Comp pol midterm

What Is Comparative Politics?
o Comparative politics is the study and comparison of domestic politics across countries. It
contrasts with a related field in political science, international relations, which examines relations
between countries.
o As a field, comparative politics can be very broadly organized into analytical concepts
(assumptions and theories that guide our research), methods (ways to study and test those
theories), and ideals (beliefs and values about preferred political outcomes).
o Comparative politics can be considered through the concept of institutions: an organization
or activity that is self-perpetuating and valued for its own sake.
o Politics is the struggle in any group for power that will give one or more persons the ability to make
decisions for the larger group. Power is the ability to influence or impose one’s will on others.
o The comparative method is a way to make comparisons and draw conclusions across case
studies. It may rely on inductive reasoning (using case studies to generate hypotheses)
or deductive reasoning (research that works from a hypothesis and tests this with data) to
establish a causal relationship and develop theory.
o In research, we may look for correlation, or apparent relationships between two or more
variables.
o Studying real-world politics can pose a challenge for researchers seeking to apply scientific
principles to this field. Among other methodological issues, comparative political scientists are
challenged by a limited number of cases available, difficulties in accessing information, and by
issues of multicausality (when variables interconnect and interact to produce particular outcomes),
selection bias (a focus on effects rather than causes, which can lead to inaccurate conclusions
about correlation or causation), and endogeneity (the difficulty in separating causes and effects or
discerning which is a dependent variable versus an independent variable).
o Many comparativists engage in area studies, focusing on one region of the world. This
allows them to focus their expertise, but this choice does create other research problems.
o Comparative politics has a long intellectual pedigree, going back to Aristotle and Machiavelli and
continuing to later thinkers such as Locke, Rousseau, Marx, and Weber.
o Two world wars and the Cold War profoundly reshaped comparative politics.
Modernization theory and the behavioral revolution have had a profound impact,
though both approaches have their critics.
o Though in the past it focused on description, comparative politics has emerged as a field that
incorporates qualitative and quantitative methods, including game theory (or rational choice).
o A Guiding Concept: Political Institutions
o Political science examines institutions because they define what is possible in political life by
laying out the rules and structures of how politics operates. Politics is full of
both formal and informal institutions, and they embody the norms or values unique to a given
country. Institutions are both a cause and an effect of political behavior.
o Institutions vary from country to country and provide a powerful way to compare political systems
and behavior. Some examples of institutions include the army, taxation, elections, and the state.
o Institutions are prone to “stickiness,” which can be a problem when people resist changing
institutions that have outlived their usefulness. Institutions can change and evolve, especially when
alternative norms emerge to challenge existing structures.
o A Guiding Ideal: Reconciling Freedom and Equality
o Freedom is the ability of an individual to act independently, free of retribution from the state or
other individuals. Equality refers to a shared material standard of individuals within a community,
society, or country.
o Politics is driven by questions surrounding freedom and equality. Should government curtail
individual freedom to advance collective equality? Can freedom and equality increase together, or
must an increase in one always decrease the other? Who in a political system has the power to decide the ideal mix of freedom and equality?

Defining the State
o In comparative politics, the state is a series of institutions that maintains a monopoly of force
over a territory. It relies on sovereignty—the ability to carry out actions in a territory
independently—and power.
o A regime is the rules and norms of politics; in some nondemocratic countries where politics is
dominated by a single individual, we may use the term regime to refer to that
leader. Government is the leadership in charge of running the state.
o We consider something highly institutionalized if it is generally seen as irreplaceable. If we arrange
these three concepts from more to less institutionalized, a state is most institutionalized, the
government the least.
o A country may be seen as shorthand for all these concepts—state, government, regime—as well
as for the people who live within that political system.
o The Origins of Political Organization
o While the modern state may be a relatively new concept, humans have been governed by some
form of political order for millennia.
o Sedentary communities and agriculture first emerged in the Middle East around 8000 B.C.E., with
cities forming around 4000 B.C.E. or earlier. In these cities, complex political systems emerged to
deal with issues surrounding trade and the distribution and protection of wealth.
o Philosophers have long debated why states first formed. Some argued that the state emerged to
save societies from anarchy (Thomas Hobbes), while others argued that the state kept people from
living equally and peacefully (Jean-Jacques Rousseau).
o More recent research suggests that neither is correct, showing that states emerged from the
constant warfare between family and tribal organizations competing for resources and territory.
o The Rise of the Modern State
o Scholars argue that the chaos of Europe's Dark Ages fostered the emergence of the state because
organizations had to rapidly adapt to intense rivalries over power and resources. The modern state
may have emerged in Europe and not in China (which had developed sophisticated political
organizations at least a thousand years before Europe) because China lacked major competitors to
foster ongoing organizational evolution.
o The state offered three advantages over other organizations: 1) states encouraged economic
development by defining and protecting property rights; 2) state rulers encouraged technological
innovation that, with property rights, set the stage for modern capitalism; and 3) the state's focus on
infrastructure and legal codes fostered a more cohesive, nationalist spirit that reduced localized
rivalries.
o The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) reduced the authority of the church in Europe and instead left
states with the power to direct religion within their own territory, helping to establish the central
concept of sovereignty. This cemented the superiority of the political over the spiritual and
encouraged states to expand outside of Europe.
o The organizational structure of the state was thus imposed around the world by force.
o Comparing State Power
o States vary greatly in their ability to promote political stability and carry out certain tasks. As state
power can be a very complex question, comparative politics has developed a number of concepts
to help us define state strength and weakness.
o Legitimacy—defined as the idea that something or someone is recognized by the public as right
and proper—grants states the authority and power to act. States may display traditional
legitimacy (built on history and continuity), charismatic legitimacy (embodied in a powerful and
inspiring individual), rational-legal legitimacy (built on a foundation of highly institutionalized
laws), or combine multiple types.
o Centralization and decentralization capture how and where power is distributed in a state. Some
states rely on federalism, where significant powers reside in regional or local authorities. While

