ahead of the Council meetings
-Split into Coreper II - Permanent ambassadors who deal primarily with big political, institutional and budgetary issues and Coreper I - lead by Deputy Ambassadors - deal with most other issues
-Coreper and its various working parties are shadowy and complex --> Council meetings are assisted by around 140 working groups
-Vast majority (70%) of Council decisions are settled here before ministers are involved

European Council (of Heads of State)
-Must meet at least 4 times a year, 6 is norm recently
-Provides the Union with necessary impetus for its development and shall define its general political directions / priorities -- major agenda setter for the Union
-Problem resolution through informal persuasion and forging of package deals that trade off agreement on on issue in exchange for concessions on another
-Nominates the President of the Commission, the Government & Board Members of the European Central Bank
-Created a permanent and full-time President -- member states with an intergovernmentalist view of EU saw the European Council President as a useful counterweight to the President of the Commission

European Parliament (EP)
-European Parliament is the only directly elected multinational parliament with significant powers in the world.
-Some saw the creation of a directly elected parliament as a means towards a more federal system in which the Union would derive legitimacy directly from citizens of instead of exclusively via national governments
-Others simply saw the need to compensate the loss of national level parliamentary power, inherent in pooling competences at European level
-EP can't directly initiate legislation and its budgetary powers cover only spending, not taxation
-It's dogged by image problems
- housekeeping arrangements are clumsy and expensive - (obliged member states to divide activities between Brussels (3/4 weeks) and Strasbourg (4 days a month).
-Multiplicity of languages causes debates to lack fluidity like in national parliaments
-No visible link between the outcome of the EP elections and the composition of the executive
-Turnout in European elections is lower than in most national elections and has been falling
-EP not controlled by executive or any governing majority, it can use its independence to considerable effect - exercise its legislative powers forcefully compared to national parliaments
-Treaties have strengthened role of parliament = legal and political equal to the council in deciding almost all legislation as well as the budget & ratification of international treaties -- elections President of the Commission - confirms / can dismiss Commission as a whole
-Members of Parliament sit in political groups, not in national blocks - over 150 national parties, coalesce into 7 groups - Liberals, Socialists, Christian Democrats, Greens, so on
-EP political groups have become more cohesive over time
-Higher degree of plurarlism in the Parliament than in the Council
-Leaders of each political group along with Parliament's president constitute Conference of Presidents - sets the EP's agenda
Powers of EP
-Legislative powers were originally very weak -- now co-decides nearly all EU legislation what amounts to a bicameral legislature consisting of the Council and the Parliament --> both agree on a text in identical terms before it can be passed into law
-Budgetary = Lisbon Treaty offers right for co-decision
-Scrutiny = Oversight is exercised via its right to question, examine, debate and head and cross-examine the Commission - also approves appointment of Commissioners and can dismiss them
Appointments

European Court of Justice (ECJ)
-role is to ensure that when interpreting and applying Treaties, the law is observed - the Court is powerful - final arbiter in legal disputes between EU institutions or between EU institutions and member states
-Qualitatively different from international law in that individuals can seeks remedy for breaches of the former through their domestic courts, which refer points of European law to the EU Court
-National courts ask ECJ for a ruling on a European facet of a case -- then used by national courts to determine ruling -- this method has shaped national policies
-If the court has a pro-integration agenda, it is primarily to integrate national courts into the EU legal system
-Court case - established the supremacy of EU law - citizens had a legal right to expect their governments to adhere to their European obligations --> if a domestic law contracts an EU obligation, European law prevails
-Ruled that a product made and sold legally in one state, cant be barred in another state if it's no treat to public heath, policy or safety --> helped prove fundamental to the concept of a single market because it established that national variations in standards could exist as long as trade was not unduly impended
-Court's power is limited - it must rely on member states to carry out its rulings - the powers of the court and how they should be wielded remain contested

EU Institutions
-Power shifts across and between institutions not only as a result of formal treaty changes, but also due to changes in practice, the assertiveness of the various actors, agreements between EU institutions and Court judgments
-Ability of the Council to impose its view has declined as the bargaining power of the Parliament has increased.
-The European Council's growing power to set the EU agenda has usurped the Commission's traditional legal right of initiative.
-The establishment of a full time President of the European Council challenge the primacy of the President of the Commission
-Both formal and informal institutional change has contributed to a blurring of powers among core institutions

EU's institutions help illustrates 3 central themes
1) extent to which the EU is an experiment in motion
-has evolved considerably - institutions have adapted over time to perform more tasks. Some have emerged as informal experiments in cooperation
-Gaps in the capacity of the EU to respond to events and crises have resulted in an ad hoc expansion of informal powers of the institutions --> sometimes agreed on need to establish informal cooperation in new areas, weren't ready to be legally bound by treaties

2) the importance of power sharing and consensus
-Could be claimed that supranationalism is one the rise,e but as the European Council has come to dominate high-level agenda setting / various countries have formally opted out of certain policies (monetary union), said that intergovernmentalism is holding strong
-Depicting integration as a pitched battle is wrong, competition is fierce, but so is the search for consensus.
-The overall trajectory of integration is thus a result of a back and forth between a variety of actors and external pressures
-Power is often a product of how well any institution engages with other actions - lobbyists, experts, governments and other international organizations.

3) Capacity of EU Structures to Cope with the Union's Expanding Size and Scope
-EU has managed to avoid decision making trouble following enlargement through arguments continue as to whether enlargement has been at the cost of having to settle for the lowest common denominator
-In certain areas, the EU is vulnerable to slow, cumbersome decision-making and even total blockage at the instigation of one or another member state
-Expanded the scope of the EU without necessarily expanding institutions' powers.
-Careful exclusion of the ECJ and the weaker role played by the Commission and the EP in most of foreign / security policy
-EU institutional system is complex.
-Each institution may have its own agenda, but nearly all important decisions require some measure of consensus spanning the EU's institutions --> the institutions are as interdependent as the member states that make up the EU
-EU institutions don't operate alone, deal with even broader range of actors, including an increasing number of member states - but also increasingly active groups of organized interests --> As EU takes on new takes, the burden on its institutions will increase - growing role in areas such as migration, foreign-defense policy, food safety and climate change mean that other other agencies & bodies will join the institutional mix that governs EU policies
-Further institutional reform may prove both necessary and inevitable to cope with the increasing size and policy scope of EU. Given the challenge of obtaining unanimous support for institutional change, institutional reform is likely to be incremental and pragmatic rather than spectacular or far-sighted
From an initial project (European Coal and Steel Community) to promote peace, integration has been transformed into the most ambitious attempt at interstate market creation ever undertaken - core of European integration remains the market
-Initially wanted to ensure reconciliation between warring states of Western Europe - developed into an economic project whose political importance resides largely in its economic significance
-Original creators were quick to understand the limitations of the nation state and anxious to create forms of political organization to replace it & prevent return to conflict --> Yet narrow national interests and traditional power politics predominated in shaping Europe's institutional landscape because states need strong incentives to engage in institutionalized cooperation
-Creation of ECSC & Institutional Creation in years after, was to be legitimized in terms of a transcendental theme - Would lay foundation for European Federation
-ECSC would provide institutional model for European Community and Union that would follow
-Highly complex institutional structure - disjuncture between form and function was measure of desire of some to see a community designed for coal and steel eventually develop into more of a federation or far-reaching regional organization

Treaty of Rome - 1957
created an European Economic Community - inherent problems with attempting to integrate a number of mixed economies
-nature of European integration had changed fundamentally --> EEC covered the whole economy and made risks of creating powerful independent institutions too great for the member states to contemplate
-European integration was consequence of a number of highly contingent historical processes. WW2 causes Western European nation-states to cooperate & Cold War caused France to work with Germany
-In the wake of the failure of the openly federalist European Defense Community, member states reasserted themselves and focused their collaborative efforts on the economy
-When European Commission wanted to introduce a new budgetary system and increase powers of European Parliamentary Assembly, De Gaulle warned about the dangers of supranationalism and decisions taken by institutions not formally controlled by member states themselves

-Political Union is not necessarily compatible with member states remaining the driving force of European construction
1970s enlargement of EU - some viewed integration as an economic project aimed at achieving economic objectives, others saw it as an association between accession and the preservation of their own democratic systems

European Court of Justice
-Van Gend Judgment - Dutch Importer
-Critical ruling that the law of the Community was effectively transformed into something more akin to the law within than that between states
-Community Law takes precedence over National Law
-Individuals were empowered to use it to challenge the actions of their own governments, a right that has subsequently represented a crucial means of ensuring the effective application of EC law
-Germany and French Liquor Manufacturers
-National governments could be overruled when it came to regulation their own markets if these regulations came into conflict with European law
-Court had essentially attempted to create a European market via a process of harmonization - implying that different regulations in the member states would be replaced by a single European Community regulation
-Applied principle of mutual recognition where goods legally manufactured in one state could be sold legally in the others --> strong mechanism to create a single market
-Court may have declared the supremacy of EC law, but the Commission sometimes failed to ensure its implementation
Economy
-During stagflation of the 7os, member states worked to protect their economies from foreign competition --> non-tariff barriers were common -- governmental funding (state aid) to support development of national champions to a myriad technical and administrative regulations whose effect was to close the national market to foreign goods.
-European Community in early 80s still resembled a patchwork of national rules, regulations - designed to hinder access of foreign goods, services and workers
-Required political consensus for the Community to focus attention on market creation
-EC's relatively weak performance was partly attributable to the fragmentation of its market

Single European Act - July 87
-provision for extension of qualified majority voters (QMV) in the created by the unanimity requirement - scope of QMV was limited with consensus remaining necessary in areas of fiscal policy, free movements of persons and employee rights
-Trade-off between richer and poorer states - less wealthy states wanted a cash-side compensation system - received cohesion policy
-Single Act was historically notable as it created a true single market & possessed practical implications - market captured the interest of the business community
-Single market caused companies to consolidate their positions within new Europe-wide economic space and non-member states to become fearful that they would miss out on the benefits it promised to provide

1988 Hanover European Council agreed to the liberalization of all capital movements by December 92 -- opening the prospect of increased speculation against member state currencies
-By the early 90s, the economic performance of the Community had improved massively

Late 80s - Early 90's
-President of the Commission DeLors - suggests that 80% of economic legislation and even fiscal & social legislation will be of European Community origin.
-He also worked to adopt a flag and anthem for the European Community as the Court & Commission became more assertive in enforcing EC law to open the market - even intervened in sensitive national areas such as culture, education and public health
-Governments began to realize the full significance of a single market as the Community began to intrude more directly in more sensitives areas of national political and economic life. Previously constituents were indifferent and oblivious to European integration efforts, however this would now change

Cold War spawned various policy problems (illegal migration, organized crime, Yugoslavia violence) that eluded strictly national solutions and provided the lure of more collaborative action within an European Community framework --> would be the first in a long line dumping on the EC policy problems that member states could not or didnt want to handle alone

Community Institutions whose necessity was increasing lead to the Maastricht Treaty (European Union Treaty)
-significantly expanded the scope of integration to cover a variety of new policy challenges
-most substantive development was a commitment to move towards monetary union
-Argument = nation state is associated with war and should be superseded by European integration
-Also reflected growing member state unease about what many perceived as excessively powerful EC institutions, displayed with the subsidiarity clause and pillar structure
-Subsidiarity Clause = intended to restrict the actions of the Union to areas where member states could not achieve their objectives by themselves
-Pillar Structure = applied by the treaty, forced the EC to be supplemented by separate pillars for Justice & Home Affairs and the Common Foreign & Security Policy with the EU as umbrella over all 3
-Explicitly intended to rein in the supranational institutions / establish member state control over policy formulation in new & politically sensitive areas

