International Studies 190
Comparative Democratic Development:
Power-Sharing Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies
Winter Quarter 2013
Instructor: Maureen Feeley
Office: SSB# 383
Office Hours: Tuesdays and Fridays, 3 – 4 p.m.
E-mail: [email protected]
Office Phone: 858.534.5605
Seminar Meetings: Fridays, 12:00 – 2:50 p.m.
Seminar Room: IRPS #1401
Home Phone: 858.552.9264
Seminar Description:
Do power-sharing institutions, as opposed to power-concentrating or power-dividing institutions, facilitate
or hinder democratic transitions in societies that are deeply divided along lines of ethnicity? This question
has divided contemporary scholars and policymakers alike, and it is the central focus of this research
seminar. We will begin by critically evaluating competing conceptions and institutional forms of
democracy, and discuss why, and under what conditions, these might lead to qualitatively different political
outcomes. After laying these theoretical foundations, we will consider case studies of successful and failed
democratic transitions in ethnically divided societies and isolate variables that best explain these different
outcomes. Specifically, we will focus on the impact of different political institutional designs on regime
transitions in case studies drawn from three regions of the world: Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and the
Middle East. In so doing, the course has three main objectives: (1) to critically evaluate dominant
conceptions and theories of democracy/democratization; (2) to assess the relative power of these theories
by examining them in light of empirical evidence drawn from contemporary and historical case studies; and
(3) to further develop our skills as social scientists in formulating and testing hypotheses concerning
successful versus failed democratic transitions in ethnically divided states.
Seminar website: All course materials are posted on TED at https://ted.ucsd.edu
Seminar Requirements:
Summary:
(1) Seminar Participation:
Discussion questions (2 questions for weeks 2 – 8, 14 total):
Discussion leader twice (together with 5 - 6 classmates):
General seminar participation
(2) Research Assignments:
a) Two 3 – 5 page critical analyses of week’s readings (10% each)
b) Research proposal (1 paragraph, single-spaced), Friday, 1 Feb (week 4)
c) Project summary& annotated bib. (6 sources), Friday, 15 Feb. (week 6)
d) First draft of research project (10 – 12 pages), Friday, 1 March (week 8)
• Bring hard copy to class; submit e-version to TED by 11:59 p.m.
• Feedback to classmate no later than 11:59 p.m. Tuesday, 5 March (week 9)
e) Project presentation –approx.10 mins., weeks 9 and 10
f) Final research project, Wednesday, 20 March (final exams week)
• Bring hard copy to my office (SSB# 383) by 11:30 a.m.
• Submit e-version to TED no later than 11:59 p.m.
5%
10%
5%
20%
(not graded)
5%
5%
5%
5%
40%
Seminar Participation:
As a senior capstone seminar in International Studies, students are expected to complete all assigned
readings prior to seminar meetings and come prepared to actively discuss central questions, puzzles and
insights that arise from these readings. The participation component of your grade is worth 20% of your
final seminar grade. Three course requirements are designed to help you succeed as a seminar participant,
facilitate high quality discussions, and assist you with your research skills and projects:
(1) Discussion Questions: To help focus our discussions, and learn more about our respective
research interests, please post 2 discussion questions to the seminar discussion board (TED at
http://ted.ucsd.edu) by 10 p.m. the night before seminar meetings for weeks 2 – 8. Please also
bring a hard copy of your questions to Friday seminar meetings. Your questions can be drawn
from either one or multiple readings for that day’s seminar. Grades on discussion questions will
be assessed as follows: “++” (excellent), “+” (very good), “check” (satisfactory), or “-”(needs
improvement). As we will all discover (or re-discover), asking high quality, thought-provoking
questions is challenging!
(2) Discussion Leaders: Twice during the quarter you will be responsible, together with five to
six of your thesis-mates, for helping lead seminar discussions on issues, themes, questions, and
puzzles that you think are particularly interesting and important from that week’s assigned
readings. A sign-up sheet will be circulated during week 1. Each student is asked to serve as a
discussion leader for one theoretically oriented session (weeks 2 – 5), and one session focused on
your region of interest (weeks 6 – 8). Please feel free to collaborate with your fellow thesis-mates
as discussion leaders, and to consult with me. For the weeks that you are a designated discussion
leader, you should be able to: (1) summarize the central argument of each reading; (2) critique
assumptions that are either stated or implied by the researcher(s)’s arguments/theses; (3) critique
the quality of evidence presented to support these theses; and (4) state whether you find the
argument(s)/evidence compelling or not, and why. Grading on discussion leadership will also be
assessed on the plus, check, minus scale noted above, and will count for a total of 10% of your
grade (5% for each of the two times you are a designated discussion leader).
