Brock University Department of Political Science
POLI 4P36/5P36
Democratization in a Global Age: Revolution, Reform and Reversal
Winter 2015
Instructor: Sanjay Jeram, Ph.D.
Schedule: Tuesdays 11am–2pm
Location: GL 212
Office Hours: Plaza 327 – Tuesdays 9am-11am
E-mail: [email protected]
Course Description and Objectives:
“It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it:
consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear
that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning” (G.
Orwell, 1946).
While democratic regimes are still far from universal, three (or four) ‘waves’ of democratization
have swept across the world. In much of Western Europe, the path to democracy was
incremental: piecemeal reforms occurred over decades that eventually resulted in genuine popular
sovereignty. Elsewhere, democracy has often been achieved swiftly through elite ‘pact-making’
or revolutionary transformation spurred on by the masses. At the same time, authoritarian and
‘hybrid’ regimes persist. In fact, some argue we are experiencing a period of ‘dedemocratization,’ in which many countries are moving towards variants of authoritarianism.
We will consider important normative questions about the meaning(s) and importance of
democracy to human societies, but our main focus will be on the empirical foundations of
democracy and authoritarianism. Under what conditions do individuals and societies redistribute
power, establish political equality, and exercise democracy? We will seek answers to this and
related questions through the main explanatory approaches of comparative politics: interests,
institutions, ideas (identities), and global forces. Our empirical terrain will reach across various
continents and a broad spectrum of regime change processes.
Important Dates:
•
•
•
January 16th: Last day to drop courses without financial penalty
February 17th: No class (winter reading week)
March 6th: Last day for withdrawal without academic penalty
Required Readings and Sakai:
All readings will be posted on Sakai. Please consult the course Sakai page frequently as I post all
pertinent information and notices there.
Course Requirements and Evaluation:
All work should be double-spaced, use 12-point Times New Roman font, and have standard
margins. Written work must be emailed to the instructor.
1
•
Seminar Participation (25%)
v This course is an advanced reading—and discussion—intensive seminar. You are
expected to complete each week’s required readings in advance, attend every
class, and contribute actively to class discussions. In order to ensure all students
contribute to the class, attendance will be taken. It is your responsibility to
account for any absences, as unexplained and unexcused absences will be taken
into account in calculating the class participation grade. The participation
component of your grade is based on the quality of your contributions to the
seminar discussion. A quality contribution to the discussion entails: a) making
thoughtful and relevant comments in the context of the discussion; b) being
courteous to your classmates and respectful of opposing viewpoints; c) not sitting
quietly; and e) not monopolizing seminar discussion. Feedback will be provided
to students during reading week. It might be helpful to keep the following
questions in mind when preparing for classes:
§ What are the central points or arguments being made in the readings?
§ What evidence and methods have they used to support their arguments?
§ How do the week’s readings relate to other material examined in the
course?
§ How do you evaluate the authors’ positions?
•
In-class Reflections (20%)
v Students will be required to write five in-class reflections (30 minutes each)
based on the required readings of the week. Dates are not announced to ensure
students keep up with the readings. Only the best four will count towards your
grade. Each reflection is graded on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding).
•
Seminar Facilitation (15%) *4P36 students only*
v 4P38 students will be responsible for facilitating part of one seminar
(approximately 90 minutes). The facilitators for the week will have primary
responsibility (the instructor will assist) for ensuring that the discussion remains
on topic and is of high quality. Depending on enrolment, there will be two
facilitators for each seminar (I recommend that you work in pairs). The
introductory statements (10-15 minutes) should not summarize the readings, but
effectively communicate the following:
§ What are the overarching themes that link the readings?
§ How do these points speak to this week’s topic and the broader themes
addressed in the course?
§ What are the points of tension, intersection, and reinforcement in the
readings?
§ What questions arise for discussion? What should academics and
policymakers take from this?
§ What is worthy of further discussion as a class?