-Union w/ elaborate pillar structure was created precisely to preserve the freedom of movement of these member states.
-European Community which had been engaged in for decades behind the backs of the population was starting to impinge upon them and concern them
-Challenge of enlargement led nations to conclude that fundamental institutional reform was required
-Couldn't agree on institutional reform, didnt want to spend more money - already very expensive without additional people, public was increasingly disenchanted with the union
-Involvement with EU was complicated for member states - the more they launched initiatives, the more sensitive were the areas of national life infringed upon by the E.U., Yet enlargement implied a reduction of their influence within the union
-Rising stakes and rising numbers continuously threatened to undermine the trust between them that had allowed integration to proceed as far as it had
Religion Doesn't Fit Comfortably with Economic Thinking
-To economists, human beings are motivated by preferences
-The sum of all your preferences ("a vector") is called a preference function
-Your preferences are interchangeable ("fungible") - you should be willing to trade X units of one preference for Y units of another
-Your ultimate goal as a rational decision-maker is to optimize your mix of preferences and to reach your "preference possibility frontier"
-"Identity" is one of those preferences - and to the economist, so is religion, because it is one form of identity
-Therefore, religion is fungible as well, and can be traded against other preferences
-Yet religion isn't necessarily fungible
-A religious identity offers the promise of supernatural goods or ills
-Abandoning a religion may mean eternal damnation in the next world or exclusion, in this one
-The costs of even a small shift may be infinite (2 fingers instead of 3)
-These features can make religious identity stronger than all others --> Makes for unique politics

Different about Religion As a Force in Politics
-Because it is public and collective, religion and its claims potentially compete with those of the state
-In other words, a complete separation of church and state is very difficult to achieve, if not impossible
-Religions are typically "transnational" - therefore they challenge the boundaries of the nation-state
-The claims of religion on politics can be absolute and since religious beliefs cant be disconfirmed, the claims can be irrefutable - and therefore not subject to compromise or debate
-Religious identities, unlike some other forms of identity, can be uniquely resistant to change, and conversion or apostasy can be costly or impossible
-Religion can be both identity and ideology (communism - secular religion)
-When the nation is alienated from the state, religion can be a powerful ally of the nation against the state (Poland under communism) or pf the state against the nation (Iran under the mullahs)
Religion & Identity: Contrasts between Europe and the Middle East
-Europe = religion has faded as a factor in Europeans' identity
-Middle East = Religion remains a core part of popular identity
-Middle East = Last century, there has been a strong popular reassertion of Muslim identity and practice
-In large part as a reaction to the political, economic and cultural onslaught from the West
-This initially lead to a crisis of identity and self-confidence

3 Myths about Islam & Politics
1) "Islam is a Conquering Religion at War with Christianity"
2) "Politics in Muslim Countries is Dominated by Mullahs"
3) "The Split between Sunni and Shi'ite is like that between Catholicism and Protestantism"

Politically Significant Features of Traditional Islam
-In most Muslim societies, there is no "church" and no hierarchy of priests with binding authority to define doctrine and practice
-The "conscience keepers" of the community are the ulama or "learned men", those who study and interpret the holy law
-There was initially no concept of "separation of church and state". The caliph was both the temporal and the spiritual leader of Islam and early Muslims made no distinction between the two
-But gradually the political leaders of Islam "lost their religious aura"
-By 10th century, all mainstream political authority was secular, and title of caliph became insignificant
-Ulama preached obedience "One must obey unjust princes" --> They also preached that the duty of the prince is to observe the law

3 Responses of Islam to the West
1) Secular Modernizers = Answer is separation of church and state, western-style modernization: Turkey under Ataturk, Iran under Pahlevi, Egypt under Nasser and the military, Post-colonial Algeria, Ba'ath Party Regimes in Iraq & Syria
2) Islamist Revolutionaries = Answer is an Islamic State: Iran under Khomeini, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Shi'ite leadership in Iraq
3) The Neo-Fundamentalists (Salafists) = Answer is the perfect imitation of the Prophet: Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIS in Iraq/Syria, also the Wahhabi Movement in Saudi Arabia

New Form of Global Fundamentalism
-For the first time in the history of Islam, large numbers of Muslims are living outside the traditional world of Islam (7.5-10% in France, 5% Germany, 4.5% UK)
-For the younger generation of Muslims living in the Dar-al-Koufr, what is the basis of their personal and political identity
-For most, it is assimilation --> But for a minority of young people, the response is radicalism

Oil & Politics in the Persian Gulf: 2 Generations
-2 Waves of Oil Money into the Persian Gulf
-First wave followed the oil shocks of 1973 and 1980
-Second followed the long rise of oil prices, 1999-2014
-First catalyzed a migration of people from all over the Muslim world
-Financed conservative literature, construction of mosques, and political activity by newly prosperous middle class
-As they returned to their home countries in the 1980s and 90s, they challenged their secular governments (mostly co-opted or defeated)
Muslims believe the word of god was communicated to Muhammad - was chosen to be messenger of God
-Islam means surrenders and Muslim is one who surrenders
-Jesus was born into a community whose religion was an expression of national independence, which was being crushed by the Roman Empire - Christianity supported those who suffered under Romans to hope for better life after death
-Christians kept alive the notion of the church as something distinct from the state
-In Muslim societies, there is not and never has been a church - the community of believers founded by Muhammad, was virtually from beginning, a state
-Didn't begin politically-minded, upset with excesses of the rich, disparity in wealth, left Mecca with followers, settled in oasis of Yathrib - basically founded a state - assumed a political role in Medina - arbiter of clans whose feuds were destroying the city --> Becoming a Muslim meant joining a community whose God-given law overrode tribal loyalties
-Muhammad soon proved a military leader as well - conquered an area that allowed his community to become dominant power in the Arabian Peninsula --> Ruler of this was was the caliph or successor to the Messenger of God
-Early Caliphs provided both spiritual and temporal leadership - Muslims didnt distinguish between the two - assumed only a holy man could provide good government for the community - main function of government was to ensure obedience to God's law
-If governments were bad, its not because holy men didn't know how to govern, its because they were no longer holy
-Outlying parts of the empire - they exercised no real authority - were supplemented by ulama, learned men, who studied deeply in the holy law --> these men took the rules derived from the Koran and turned them into Muslim law - Shari'a --> Ulama came to be similar to clergy in Medieval Europe --> respected for their learning, wisdom and their support was needed to legitimize political power - sought to influence political power rather than assume it
-After first 4 caliphs, political rulers of Islam lost legitimacy, all genuine political authority in mainstream Muslim tradition was secular after loss of effective power by Abbasids --Enforcement of Shari'a was seen as ideal - political power was the instrument necessary for the maintenance of order, security to ensure the basic survival of the Muslim community - not the realization of the ideal community
-power of the ruler was strictly limited by law, which he had no power to make or unmake since it came from God
-Islam at its beginnings closely identified with political action --> eventually the ulama who rationalized the status quo was never ready against the reformer calling for revolution to restore the supremacy of the Shari'a and truly Islamic order

Chapter 2
-Muhammad was a classic revolutionary leader --> called for reform then began a call to arms and military operations --> struggle allowed the refinement and amplification of his ideology - old order was replaced with new system
-A revolution, once successful, will tend to institutionalize itself and become a point of reference for future generations of conservatives
-struggle (jihad) was question against unbelievers
-First centuries of islam focused on restoring the true doctrine of Islam and overthrowing the existing political order
-Murder of 3rd calpih - Uthman and appointment of Muhammad's cousin Ali - led to risings against him and the first Muslim civil war - challenged by a relative of Uthman's that refused to acknowledge Ali as caliph - when he said arbiter could his more fanatical supporters (known as Kharijites implying both secession and rebellion) separated

Kharijites
-grave sinners no longer remain muslims -- proclaim jihad against the result of the community & its leader - sought to bring change through violence and assassination
-egalitarians, rejected any notion of privilege
-Gave them right to overthrow an unjust caliph
-favored equal distribution of wealth, primitive democracy

Shi'a
-numerous adherents in modern world and is Iran's official religion
-originally a party of people supported Ali's clam to be caliphate
-Ali's descendants became important part of opposition to new dynasty - idea that rightful leadership of Muslim community belonged to Muhammad's family
-Historic caliphs were de facto rulers, while the rightful leadership of Islam passed through apostolic succession of Imams - provide spiritual authority --> accepts the notion of a spiritual authority in a sense that Sunni Islam does not -Christian notiton of a church of relations between church and state, is therefore more closely paralled in Shi'ism than elsewhere
-Islam generally sanctifies political action --> Sunni Islam is the doctrine of power and achievement. Shi'a is the doctrine of opposition

Twelver Shi'ism (Twelvers)
-main surviving branch of Shi'a --> twelfth Imam from Ali down is not dead, but hidden and will one day return as Mahdi to purify the world

Sufism - originally began as mystics --> meditation & self-discipline --> gradually institutionalized - developed an approach to Islam based on personal piety, often easier for simple people to accept than scholastic, legalistic approach of the ulama
-Qutb - modern Islamic theorist - advocated a clean break with the established order, a strategy that attracted a cross-section of Muslim youth from both education & deprived backgrounds
-Mawdudi - viewed the establishment of an Islamic republic as a task to be undertaken slowly - moderate approach favored by Pakistani middle class, no support from the masses
-Khomeini created a workable coalition of all interested parties - disinherited, middle classes, radical intellectuals and clerics
-First Islamic onslaught was against nationalism, its aim to substitute one vision of world community for another --> 70s nationalist identity ruled in most Islamic countries shaped by home-grown elites after defeating European colonization -->
-fragmented land of Islam into having different priorities --> Nationalists took control of tools of modern communication - newspapers, books, radio, TV - articulated ideals such as freedom and equality - dismissed religious establishment (ulamas) in pursuit of secular goals
-key objective of nationalist struggle for political independence was to establish local idiom as official language of citizens - elites express values of nation, modernity, state
-Qutb tried to displace these muslim nationalists that were ignorant of Islam - spoke to young people born after independence, come along too late to benefit from redistribution of wealth following the departure of colonial occupiers
-Muslim Brotherhood - founded in Egypt to reclaim Islam's political dimension --> no need to use European values as basis for social order - Koran provided universal moral principles --> thought problems could be solved with creation of Islamic state
-soon evolved into mass movement with urban lower-middle classes just becoming literate --> raised ideal of Islamic modernity - complete and total blend of society, state, culture and religion --> Brothers assisted in process of democratization --> people could gain political power through their Islamic culture
-Eventually failed - limits of any ideology's attractions depend on how it adapts to the perceived needs of a society --> successes and failures of the Islamist movement in 20th century depict this clearly
Mawdudi - Islamization from above - state sovereignty would be exercised in the name of Allah --> religion was turned into an ideology of political struggle -

Khomeini - able to mobilize networks of supporters much more effectively than intellectuals education along modern lines - reason for Islamic Revolution having no counterpart in Sunni Arab World
-took stands against Shah's White Revolution - liberalizing religious policies and supporting US
-Islamism gained ground within society by eventually winning control of the direction of Islam --> imposed its own values, marginalizing other interpretations & forged alliances with some clerics

Chapter 6
-For U.S. & Saudi Arabia, the destabilization of one of their principal military allies in the world's richest oil-producing region, Iranian revolution made it easier for the Soviet Union to fill the political void --> Went to aid the struggling communist government of Afghanistan
-Supporting Afghan Jihad against Russians & Communists, Saudi Arabia & Gulf Monarchies built up credibility and religious legitimacy and moved ultimate concept from US to USSR
-Call for Jihad in Afghanistan initiated not by Islamic states but by transnational Islam religious networks --assembled around ulamas and institutions already in place
-Call for a Defensive Jihad / Transnational Fatwa - complicated - fluidity of Islamic religion and the absence of a hierarchy of authority within made it very easy to manipulate --> vital that appeal to Muslims to join in the jihad in Afghanistan be both widely broadcast and meticulously controlled
-Until mid 1980s, international Islamic solidarity was expressed largely in financial terms - 1985 on - took the form of growing numbers of foreign jihadists --> parties moved onto Pakistani Soil as refugees - favored the spread of Islamist militant ideas
-Younger Afghans / children of refugees were taken into madrassas - educated without a state or home, in a conservative style - eventually these people became the leaders of the Taliban - not Islamic Modernity, Neo-Fundamentalists - return to convservative, older times, reject new things
-International Jihad - was an initiation, a socialization of the Islamist networks - then would turn into radicalization process
-Intifada allowed Palestinian cause to embody Arab nationalism and set of ideals on international stage - remained outside the emerging zone of Islamic influence
-jihad in Afghanistan supplanted Palestine as pole of identity & battlefield for young Arabs
-Under Ataturk, a prime example of the "modernist" response to the challenge of the West in a Muslim country
-A unique example of the creation of a nation-state in the 20th century through ruthless state action
-A case study of charisma and a successful (until now) attempt at institutionalizing charisma --> helped Kemal establish authority and kept drawing on it to sustain the regime - worked until 1980s, early 1990s
-A high-stakes "social sciences laboratory" as Turkey attempts to combine secular modernism with rising Islamism
-Looming example of institutional decay as aging secular democracy turns into dictatorship --> Kemal's institutions have been dismantled by the regime that followed in the past decade - Turkey finds itself at crossroads - established personal dictatorship of his successor - unclear what its founded on - what it's claim to authority - is it the case of charismatic leader or something like modern version of Turkish / Islamic style - synthesis of new and old
-Awkward economic situation - never attracted great deal of foreign investment, borrowed extensively in dollars, need to be repaid in dollars -- much more expensive due to exchange rates
-New Regime has based it's authority on great deal of economic success, country has prospered, influential business circles have done very well --> but economy is now hurting
-Turkey is great success story with Ataturk of creating national identity - singlehandedly created Turkish national identity - no single religion, language, refashioned old language, taught it through media, schools