(3) Discussion Papers: On the days that you will serve as a discussion leader, please post to the
seminar’s TED page by 10 p.m. the day before seminar: a 3 – 5 page (double-spaced) critical
analysis of that week’s readings. Since you will serve as a discussion leader twice, you will write
two critical analyses, each worth 10% of your final grade. For each paper, you will need to
synthesize and critically evaluate the week’s readings. That is, you will critically assess how the
different readings relate to each other. Questions to consider include: What assumptions do the
researchers make? Are these warranted? What types of evidence do they present to support their
arguments/theses? Is this evidence of high quality? Are you persuaded? Why, or why not? In
addition to helping you prepare for serving as a discussion leader, these critical analyses will also
lay theoretical and empirical foundations for your research paper, and will very likely serve as
sections of your paper. Your critical analyses will also be graded according to the plus, check,
minus scale noted above.
The third component of your participation grade is “general seminar participation.” This will be assessed
on a weekly basis according to the plus, check, minus scale. As long as you attend seminar and critically
and actively engage course readings and materials, you will receive full points each week.
Written Assignments and Research Projects:
The central written requirement for your senior capstone seminar in International Studies is a 20 – 25 page
(double-spaced) research paper. Depending on your personal research interests and goals, you can choose
to write either a research-oriented policy paper or a more traditional research paper to meet this seminar
requirement. If you choose the policy paper option, for the purposes of the assignment, you will become a
democracy policy analyst employed by either a governmental organization (for example, U.S. AID), a
nongovernmental organization (NGO --this includes foundations, think tanks, etc. –for example, the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), or an intergovernmental organization (for example, an
agency of the United Nations) of your choice. If you choose the research paper option, you may want to
model your paper after a journal publication in a specific journal that you might wish to submit your work
to one day (for example, Journal of Democracy, Democratization, etc.). However, for the purposes of this
assignment, you are not required to conduct primary research. That said, if you are able to use primary
resources, this is commendable! Annelise Sklar, a research librarian at Geisel, and I are both available to
-2
assist you with this. Sklar will visit our seminar during week 3 to introduce you to relevant databases,
which are linked to the seminar’s research page.
Regardless of which option you choose, your projects should address the following question: Do powersharing institutions, as opposed to power-concentrating or power-dividing institutions, facilitate or
hinder democratic transitions in societies that are deeply divided along lines of ethnicity? Based on
empirical evidence from one or two country case studies from your region of choice (or across regions),
you will need to present a well-argued case either recommending for or against power sharing institutions
to promote or sustain democratization in your particular case study/ies of interest. You will also need to
situate your study within general theoretical debates in this literature and provide compelling arguments
and evidence for your recommendations. As noted above, your final paper should be between 20 – 25
double-spaced pages in length, one-inch margins, and have a cover page, introduction, conclusion,
complete citations (footnotes), and a complete bibliography. You may use any academically recognized
bibliographic style (Chicago, APSA, MLA, APA, etc.), as long as you use this style consistently throughout
your research paper. In addition to assigned course readings (required readings), you should consult a
minimum of ten additional relevant academic sources. (That is, “recommended readings” on the syllabus
can count as part of your ten additional relevant sources.) These sources can be books published by
academic presses, articles from peer-reviewed journals, and/or primary sources.
To assist you in researching and writing your research papers, in addition to the two 3 -5 page (doublespaced) critical analyses discussed above, there are four interim research assignments: (1) a one-paragraph
(single-spaced) research proposal (due week 4); (2) a one-paragraph summary of your argument and
annotated bibliography of 6 academic sources (due week 6); (3) a 10 – 12 page first draft of your paper
(due week 8); and (4) feedback to one of your thesis-mates on their draft (week 9).
During weeks 9 and 10, you will also have the opportunity to present your research for feedback.