•
Critical Book Review (15%) *5P36 students only*: Due on February 24th
v 5P38 students are required to critically assess an academic book related to the
themes of democratization and regime change (approx. 2000-2500 words). The
instructor will hand out a list of books during the first class. These books can be
purchased online (e.g., amazon.ca) or obtained through Brock’s library system or
RACER. The assignment is flexible depending on each student’s interests, but
the following questions should structure the paper:
2
§
§
§
§
•
What is the essential argument of the book? Which theoretical
framework(s) does the author contend are more and/or less useful in the
case(s) under study?
Is the evidence consistent with the arguments? Does the author recognize
his/her limitations?
Which readings from this course (or alternate readings) bolster or
contradict the theoretical and/or empirical arguments made in this book?
What is your overall assessment of this book in terms of its contribution
to the study of democratization?
Democratization Policy Brief (20% written brief + 20% presentation = 40%): Due on
March 24th or March 31st
v Supporting democracy has long been a central component of US foreign policy.
Democracy not only promotes such fundamental liberal values as religious
freedom and individual rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and
prosperous world. Imagine you are working for the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labour in the US government, and the Under Secretary for
Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights has asked you and (one or) two
colleagues to prepare a briefing and presentation assessing the state of democracy
in country x (the instructor will provide country assignments).
§ The written briefing must include the following: a) short history detailing
the country’s current regime and how it was established; b) prospects and
challenges for democratization in your case based on explanatory
frameworks discussed in class and in the readings (e.g., colonial history,
economic development, elite unity, civil society/opposition movements,
dominant ideologies and identities etc.); c) what are the main policy
options for US intervention/support for democratization in country x?
What are the advantages/disadvantages of these options? d) Present and
justify a reasoned course of action (i.e., what should the US government
encourage the government and/or other key actors in country x to do and
why? Should the US government take independent action?)
§ You are required to consult at least two media sources (online or print),
two research reports (e.g., governmental, NGO, think tank, etc.) and two
peer-reviewed academic sources. The written briefing should be no
longer than 15 pages (double-spaced, Times New Roman 12-point
font).
§ Each group is responsible for presenting their briefing to the class on
March 24th or 31st. Each group is responsible for 50 minutes, but a
portion of this time should be reserved for discussion and questions from
the class. PowerPoint should be used to present maps, pictures of key
actors and other helpful visuals, but text should be minimal. ‘Talking
points’ are helpful, but do not clutter your slides with text.
Policy on Deadlines:
All written work for this course is submitted through email to the instructor. Assignments are
accepted as on time until 11:59pm on the due date. Late penalties will accrue at a rate of 2% per
day (including weekends) thereafter. No work will be accepted two weeks after the deadline.
There are no ‘make-ups’ for in-class reflections since the lowest score is dropped. Of course, the
instructor will be sympathetic to any extenuating circumstances if the student provides
documentation and makes a reasonable extension request. Please do not leave assignments in the
3
department essay box without emailing it as well because it may lead to an unnecessary late
penalty.
Academic Integrity:
Because academic integrity is vital to the well being of the university community, Brock
University takes academic misconduct very seriously. Academic misconduct includes plagiarism,
which involves presenting the words and ideas of another person as if they were your own, and
other forms of cheating, such as using crib notes during a test or fabricating data for a lab
assignment. The penalties for academic misconduct can be very severe. A grade of zero may be
given for the assignment or even for the course, and a second offense may result in suspension
from the University. Students are urged to read the section of the Brock University
Undergraduate Calendar that pertains to academic misconduct.
Course Topics and Readings:
Part I: Laying the Foundations: Concepts and Theories in the Study of Democratization
[January 6th]: Defining democracy and democratization
I will provide an overview of the course objectives, requirements, and expectations. I will give a
short lecture defining key concepts for the course and we will discuss why the study of
democratization is still important.
Required Reading:
• Charles Tilly, Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 1-24.
[January 13th]: Structures, agents and ideas: An overview of the democratization literature
The study of democracy is the core of comparative politics and political science more generally.
This seminar will serve as a crash course on the origins of democracy and recent work that has
shaped our understanding of when and why democratization occurs. The readings and discussion
will highlight conceptual quandaries and broad theoretical paradigms that we will attempt to
wrap our heads around before delving into the cases.
