2 Comparative Politics

What are the components of an electoral system?

The components of an electoral system include: 1. Electoral Laws: These set the rules governing the electoral process, including how elections are conducted, what constitutes eligibility for candidates and voters, and how electoral disputes are resolved. 2. Electoral Districts: These are geographical areas defined for representation, ensuring constituents are represented by elected officials within specific boundaries. 3. Voter Registration Systems: These systems manage the process of registering voters, ensuring that only eligible individuals can vote and maintaining the integrity of voter lists. 4. Voting Methods: Different methods such as first-past-the-post, ranked choice, or proportional representation affect how votes are cast and how they translate into seats in legislative bodies. The choice of voting method can significantly influence electoral outcomes and representation. 5. Electoral Administration: This encompasses the bodies and processes that oversee the electoral process, ensuring it is conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with laws. Electoral commissions or other governing bodies are responsible for implementing all aspects of elections, monitoring the process, and addressing any issues. Each component is essential for ensuring that democracy functions effectively and accurately reflects the will of the electorate.

What are the institutional characteristics of first-past-the-post electoral systems?

First-past-the-post electoral systems are characterized by single-member districts where the candidate receiving the most votes wins. They tend to have simple ballot structures and result in quick outcomes. This system often favors major political parties, leading to two-party systems. The main political outcomes include: 1. Stable Government: The system often produces a single-party majority rule, which can lead to stability and decisive governance, as there is a clear majority to support policy initiatives. 2. Reduced Electoral Representation for Smaller Parties: Smaller parties frequently struggle to gain representation, as their vote share may not translate into seats, resulting in a skewed political landscape that favors larger parties. 3. Voter Disenfranchisement: The 'winner-takes-all' nature means votes for losing candidates do not contribute to representation, potentially disillusioning voters who support smaller parties and leading to lower voter turnout. 4. Strategic Voting: Voters may feel compelled to vote for a less preferred but more viable candidate to avoid 'wasting' their votes on unlikely candidates, further entrenching the two-party dynamic.

What are the institutional characteristics and main political outcomes of proportional representation electoral systems?

Proportional representation (PR) electoral systems are characterized by multi-member districts in which seats in the legislature are allocated based on the proportion of votes each party receives. Key characteristics include: 1. Seat Allocation: Seats are distributed using various formulas (e.g., D'Hondt, Sainte-Laguë) to ensure that the percentage of votes corresponds closely to the percentage of seats won. 2. Voter Representation: PR systems allow for a wider range of political parties to gain representation, including smaller and regional parties, thus creating a more diverse political landscape. 3. Party Lists: Voters may cast ballots for parties rather than individual candidates in many PR systems, which can lead to party discipline and cohesion. 4. Coalition Governments: Due to the typically fragmented nature of the legislative body, PR systems often result in coalition governments, necessitating compromise and collaboration among parties. The main political outcomes include: 1. Enhanced Representation: More accurately reflects the electorate's preferences, leading to increased voter turnout and engagement. 2. Multi-Party Systems: Encourages the formation of multiple political parties, often resulting in a more pluralistic society with diverse viewpoints represented. 3. Stability Challenges: Coalition governments can sometimes lead to political instability and difficulty in governance, as differing party agendas may clash. 4. Reduced Wasted Votes: Unlike first-past-the-post systems, votes for smaller parties have a higher likelihood of contributing to the overall electoral outcome, reducing disillusionment among voters.

Explain the trade-off between electoral proportionality and political accountability.

The trade-off between electoral proportionality and political accountability involves balancing the representation of diverse political interests with the need for clear responsibility among elected officials. Proportional electoral systems enhance representation by allowing multiple parties to gain seats in line with their vote share, which often leads to a fragmented legislature and coalition governments. While this can result in a more representative and inclusive political landscape, it can also dilute accountability, as voters may struggle to identify which party or coalition is responsible for specific policies or government decisions. Conversely, majoritarian systems, like first-past-the-post, tend to create clear accountability through single-party majorities, but often at the cost of proportional representation, marginalizing smaller parties and leading to a 'winner-takes-all' dynamic. Ultimately, the challenge lies in finding a system that balances fair representation with effective governance.