Presentations should be approximately 10 minutes and will count 5% of your final grade. Project
presentations serve at least five purposes: (1) they enable us to better understand each other’s research
projects and interests; (2) we gain practice in presenting our research ideas orally; (3) they provide an
opportunity for feedback prior to turning in final projects (approximately 10 minutes will be allotted to
each student for feedback); (4) they advance our understanding of central problems and puzzle of
democracy in our world today; and (5) they help us draw comparisons across case studies and regions.
Late Assignment Policy:
In order to ensure standards of fairness for all students, late assignments will be penalized one-third of a
grade for each 24-hour period that they are late. This will be especially important for your final projects,
since I will be on a fairly tight schedule to submit grades on time.
Statement of Academic Integrity:
Students are expected to do their own work, as outlined in the UCSD Policy on Academic Integrity and
published in the UCSD General Catalog. Although you are encouraged to work together in preparing for
seminar discussions, each student is expected to do their own work on all written assignments. Violations
will be subject to the disciplinary measures as outlined by the University. If you have any questions
regarding this policy (http://www-senate.ucsd.edu/manual/Appendices/app2.htm), please consult the
International Studies office or me.
Seminar Texts:
Two course texts are available for purchase at the UCSD bookstore.
1. Pippa Norris, Driving Democracy: Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work? New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
2. Philip G. Roeder and Donald Rothchild, eds., Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy
after Civil Wars, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.
A third text, from which we will read excerpts, is recommended, but not required. (Excerpts are available
via electronic reserves.)
-3
3.
Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six
Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012
Please feel free to purchase these books independently on-line or elsewhere. In addition, multiple copies of
all texts have been placed on reserve at Geisel Library. If you choose not to purchase the course texts, and
experience any problems obtaining a reserve copy, please let me know.
Course Reserves:
All additional course readings (articles, etc.) are available via electronic reserves from Geisel Library. To
access reserves, go to the library’s homepage: http://libraries.ucsd.edu. Click on the “Reserves” drop down
menu on the top of the page and select “Get Your Course Reserves.” You can then search either by my
name or the course. The password to access course reserves is: mf190. If you encounter any problems,
call or email network operations at 858.534.1857, or [email protected], and/or contact me.
Course Schedule:
Week 1: Friday, 11 January
• Introductions: Overview of main themes, questions, requirements, readings and assignments.
• Discussion of research backgrounds, interests, and experiences.
Week 2: Friday, 18 January: Broad parameters of the debate and its relevance: What do we mean
by “democracy”? What is “power sharing”? What are the dominant critiques of power sharing?
What is at stake?
Readings:
1. Pippa Norris, 2008 Preface and Acknowledgements, xi – xii; Ch. 1, “What Drives Democracy?”,
pp. 3 – 36 (35 pgs. total)
2. Arend Lijphart, “Introduction: Developments in Power Sharing Theory,” Thinking About
Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice, 2008, pp. 3 – 21 (18 pgs.)
3. Donald Rothchild and Philip G. Roeder, “Power Sharing as an Impediment to Peace and
Democracy,” in Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, Philip G. Roeder and
Donald Rothchild, eds., Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 29 – 50 (22 pgs.).
Additional readings for research (not required):
1. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six
Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012, Chapter 1, Introduction, pp. 1 – 8 (7 pgs.);
Chapter 3, The Consensus Model of Democracy, pp. 30 – 45 (15 pgs.); Chapter 2, Westminster
Model of Democracy, pp. 9 – 29 (20 pgs.).
2. Arend Lijphart, “Consociational Democracy,” World Politics, vol. 21, January 1969.
3. Pippa Norris, Ch. 2 “Evidence and Methods,” pp. 37 – 53 (16 pgs.) Ch. 3, “Democratic Indicators and Trends,” pp. 54 – 78 (24 pgs.); Ch. 4, “Wealth and Democracy,” pp. 79 – 99 (20 pgs.). 4. Michael Coppedge and John Gerring, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach,” American Political Science Review, June 2011, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 247 – 267. 5. Stefan Wolff, “Consociationalism: Power sharing and self-governance,” in Conflict Management
in Divided Societies: Theories and Practice, Stefan Wolff and Christalla Yakinthou, eds.,
Routledge, 2012, pp. 23 – 56.