Required Reading:
• Jan Teorell, Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime Change in the World,
1972-2006 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 16-33.
• Shari Berman, “How Democracies Emerge: Lessons from Europe,” Journal of
Democracy, 18, 1 (2007), pp. 28-41.
• Daniel Ziblatt, “How did Europe Democratize?” World Politics, 58, 2 (2006), pp. 311338.
Part II: Historical Democratization in Europe
[January 20th]: Lessons from the past? The struggle for democracy in Britain
It is often assumed that the spread of liberal ideas and early industrialization made British
democratization a smooth and inevitable process. Historical analysis reveals, however, that there
were setbacks and uncertainly as Britain became a ‘relatively free society’ in which a sovereign
4
parliament expressed popular will. The readings collectively highlight the complex ways in which
piecemeal reforms and contextual changes had unintended and path-dependent consequences for
British democracy. A modest goal for the seminar will be to question our assumptions about the
orderliness of democracy and democratization in Britain and the ‘first wave’ more generally.
Required Reading:
• Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant
Making in the Modern World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967), pp. 3-39.
• Bruce Morrison, “Channeling the Restless Spirit of Innovation: Elite Concessions and
Institutional Change in the British Reform Act of 1832,” World Politics 63, 4 (2011), pp.
678-710.
• Thomas Ertman, “The Great Reform Act of 1832 and British Democratization,”
Comparative Political Studies 43, 8/9 (2010), pp. 1000-1022.
[January 27th]: The paradigmatic model of transition? From dictatorship to democracy in Spain
Spain’s swift transition to democracy led scholars to view it as a model for political and social
change. From an explanatory perspective, observers have often characterized the Spanish
transition as ‘pacted’ because of the tremendous restraint and compromise practiced by the main
actors at fundamental junctures. We will examine different analyses of the Spanish transition and
consider whether other factors were as, if not more, important than agency. We will also think
about the lessons Spain has to offer for newly democratizing countries.
Required Reading:
• Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation:
Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press, 1996), pp. 87-115.
• Richard Gunther, “Spain: The Very Model of Elite Settlement,” in John Higley and
Richard Gunther (eds.), Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and
Southern Europe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 38-80.
• Omar Encarnación, “Democratizing Spain: Lessons for American Democratic
Promotion,” in Diego Muro and Gregorio Alonso (eds.), The Politics and Memory of
Democratic Transition: The Spanish Model (New York: Routledge, 2011), pp. 236Supplementary Reading:
• Javier Tusell, Spain: From Dictatorship to Democracy (Malden: Wiley Blackwell, 2011),
pp. 270-328.
• Bonnie N. Field, “Transitions to Democracy and Internal Party Rules: Spain in
Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Politics 39, 1 (2006), pp. 83-102.
• Omar Encarnación, “Labour and Pacted Democracy: Post-Franco Spain in Comparative
Perspective,” Comparative Politics, 33, 3 (2001), pp. 337-355.
Part III: Democracy and autocracy in the ‘BRICS’ countries: Making sense of different paths
[February 3rd]: ‘Deviant’ democracy in India: How did it overcome so many obstacles?
India’s long-standing, although imperfect, democratic regime has long puzzled scholars and
policymakers. At the time of independence, India had pronounced poverty and illiteracy, as well
as ethnolinguistic and religious tensions that threatened the very existence of the state, let alone
democracy. What, then, explains India’s ‘successful’ democratic regime? We must also pay
5
attention to the ills of Indian democracy, and consider whether the fall of the once-dominant
Congress Party and market-liberalizing reforms bode well for its future.
Required Reading:
• Alistair McMillan, “Deviant Democratization in India,” Democratization, 15, 4 (2008),
pp. 733-749.
• Sumit Ganguly, “India’s Unlikely Democracy: Six Decades of Independence,” Journal of
Democracy, 18, 2 (2007), pp. 30-40.
• Aseema Sinha, “India’s Unlikely Democracy: Economic Growth and Political
Accommodation,” Journal of Democracy, 18, 2 (2007), pp. 41-54.