According to Duverger, what are the mechanical and psychological effects?

Duverger's Mechanical Effect refers to the way in which electoral systems, particularly first-past-the-post, translate votes into seats in legislative bodies. This system often advantageously benefits larger parties because they are more likely to receive the plurality of votes required to secure a seat, resulting in a skewed representation that can exclude smaller parties. On the other hand, the Psychological Effect describes how voters' perceptions and beliefs about the viability of candidates influence their voting behavior. Voters often opt for major parties perceived as more likely to win, fearing their votes for smaller, less likely candidates would be 'wasted.' This self-fulfilling prophecy reinforces the dominance of major parties, making it even harder for smaller parties to gain traction. Together, these effects contribute to a two-party system, where competition is limited, and diverse political perspectives may be marginalized.

What is the theoretical logic underpinning Duverger’s law?

Duverger’s law posits that single-member district electoral systems, such as first-past-the-post, inherently promote the emergence of two-party systems. The theoretical logic behind this framework stems from two key principles: strategic voting and the mechanical effect of the electoral system. Voters, recognizing that only one candidate will win in their district, often feel compelled to support candidates from major parties who appear more likely to win, thereby avoiding the risk of casting a 'wasted' vote for a less popular candidate. This behavior leads to a consolidation of votes around the two dominant parties. Furthermore, the mechanical effect refers to the way in which electoral results translate votes into seats; larger parties are more likely to gain a plurality of votes needed to secure representation, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. Consequently, as smaller parties struggle to gain traction, they are marginalized, solidifying the two-party structure perpetuated by both voter behavior and the inherent design of the electoral system.

According to the primordialist view, how are political parties formed? Illustrate your answer with one example.

The primordialist view posits that political parties are formed primarily through deep-rooted social identities and cultural affiliations that exist within a society. This perspective emphasizes that factors such as ethnicity, religion, language, and historical experiences play a significant role in shaping a group's political preferences and party alignment. For example, in countries like India, political parties often emerge along ethnic and religious lines, where parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) represent Hindu nationalist sentiments, while other parties cater to various regional and religious communities, illustrating how these social identities influence the formation and support of political parties.

Explain the rise of populism using the instrumental view approach.

The instrumental view of political party formation posits that parties are created and evolve as tools for achieving specific goals and reflecting the interests of various social groups. In the context of populism, this approach suggests that populist parties emerge as a response to perceived failures of established elites and traditional political structures to address the grievances of the common populace. Populism often capitalizes on societal sentiments of disenfranchisement, inequality, and disillusionment with the status quo. As populist leaders articulate the concerns and aspirations of ordinary people, they effectively mobilize support by framing their agenda as representing the 'true voice' of the people against an out-of-touch elite. This dynamic can lead to the rapid rise of populist movements, especially in times of economic crisis or social upheaval, where the perceived gap between the elite and ordinary citizens becomes particularly pronounced.

Suppose that a party system is characterized by a) having strong regional parties and b) having strongly ideological parties. Using the cleavage theory developed by Lipset and Rokkan, what would explain the origin of this particular party system?

Lipset and Rokkan's cleavage theory posits that party systems emerge from societal cleavages, which are divisions in society based on factors like ethnicity, religion, class, or territory. In a party system with strong regional parties, these cleavages manifest through cultural, historical, and geographic identities that motivate the formation of parties representing localized interests. For example, in countries with significant ethnic diversity, political parties often emerge to articulate the specific needs and aspirations of regional groups, leading to strong regional representation. On the other hand, strongly ideological parties arise from ideological divisions such as economic interests, left-right political spectrum conflicts, or differing value systems that reflect deeper socio-economic and value-based conflicts within the society. These ideological divides often galvanize voters around distinct platforms, leading to the formation of parties that espouse particular ideologies. Therefore, the interaction of both regional and ideological cleavages creates a complex party system where regional identities and ideological beliefs deeply influence political alignment, resulting in a pluralistic party landscape that reflects both local interests and broader ideological commitments.