-4
Week 3: Friday, 25 January: Electoral Systems and Divided Societies
Annelise Sklar, research librarian at Geisel Library, will provide a brief “virtual tour” of library resources and databases relevant for your research projects. Readings:
1. Pippa Norris, Power-Sharing, Ch. 5, “Electoral Systems,” pp. 103 – 131 (30 pgs.).
2. Donald L. Horowitz, Ch. 5 “Electoral Systems for a Divided Society,” in A Democratic South
Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society, Berkeley, University of California
Press, 1991, pp. 163 – 203 (40 pgs.).
3. Arend Lijphart, “The Alternative Vote: A Realistic Alternative for South Africa?” Politikon:
South African Journal of Political Studies, 1470 – 1014, vo. 18, no. 2, 1991, 91 -101 (11
pgs.).
Additional readings for research:
1. Excellent resource on electoral design: International IDEA: Handbook of Electoral System
Design: http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/
2. Joel Barkan, “Debate: PR and Southern Africa: Elections in Agrarian Societies,” Journal of
Democracy, vol. 6, no. 4, 1995, pp. 106 – 116 (11 pgs.); Andrew Reynolds, “Debate: PR and
Southern Africa: The Case for Proportionality,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 6, no. 4, 1995, pp.
117 – 124 (8 pgs.).
3. Benjamin Reilly, “Centripetalism: Cooperation, accommodation and integration,” in Conflict
Management in Divided Societies: Theories and Practice, Stefan Wolff and Christalla Yakinthou,
eds., Routledge, 2012, pp. 57 – 65.
4. Benjamin Reilly, “Does the Choice of Electoral System Promote Democracy? The Gap between
Theory and Practice,” in Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, Philip G.
Roeder and Donald Rothchild, eds., Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 159 – 171 (12
pgs.).
5. Mozaffar, Shaheen, James Scarrit and Glen Galaich, “Electoral Systems, Ethnopolitical
Cleavages, and Party Systems in Africa’s Emerging Democracies,” American Journal of Political
Science, vol. 97, no. 3, August 2003, pp. 379- 390.
6. Andrew Reynolds, “Constitutional Engineering in Southern Africa,” Journal of Democracy, vol.
6, no. 2, 1995, pp. 86 - 99 (14 pgs.)
7. Timothy D. Sisk, “Choosing an Electoral System: South Africa Seeks New Ground Rules,”
Journal of Democracy, vol. 14, no. 1, January 1993: pp. 79- 91.
8. Lijphart, “Five Exemplary Devices for Electoral Reform,” Thinking About Democracy: Power
Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice, Routledge, 2008, pp. 192 – 197 (5 pgs).
9. Lijphart, “Double-Checking the Evidence,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 2., no. 3, Summer 1991,
(6 pgs.).
10. Lijphart, Patterns, Ch. 5, “Party Systems,” pp. 60 – 78 (18 pgs.).
11. Michael Bratton, and Mwangi Kimenyi, “Voting in Kenya: Putting Ethnicity in Perspective,”
AfroBarometer Working Paper No. 95, http://www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfropaperNo95.pdf
12. Susan Booysen, “The Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in Zimbabwe, March and June
2008, Electoral Studies, vol. 28, 2009, 150 – 154.
13. Lisa Laakso, “Opposition Politics in Independent Zimbabwe,” African Studies Quarterly, vo. 7,
2003, pp. 119 – 137.
14. Lise Rakner and Nicolas van de Walle, “Democratization by Elections? Opposition Weakness in
Africa,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 20, no. 8, 2009, pp. 108 – 21.
15. Arend Lijphart, Patterns, Ch. 8, “Electoral Systems,” pp. 130 – 157 (27 pgs.).
16. Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, eds., The Politics of Electoral Systems, Oxford University
Press, 2005.
17. Larry Diamond and Mark F. Plattner, eds., Electoral Systems and Democracy, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2006.
18. Pippa Norris, Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
-5
Week 4: Friday, 1 February: Executive Institutions and Divided Societies
Please bring a hard copy of your research proposal (one paragraph, single-spaced) to seminar today.
Readings:
1. Pippa Norris, Power-Sharing, Ch. 6, “Presidential and Parliamentary Executives,” pp. 132 –
156 (24 pgs).
2. Donald Horowitz, “Comparing Democratic Systems,” Journal of Democracy, Fall 2000, vol.
1, no. 4, pp. 73 – 79 (7 pgs.);
3. Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Centrality of Political Culture,” Journal of Democracy, Fall
2000, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 80 – 83 (4 pgs.);
4. Juan Linz, “The Virtues of Parliamentarism,” Journal of Democracy, Fall 2000, vol. 1, no. 4,
pp. 84 – 91 (8 pgs.)