Mustafa Kemak: Ataturk, Creator of Modern Turkey
-only successful Turkish commander in World War I
-Led nationalist movement after Ottoman Defeat
-Ottoman Empire - extremely diverse set of nationalities - as it shrunk / Istanbul's control diminished, Islamic populations converged on Asia Minor
-Modern Turkey result of 2 conquests - assembled modern military, conquered Anatolia, expelled the Greeks and established a secular, authoritarian state

Themes in Turkish Politics:
-1930's to 1990's - continuity of basic features of Kemalism
-Secularism (strong), nationalism, strong state control (economy), state ownership, closed off generally, Omnipresence of Ataturk in every public place
-Unstable Civil-Military Relations (4 military coups between the 1960s and the mid 1990s) as the military intervenes to protect the secularist legacy --> In-between coups, the military were constantly present behind the scenes
-Military served as the guarantor of Kemalist Turkish Republic, power / influence was clear, military lived a life of luxury, cut off from a rest of society -
-Since 2007, military have been on the defensive, in a series of show trials, their political power has been largely destroyed
-Resurgence of Village in Turkish Political Life ---> vast migration to the cities from the countryside -- challenge of imposed order on a society that possesses very different values - politicians reach out to these new social groups for support
-While there's always been a secularist regime in Ankara -- Muslim cultural, social values continue to discretely prevail in villages -- urbanization brings about economic and social revolutions in the cities that never became "Kemalized" - leads to modernization of values

-Globalization causes the rise of a new Turkish Middle Class, located in the interior -- wealthy, newly empowered and Islamic --> cities that relied on exports has access to wider markets, helps develop an entrepreneurial class - very conservative, observant religious beliefs and values ---wealthier they become, more involved in politics - reject secularist societies in Ankara and Istanbul

Tayyip Erdogan:
-Observant Muslim, raised in tough neighborhood of Istanbul --> Mayor of Istanbul
-Founded Justice and Development Party (AKP) - true mass party with discrete Islamic roots
-Became Prime Minister in 2003, increased powers after AKP's victory in 2007 and 2011 elections

Turkish Military
-Tension btw. military and AKP goverment after military threatened a coup in 2007, Erdogan faced them down - called for elections - won in a landslide - led to many arrests and sentences of generals / officers

Deep Divide in Turkish politics - Secularists fear creeping Islamization - trying to penetrate officer corps, civil service and educational system, hidden influence of the Gulen movement, denounce AKP regime as repressive
-Gulenist Network penetrated police and judiciary, used wire-taps / judicial investigations to publicize corruption in the AKP
-Erdogan fighting back by purging the police and judiciary, rewriting laws to gain control of judicial nominations, shutting down social media --> institutions of Kemalist Turkey are being ripped apart

EU Membership
-has been an effective lever for reform of Turkish institutions
-Lever was weakened by refusal of France and Germany to push on with Turkish membership
-Europe's image as a model has been tarnished with Eurozone crisis, Erdogan turned against EU

-No effective party opposition on the secular side --> Secularists can no longer turn to the military and the judiciary
-Turkish model is transient - political and social equilibrium between secularists and Islamists is still shifting -- might morph into dictatorship if Erdogan succeeds in amending the Constitution to turn himself into a stronger president
-Despite AKP winning landslide victory in 2007 and possessing control of both the Parliament and President, Turkish state remains secular and has become increasingly democratic
-AKP has reduced the role of military in government, liberalizing laws regarding Kurdish language broadcasting / use, generally bringing Turkey further in line with accession to the EU
-stabilized the economy - Turkey enjoyed a growth rate of 8% - 1 of fastest rising economies in the World
-critics argued AKP used alleged deep state coup plot to silence and intimidate secularist / liberal opponents
-antagonism between secularism and Islamism has roots deep in the structure of Turkish republic
-Principle of secularism - constitution defines as no interference by sacred religious feelings in state affairs and politics dates from the founding of the republic -secularism preceded democratization - was non-negotiable - since beginning of Turkey, removal of Islam from political discourse was funadmental to the making o the modern nation-state
-Six Arrows or Defining Principles of Kemalism = Republicanism, nationalism, etatism, secularism, populism and reformism
-Strong secularism - protection of the political process from the influence of religion - extending the arm of the state to the administration of religion - Directorate of Religious Affairs
-government controls religion, strong secularism goes beyond freedom from/of religion - control of religion - AKP turning back to historic divide between modernists vs. historic republics, Ottomans, language, religious requirements, undercuts Attaturk's legacy
-Before 2001, Turkish courts repeatedly shut down political parties for violating constitution's articles upholding the inviolable secularism of the Turkish state.
-AKP took on well-known Islamist roots, but hid them and ran on promise of clean politics and economic growth
-secularism and Islamism in Turkey have historically constituted and conditioned one another
-AKP has resulted in the redefinition of secularism
-AKP's pro EU stance, language of human rights and democracy, democratizing political reforms - party has allowed consolidation of liberal democracy --> secularists have shown authoritarian leanings - opposing constitutional reforms in name of protecting Turkish courts / military from Islamist influence - appear outmoded
-Turkey's democrats = not democratic - rural based people grew in wealth as economy grew - wanted religion and politics
-Civilian control of military reforms, scandals, prosecution of journalists - anti-democratic
-secularism in Turkey has institutionalized a basic distrust of popular participation in Middle East - too much democracy in a Muslim majority country would result in end of democracy - in form of Shari'a law ---> seemingly secularism vs. democracy
-Turkish case may very well be a case of democracy without the democrats. Analysis of AKP's policy and ideology reveal a party characterized by a lack of coherent vision & direction, centralized intra-party politics and low tolerance for internal dissent - solely committed to freedom of Islamic expression within a secular state
-real question is identity of middle class - questions of culture, dimensions of public space -->
-New bourgeoisie rose to prominence due to neoliberal economic reforms in 1980s - focused on macroeconomic stablilization, export promotion, trade regulation, deregulation of interest rates, exchange rate and real wages
-State retreat from import substitution and state-centered development negatively impacted the bureaucratic or professional elite also known as the Kemalist elite - established its symbolic power and authority in the name of secularism - diminished salaries and purchasing power
-Kemalist middle class has emerged out of service economy - lawyers, engineers, doctors - shared discomfort with Islamist power
-Small-scale entrepreneurs who benefited from export-oriented economic reform tended to be more conservative and religious than the urban middle class they were displacing.
--Islamic habits of this new elite and their desire to form alternative economic and political networks --> AKP has been buoyed by rise of new "Islamic bourgeoisie" - proliferation of Islamic interests --> women's dress - head scarves banned in university - ongoing shift in views
-Struggle for political and symbolic center pits two versions of Turkish middle class against one another - secularist middle class is scrambling to retain a foothold in changing economy
-Islamist business networks best understood in terms of associational networks --> secularists risk being left out of the critical social and economic networks that power new economy
-pro-market entrepreneurs at core of AKP's constituency - also represents a cross-class alliance including losers of neoliberal economic reform - urban / rural poor, unemployed -- income inequality and unemployment remain a problem
-Conservative democratic party with an Islamist base, retrenching secularist opposition, coexistence of illiberal practices with liberalizing constitutional reforms - transient product of that fading world.
-Turkey - tyranny of majority - democratic in sense of elections, but once empowered they can be a tyrant, very few checks on their power, especially with institutional strength of military declining
-Both Iran and Turkey were born out of the collapse of traditional empires
-Iran & Turkey represent two different responses by Muslim cultures to the challenge of the West - today both are strong nation-states --> strengthened by their respective revolutions
-Relatively recent creations as nation-states, have dominant ethnic groups, some major minorities - both culturally, politically, linguistically
-State in both Iran & Turkey plays major roles in the economy, but Turkey is much more of a market economy and more open to the global economy - partly because of sanctions
-Both illustrate the theme of institutionalization of charisma (Ataturk and Khomeini)
-Have strong state in both cases - consequence of revolutions is a strong state
-Kemal lead systematically repression - became politically unacceptable to loudly express religious views - removed them from public discourse and controlled - religious expression was confined to the village until the 1960s
-No revolution in Turkey --> series of advances in public sphere until there was a victory by a charismatic, Islamic-oriented leader - degree of religious observance has increased steadily, Turkey has become more obviously a Muslim country
-Turkey - still have a regime that is nominally secular - still has a charismatic founder as secular figure, but social / political life have become more Islamized
-Iran's the opposite, more religion that is imposed as part of the regime, the more Iran becomes a theocracy - the more society itself becomes secularized - the more citizens retreat and move away from religious behavior

-Turkish Erdogan - massive unbalancing of previous system of chicks and balances --> military destroyed, secularist parties have become insignificant, massive purge on police and judiciary - his organization is standing alone with no rivals -

Pahlevis: Top-Down Modernization that Failed:
-Reza Shah (Would-be Ataturk of Iran)
--Many parallels / admired Ataturk / pursued similar policy of secularization
--wanted to create an empire But not as great a leader, Iran different from Turkey, mullahs were too strong, oil was a major factor and resulted in significant outside intervention
-Son, Mohammad Reza Shah, lacked charisma of his father, viewed as an American tool --> more reliant on oil revenues - used them to pursue western style reform and modernization
-Blatant presence of Westerners added to resentment

Iranian Revolution of 1979
-not only reaction against West, reaction against rulers
-Grand Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini (1902-1989)
--Life-long opponent of the Pahlevi regime, by 1960s, leading opponent of Shah's secularizing policies
-1965: exiled to Iraq, but messages on tape reach Iran
-Empowered in 1979, Khomeini established Islamic state, with himself as faqih (Supreme Leader) - leaves a constitution based half on religious authority and half on popular sovereignty
-Where does legitimizing mythology come from? dual source of authority and sovereignty - strong elements of democratic rule built into the political system

Khomeini's Legacy after 1989
-Constitution of 1988 blends elements of theocracy and popular sovereignty but key innovation of '88 is creation of a "Supreme Guide" - faqih, position serving for life and symbolizing supreme religious authority
-Supreme Guide appoints the top military leaders (Revolutionary Guards), Controls the Media & the Judiciary, Names Half of the Council of Guardians

-System that Khomeini built is Democratic (in form) and Theocratic (in practice) --> in reality controlled by conservatives through a system of parallel institutions
-Revolutionary Guards vs. Regular Military & (Komiteh vs. Regular Police) & (Guide's representatives vs. Provincial Governors) & (Revolutionary Courts vs. Regular Courts)
-Council of Guardians can veto parliamentary and presidential decisions, passes on the "Islamicity" of candidates for office
-Expediency Council" has power to mediate disputes
-Result is a system of divided power, partly offset by the fact that the political elite is a small group of people, often related by blood or marriage
-Supreme Guide is the decider of the last resort - generally seeks to maintain balance among the factions

Khomeini's Successor: Ali Khamenei
-Elected faqih after Khomeini's death in 1989
-Even though he was not grand marja or even a Grand Ayatollah
-Most powerful man in Iranian Politics --> Appoints the Council of Guardians & Chief of Staff of Armed Forces
-Until recently, maintained a position of public neutrality among various political factions

President Ahmadi-Nejad
-Former mayor of Tehran, won surprising victory in 2005, re-elected in disputed election in 2009
-Modest origins, served in the Islamic militia in war with Iraq --> Deeply religious, was a Twelver (believed in return of 12th Imam)
-Populist policies, spoke of spreading oil money --> put his supporters in strong positions and cultivated the most conservative clerics - term ended in 2013 --> had negative impact, reinforced the ultra-conservatives & his populist policies impoverished the country
-Won the 2009 election by fraud leading to demonstrations, which were put down harshly by Pazdaran (Revolutionary Guards), caused many arrests of the opposition and required the intervention of Khameini