Are democracies more resilient in parliamentary than in presidential democracies? Why?

Yes, parliamentary democracies tend to be more resilient because they allow for greater cooperation between branches of government, facilitate coalition-building, and promote compromise, whereas presidential systems can result in gridlock due to a rigid separation of powers. In a parliamentary system, the executive branch derives its legitimacy from the legislature and can be dependent on the support of a coalition of parties, which encourages collaboration and consensus. This interdependence allows for more flexible responses to political challenges and transitions in leadership. In contrast, presidential systems may face deadlock if the president and legislature are controlled by opposing parties, making it difficult to enact policies. Additionally, parliamentary democracies often experience higher levels of political stability because they allow for votes of no confidence and can swiftly remove ineffective leaders without the prolonged election process required in presidential systems.

Explain how governments are formed in the presence of office-seeking or policy-oriented politicians.

Governments are formed based on the motivations and priorities of politicians, which can be categorized into two main types: office-seeking and policy-oriented. 1. Office-Seeking Politicians: These politicians prioritize gaining power and positions within the government. Their main goal is often to secure office rather than to implement specific policies or political ideologies. In a coalition context, office-seeking politicians may form alliances with other parties to ensure stability and increase their chances of maintaining power. This may lead to compromises on policy positions to secure support from diverse factions. 2. Policy-Oriented Politicians: In contrast, policy-oriented politicians are driven by their ideological goals and the desire to implement specific agendas or reforms. They seek to form governments with like-minded parties that align with their values, focusing on achieving legislative goals rather than merely maintaining power. While forming coalitions, these politicians may emphasize shared interests and policies, leading to more coherent governance but potentially complicating negotiations with diverse groups. The interplay between these motivations can influence coalition-building strategies, stability within the government, legislative effectiveness, and the overall functioning of the political system.

In which country would you expect policy to be more stable: a bicameral and federal country or a unicameral and unitary country? Why?

A bicameral and federal country is generally expected to have more stable policy due to several key factors. First, the bicameral legislature provides a system of checks and balances, requiring agreement between two separate chambers before laws can be enacted, which can lead to more deliberative and thorough policymaking. This structure often results in more comprehensive consideration of various interests as different groups and regions are represented in both chambers. Second, the federal system allows for multiple layers of government that can address local, regional, and national issues, facilitating cooperation and collaboration among different jurisdictions. This fosters a more inclusive approach to governance, as local governments can tailor policies to the specific needs of their constituencies. Third, policies created this way tend to reflect a broader consensus, which can mitigate drastic shifts in governance and promote continuity in policy direction. In contrast, a unicameral and unitary system may concentrate power in a single legislative body, leading to quicker decision-making but also potentially greater volatility, as policies can change rapidly with shifts in leadership or public opinion, possibly sidelining minority interests and leading to less stable governance.

Suppose that you observe two countries with constitutional review and a federal structure. In

the first country there is close ideological convergence between institutions but in the second one all institutions are ideologically polarised. In which country would you expect is policy change more likely to be observed? Why?

In a federal structure with constitutional review, policy change is more likely to occur in the country with ideologically polarized institutions compared to the one with close ideological convergence. In the polarized country, significant divisions among political factions often lead to frequent shifts in policy as different groups vie for power and influence. This competition can result in regular alterations in laws and regulations as parties attempt to enact their agendas, frequently leading to confrontations and necessitating strategic coalitions. For example, in the United States, where federalism and polarization coexist, policy changes can frequently arise from shifts in majority control of Congress, leading to alternating policies on issues like healthcare and taxation. In contrast, the country with institutional convergence tends to see stability in policies, as aligned interests and collaborative governance minimize drastic changes. Here, parties may cooperate to maintain a consistent legislative agenda, making it less likely for policy shifts to occur. An example can be seen in countries like Canada, where, despite having a diverse political landscape, there tends to be more collaborative governance, particularly on national priorities, leading to less frequent policy overhauls.