5. Arend Lijphart, “Presidentialism and Majoritarian Democracy: Theoretical Observations,” in
Thinking About Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice,
Routledge, 2008, pp. 143 – 155 (12 pgs.).
Additional readings for research:
1. Lijphart, Patterns, Ch. 6 “Cabinets: Concentration Versus Sharing of Executive Power,” pp.
79 – 104 (25 pgs.), Ch. 7 “Executive-Legislative Relations: Patterns of Dominance and
Balance of Power,” pp. 105 – 129 (24 pgs.), Ch. 11, “Parliaments and Congresses:
Concentration Versus Division of Legislative Power,” pp. 187 – 203 (15 pgs.).
2. Arriola, Leonardo. 2009. “Patronage and Political Stability in Africa,” Comparative Political
Studies 42, 10 (2009): 1339 – 62.
3. Donald Horowitz, “The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict: Democracy in Divided Societies,”
Journal of Democracy, vol. 4, no. 4, October 1993, pp. 18 – 38 (21 pgs.).
4. Antonio Cheibub, “What Makes Presidential Democracies Fragile?” in Presidentialism,
Parliamentarism, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
5. Walter Oyugi, “Coalition Politics and Coalition Governments in Africa,” Journal of
Contemporary African Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, 2006, pp. 53 – 79.
6. Nicolas van de Walle, “Presidentialism and Clientalism in Africa’s Emerging Party Systems,”
Journal of Modern African Studies, vo. 41, no. 2, 2003, pp. 297 – 321.
7. Matthew Soberg Shugart, ”Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and the Provision of Collective
Goods in Less-Developed Countries,” Constitutional Political Economy, vol. 10, 1999, pp. 53
– 58.
Week 5: Friday, 8 February: Unitary vs. Federal Institutions and Divided Societies
(I will be out of town for a conference this day, so we will need to reschedule this meeting.)
Readings:
1. Pippa Norris, Power-Sharing, Ch. 7 “Federalism and Decentralization,” pp. 157 – 185 (29
pgs.).
2. Arend Lijphart, Patterns, 2012, Ch. 10 “Federal-Unitary and Centralized-Decentralized
Contrasts,” pp. 174 – 186 (12 pgs.).
3. Arend Lijphart, “Self-determination versus pre-determination of ethnic minorities in power
sharing systems,” in Thinking About Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in
Theory and Practice, New York: Routledge Press, 2008, pp. 66 – 74 (9 pgs.).
4. Philip G. Roeder, “Power dividing: The multiple-majorities approach,” in Conflict
Management in Divided Societies: Theories and Practice, Stefan Wolff and Christalla
Yakinthou, eds., Routledge, 2012, pp. 66 – 83.
Additional readings for research:
1. Philip G. Roeder, “Power Dividing as an Alternative to Ethnic Power Sharing,” in Sustainable
Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, Philip G. Roeder and Donald Rothchild, eds.,
pp. 51 - 82. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005 (31 pages).
2. Nancy Bermeo, “A New Look at Federalism: The Import of Institutions,” Journal of
Democracy, v. 13, n. 2, April 2002, 96 – 110 (14 pgs.).
-6
3.
4.
R. Kent Weaver, “A New Look at Federalism: Electoral Rules and Governability,” Journal of
Democracy, v. 13, n. 2, April 2002, 111- 125 (14 pgs.).
Pippa Norris, Power-Sharing, Ch. 8, “The Fourth Estate,” pp. 186 – 206 (20 pgs.)
Week 6: Friday, 15 February: Sub-Saharan Africa: Case studies of power sharing
Please bring a one-paragraph (single-spaced) research summary and annotated bibliography of 6
academic sources to seminar today.
Readings:
1. Ian S. Spears, “Africa: The Limits of Power-Sharing,” Journal of Democracy, vo. 13, no. 3,
July 2002, pp. 123-136 (13 pgs.).
2. Rene Lemarchand, “Consociationalism and Power Sharing in Africa: Rwanda, Burundi, and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” African Affairs, 106/422, November 2, 2006, pp. 1 –
20 (20 pgs.)