Growing Power of Revolutionary Guards (Pazdaran)
-Control large parts of the economy through religious foundations called bonyad
-Control as much military power as the military (including naval and air units)
-Are thought to control the nuclear program
-Have become a major political force in the country
-Symbolize the victory of the repressive state over the clerics

2011/2012 - Conservatives Seemed Firmly in Control
-Khamenei supported the the conservative backlash against the liberals
-Wave of arrests rolled into 2011-2012, adding to the hundreds of political prisoners arrested in 2009 and after
-Government began censoring the internet and banned the use of social networks
-Sanctions caused hardship, but initially had no apparent influence on Iran's security policies or basic politics
--earned $114 billion from oil in 2011, $74 bln. in '12 and $31 bln. in 2013
---To fill the gap, government cut fuel subsidies and increased non-oil taxes, both unpopular measures --> GDP declined in 2012 and 2013, currency has lost half its value since 12/11 & inflation has surged, as government prints money

Conservatives Split, Surprise Moderate - Hassan Rouhani - is Elected President in 2013
-Hassan Rouhani --- last minute entry, defeated 5 conservative candidates, far from liberal but pragmatic minded and experienced politician and diplomat
-Proceeded cautiously on domestic issues, not challenging the conservatives on a broad front, choosing his battles carefully
-Chief innovation to date is 11/13 interim accord on nuclear weapons with 5+1 group
-Conservatives are starting to move against him, Khamenei has stood behind him so far

Inadvertent Secularization:
-In Arab countries, repression of Islamist expression by secular rulers turned religion into a rallying point for political opposition
-In Iran, the Islamic revolution, by establishing Shia Islam as a state ideology, inadvertently secularized society
----Prayer rooms in all public buildings -- hardly ever used
---Muezzins have mostly been silenced because of objections to noise

Modernity Behind the Veil
-60% of college students are women
-Net reproduction rate has fallen (below self-sustaining)
Written in 2007
Assembly of Experts - 86 member clerical board that selects Supreme Leader
-Ahmadinejad partially came to power because liberal-minded Iranian's boycotted 2005's Presidential election and he adeptly played the populist card, the militants, the unemployed and cultural conservatives of less affluent neighborhoods
-Isolated within his own faction - criticized for his economic policies that didn't lower unemployment and inflation / Supreme Leader affiliated newspaper suggests he used nuclear issue to distract public from failed policies --> diminished popular support for the nuclear program
=Thus Iranian political system seems to restore its equilibrium by showing an extremist President the limits of his powers
-isolated within powerful conservative establishment whose politics are determinative --> Khamenei commands a faction known as the traditional conservatives
-No elected leader can serve or execute a policy agenda without the agreement of the Supreme Leader and his associates
-Military, paramilitary elements, partly extremist clerics & inexperienced new conservative politicians, those in Ahmadinejad's faction are called "neoconservatives" -- ideology is less new than old, harking back to the early days of the Islamic republic -->
-Since that period, same elite has largely run Iranian politics, divided into factions, yet the act of wielding power has mellowed many hard-liners into pragmatists
-Some assumed Ahmadinejad's election to have been approved by Khamenei, figured he'd serve as a Secretary --> then proceeded to clear house of 20,000 bureaucrats, introduce a slate of candidates for public office

-Qom - scorned by middle-class, educated citizens of Tehran, is the center of religious Puritanism and political repression, pilgrimage destination, home to 50+ seminaries, institutions that pre-existed universities in Iran --> 40,000 students enter every year
--extensive libraries of scholarly books in English - important to understand Western ideas to better resist and refute them

Mesbah-Yazsi - Ayatollah that is supported and linked with Ahmadinejad --> famous for leading vocal prayers / diatribes against popular sovereignty, free speech, women's right and Islamic reform - believes public execution and flogging are basic principles of Islam
-Members of his circle occupy several key government posts
-Before Ahmadinejad, they were pushed to margins of Iranian politics, complained about efforts of reformist Khatami to advance his agenda through elected branches of government --> basically challenging the sovereign power of the chief jurist - the supreme leader --> "Islam was the government of God, not the government of the people"

-Democracy was acceptable within the boundaries of Islam and human rights were contained within Islam, but such rights should not include freedom of worship or freedom to believe things that are untrue or unwise
-Ahmadinejad had a redistributionist and anti-imperialist agenda -- never possessed particularly conservative moral or social agenda - made allies out of political convenience
-Looked to the extreme right rather than seeking allies among traditional conservatives, exposed himself politically - arrogant move - didn't want to make any compromises, basically stood against the entire political structure in Iran

-Rafsanjani - convinced by Supreme leader to run for Assembly of Experts --> person behind the rise of Khamenei and Khatami --> not popular due to adopting economic liberalization program involving austerity measures during his presidency ---> Yet emerged as the compromises candidate of reformists and traditional conservatives

-Voters mention structural weakness in the Iranian state - founded on 2 conflicting ideas - the sovereignty of the people and divinely inspired clerical rule - Iranian Republic has suffered from a decadelong crisis of legitimacy
-Crisis was made worse by the reform movement due to its cautious temperament and legalistic methods
-Khatami's presidency - what use was the supreme leader in a democracy? and why have elections in a theocracy?
-Trying to making an amalgam of Western, liberal, democratic ideas and Shiite theology is nonsense - doesn't work
-Either we have Western liberal philosophy, republican government and checks & balances or we should stick to Mesbah --> Khomeini was so popular and charismatic - People rallied behind him and believed he was infallible
-Khomeini approved a constitution drafted by more liberal associates that was a blueprint for a parliamentary democracy - council of clergymen played an advisory role

-To this day, structure of Iranian state remains too liberal for the authoritarians and too authoritarian for the liberals, but traditional conservatives at center of power can't resolve this obvious paradox at the republic's heart without relinquishing their own position.
-Best they did, was revise the Constitution after Khomeini's death, greatly expanding the powers of clerical councils and supreme leader at expense of elected officials

-Khameinei's associates were paternalistic in their view of the state rather than outright authoritarian - seemed to genuinely believe in a limited form of popular sovereignty, guided obviously by Islamic scholar so people would not fall into error but necessary for the legitimacy of the state

-Reformist clerics hope to transform this traditional conservative establishment by introducing new policies through legal channels of the state / persuading jurists to assimilate new ideas about rights and freedoms into their interpretations of sacred texts

-Iranian economy has been mismanaged since the revolution, Under Ahmadinejad, inflation rose, foreign investors have rejected Iranian markets, fearing political upheaval or foreign invasion, Iranian stock market has plummeted, Iranian capital has moved to Dubai
-Yet Iran is not a poor country, it is highly urbanized and modern with a sizable middle class. Oil revenue should generating significant money for the state --> Presidents have upset the public with numerous austerity efforts
Iran's institutions, elections, and political factions matter and wield considerable impact over government's course of action --> its elaborate bureaucracy, fiercely competitive political culture and singular personalities jockey for influence and power ---> interplay of all these institutions & actors ultimately determine Iran's policies
-New generation of stern conservatives has assumed power want to return to roots of revolution
-Conflict stems from contradiction deeply embedded in its governing structure - Islamic Republic = state divided between competing centers of power and profoundly differing conceptions of political authority
-Original constitution made foremost purpose of state was to create conditions under which noble and universal values of Islam should be nourished --> created unelected institutions as Supreme Leader and Guardian Council
-Yet differed from totalitarian state by giving population right to elect president, parliament and council --> duality reflects legacy of a revolution fueled by diverse coalition of secularists, liberals and fundamentalists to overthrow monarchy
-Clerical estate has never managed to exercise undisputed dominance over public affairs --> popular will remained a key arbiter of the Iranian's state's legitimacy
-Iran today = in search of an identity --> oscillating between promises of democratic modernity and retrogressive tradition --> elections have made it impossible for Iran to become a rigid, authoritarian state
-Transition to democracy must come on own terms --> factional politics, ideological divisions and political rivalries are complex & nuanced
-Distinction between people & regime fades considering how decentralized and flexible Iran's Islamic order has become in recent decades

Foreign Policy
-Best way to understand Iran's foreign policy = matrix of 3 competing elements - Islamic ideology, national interests and factional politics --> policy characterized by degree of inconsistency and wild oscillation between pragmatism and dogma
-1980s represented high point of revolutionary activism - Khomeini say himself as a leader of transnational community of believers --> 90s fundamental shift occurred in Iran's international orientation --> emphasizing national interests as defining factor in approach to Foreign Policy --> tried to offset US power, built its own coalition with China and Russia
-With Khamanei, coalition of reformers, conservatives emerged around idea that Iran can't remain isolated from global order --> being challenged
-Ahmadinejad & supporters criticize elders ability to impose Islamic ordinances and for the rampant corruption
-Ahmadinejad dispensed with Khatami's dialogue of civilizations rhetoric, displays hostility to US and indifference to Europe
-Supreme Leader, others impose serious checks on the "New Right" AKA Ahmadinejad's agenda - he lacks the authority and stature to impose his vision with country's competing centers of power

-Conflict between ideological determinations and practical considerations continue to plague Iran --> Iran has confounded expectations, notions of theocracy coming to power in the late 20th century contradicts conventional wisdom of progress, which presumed modernizing societies necessarily discard their traditions

Khomeini's Legacy
-Election of Ahmadinejad who promised return to revolutionary roots, economic justice & political conformity = society still has identity defined by First Supreme Leader
-Khomeini was an innovator, borrowed secular ideas - cleverly integrated Islamic principles, populist slogans - Persian nationalist themes and leftist concepts into a seamless narrative = CHARISMATIC
-continuously tailor his message to conform to Iran's core values and grandiose self-perception --> call for a state that reflects Islamic values attracted Iranians from across the political spectrum
-Central tenet of ideology was notion of justice - powerful concept in Persian nationalism and Islamic jurisprudence --> opposed to monarchy in Iran and tyranny across Islamic realm
-Previously, tradition among clerics was to disdain politics for the more exalted mission of spiritual training
-Khomeini radically departed from prevailing Shiite traditions - clerics had been alienated from masses --> his concept of Islamic government was for the people, but not democratic --> showed disdain for collective will, people & their decisions needed to be perfected by a clerical regime
-By appropriating Islam's sacred symbols and invoking history of struggle against foreign infidels, Khomeini transformed Islam into an anti-Western ideology
-At the core, Khomeini's ideological conception rejected the notion of the nation-state
-Revolution would be curious mixture of dogmatic objectives and ideological flexibility, relentless determination and tactical retreats
-Khomeini offered something to everyone with opportunistic message concealing his essential objectives so he could broaden his coalition --> early period of the revolution proved formidable as Khomeini sought to consolidate his rule, dispense with allies of convenience --> next needed to ensure the institutionalization of his vision
-By creating non-elected institutions such as Guardian Council w/ powers to veto parliamentary legislation & presidential determinations, Ayatollah ensured that decisions of elected branches of government would not effect essential demarcations of power --> would have elections but if non-elected clerics held control of power, popular opinion for change would be contained
-Iran is different from other revolutionary countries as ideology of state is its religion
-Khomeini & others long honed their organizational skills to control influence of secular forces --> effectively used mosques (Iran's only nationwide network) and domination revolutionary committees overseeing local affairs, appropriation of the defunct regime's wealth and mobilization of their zealous supporters --> fashioned a parallel regime with more authority than moderate provisional government (Stalin-esque)
-Khomeini's political acumen failed him = Iran never evolved into a pure totalitarian state / differences and divisions among his followers began to surface / efforts to impose Shiite religion as dogma of the state was partly undermined by traditions of very same faith
Conservatives, Pragmatists and Reformers
-3 political tendencies emerged in struggle for leadership of Iran
- Hard-liners, united by contempt for democratic pluralism and determination to sustain Khomeini's legacy, were led by Khamenei
-More moderate and pragmatic elements within the clerics believed that the perpetuation of Islamic rule mandated a greater attention to the economic deficiencies of the state and integration into the global economy --> pressed for degree of cultural freedom and normalized relations with states that were long isolated
-Group of clerical and intellectual reformers who stressed the legitimacy of the state was contingent on the vitality of its representative institutions --> emphasized elected branches of the state and important of popular will in charting national course = Khatami would emerge as most important