What are veto players?

Veto players are individuals or groups whose agreement is necessary for a change in political policy or legislation. They are often defined as actors whose consent is required to enact significant policy shifts or reforms within the political system. Examples of veto players include: 1. The President: In presidential systems, the president often holds veto power over legislation passed by the legislature, requiring legislative bodies to accommodate the president's preferences to enact laws. 2. The Legislature: In a bicameral legislature, both chambers may act as veto players; both must agree on legislation for it to pass. 3. The Judiciary: In systems where judicial review exists, courts can act as veto players by overturning laws deemed unconstitutional. 4. Political Parties: When parties have strong positions or coalition agreements, they often act as veto players within legislative processes. Understanding veto players is crucial for analyzing political outcomes as their presence can determine the stability and continuity of policies. For example, in a political environment with many veto players, such as in the United States, policy changes are often gradual due to negotiation and compromise, leading to greater stability. Conversely, fewer veto players can expedite policy changes but may lead to volatility, as seen in some parliamentary systems where majority parties can quickly implement their agendas without significant obstacles.

What is the relationship between veto players and democratic performance? Do veto players enhance or endanger democracy?

Veto players are crucial in shaping democratic performance as their presence influences the stability, accountability, and responsiveness of a political system. They enhance democracy by requiring broader consensus for policy changes, which can prevent sudden shifts toward autocracy and ensure that diverse viewpoints are considered. This requirement for coalition-building and negotiation can lead to more inclusive governance and protect minority interests. However, having too many veto players can lead to gridlock, making it difficult to pass legislation and respond effectively to pressing societal issues, which may hinder decisive action. This situation can pose a threat to effective governance, as voters may become frustrated with the inability to implement change, potentially leading to disillusionment with democratic processes. Thus, while a certain degree of veto players contributes to democratic stability, an excessive number can create barriers to action and responsiveness, endangering the efficiency and effectiveness of democracy.

Explain the main differences between the legislative supremacy constitution and the higher law constitution models.

The main differences include: 1. Legislative Supremacy Constitution: This model asserts that legislative bodies hold the highest authority, allowing them to enact laws without interference from the judiciary. In such systems, the legislature can amend or override constitutional provisions, which means laws can change based on the will of the majority. This model often implies that democratic processes are paramount, and legislative decisions reflect the electorate's will directly. Examples include the United Kingdom and New Zealand, where parliamentary sovereignty is a core principle. 2. Higher Law Constitution: This model establishes a set of fundamental principles or laws that limit the legislative branch's power, enshrining rights and protections that cannot be easily altered by legislative action. Higher law constitutions are often codified, protecting fundamental rights and principles from transient political majorities. Constitutional amendments typically require a more rigorous process, ensuring stability and continuity in governance. The United States operates under a higher law constitution, where the Constitution is a supreme law that serves to protect individual liberties against potential legislative overreach. This model promotes checks and balances between branches of government as well as protection for minority rights against majority rule.

How can you identify whether a country is federal or not?

A country can be identified as federal if it has a constitution that distributes powers between national and subnational entities, such as states or provinces, allowing each level of government to operate independently in specific areas. Key features of federal systems include: 1. Multiple Levels of Government: Federal countries have at least two levels of government, typically a national government and various subnational governments (like states or provinces) that have their own authorities. 2. Written Constitution: A federal constitution exists to outline the distribution of powers between different levels of government, defining their responsibilities and jurisdictions clearly. 3. Shared Authority: In federal systems, both national and subnational governments may possess concurrent powers over certain issues, allowing them to legislate in specific domains, such as education or transportation. 4. Constitutional Protections: Federal systems often include provisions that protect the rights of subnational entities against encroachment by the national government, ensuring a degree of autonomy in governance. 5. Judicial Review: Federal systems may have a supreme court or constitutional court that interprets the constitution, resolving disputes between different levels of government regarding the division of powers. Examples of federal countries include the United States, Canada, Germany, and Australia, where the distribution of powers and responsibilities is explicitly demonstrated in their constitutional frameworks.

