POL101

Land Acknowledgement - Left

• Too performative / symbolic

• No material change (no land return)

• Reinforces settler guilt without action

Land Acknowledgement - Right

• Challenges legitimacy of private property

• Seen as undermining national identity

• Implies current ownership is illegitimate

Democracy

• Accountability

• Norms

• Institutions

Four Institutions of Democratic Accountability

1. Free Press

2. Courts/Legal system

3. Universities/Knowledge Institutions

4. Private Sectors/Business Actors

Function of Institutions of Democratic Accountability

constrain executive power

Checks on executive power

→ without: democratic erosion

• Democracies often collapse gradually, not suddenly

• Accountability structures are dismantled over time

Why isn’t the constitution sufficient to safeguard democracy?

-              Constitution is a written document that is open to interpretation

-              Can be misinterpreted -> might not be following the spirit of the constitution

What norms are the “soft guardrails

• Mutual toleration

• Institutional forbearance

democratic backsliding

Weakening of four instituions of democratic accountability

What sustains democratic accountability?

Independent institutions that constrain executive power

Independent Institutions

• press

• courts

• universities

• business

Constitution is NOT enough

Written rules ≠ enforcement

Constitutions

1. Interpreted flexibly

2. Manipulated legally

3. Doesn’t enforce norms

Example of why Constitution is not enough

Leaders can undermine democracy while technically following rules

• Constitution does not guarantee democracy

Mutual Toleration

Accept opponents as legitimate

Institutional Forbearance

Don’t use full legal power even if allowed

= Self-restraint

Democratic Norms

Democracies fail when actors stop restraining themselves

Democratic Erosion

If a leader uses every legal loophole

→ NOT democratic strength

significance of Mutual Tolerance

without Mutual tolerance:

• politics becomes existential (실존주의적인)

• opponents = enemies

Forbearance

don’t use all legal power available

How Democracies Die

Not coups → gradual erosion
= elected leaders weakening institutions slowly

Backsliding

1. Attacking media

2. Undermining courts

3. Changing election rules

4. Targeting opposition

institutions of democracy

• Elections

• Rule of law

• Rights protection

• Accountability institutions

1st wave of democracy

• 19th–early 20th century

• Caused by revolutions against monarchies

2nd wave of democracy

• Post-WWII

• Imposed by winners + decolonization

3rd wave of democracy

• Late 20th century

• Driven by modernization + social movements

Why do people participate in politics if its “irrational”?

1. Civil gratification

2. Social rewards

3. Policy outcomes

Reasoning for political participation

Participation gives non-material rewards, not just outcomes

Public good

non-excludable benefit

Rational Choice Theory

• Voting = irrational

• Individual impact ≈ 0 (close to zero)

• Leads to free-rider problem

free-rider problem

individuals or nations benefit from public goods without contributing to their cost

ex)

• national security

• clean air

• lobbying efforts

Everyone wants to be in a village but no one wants to be a villager

political participation

social/civic motivations

= Motivated by identity, norms, satisfaction

public good

A good everyone benefits from regardless of contribution

Why do people still participate

Social, civic, and psychological rewards—not just rational payoff

rational choice theorists are wrong about political participation

Social, civic, and psychological rewards—not just rational payoff

institutionalized participation

within formal, state-approved structures and rules

• Voting in elections

• Running for office

• Working within political parties

• Lobbying government officials

• Participating in official consultations

limitation of institutionalized participation

• Government controls agenda

• Limited choices

• Doesn’t allow radical change

Measuring Success of Social Movement

• Policy change

• Agenda-setting

• Cultural change

• Mobilization capacity

Social Movement Theory

1. Political Opportunity

• Success when system is open

2. Resource Mobilization

• Success depends on resources

3. Framing

• Success depends on messaging

Woodly’s argument

• Social movements are necessary for democracy

• Prevent stagnation and elite domination

different social movement theories explain the success or failure of a movement

1. Political Opportunity Theory
   - Movements succeed when the political environment is favorable

• Divisions among elites

• Weak government repression

• Access to institutions

• Allies in power
  
  2. Resource Mobilization Theory
  - Success depends on resources + organization

• Money

• Leadership

• Networks

• Media access
  

3. Framing Theory
   - how the movement presents its message

• Message resonates with public values

• Clear “problem + solution” narrative

• Mobilizes identity/emotion

4. Structural / Grievance Theory
   - Movements emerge from grievances (inequality, injustice)

non-institutional participation

• Change narratives (framing)