Khamenei and the Right
-adept political survivor, would become more conservative, even reactionary, underwent subtle transformation into a harsh, uncompromising ideologue
-ensured the right's political hegemony by dominating Iran's nonelected institutions --> came to dominated coercive instruments of power - revolutionary guards
-Right generally believe that legitimacy of Islamic establishment is derived from God, legitimacy will not disappear if people stop supporting it
-Paradoxical sense, hard-liners celebration of commerce weighs against fostering a modern industrial economy - creation of such an infrastructure is rejected in favor of merchant class with trade monopolies and unregulated practices
-Mainstay of right-wing power bloc remains vast religious foundations, bonyads - dominate trade and manufacturing sectors, become huge holding companies dominating key industries while evading competition and state regulation
-Much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is being procured by firms owned by members of Guards
-Inflexibility of the hard-liners' outlook stands in stark contrast to a dynamic and changing Iranian society

Rafsanjani and the Politics of Pragmatism
-one of the architects of the revolution, held nearly ever important office in post-revolutionary Iran
-legitimacy of the state and continuation of Islamic rule were contingent on its economic performance --> spent much of his career seeking to build strong institutions, supported by competent and expanding bureaucracy
-Using China as a model, they hoped to conceive a new order that would be economically efficient, culturally tolerant and politically autocratic --> never wanted to create a democratic polity
-private economies would need to take priority over emphasis on social justice --> emphasis private initiatives and attract foreign investments
-stood against totalitarian Islam of the Right -- necessary to accommodate at least some of the populace's political aspirations --> didn't want to create a more liberal society, but a more stable one
- Hard-liners employed institutional power to thwart reform measures --> Era of Reconstruction didn't liberalize the economy, borrowing from international markets put Iran in unenviable position of having huge debt burden --> problem was their inability to change the fundamental power of the hard-liners

Reformers (Khatami):
-Reform Movement was vast coalition of dissident intellectuals, liberal clerics, middle-class professionals and hard-pressed students
-Needed to reconcile 2 competing demands - 1) Islam with holistic pretensions, maintaining how society and individual lives should be governed & 2) movement for political modernity with its democratic claims
-Reformers' ideology was that the interpretation of the scriptures can't remain immutable and must adjust to changing human conditions
-For Reformers, the elected institutions of the Islamic Republic were more important sources of authority than its appointed offices with mandates from heaven
-Compulsory of religious structures and a disdain for collective will would erode foundations of the state
-Couldn't institutionalize their ideas --> never developed a grassroots organizational network to sustain their momentum & lacked a coherent strategy

Iran, politics is a shifting landscape but for reformers or pragmatists to obtain real power, they would have to move beyond their institutions and transform themselves into a viable oppositional force --> only pathway out of Iran's current impasse is restoration of the original draft of Iran's constitution, which pledged separation of powers, a strong presidency and a clear demarcation of responsibilities for the elected institutions

Nuclear Weapon
-wants bomb to craft a viable deterrent posture against a range of threats
-It is the developments in the Gulf that will likely condition Iran's defense posture and nuclear ambitions for foreseeable future
-impact of Iran-Iraq war on Iran's nuclear calculations can't be underestimated
-Pakistan, which also possesses a strain of anti-Shiism and has nuclear capabilities, also presents a possible threat
-Hovering over these threats is fact that Iran is strategically lonely, does not have true allies --> not a irrational rogue state --> not a bomb used as an instrument of an aggressive revolutionary foreign policy or to be distributed to terrorists
-Primary supporters of nuclear breakout option are hard-line elements associated with Supreme Leader --> Command of key institutions like Revolutionary Guard & Guardian Council, Iran's reactionary clerics have enormous influence on national security planning
-Tenet of hard-liners' ideology is the nation that Islamic Republic is in constant danger from predatory external forces --> further driven by rise of war veterans like Ahmadinejad
-At core, disarmament agreements call upon a state to forego a certain degree of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced security
The creation of Nation-States under the Soviet Union
-created accidentally, unintentionally, entities that were part of pseudo-federal structure of Soviet Union - developed attributes of state-hood

Basis for National Identity:
-Sleeping Beauty Theory: National Identity is something that exists and is dormant for variety of reasons - invasions of ethnic groups, its underground / asleep, can be awoken by a charismatic leader --> results in the rising of a national conscience leading to the formation of a nation state
-Frankenstein's Bride Theory: National identity is manufactured with certain tales retold by intellectuals, journalists, politicians in the business of creating myths that eventually serve as the basis for a national identity that you claim existed all along but when examined its a manufactured product
-Can be language, race, religion, history, culture, placed lived = these are all raw materials out of which tale can be fabricated and myths can created a national identity --> what matters really is whether people adopt these tales and allow these stories to define their identity

Central Asia: A Soviet Laboratory for Building Nation-States
-Smooth emergence of nation-states in Central Asia when most experts in 1991 believed that the region would be highly unstable
-The Soviet Union was powerful mechanism for creation of "nations" in Central Asia
-Stalin's aim was to break up the existing religious and linguistic blocs and to defeat the existing nationalisms by inventing new nationalities and artificial nation-states
-These were the usual phony pseudo-republics, designed to be dependent on an all-powerful center, but they had all the formal trappings of statehood
-But the joke was on the Soviets, these institutions generated a political class, a bureaucracy
-Traditional elites were destroyed in 1920s, new elites created to run new Soviet structures --> new elites reinhabited these new Soviet Structures, recreating traditional patterns of life, especially at local level (Fragmented Authoritarianism) --> Key players were chairmen of collective farms in these agricultural areas
-Never challenged Soviet ideology, but quietly subverted it (Negative Power / Fragmented Authoritarianism)
-The elite was local, Moscow was far away, only connection was apparatus of Communist Party - only career ladder was through the Party, local elites turned to their own ends
-National Code but not nationalism nor modernization around a nationalist ideology or culture --> Muslim in way of life not religion (dress, cooking, marriage)
-Intellectuals played role of "technicians", not cultural leaders
-Linguistic "dvulichie" - Russian used only in "politically correct" situations

Great Uzbek Cotton Scam - Local Subversion
-In 70s and 80s, every year Uzbekistan reported millions of tons of cotton that didn't exist & Moscow paid for "phantom cotton"
-Money flowed down throughout Uzbek political establishment

Foundations of National Identity: Language
-"Soviet Colony" was a more apt description for Central Asia
-Russians lived in major cities, Central Asians in the country --> Since independence, many Russians have left (only Kazakhstan still has a large Russian minority)
-Rapid "de-Russification" since independence - Russian could disappear as a lingua franca (except in Kazakhstan)
-Mostly Turkic languages of Central Asia create "distance" from Russia and from other Turkish republics
-Because the various Turkic languages are not mutually intelligible

Foundations of National Identity: Islam in Central Asia
-Sunni Islam mostly
-2 Streams of Islam: urban (role of orthodox ulamas) and nomadic (role of Sufi sects)
-Islam survived 3 waves of Soviet repression by going underground in rural areas
-New independent regimes favor orthodox "national" Islam but repress Islamic radicalism
-Began policy in 1990s of proactive repression of Islam that regimes felt would undermine their efforts and threaten their legitimacy since they lacked the ability to maintain the same level of welfare support as the previous Soviet government --> Due to the lack of a welfare state, an Islamic Civil Society has emerged through rich business men
-Iran has little influence, but Turkey and Saudi Arabia are active

Region was stable on the whole in the 1990s (Tajikistan and Azerbijian were exceptions due to wars destabilizing Soviet-era leaderships)
-Stability was due to generation of Soviet-era strongmen
-Family dynasty and Clan-Based Rule
-Two revolutions in present decade bring down 2 chieftains of 1990s - Pink Revolution in Georgia & "Pseudo-Tulip" Revolution in Kyrgyzstan
-System of leadership is largely unchained - still based on extended family and clan
Uzbekistan: Islam Karimov's Fief
-Former Head of Uzbek Communist Party --> Elected President (1991) in countries first and only free election = suppresses opposition after 1992
-Clear human rights abuses but size and strategic location of Uzbekistan make Karimov a valued ally
-Karimov is 77 with no sons, only daughter has been described as a robber baron, accused of taking billions in bribes --> doesn't have a clear successor

Problems in Uzbek Society
-Government controls "official" Islam tightly through a government committee of Religious Affairs and a Muslim Spiritual Board --> which approves Imams and prayers, and an official Islamic University
-There's penetration by secret police and repression of unauthorized meetings and activities
-Yet Islamic Civil Society continues to develop at a local level due to support of local Muslim businessmen, operating charities and other welfare activities, conduct prayer meetings and readings of Quran
-Local activity is difficult for regime to monitor and control -->except when it erupts into violence

Turkmenistan:
-Niyazov, head of Communist Party from 1985 and elected President in 1990 --> consolidates dictatorship by 1992 --> becomes increasingly erratic ruler --> stagnant economy with key resource of natural gas --died unexpectedly and was replaced by a dentist

Kazakhstan:
-Nazarbayev - Junior Technical College Education, Worked 10 years in a Steel Complex, Switched to Party in early 30s & rose quickly, Prime Minister in 1984 at 44 --> First Secretary of Kazakh Communist Party in 1989
-Half of Russian population had been in Kazakhstan for less than 50 years --> 1 in 4 Russians has left since 1991 --> Change in ethnic balance took leadership by surprise
-Russian language remains widely used, educated population still functions largely in Russian --> Yet official policies have become more biased in favor of Kazakhs at all levels

Clans in Kazakhstani Politics: 3 Broad Umbrella Clans
-Younger Clan (Western Kazakhstan) = historically the least prestigious and influential (also least reliable) until oil and gas were discovered in Western region
-Middle Clan (Northern Kazakhstan) - historically most Russified = strongly represented in the technical and intellectual elite
-Elder Clan (Southeastern Kazakhstan) - historically the most influential in Kazakh politics, given its proximity to the capital
-Elder Clan dominates at the top --> Helped Nazarbaev consolidate his power, yet securing loyalty of Middle Clan was problem during 1990s - moved capital to help boost influence of Middle Clan

Inter-Clan Rivalry:
-"Concealable, often invisible, private and hotly contested"
-In Soviet period, clans allowed individuals to access "scarce goods" that would have been difficult to procure otherwise in a society of scarcity
-In post-Soviet times, clans privatize the state and its associated resources --> the dominant class systematically privilege their own
2 Possible Gaming Strategies in Clan Politics: Clan Clientelism and Clan Balancing
-All-out Clan Clientelism leads to the destruction of the state (Somalia)
-In Kazakhstan, there is evidence of both strategies at work simultaneously --> Clientelism at the core of the regime and balancing throughout the rest of the system

Why Not Democracy in Central Asia?
(Prerequisites of Democracy)

"Intermediate Bodies" between the state and the family (Civil Society)
--Political parties
--Private property backed by strong property norms
--NGOs supported by local population
--Independent Media

Popular and Elite Commitment to Democratic Notes:
-Demand for Public Accountability
-Willingness to Accept Alternation of Power
-A Commitment to Participation

Unity Around a Common Identity:
-Primary identification with clans, ethnic groups, regions, class, or religion weakens sense of common citizenship
-No deep social and cultural gulf between the public and political elite
Picture of identity politics that prevails among political scientists is forces of modernization dissolve group boundaries and nationalism causes subnational divisions to progressively fade from social and political importance = identity modernization
-subethnic attachments are seen to reside beyond the reach of the state apparatus --> either they disappear as state apparatuses consolidate or they remain outside the purview of the state
-state functionally requires the elimination of lower-aggregate cultural and political attachments = inherent tension
-Education plays central role in homogenizing previously differentiated cultures
-Nationality emerges as a functional requirement of the modern state - statehood requires social integration and assimiliation to be effective
-Expression of subethnicity in modern period is evidence of failed or incomplete modernization

Kazakhstan = specific mechanisms of modernization may preserve or strengthen lower-level attachments
-Subethnic clan politics deserves attention because it poses critical challenges to nation-building efforts, state-building programs and battles over the nature of legitimate authority
-Kinship affiliations are built on profound and often exclusive group solidarities based on trust
-Clans have profound effect on nationalization because they provide advantages to members, they generate clear rules by which members interact, thus lowering transaction costs - what is a boon to individual members is a burden to larger social unit --> proliferation of nonproductive activities ---> performance of formal, state-introduced institutions suffers in areas where kinship networks remains vibrant
--Subethnic divisions help define the modus operandi of the state's exercise of power
-Clan divisions play a stabilizing role in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan --> help distribute political and social goods - generating something close to a stable equilibrium by which the state conducts its affairs