What is the difference between federalism de jure and federalism de facto?

Federalism de jure refers to the formal legal structure established by a constitution that explicitly delineates the distribution of powers between national and subnational entities, such as states or provinces, creating a framework for governance. This formal structure often includes specific provisions defining the responsibilities and authorities of each level of government. In contrast, federalism de facto pertains to the actual implementation and practice of federalism in reality, which may diverge from the legal framework due to various political, social, or administrative factors. For instance, in some federal countries, national governments may exercise more power than what is legally authorized, leading to a situation where the subnational entities are less autonomous than the constitution suggests. This difference can be observed in real-world scenarios where political dynamics, historical contexts, and governance practices shape how federalism operates, resulting in variations in the degree of decentralization and local government authority.

What are the structural conditions that define federalism according to a de jure approach?

Structural conditions defining federalism de jure include: 1. A written constitution: This constitution explicitly outlines how powers are divided and shared between national and subnational governments, ensuring clear governance structures. 2. Defined responsibilities and jurisdictions: Each level of government (national, state, provincial) is clearly defined in terms of their powers and responsibilities, preventing overlaps and ensuring accountability. 3. Constitutional protections: Mechanisms are included in the constitution that protect the autonomy of subnational entities from encroachment by the national government, which helps to ensure decentralized governance. 4. Multiple levels of governance: Federal systems typically consist of at least a national government and several subnational governments, allowing for local governance that is tailored to regional needs. 5. Judicial mechanisms for dispute resolution: A framework for judicial review exists, often including specialized courts, to address conflicts that arise between different levels of government regarding power distribution, ensuring adherence to the constitutional provisions.

Discuss one example of a situation where a unitary country chooses to adopt a different political arrangement based on territorial reasons.

An example of a unitary country adopting a different political arrangement based on territorial reasons is the United Kingdom. Although it functions as a unitary state, the UK has devolved powers to its regions, including Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This devolution was implemented to address distinct cultural identities, historical grievances, and political aspirations within these regions. For instance, Scotland has its own parliament and control over various areas such as health and education, allowing it to enact legislation that reflects the preferences of its populace. The Scottish Parliament was established through the Scotland Act 1998, following extensive discussions about the need for greater self-governance. Similarly, Wales and Northern Ireland have received varying degrees of devolved powers, leading to their own legislative assemblies. Devolution has been a means of managing regional disparities and fostering local governance, thus allowing these regions to tailor policies to their specific needs while maintaining the overall framework of a unitary state.

Explain the logic of decentralisation using the idea of fiscal decentralisation.

Fiscal decentralisation refers to the process of distributing financial responsibilities and revenue-generating powers to lower levels of government, such as regional or local authorities. The logic of decentralisation through fiscal measures is based on several key principles: 1. Improved Responsiveness: By empowering local governments with financial resources, they can tailor public services to meet the specific needs and preferences of their constituents, leading to more responsive governance. 2. Enhanced Efficiency: Local authorities, being closer to the population they serve, are often more aware of local issues and can allocate resources more efficiently than a centralized government. This localized approach can result in better service delivery and a more effective use of funds. 3. Encouragement of Innovation: Fiscal decentralisation can foster competition among subnational governments, prompting them to innovate in service delivery and governance practices as they strive to meet the needs of their populations more effectively. 4. Capacity for Local Prioritization: Local governments can prioritize spending based on community-specific needs, whether it's education, infrastructure, or health services, ensuring that budgets reflect local priorities rather than broad national mandates. 5. Public Participation: With fiscal authority, local governments can engage communities in budgetary decisions, enhancing democratic processes and fostering greater public involvement in governance. 6. Fiscal Responsibility: Decentralisation can promote accountability, as local officials are directly responsible for financial outcomes in their jurisdictions. This can lead to better fiscal discipline and management, as communities hold their local representatives accountable for budgetary decisions.

Explain the differences between the coming-together and holding-together approaches to federalism. Use two countries to answer your question.