Supplementary Reading:
• Atul Kohli, “Can Democracies Accommodate Ethnic Nationalism? Rise and Decline of
Self-Determination Movements in India,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 56, 2 (1997), pp.
325-344.
• Subrata K. Mitra, “How Exceptional in India’s Democracy? Path Dependence, Political
Capital, and Context in South Asia,” India Review, 12, 4 (2013), pp. 227-244.
[February 10th]: Authoritarian resilience in China: Has growth empowered autocrats?
China has gradually shifted from a command economy to a model of state-directed development
that allows for a significant level of private economic activity. According to modernization
theorists, economic growth and expanding business and middle classes should lead China down
the path of democratization. Nevertheless, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains a
strong hold on power and reports of human rights abuses within China abound. Why has China
remained authoritarian despite evidence of modernization? Has the international community, in
fact, enabled China to be more resistant to democracy? Charles Burton will join us for a portion
of this seminar.
Required Reading:
• Mary E. Gallagher, “Reform and Openness: Why China’s Economic Reforms Have
Delayed Democracy,” World Politics 54, 3 (2002), pp. 338-372.
• Kellee S. Thai, “Capitalists without a Class: Political Diversity Among Private
Entrepreneurs in China,” Comparative Political Studies, 38, 9 (2005), pp. 1130-1158.
• Baogang He, “Working with China to Promote Democracy,” The Washington Quarterly,
36, 1 (2013), pp. 37-53.
Supplementary Reading:
• Xin Sun, “Autocrats’ Dilemma: The Dual Impacts of Village Elections on Public Opinion
in China,” The China Journal, 71 (2014), pp. 109-131.
• Jie Chen and Chunlong Lu, “Democratization and the Middle Class in China: Middle
Class Attitudes Toward Democracy,” Political Research Quarterly 64, 3 (2011), pp. 705719.
• Various authors, “China Goes its Own Way,” Symposium in New Perspectives
Quarterly, 27, 2 (2010), pp. 2-27
[February 24th]: The failure of democratization in post-Soviet Russia: Beyond Putin’s ambitions
Expectations for democracy in Russia were high following the breakup of the Soviet Union in
1991. The competitive, albeit imperfect elections, of the early 1990s have given way to elections
6
that do not meet even the minimum standards of ‘free and fair’. Why has Russia become an
autocratic regime? Popular accounts focus on Putin’s personal ambitions, but our goal will be to
dig deeper into the structural and institutional foundations of the regime. A second question we
will tackle is whether autocracy has indeed propelled Russia’s recent economic growth. Juris
Dreifelds will join us for a potion of this seminar.
Required Reading:
• Stephen M. Fish, “The Hazards of Half-Measures: Perestroika and the Failure of PostSoviet Democratization,” Demokratizatsiya 13, 2 (2005), pp. 241-253.
• Grigorii V. Golosov, “The Regional Roots of Electoral Authoritarianism in Russia,”
Europe-Asia Studies, 63, 4 (2011), pp. 623-639.
• Michael McFaul and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, “The Myth of the Authoritarian Model: How
Putin’s Crackdown Holds Russia Back,” Foreign Affairs, 87, 1 (2008), pp. 68-84.
Supplementary Reading:
• Pierre Hassner, “Russia’s Transition to Autocracy,” Journal of Democracy, 19, 2 (2008),
pp. 5-15.
• M. Steven Fish, Democracy Derailed in Russia: The Failure of Open Politics (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
[March 3rd]: Quick transition, slow consolidation? South Africa’s post-apartheid democracy
Before the negotiations between Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk about South Africa’s
democratic future, mobilization by the disenfranchised masses put pressure on economic and
regime elites to democratize. South Africa can, therefore, help us better understand the insurgent
path to democracy. Insurgency from below, despite its democratizing potential, however, can
leave behind legacies that perpetuate non-democratic practices. Finally, we grapple with the
question of why South Africa has failed to pass the ‘two turnover’ test that attests to democratic
consolidation.