-Weberian legal-rational state that elites claim to want to create excels at providing public goods, lower-aggregate networks provide goods to more limited populations --> complicates attempts to create markets and democratic institutions
-profound interpersonal trust and anonymous transactions are competing principles of functioning of markets
-Weber: Clan identities, institutions and sources of legitimacy create a traditional dynamic that foil attempts to create an effective, modern bureaucracy
-Weberian: Clans represent subversiveness of traditional society as it attempts to construct modern institutions --> basically a society in an earlier form of development

Primordialist Viewpoints
-Clans don't require common abstractions to link members of a national group --> appear based in iterated, day to day social interaction based in deep seated feelings of trust and loyalty
-Primordialist: profound emotional attachment prevents members of group from challenging the assumption of group's unity --> once trust is established kinship is an organizing device for stabilizing social ties - pattern of frequent interaction over time leads to social embeddedness of of kinship and clan relations -- explains upsurge in clan politics as Soviet power receded in Central Asia

-Soviet drive to modernize a traditional landscape in fact had the opposite effect of increasing import of kinship by tapping its most inherent quality - its concealable nature (Kazakhstan)
-Coercive and bureaucratic structures & unusual degree of attempted control over civil society --> created institutions that initiated wrong behavior by offering wrong incentives --> they served to create ethnic divisions
1) passports & other documentation emphasized ethnic background
2) political appointments and professional advancement often centered on ethnic criteria
3) ethnically defined working classes were created
4) ethnic languages received state support
5) ethnically defined elites enjoyed distinctive privileges
--central planning economic shortages - subverted by clan networks that used their links to obtain access to goods
-Experience was one of many failures of Soviet high-modernism to improve the human condition
-
Potential Weaknesses in Karimov State = Islamic Civil Society --> demonstrated an ability to mobilize populations, meet many needs the central Uzbek state does not
-Islam-centered mobilization, though not oppositional in nature, exists largely outside the control of the central government
-3 previous opposition leaders were either driven underground or sentenced to prison
-Karimov represses Muslim leaders - they don't act in opposition to the state, unclear whose literal threat --> Islamic Civil Society is target of preemptive repression
-Karimov government uses state-run youth group Kamalot to ensure young Uzbeks dont turn to Islam and oppose Uzbek authoritarianism

Islamic Civil Society
-Karimov's focus on personal enrichment and his inattention to public welfare has encouraged Uzbeks to turn to local charities (Muslim) to fulfill needs not met by the government --> government views charities as a threat to government rule
-militant Islamists are considerably less threatening to Karimov than Uzbek's significantly widespread and less political Islamic Civil Society (ICS)
-Civil Society's sense of community and shared Islamic capital generates real economic wealth -->
-Society based wealth undermines the state's economic comparative advantage and threatens to attract regional and local bureaucrats out of Karimov's top down patronage system & into alliances with local business and religious elites

Regulation of Religion
-Karimov maintains state-administered spiritual dictatorship --> Committee on Religious Affairs --> created new institutions (Tashkent Islamic University) with hope of establishing novel secular Muslim elite
-Committee forces registration of mosques with Muslim Spiritual Board
-Yet, Islamic activists - community organizers and business elites operate outside of and dont perceive an immediate need to be accountable to the Uzbek government's Islamic oversight institutions

Everyday Repression of Islamic Leaders and Community Activists
-3/92 = beginning of wide-scale repression of Islamic community
-1999+, reports document Muslim leaders have vanished --> not militants but civic activists -- not covered by press = state controls Uzbek press
-2005, 750 died in government shooting on demonstrators = Andijan --> many were detained, mostly local businessmen

-Uzbek society broadly is increasingly turning away from the central state and toward their local communities
-Karimov's regime's resources for patronage politics are increasingly being overshadowed by resources Muslim business elites hold at the local level
-Increasingly failed rule at local level - declining control over regional appointees
-Youth mobilization may be an indicator of autocratic weakness rather than a casual force for liberal reform --> Karimov's attempt at youth mobilization is a sign of growing autocratic strain and the significant change to come
Markets may be a "private good" in the sense that society decides when and where supply will meet demand
-Markets are also public goods in that the state provides protection and regulation to enable marketplaces to function properly
-To trade it you must own it, one essential "meta-good" the state provides is the definition and protection of property and property rights

Crash of 1929 and Great Depression cause widespread disillusionment with free-market capitalism around the world (Von Hayek)
-Government intervention is hailed as the great remedy. John Maynard Keynes is the symbol of this view
-Free market capitalism is in disfavor from 1930s to 1970s
-But in 1970s, pendulum starts to shift the other way, reaching its extreme point in 2007
-The 2008 Crash and subsequent recession bring new round of disillusionment

-Over time, public has come to define more public goods (health care, mail, education, prisons, road and rail) as have to have
-Stave Agency vs. Private Contract = US has often been called the "contract state" --> govt. provides public goods through private means
-Over time, global debt has grown to record levels paying for these goods

Reflections of Great Recession - 2007-09
-Caused by:
---Global Savings Imbalance: Chinese (& Japanese & German) savings invested in US debt (drives down interest rates and encourages low saving)
---Financial innovation run amok: New and complex financial products outstrip the ability of managers and regulators to control them
----US Housing Bubble: Low interest rates, financial innovation and a policy commitment to home ownership all combine to produce a speculative bubble
---Led to financial meltdown --> long-term damage to financial sector leads to reduced lending, take long time to recover
---Only extreme govt. intervention averted a financial meltdown in US ---> bipartisan rescue package, taxpayer may end up making money from bailout of banks, economy is still on life support

Major Consequences
-A sudden end to wave of "Born-again" capitalism
-A populist backlash against bankers and banks
-A dramatic increase in government debt, red ink likely for decades
---Indirect Consequence: Backlash against the state, not the market in the US

Outside of US, massive intervention of governments was welcomed
--China = state responded with heavy investments in infrastructure (roads, railroads, airports) financed by state banks
--Russia = oligarchs were bailed out by state - took ownership of many private banks and businesses
--Europe = states embarked on massive spending deficit to maintain demand (followed by a switch to austerity to cut back state budgets to balance)

2008-2009 Crash - caused Born-Again Capitalism to fade
-"Keynes is back", von Hayek is out of fashion again
-State capitalism and gated globalization are the order of the day
-inequality is greater than any time since the 1930s

Mostly about efficiency - when is a good provided more efficiently by the state or by the market
-Core Argument of von Hayek & Chicago School - Milton Friedman = markets are more efficient than bureaucrats and regulators
-In any case, markets are forces of nature, cannot be dammed up or denied, except at great cost in lost wealth and growth
-Markets have drawbacks --> they are unstable and unpredictable, they overshoot in both directions, they are governed by a cycle of fear and greed
-Markets are destructive ("creative-destruction")
-Markets generate inequalities, "haves" rig the markets against "have-nots"
-Market underprovide some goods, generate "illfare" in addition to welfare
Ongoing, shifting relationship describing the realm and responsibility of of the state in the economy and what kind of protection the state is supposed to afford its citizens

-Austrian School of Economic Thought = Markets work, Governments Don't -->
-Von Hayek = opposed government regulation, tariffs, and other infringements on a pure free market --> eventually went to UChicago & taught Milton Friedman

At extreme - USSR, China and other communist states sought to suppress market intelligence & private property, replaced with central planning and state ownership
-Industrial countries of West & developing economies, model was "mixed economy" - governments flexed their knowledge & played strong dominating role without completely stifling the market mechanism
-Happened in West - added expansive Welfare state after WW2

Early on (30s), USSR enjoyed economic prestige, 5 year plans for industrial development, command and control economy seen as antidote to unemployed and capitalism's failures in the 1930s
-Limitations and rigidity of central planning and its fatal flaw, its inability to innovate, were still decades away from being evident
-War vastly enlarged the economic realm of government (Britain)
-Commanding Heights - term from Lenin - control of commanding heights of economy in Britain - After WW2 - labour party nationalized industries
---> Public Sector must control "Commanding Heights" of the Economy = electricity, telephones, oil, gas, coal, steel, trains & planes
-France would expand govt. in face of apparent weakness of market system --> ensure choice was modernization, Monet plan

-Keynes: economy was chronically unstable and subject to fluctuations -- replace the missing private investment with public investment financed by deliberate deficits - standardized national income accounting - basis for field of macroeconomics
-Keynes: intellectual foundations for a managed and wel-fare oriented form of capitalism
-Keynes ideas used to create Bretton Woods Treaty - create World Bank and IMF - international banking system & exchange rates

-1970s - characterized by chronically poor economic performance - oil embargo, Iranian revolution --> loss of faith in Keynesian plan
-Stagflation - rising unemployment and inflation

-Keith Joseph
--problem of Britain, struggles of economy in 80s was due to statism, consensus politics for mixed economy
--wanted conviction politics, compassionate capitalism
--need wealth-creating, job-creating entrepreneurs
-Thatcher elected as Prime Minister in 79, needed to implement Joseph's ideas
-Thatcher argued government was doing too much,
-Developed Thatcherism = rejection of Keynesianism, constraining of the welfare state and government spending, commitment to reduction of direct government intervention, effort to reduce high tax rates and commitment to reduce government's deficit --> MOST Decisive Element = PRIVATIZATION
-State companies often proved in practice to be highly inefficient, inflexible, poorly performing employment agencies, politically pressured to maintain and expand employment far beyond what was needed
3 core goods of democracy: participation, competition and liberty

Third Wave: Another Pendulum of Ideological Fashion?
-Beginning in the 1970s, a "third wave of democratization" swept the world
-share of electoral democracies grew by 23% from 1989 to 2005 (Coincides with born-again faith in free markets)
Paradox of 20th Century:
-Was a century of totalitarianism, yet it was a century of democratization, sometimes in same country
-End of century = communism & fascism failed, democracy was last standing

3 Waves
-1st Wave (1828 - 1926) = had roots in French and American revolutions, largely limited to Europe and places settled by English
-2nd Wave (1943-1962) = Followed Victory of Allies & Weakening of Colonial Powers
-3rd Wave (1974-2005) = no single explanation
-"Second-try" returns to democracy: Spain, Greece Portugal
-Returns after an interruption: Chile, India, Philippines
-Slow Direct Transitions: Taiwan, South Korea, Mexico
-Post-Communist: Serbia, Georgia (sorta)
-Oscillators: Turkey, several Latin American countries, Ukraine

Democracies are difficult to design
-Rule by the people means the people are sovereign --> some type of representative democracy
-But Pure parliamentary systems are unstable and ineffective (Italy) / Pure Presidential Systems are prone to degenerate into tyrannies (Russia)
-Separation of powers is pragmatic solution, but each power bodies a different principle of popular sovereignty and presentation -->
-Parliament reps. localities and has power of the purse
-President reps. the nation & has control of coercion
-What does constitutional court represent (higher land of law legitimized / legitimacy of community standards)? Usually follows the election returns
---Balance of Powers is never given - example of evolution of French Republic

Implied that you trust your representative to act in your interest --> 2 classic mechanisms to institutionalize mistrust
-Recall , term limits & Oversight

Why Not Democracy?
(Prerequisites of Democracy)

"Intermediate Bodies" between the state and the family (Civil Society)
--Political parties
--Private property backed by strong property norms
--NGOs supported by local population
--Lobby Groups representing the Population
--Independent Media

Popular and Elite Commitment to Democratic Notes:
-Demand for Public Accountability
-Willingness to Accept Alternation of Power
-A Commitment to Participation

Unity Around a Common Identity:
-Primary identification with clans, ethnic groups, regions, class, or religion weakens sense of common citizenship
-No deep social and cultural gulf between the public and political elite