The coming-together approach to federalism involves independent states voluntarily uniting to form a federation, often to enhance their security or economic interests while maintaining their individual autonomy. A prime example is the United States, where originally independent states came together after the Revolutionary War to form a federal government through the Constitution in 1788, allowing them to collaboratively address national issues while preserving considerable state powers. In this model, the emphasis is on the agreement and consent of the states, fostering cooperation without erasing the distinct identities of each state.

In contrast, the holding-together approach typically occurs within an existing state where the central government accommodates diverse groups or regions to maintain unity and stability. This approach is exemplified by India, where the central government has granted significant autonomy to its various states and union territories to recognize and manage diverse ethnic, linguistic, and cultural identities while ensuring national integrity. The Indian constitution provides for a federal structure that allows for regional autonomy, notably through the reorganization of states based on linguistic lines in the 1950s, thus addressing local aspirations while preserving the unity of the nation. In this model, the central authority retains significant powers but must work with regional entities to resolve local issues, reflecting a more complex negotiation of power and identity.

What is malapportionment and how does it challenge political representation in bicameral systems?

Malapportionment refers to the unequal distribution of voters among electoral districts, where some districts have significantly more voters than others. This leads to variations in the weight of each individual's vote, with votes in less populated districts carrying more influence than those in more populated ones. In bicameral systems, where two chambers exist, malapportionment can severely distort political representation. For example, if one chamber is designed to represent regions or states equally regardless of population size—such as the U.S. Senate—small states can have disproportionate power compared to larger states. This structure can result in policy decisions that do not reflect the needs or preferences of the majority of the electorate and can exacerbate political inequalities. Additionally, malapportionment may discourage voter turnout in over-represented districts, where voters feel their votes are 'worth more' compared to those in under-represented areas, ultimately undermining the democratic principle of equal representation.

What makes a democracy consensual?

A consensual democracy is characterized by a political system that emphasizes broad agreement among various groups and collective decision-making. Key elements include: 1. Proportional Representation: This electoral system ensures that political parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive, allowing for a diverse range of opinions and interests to be represented in the legislature. 2. Power-Sharing Arrangements: These arrangements often involve coalitions or agreements between multiple political parties to share power, ensuring that no single group dominates the governance process. This promotes collaboration and compromise among different segments of society. 3. Inclusive Governance: Consensual democracies actively seek to include minority groups and voices in the decision-making process, ensuring that policies reflect a wide array of perspectives and are more equitable. 4. Deliberative Processes: Mechanisms such as public consultations, forums, and dialogues are utilized to engage citizens in discussion and to consider different viewpoints before reaching decisions, fostering a culture of collaboration. 5. Institutional Checks and Balances: These prevent any one entity from monopolizing power and encourage cooperation among branches of government, leading to more stable and fair governance. 6. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Systems are in place to facilitate negotiation and mediation during political disputes, supporting the peaceful resolution of conflicts. This framework allows for a collaborative approach to governance, thereby promoting social cohesion and stability.

What makes a democracy majoritarian?

A majoritarian democracy is characterized by a political system that emphasizes the majority's preferences in decision-making. Key features include: 1. Single-member districts: Each electoral district elects one representative, reinforcing majoritarian outcomes and often leading to a direct link between voters and their elected officials. This system tends to favor larger parties and can discourage smaller parties from competing effectively. 2. Winner-takes-all systems: The candidate with the most votes wins the seat, resulting in a concentration of power in the majority party or coalition. This can marginalize minority parties, reducing their influence in the legislative process. 3. Simplified electoral processes: Majoritarian systems typically involve straightforward ballot structures, which can facilitate a swift translation of votes into legislative decisions. This simplicity can lead to faster electoral outcomes but may also overlook the nuances of voter preferences. 4. Majority rule: Decisions are made based on the preferences of more than half the voters, which can lead to the sidelining of minority interests. This dynamic may foster a sense of disenfranchisement among minority groups, as policies may not reflect their needs or priorities. Additionally, majoritarian democracies often experience reduced levels of political pluralism, as the dominance of a majority can inhibit diverse representation in governance.