3. Nic Cheeseman and Blessing-Miles Tendi, “Power-sharing in comparative perspective: the
dynamics of ‘unity government’ in Kenya and Zimbabwe, Journal of Modern African Studies,
vol. 48, no. 2, 2010, pp. 203 – 229 (27 pgs.)
4. Timothy D. Sisk and Christoph Stefes, “Power Sharing as an Interim Step in Peace Building:
Lessons from South Africa, in Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars,
Philip G. Roeder and Donald Rothchild, eds., Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 293
– 310, 316-317 (19 pgs.)
Additional readings for research:
1. Arend Lijphart, “Prospects for Power-Sharing in South Africa,” in Andrew Reynolds, ed.,
Election ’94 in South Africa: The Campaign, Results and Future Prospects, NY: St. Martin’s
Press, 1994, pp. 221 – 231 (10 pgs.).
2. Carl LeVan, “Power Sharing and Inclusive Politics in Africa’s Uncertain Democracies,”
Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 24, no.
1, January 2011, pp. 31 – 53 (22 pgs.).
3. Vincent T. Maphai, “A Season for Power-Sharing,” Journal of Democracy, vol.7, no.1, 1996,
pp. 67 – 81 (15 pgs.).
4. Arend Lijphart, Power-Sharing in South Africa. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies,
University of California, 1985.
5. Donald Horowitz, A Democratic South Africa: Constitutional Engineering in a Divided
Society, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
6. Andrew Reynolds, ed., Election ’94 in South Africa: The Campaign, Results and Future
Prospects, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1994.
7. Andreas Mehler, “Peace and Power Sharing in Africa: A Not so Obvious Relationship,”
African Affairs, 108/432, pp. 453 – 473 (21 pgs.).
8. Ian S. Spears, “Power-sharing and conflict resolution in Africa: A review of the case study
literature,” International Journal, Summer 1999, pp. 526 – 532.
9. Clark C. Gibson and James D. Long, “The Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in
Kenya,” Electoral Studies, vol. 28, 2009, pp. 497 – 502.
10. Janine Natalya Clark, “Between Theory and Practice: Rwanda,” in Conflict Management in Divided Societies: Theories and Practice, Stefan Wolff and Christalla Yakinthou, eds., Routledge, 2012, pp. 187 – 200.
11. Steven Radelet, “Success Stories From ‘Emerging Africa,’ Journal of Democracy, vol. 21, no.
4, October 2010, pp. 87 – 101 (15 pgs.).
Week 7: Friday, 22 February: South Asia Cases: Afghanistan and India
Readings:
Note: For these readings, you may substitute the Reynolds and Worden readings for the Lijphart and
Ahuja/Varshney readings, depending on whether you have greater interest in Afghanistan or India.
1. Anne van de Heuvel, Chapters 1 and 2, The Process of Power-Sharing: How Constitutions
Were Established in Afghanistan and Iraq after US Intervention, MA Thesis, Utrecht
-7
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
University, 17 March 2009, pp. 2 – 24 (23 pgs.). (Google title and click on Word file. If
you’re unable to find this, send me mail and I’ll email to you.)
Barnett R. Rubin, “Crafting A Constitution for Afghanistan,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 15,
no. 3, July 2004, pp. 5 – 19 (15 pgs.).
Andrew Reynolds, “The Curious Case of Afghanistan,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 17, no. 2,
April 2006, pp. 104 – 117 (14 pgs.).
Scott Worden, “Afghanistan: An Election Gone Awry,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 21, no. 3,
July 2010, pp. 11 – 25 (15 pgs.).
Arend Lijphart, “The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation,”
American Political Science Review, vol. 90, no.2, June 1996, pp. 258 – 266 (9 pgs.).
Amit Ahuja and Ashutosh Varshney, “Antecedent Nationhood, Subsequent Statehood:
Explaining the Relative Success of Indian Federalism,” in Sustainable Peace: Power and
Democracy after Civil Wars, Philip G. Roeder and Donald Rothchild, eds., Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 2005, pp. 241 – 264 (23 pgs.)
Additional readings for research:
1. Peter R. de Souza, Suhas Palshikar, and Yogendra Yadav, “The Democracy Barometers:
Surveying South Asia,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 19, no. 1, January 2008, pp. 84 – 96 (13
pgs.).