A smaller state, responsible for less -> where the stakes of politics are less

Other Possibility: Fake It
-"Procedural Democracy"
-"Delegative Democracy"
-Creative Ballot-Stuffing
-or Outright Fraud
1) Existing theories and typologies of democracy refer to representative democracy as it exists with all its variations and subtypes in highly developed capitalist countries
2) Some newly installed democracies (Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Philippines, Korea & other postcommunist) are democracies in the sense that they meet Robert Dahl's criteria for the definition of a polyarchy (power invested in multiple people)
3) Yet these democracies are not and don't seem to be on the path toward becoming representative democracies, they present characteristics worth describing as Delegative Democracies (DD)
4) DDs are not consolidated (institutionalized) democracies, but they may be enduring. Many times, there is no sign either of any imminent threat of authoritarian regression or of advances towards representative democracy
5) Important Interaction Effect: deep social and economic crisis that most of these countries inherited from their authoritarian predecessors reinforces certain practices and conceptions about proper exercise of political authority that lead in direction of delegative, not representative democracy

Following Considerations:
A) Installation of a democratically elected government opens the way for a second transition, often longer and more complex than the initial transition from authoritarian rule
B) Second transition supposed to be from democratically elected government to institutionalized, consolidated democratic regime
C) Nothing guarantees, that 2nd transition will occur. New democracies may regress to authoritarianism or they may stall in uncertain situations. Situation can endure without opening avenues for institutionalized forms of democracy
D) Crucial element determining success of 2nd transition is building of set of institutions that become important decision points in flow of political power
E) Successful outcome = governmental policies and political strategies of various agents must embody the recognition of a paramount shared interest in democratic institution building. Successful cases featured decisive coalition of broadly supported political leaders taking great care in creating and strengthening democratic political institutions --> institutions make it easier to cope with the social and economic problems inherited from authoritarian regime

Institutions:
-Factors indispensable for workings of democracies - those that pertain to formation and representation of collective identities and interests

1) Institutions both Incorporate and Exclude:
-Determine which agents, on basis of resource, claims, procedures are accepted as valid participants in their decision-making and implementation processes --> Criteria selective to make some agents reshape themselves in order to meet them

2) Institutions Shape Probability Distribution of Outcomes:
-Institutions of interest representation are better at processing the intensity of preferences, although at the expense of universalism of voting and citizenship

3) Institutions Tend to Aggregate and Stabilize the Aggregation of the Level of Action and Organization of Agents Interacting with Them
-rules established by institutions influence strategic decisions
-Institutions or people within them have limited information processing capacities --> prefer to interact with limited # of issues

4) Institutions induce patterns of representation
-institutions favor the transformation of the many potential voices of their constituencies into a few that speak as their representatives

5) Institutions stabilize agents/representatives and their expectations
-The institution is in equilibrium, it is in nobody's interest to change it, except in incremental and basically consensual ways

6) Institutions lengthen the time-horizons of Actors:
-Institutionalized interactions are expected to continue in the future among the same set of agents. --> high level of aggregation of representation and control of constituencies -> foundation for "competitive cooperation" --> characterizes institutionalized democracies

-functioning of democratic institutions provide a crucial level of mediation and aggregation between structural factors and individuals / diverse groupings organizing multiple interests and identities
-Noninstituionalized Democracy = Place of well-functioning institutions is taken by other nonformalized but strongly operative praactices - clientelism, patrimonialism and corruption

-Delegative democracies rest on the premise that whoever wins Presidency is entitled to govern as they see fit --> constrained only by term limit and existing power relations
-Can ignore resistance from political parties, interest groups - can voice critcisms --> just ignores them and isolates themselves as President, don't care
-Representative Democracy - entails accountability
-When institutionalized, accountability runs vertically at the ballot box and horizontal through other institutions
-Horizontal accountability = very weak in DDs --> allows President to avoid gridlock, quick legislation at expense of more mistakes & potentially bad implementation --> thus suffer wild swings in popularity
-No accountability - due to anti-institutional bias, encourages traditions of high personalization and concentrates power in the executive branch ---> while portraying extreme weakness in making these decisions into effective long-term regulations of societal life
Any authoritarian country that was attempting some sort of political liberalization from dictatorship called "transitional country"
-Most countries aren't actually in moving forward in transition to democracy
-Countries moving from authoritarianism dont follow 3 part process of democratization - 1) opening, 2) breaking-through, 3) consolidation
-Establishment of regular, genuine elections doesn't give new governments democratic legitimacy or foster a longer term deepening of of democratic participation and accountability
-Country's chances for successfully democratizing don't depend primarily on political intentions and actions of its political elites ---> significantly influenced by underlying economic, social and institutional conditions and legacies
-State-building isn't totally a secondary challenge to democracy-building and largely compatible with it

2 Political Syndromes of Regimes Stuck in Gray Zone of Transition to Democracy

Feckless Pluralism
-significant amounts of political freedom, regular elections, alternation of power between different political groupings
-Yet political participation extends little beyond voting, political elites are widely perceived as corrupt, ineffective
-Public is seriously disaffected --> state remains persistently weak
-Parties that alternate power help paralyze state, devote their time out of power to preventing the other party from accomplishing anything at all
-South American countries

Dominant-Power Politics
-Basic institutional forms of democracy,
-Yet one political grouping or party dominates the system that there is no prospect of alternation
-Blurring of the state and ruling party --> state as source of money, jobs, public information (Media), and police power
-Non-independent judiciary
-Long hold on power produces large-scale corruption and crony capitalism
-Kazakhstan, Russia?
-institutional legacies from predecessor regimes, social class, economic wealth and other structural factors strongly shape attempted democratic transitions

Basic Key Elements / Assumed Component Processes of Consolidation
-Political Party Development
-Civil Society Strengthening
-Judicial Reform
-Media Development
Why Does the State Keep Growing?
-Levi = Rulers are predatory revenue maximizers
-Scott = urge of political leaders to order nature and society
-Tilly = Mounting costs of defense and security
-Public's demand for more public goods (without wanting higher taxes to pay for them)
-Ulrich Beck = Growing risks and liabilities of modern life
-Simple demographics driving up spending on health care and pensions (older people)

Changing Views of State and its Roles
-18th century liberals "Government is best that governs least"
-Adam Smith: State spending limited be limited to roads and ports, defense of borders, and security for rich against poor
-19th century began to see state as protector of disadvantaged & corrective of market imperfections
-20th century came to see state as ultimate modernizing agent

Ulrich Beck & "Risk State"
-Ulrich's key idea is that progress, which was once self-legitimating, is increasingly perceived by the public in advanced societies as threatening
-We are more and more aware of the side-effects of progress (e.g., obesity instead of hunger, nuclear risks instead of "energy too cheap to meter," etc.)
-Risks are becoming global instead of local, and they are overwhelming traditional mechanisms of risk management (e.g., private insurance)
-Today's risks tend to be invisible and irreversible; and since they tend to be by-products of technology, technology becomes delegitimized, and the scientist/expert's authority is broken
This changes the nature of politics:
•In the "risk society," instead of conflict over goods we have conflict over bads
-(e.g., not over how many children are saved by measles vaccines, but over how many children are harmed by vaccines)
•Instead of the politics of wealth distribution in a society of scarcity, we have the politics of risk allocation
-In the former, politicians promise abundance; in the second, they promise security
•Even as the public's insecurity grows, their feeling grows that they are entitled to safety, security, and health
-Hence a great demand for the state to provide these new collective goods
-Scott vs. Beck: Scott's state is offensive; Beck's is defensive

The state keeps on growing because the public perceives more and more goods as "public goods" that should be provided
•The only thing is, We don't like to pay for them with higher taxes, and politicians don't want to commit suicide by proposing higher taxes
•So the popular answer is deficit spending through public debt, financed by Chinese, Japanese, and German savings
•Everybody does it...And then wipes away the debts through growth...and/or inflation...
In California spending decisions were disconnected from revenue decisions (e.g., Proposition 13 in 1978)
•And both were disconnected from the budget process
•As a result, the political process failed to produce coherent trade-offs
-Between spending an revenue
-And between competing spending priorities
•By 2010 public spending was out of control, financed by debt ($25 billion this year)
-Rulers are predatory in that they always try to set terms of trade that maximize their personal objectives
Rulers are predatory revenue maximizers
-Rulers will have more bargaining power the more they monopolize coercive, economic and political resources --> ensure they are a party to all exchanges of resources or by eliminating rival suppliers
-Rulers gain power in bargaining over policy -->increase in use of government for non-economic purposes and increase in government regulations
-Rulers will devise and formalize structures that increase their bargaining power, reduce their transaction costs and lower their discount rates --> design institutions to efficiently promote their interests
-Relative bargaining power of rulers is determined by the extent to which others control resources on which rulers depend and the extent to which rulers control resources on which others depend
-Rulers will alter forms of government to suit their purposes if they can
-Design institutions that facilitate low-cost monitoring
-The predatory desire of political leaders to maximize revenue is limited only by their bargaining power and the "transaction costs" involved.
-But what are "transaction costs"? They are the costs
of revenue collection.
-Transaction costs = costs of implementing and enforcing policies
Examples:
•In ancient Rome, it was difficult and expensive to raise taxes in distant Spain ("tax farming" was the classic answer)
-So—one reason modern states are able to raise more revenue is that the "technology" of taxation has become much more powerful.
•Specialized tax collectors with modern information technology; elaborate reporting requirements, etc.
-
High-Modernism
-urge of political leaders to order nature and society
-Scott was anarchist

Compared to Levi, Scott's focus is on what rulers want revenue (and power) for:
-To use the state to remake individuals and society in accordance with an overarching vision
•But what makes "high modernism" possible is the increased capacity of modern states:
-To measure, to uncover, to order about, to regulate
-To mobilize resources (including taxes)
•Levi compared to Scott:
-Levi's is a "supply-side" theory
-Scott's is "demand-side"—but it is the demand of rulers and their staffs
-Levi emphasizes the limits to predation by rulers ("bargaining power and transaction costs"); for Scott there are no limits

-To extract revenues, states / leaders must make complex environments into legible society -->
-Legible Society = Can get information, extract resources efficiently (census, documentation) = bad if authoritarian
-State needs to be aware of what's going on ---> need to order / organize society
-High-Modernism - Repressive State --> control over population --> design / construction over everything --> radical break from tradition --> banishing politics for science and technology, focus on future
High-Modernism = sweeping vision of how benefits of technical and scientific progress might be applied - through the state - in every field of human activity
-Implies radical break with history and tradition
-Begin with near limitless ambition to transform nature to suit man's purposes
-Revolutionary movements give further impetus to high-modernist ambitions
-3 factors resisting high-modernist
1) belief in private sphere --> state agencies may not legitimately interfere
2) Private sector in liberal political economy
3) Most important barrier = existence of working, representative institutions that allow resistance to continue
-Russian Revolution -Bolsheviks wanted to create "new man" - special code of ethics

-Industrial Farming / Collectivization --> centralization of production, standardized mass commodities
-Collectivization of Soviet agriculture = diagnostic case of authoritarian high-modernist planning --> imposed by brute force at the state's disposal
-Soviets waged war in the rural areas --> famine, war with peasantry = millions dead
-Collectivization proved success in sense that showed proof of twin goals of traditional statecraft: appropriation and political control
-System devised served for 60 years as a mechanism for procurement and control at a massive cost in stagnation, waste, demoralization and ecological failure
-Revolution greatly enhanced determination and capacity of peasant communities to resist the state
-Countryside was plundered / total collectivization - directly animated by party's determination to seize the land and crops sown on it

-Eventually, all focal points for autonomous public life had been eliminated --
-Destruction of villages = Concentration, legibility and centralization of social organizations and production
-High-modernist ideologies embody a doctrinal preference for certain social arrangements -> Authoritarian high-modernist states - often impose those preferences on their population --> preferences deduced by deduced from criteria of legibility, appropriation and centralization of control
-Principles of standardization, central control and legibility
Xi Jinping - Struggle for Power
-He becomes simultaneously head of the Party, the state, and the military
•Likely to rule for a decade (i.e., the space between three Party Congresses)
•His first act as leader: presiding over an anti-corruption campaign
-Having Won, He's Consolidating His Own Power
-In late 2012, he launched an anti-corruption campaign that produced punishments for 182,000 officials
•Now, a spectacular "tiger hunt" has brought down the most powerful Party official to be arrested for corruption
•Zhou Yongkang, formerly the head of state security and a member of the Politburo Standing Committee...
•...and a backer of Bo Xilai

Wang Qishan and his Army of Terror
-Head of Party's Central Commission for Discipline Inspection & Most Feared Man on President Xi's Team
-Hundreds of thousands of investigators have the power to detain and interrogate suspects without legal restraints
-This internal investigation process is called shuanggui (双规)
-Suspects are pressed into confessing to crimes and naming more names. This practically guarantees the purge will spread.
•Zou Yongkang, a longtime member of the Politburo Standing Committee, was arrested last year and has been in jail since
•Ma Jian, chief of China's counter-intelligence, was arrested in January on suspicion of corruption
•14 senior military officers have been arrested and dismissed from their posts
•One-third of provinces have lost at least one member of their senior party leadership
•The senior management of China's oil company, CNPC, has been depleted

China:
-Last Leninist Regime
-Oldest organized political community in the world
-Empire or Nation-state
-Claim to legitimacy?