Required Reading:
• Elisabeth Jean Wood, Forging Democracy from Below: Insurgent Transitions in South
Africa and El Salvador (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 169-193.
• Daniel Douek, “Counterinsurgency’s Impact on Transitions from Authoritarianism: The
Case of South Africa,” Politikon, 40, 2 (2013), pp. 255-275.
• Louise Vincent, “Seducing the People: Populism and the Challenge to Democracy in
South Africa,” Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 29, 1 (2011), pp. 1-14.
Supplementary Reading:
• Adrian Guelke, “South Africa: The Long View on Political Transition,” Nationalism and
Ethnic Politics, 15, 3/4 (2009), pp. 417-435.
• Hermann Giliomee, “Democratization in South Africa,” Political Science Quarterly, 110,
1 (1995), pp. 84-104.
Part IV: Democracy in an unfamiliar place: Southeast Asia comes of age
[March 10th]: Indonesia: Proof that Islam and democracy are compatible?
The fall of Suharto’s ‘New Order’ regime in 1998 resulted in a genuine democratic election in
Indonesia the following year, its first in decades. Indonesia is now the world’s third largest
7
democracy. This fact is considered remarkable because it is also the world’s largest Muslim
country; it has been argued that secular democracy and Islam are antithetical. How, then, can we
explain Indonesia’s democratization and relative lack of extremist Islamist movements? Is violent
separatism in the ‘pious’ province of Aceh a result of Indonesia’s official secularism? Might
Indonesia be a model for other predominantly Islamic countries still mired in authoritarianism?
What have been the costs of Indonesia’s democratic accomplishments?
Required Reading:
• Jacques Bertrand, Political Change in Southeast Asia (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2013), pp. 41-70.
• Edward Aspinall, “Indonesia: The Irony of Success,” Journal of Democracy, 21, 2
(2010), pp. 20-34.
• Edward Aspinall, “From Islamism to Nationalism in Aceh, Indonesia,” Nations and
Nationalism, 13, 2 (2007), pp. 245-263.
Supplementary Reading:
• Saiful Mujani and R. William Liddle, “Muslim Indonesia’s Secular Democracy,” Asian
Survey, 49, 4 (2009), pp. 575-590.
• Thomas Pepinsky, “Political Islam and the Limits of the Indonesian Model,” Taiwan
Journal of Democracy, 10, 1 (2014), pp. 105-121.
• Greg Barton, “Indonesia: Legitimacy, Secular Democracy, and Islam,” Politics & Policy,
38, 3 (2010), pp. 471-496.
[March 17th]: The generals loosen their grip: a democratic opening in Burma/Myanmar
Not too long ago, Burma was one of the most isolated countries in the world and an unlikely
candidate for democratization. The tatmadaw (military) had a firm grip on power and a powerful
ally in China. The new Constitution of 2008 set up parliamentary elections whilst maintaining the
military as a dominant ‘veto player’ by virtue of its guaranteed seats and ‘emergency’ powers.
Nevertheless, credible evidence suggests that ‘softliners’ from the old regime are committed to
democratizing reforms. Why has the political opening in Burma occurred? What are the
prospects for democracy in the long run? Is a military coup d’état likely before or after the 2015
elections?
Required Reading:
• Jacques Bertrand, Political Change in Southeast Asia (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2013), pp. 190-208.
• Kyaw Yin Hlaing, “Understanding Recent Political Changes in Myanmar,”
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 34, 2 (2012), pp. 197-216.
• Larry Diamond, “The Opening in Burma: The Need for a Political Pact,” Journal of
Democracy, 23, 4 (2012), pp. 138-149.
Supplementary Reading:
• Ian Holliday, “Ethnicity and Democratization in Myanmar,” Asian Journal of Political
Science, 18, 2 (2010), pp. 111-128.
• Min Ko Naing, “The Opening in Burma: Strengthening Civil Society,” Journal of
Democracy, 23, 4 (2012), pp. 135-137.
• Min Zin and Brian Joseph, “The Opening in Burma: The Democrats’ Opportunity,”
Journal of Democracy, 23, 4 (2012), pp. 104-119.
8