• Challenge system

• Create new political possibilities

institutions stabilize government → non-institutional destabilizes

classical liberalism

• individual freedom

• Minimal state

modern liberalism

• equality + welfare

• State intervention
  Shift = freedom → equality

Evolution of liberalism

liberalism has shifted

• Negative liberty (freedom from interference)

• to Positive liberty (ability to act and live well)

Consequences of Evolution of Liberalism

1. Expansion of the state: Government now provides welfare, education, healthcare

2. New political conflicts: state intervention vs freedom & taxation and redistribution

3. Blurring of liberalism: market vs welfare

RYAN

Liberalism didn’t disappear
👉 it adapted to new social realities

Communitarian critique

• Liberalism ignores community

• Overemphasizes individualism

• People shaped by social context

Main difference between classical and modern liberalism?

Modern liberalism supports state intervention for equality

positive freedom

ability to actually do something or achieve your goals

—not just being left alone, but having the capacity, resources, and opportunities to act.

negative freedom

No one is stopping me

→ modern liberalism by ryan: Freedom is meaningless if you lack resources

implication of positive freedom

Positive freedom often requires:
👉 state intervention

liberal theory of society

society as a collection of free and equal individuals who interact through voluntary relationships

• Individual-centered

• Voluntary relationships

• Neutral state

• Pluralism: coexistence of differences

constitution a conservative political instrument

• designed to remain the same

• change constitution or use it to ones own benefit

• limits what can be decided by the democratic majority

critiques of reconciliation

• Freezes Indigenous identity in the past

• Encourages adaptation, not transformation

• Reinforces colonial structures

• Undermines decolonization

• Imposes burden on Indigenous people

• Strengthens state legitimacy

Reconciliation ≠ justice

Reconciliation ≠ decolonization

DOG WHISTLE POLITICS

• Coded language with hidden meaning

• Appeals to racial biases indirectly

signals controversial ideas indirectly.

personal responsibility

• Sounds neutral

• Actually signals:
  → minorities are undeserving

frames welfare as failure of minorities

Why is dog whistle politics effective

Relies on:

• racial resentment

• zero-sum thinking

connection between conservative political stances and easy access to credit

Easy access to credit: allows individuals to rely on private borrowing instead of public welfare

aligns with conservative preferences for smaller government and less redistribution.

• Credit access → sense of independence

• Independence → support for personal responsibility

• Personal responsibility → opposition to welfare

• → More conservative economic preferences

Sandel: “Meritocracy has betrayed the working class” — How?

meritocracy:

Winner arrogance

Loser humiliation

→ Working class feels bad

Sandel’s critique of the left-liberal consensus on merit

Focuses on equal opportunity

Even if opportunities are equal:
👉 outcomes still create moral hierarchy

• Left says:

  • “Everyone can succeed if they try”

• But this implies:

  • Failure = your fault

Citizenship

1. Legal status

2. Rights

3. Participation

4. Belonging

Multiculturalism vs Assimilation

Multiculturalism

• Group rights

• Diversity accepted

Assimilation

• Integration into dominant culture

Migration challenges:

• National identity

• State sovereignty

situations that challenge citizenship

• transnational identities

• dual citizenship

CLIMATE POLITICS

Problem is Collective Action

• Everyone benefits

• No one wants to bear costs

Traditional View of Climate Politics

• Climate = global commons problem

• Requires cooperation

New Perspective of Climate Politics

Climate is

• NOT just cooperation

decarbonization across systems

• Local + national + global

• Multiple actors

Carbon Lock-in

Systems reinforce fossil fuel dependence

= persistent investments in fossil fuel-intensive infrastructure, technologies, and institutional systems perpetuate greenhouse gas emissions

Climate Action

• Wrong: “climate solved by one treaty”

• Correct: multi-level governance

why is climate change a collective action problem?

States benefit from others reducing emissions without acting themselves.