Major Themes:
The Chinese practically invented the state.
•There has been a greater political continuity over a single people and a single territory than any other place on earth.
•It has had, over the millennia, a political system so effective that it has had more centuries of peaceful and stable rule than any other, although periodically interrupted by violence and chaos.
•China has always had a statist tradition, based on a Confucian concept of the emperor as father.
•China is the ultimate test of the proposition that the state can be a powerful modernizing agent
More recently, China has become a prime illustration of the "dialectics" of the nation-state and the globalized economy:
-On the one hand, it is globalization that has made the Chinese export-led economic miracle possible
-But on the other, China's growing exposure to the globalized economy brings with it the potential for destabilization
-What will be the "synthesis" of these "contradictions"? Nothing doubles every seven years forever
•Will there be a transition to democracy as China becomes a rich and established superpower?
-Some say, "China will become old before it becomes rich."
-In other words, the long-term threat is not destabilization but demography
China - Leninist State with Chinese Characteristics
-A formal structure similar to that of the Soviet Union
•The mythology of the revolution is still at the core of the ideology
•The Chinese Communist Party apparatus rules the country
•The executive dominates the legislature and the judiciary
•The central government dominates the provinces and local governments

Mao
-Broke with the orthodox Marxist faith in the urban working class
•Turned instead to the peasantry as the main revolutionary force
•Led the Chinese revolution to victory after 22 years of guerilla war (1297-1949)
•Built the Chinese Communist regime—and rebelled twice against his own creation:
-The Great Leap Forward
-The Cultural Revolution

Deng Xiaoping
-Father of China's economic reform
•One of the first members of the CCP
•The ultimate political survivor
•Built a consensus behind reform
•Yet presided over the Tienanmen massacre of 1989
- Reforming the leadership succession system (which has worked through two subsequent generations of
leaders)
- Opening China to the international economy, enabling export-led growth
- Leading economic reforms that enabled economic growth in the countryside / growth of "town and
village enterprises" (TVEs) in rural areas; enabling agricultural producers to sell/keep their surplus

Issues in Chinese Politics:

Leadership Succession
Leninist systems typically have difficulty institutionalizing leadership successions
-Deng Xiaoping made great efforts to create a regular succession system
-It has held up for twenty years, through two generations of leaders
•Jiang Zemin ("3rd generation") Hu Jintao ("4th generation") Xi Jinping
-But the system is now be coming under strain, as the Chinese leadership becomes polarized between liberals and conservatives
•The recent "Bo Xilai Affair" have revealed cracks in the facade
•The leadership managed to contain their conflicts and kept the succession to a publicly peaceful outcome, despite the fact that 7 out of 9 members of the ruling Standing Committee of the Politburo were replaced

•Combining control with flexibility and renewal
-The Communist Party structure penetrates every institution in the Chinese political system, the economy, the media, and society
-But its control is much less centralized than it was in Mao's day
-The ideology has lost a lot of its authority with Chinese at all levels

•The result is a system of "fragmented authoritarianism"
-In which many different players must "buy in" to any policy initiative
-Which gives them "negative power" to block, delay, derail, deform
-The center can only control the highest-priority issues, and even then only imperfectly
-Which gives local elites plenty of latitude—for example, in grabbing land and accumulating debt
1980s Economic Miracle:
-Much initiative came from below
-Deng Xiaoping: "Our greatest success was one we did not anticipate"
•Many communes had workshops and commercial stores; sometimes these became small businesses (e.g., producing Mao Zedong lapel pins in Fujian)
•When communes were abolished in 1982, these small shops turned themselves into "Town and Village Enterprises" (TVEs)
•They were officially "collectives," so they were ideologically acceptable, with no limit on size
•Investment came from overseas Chinese; TVE's took off like wildfire

Deng vs. Chen Yun
Deng wanted to open up the Chinese economy; Chen Yun took a more cautious, orthodox stance
•Deng was always the pragmatist: "If a farmer has 3 ducks, he has no problem; but if he gets a fourth duck, is he a capitalist?"
•Despite their disagreements, they managed to coexist to the end

1990: After Deng's Retirement:
-After Tienanmen, a more conservative leadership tightened controls on the private sector
•Credit dried up; rural businesses were hit hard
-Unofficial sources of rural finance were shut down
-Non-standard forms of finance (such as loans from informal groups) were made criminal offenses
-The backlash softened after Deng's "Southern Tour" in 1992
•But policy emphasis shifted lastingly from rural areas to the cities, and from private business to state-owned enterprises
•Rural income growth went down; rural household consumption dropped from 46% in 2000 to less than 35% today
•The Chinese economy today is unbalanced in favor of central investment instead of consumption
-The bias against the rural areas is a big part of that imbalance
-Rural Chinese migrated to sell their labor instead of starting businesses

Near Depression of 2008-2009
-Reinforced Statist Bias
-Central Government Opened the Credit Tap
-Funding a Flood of State-Company Investment --> especially in infrastructure (roads, railroads, airports) --> also high-tech, solar power --> approach is working less well

Lasting Political Consequences
•The rise of the "Shanghai technocrats"
-Shanghai was the most state-controlled and least-reformed major city in China
-The men who rose there were technocrats who had spent their careers in large state-owned enterprises
•The "urban technocrat" bias in Chinese economic policy is very strong today:
-Economic growth has been driven by combining rural labor with foreign investment in large urban centers, producing for export
-The Chinese response to the global crash of 2008-9 was to increase state investment on infrastructure and state-owned companies
-But that strategy may now be running out of steam.

How Long Can Growth Last?
•Several specific causes at work:
-Plentiful low-cost high-quality labor
-"Globalization" of the world economy
•Cheap transportation
•"Dis-integration" of labor: China did the assembly, design, and distribution
-Abundant credit available from state banks
-Supportive local governments
•Which compete fiercely against one another
•Contributing to excess construction, environmental damage

The Growing Price of Breakneck Growth
•66 years of economic catchup under the communists have restored China's position as the world's largest economy
-33 years of Soviet-style central planning, followed by
-33 years of Asian-style state capitalism
•But the achievement has come at a great price, which is only now starting to become apparent:
-Severe environmental degradation, with damaging consequences for health and quality of life
-Social dislocation, as hundreds of millions have migrated to the cities, where they form a new "second citizenry"
-Economic imbalance, as infrastructural investment and export-oriented manufacturing outpace domestic consumption and welfare
Formal vs. Informal Channels of Power and Influence
•All political systems (indeed, all organizations) have an "official" institututional structure and rules, and an "unofficial" one
-To know how a system actually functions, you have to know both
•In the Chinese political system, the distinction is especially important
-Example, the Party Central Committee's Organization Department has formal rules and procedures that make it sound like a modern executive headhunter
-But in reality, promotion is largely based on political connections, and at the local level, on corrupt sale of offices
•That explains why the Organization Department is a vital key to power (although it is not all-powerful)

The Organization Department
•Modeled after the old Soviet "Orgburo," which was the path to power for every Soviet General Secretary from Stalin down to Gorbachev
•But the CCP's cadres system is even more pervasive than the Soviet system used to be
-The Organization Department's nomenklatura covers directly over 5000 Party and government positions, including many nominally private corporations
-There are local counterparts to the Organization Department in the Party apparatus at the province and city levels
•That means that the Organization Department is an essential key to the General Secretary's power, and must be held by a close ally

Examples of Informal Networks and Connections: "Taizi" and "Mishu"
•A "taizi" is a "princeling," that is, a descendant of a leader from the revolutionary era (or, more recently, of any top leader)
-He is the son of Xi Zhongxun, a revolutionary leader who ultimately became vice premier before being purged in 1962
-Xi's father was "rehabilitated" after the Cultural Revolution and went on to become governor of Guangdong and ultimately a member of the ruling Politburo
•A "mishu" is a close personal assistant to a leader
-A mishu may serve a top leader for decades; but may subsequently be promoted into a top position
-Xi Jinping served as mishu to his father's close friend Geng Biao, who was a member of the Politburo Standing Committee

The Challenge of Controlling the Regions
•The Chinese political system is often described as one of "fragmented authoritarianism"
-Local officials have a great deal of latitude in practice: a good illustration of "negative power," often called the "principal/agent problem"
-Local officials can conceal information, falsify data, cover up scandals—up to a point
•How can the center keep the regions under control?
-Appointing cadres and rotating them regularly; setting performance targets
-Monitoring them closely through the Party's Central Commission for Discipline Inspection
-Conducting periodic "anti-corruption" and other "campaigns"
•But the center's control is never perfect
-Limited to the handful of priorities that the top focuses on,using so-called "leadership groups"
-Modern Chinese state "still runs on Soviet hardware,"
-Since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, China's ruling party has pulled off an extraordinary Houdini act, shaking off the horrors of Mao-made catastrophe -- including the death by starvation of 35 to 40 million people in the so-called Great Leap Forward -- and disentangling itself from the ideological chains that doomed the Soviet communists.
-Highly flexible on matters of economic doctrine but fiercely rigid in its commitment to political control, the party has not only survived but thrived.
-"Lenin, who designed the prototype used to run communist countries around the world, would recognize the [Chinese] model immediately." Case in point: the Central Organization Department, the party's vast and opaque human resources agency. It has no public phone number, and there is no sign on the huge building it occupies near Tiananmen Square. Guardian of the party's personnel files, the department handles key personnel decisions not only in the government bureaucracy but also in business, media, the judiciary and even academia. Its deliberations are all secret.
-foreign policy is ultimately crafted not by the foreign ministry but the party's Central Leading Group on Foreign Affairs, and that military matters are decided not by the defense ministry but by the party's Central Military Commission
-China's network links not just ministers and senior party apparatchiks but also the chief executives of the biggest state-owned companies -- businessmen who, to outside eyes, look like exemplars of China's post-communist capitalism
-party's shadowy role in corporate decision-making and the overlap, as well as tension, between party and business interests. At times, the party's often hidden but decisive hand has served China well, as during the 2008 financial crisis when big Chinese state banks -- all of whose bosses are party members vetted by the Organization Department -- moved swiftly under instructions from the party leadership to pump out loans
-The Chinese Communist Party's great success, despite the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and across Eastern Europe, has obliterated Western wishful thinking about the "end of history" and the world's inexorable march toward liberal democracy. "The Chinese communist system is, in many ways, rotten, costly, corrupt and often dysfunctional," McGregor observes. "But the system has also proved to be flexible and protean enough to absorb everything that has been thrown at it
-No sign of the party surrendering its core prerogative: immunity from independent scrutiny of its actions or checks on its authority. Chinese judges, police officers, journalists and others are no longer mere cogs in a vicious totalitarian system. But, for all the relative freedom they now enjoy to act as professionals, not simply as political hacks, they remain firmly subordinate to what has become the Chinese Communist Party's only real ideology: its own survival.
-"manage contradictions". In the process, Chinese people have learnt to enjoy freedoms and prosperity unimaginable under Mao. The system, Mr McGregor rightly points out, still relies, ultimately, on terror. But no longer are party rule and terror absolutely synonymous.
-there is the tension arising from the party's dependence—shown most graphically in Beijing in 1989—on the army to keep it in power. This has led to booming army budgets, as the generals acquire high-tech kit. But this in turn leads them to think of themselves as professional soldiers defending China when their job is to serve the Communist Party.
-Paradox that China's leaders recognise that the main threat to their authority is corruption, yet their power rests on a system that makes it almost inevitable
-No outside body is allowed to have authority over the party. An independent anti-corruption campaign, as Mr McGregor notes, "could bring the whole edifice tumbling down".
-the "fundamental paradox": "That a strong, all-powerful party makes for a weak government and compromised institutions
-3 pillars of Survival: controls propaganda, military and personnel