2. Muhammad Mushtaq and Syed Khawaja Alqama, “Poverty Alleviation Through PowerSharing in Pakistan,” European Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 8, no. 3, 2009, pp. 459 – 468
(10 pgs.).
3. Astri Suhrke, “Democratization of a Dependent State: The Case of Afghanistan,” CMI
Working Paper, pp. 1 – 15 (15 pgs).
Week 8: Friday, 1 March: Middle East Case Studies: Iraq and Lebanon
Please bring a first draft of your research paper (10 – 12 pgs.) to seminar and submit e-version to TED by
11: 59 p.m. Please review your research partner’s draft no later than next Tuesday, 5 March 11:59 pm.
Readings:
Note: For these readings, you may substitute the Dawisha/Diamond and Dawisha readings for the Zahar
readings, depending on whether you have greater interest in Iraq or Lebanon.
1. Anne van de Heuvel, Chapter 3: Iraq, The Process of Power-Sharing: How Constitutions
Were Established in Afghanistan and Iraq after US Intervention, MA Thesis, Utrecht
University, 17 March 2009, pp. 25 - 38 (23 pgs.). (See above.)
2. Adeed Dawisha and Larry Diamond, “Iraq’s Year of Voting Dangerously,” Journal of
Democracy, vol. 17, no. 2, April 2006, pp. 89 – 103 (15 pgs.)
3. Adeed Dawisha, “Iraq: A Vote Against Sectarianism,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 21, no. 3,
July 2010, pp. 26 – 40 (15 pgs.).
4. John M. Carey and Andrew Reynolds, “Comparing the Arab Revolts: The Impact of Election
Systems,” Journal of Democracy, October 2011. Pp. 36 – 47 (12 pgs.).
5. Marie-Joelle Zahar, “Power Sharing in Lebanon: Foreign Protectors, Domestic Peace, and
Democratic Failure,” in Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, Philip G.
Roeder and Donald Rothchild, eds., Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 219 – 240 (21
pgs.).
Additional readings for research:
1. Larry Diamond, “Building Democracy After Conflict: Lessons from Iraq,” Journal of
Democracy, vo. 16, no. 1, January 2005, pp. 9 – 23 (15 pgs.)
2. Zalmay Khalilzad, “Lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 21, no.
3, July 2010, pp. 41- 49 (9 pgs.).
3. Danilo Di Mauro, “The Consociational Democracy at Stake: Four Approaches to Explain
Lebanon Past and Present, Act Politica, vol. 43, no. 4, Dec. 2008, pp. 453 – 471.
4. Larry Diamond, “What Are There No Arab Democracies?” Journal of Democracy, vol. 21,
no. 1, January 2010, pp. 93 – 112 (20 pgs.).
-8
5.
6.
Brenda M. Seaver, “The Regional Source of Power-Sharing Failure: The Case of Lebanon,”
Political Science Quarterly, vol. 115, no. 2, 2000, pp. 247 – 271 (25 pgs.).
Jamal Benomar, “Constitution-Making After Conflict: Lessons from Iraq,” Journal of
Democracy, vol. 15, no. 2, April 2004, pp. 91 – 95 (5 pgs.)
Week 9: Friday, 8 March: Power Sharing and Democracy: Conclusions
Research presentations
Readings:
1. Pippa Norris, Power-sharing, Ch. 9, “What Works? Lessons for Public Policy,” pp. 209 – 223
(14 pgs.).
2. Arend Lijphart, “Constitutional Design for Divided Societies,” Journal of Democracy,” vol.
15, no. 2, April 2004 (11 pgs).
Week 10: Friday, 15 March: Power Sharing and Democracy: Conclusions
Research Presentations
Readings:
1. Arend Lijphart, Chapter 18: Conclusion: Power Sharing, Evidence, and Logic Thinking
About Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice, New York:
Routledge Press, 2008, pp. 269 – 281 (12 pgs.).
2. Roeder and Rothchild, Chapter 13: “Conclusion: Nation-State Stewardship and Alternatives
to Power Sharing,” pp. 319 – 346 (27 pgs.).
Final Exams Week: Turn in hard copies of research papers to me (SSB# 383) no later than 11:30 a.m. on
Wednesday, 20 March, submit e-version to TED by 11:59 p.m., and celebrate the completion of the
quarter!
-9