some federal systems have powers divided equally between regional units, asymmetric
federalism has an uneven distribution of power. In contrast, unitary states hold most of their
power in a central government.
o In recent years, there has been a trend towards greater decentralization, even in traditionally
unitary states. This "pushing down" of power is called devolution, and may help increase a state's
legitimacy or help resolve ethnic or religious issues.
o Political scientists may describe states as strong states (ones that can fulfill basic functions and
enforce rules) and weak states (ones that cannot execute these tasks well, with the most extreme
cases being failed states).
o However, state power may be better described by examining a state's capacity (its ability to wield
power to carry out policies or actions) and autonomy (its ability to wield that power without having
to consult the public or another outside body).
o Finding a balance between autonomy and capacity is very difficult. States that are low on both may
risk state failure, but too high and it can undermine democracy. High capacity but low autonomy

The Components of Political Economy
o Political economy is the study of how the relationship between politics and economics shapes the
balance of freedom and equality.
o Critical to any economy are markets—the interactions between the forces of supply and demand,
or how goods and services are exchanged. Another critical component of an economy
is property—the ownership of those goods and services.
o All states provide some measure of public goods—those services or goods provided or secured
by the state that no one person or organization can own. States differ greatly in what they define as
a public good, though national defense and public education are often seen as public goods. Social
expenditures—the state's spending on public benefits—incites furious debates over who benefits
from, and pays for, public goods. One major source of public funding—and public debate—
is taxation.
o Taxation rates vary by country; some consume a larger portion of a country’s gross domestic
product (GDP) than others
o One basic way states seek to control the economy is through the creation and management of
money.
o To manage money, states may rely on a central bank, a state institution that controls the
flow of money and how much it costs to borrow money in that economy.
o A central bank tries to avoid too much inflation (when prices rise because there is too
much money and not enough goods) and deflation (when prices drop because there is
too little money and too many goods).
o In extreme cases, a country may experience hyperinflation, which often leads to currency
collapse. Hyperinflation has been triggered in some cases by the decision of the
government to print more money to cover its debts, leading to massive expansion in the
supply of the currency.
o Many economic debates focus on regulations—the rules that the state sets to manage the
production and exchange of goods or services.
o For instance, some governments may control prices for certain goods or services, while
others may promote or break up private or state-run monopolies (markets controlled by
single producers), helping to determine who gets to compete in a market.
o Trade is often a focus of regulation, where states may use tariffs (taxes on imported
goods), quotas, and other nontariff regulatory barriers (health, packaging, and other restrictions
that make it more difficult for goods to be traded) to help its economy.
o There are strong arguments both for and against regulating trade. Increasing trade
regulations may generate state revenue, foster local industry, protect local jobs, or keep
wealth in the country. Alternatively, reducing trade regulations may promote competition,
keep the costs of goods low (thereby benefitting local consumers), and stimulate domestic
innovation in areas of comparative advantage.
o Political-Economic Systems
o A political-economic system can be defined as the actual relationship between political and
economic institutions in a particular country, as well as the policies and outcomes they create.
Various types of political-economic systems view the ideal relationship between the state and the
market, and between freedom and equality, in different ways.
o Liberalism emphasizes individual freedoms over collective equality and the power of markets over
the state. Liberals favor free markets (the principle of laissez-faire) and strong protections for
private property, also known as capitalism.
o Social democracy seeks to balance economic freedom and equality. Social democrats argue that
free markets should be checked by the state and that the state should provide more public goods—
health care, unemployment and retirement benefits, public education, and others—to balance the
inequalities that emerge from the market.

o Communism emphasizes collective equality over individual freedom. The state controls all aspects
of the market, including property, labor, and trade, and guarantees employment, health care,
education, and other services.
o Mercantilism favors neither freedom nor equality, instead focusing on economic growth to increase
the power of the state. In a mercantilist system, the state strongly encourages some industries over
others, usually establishes high tariffs on outside goods and services, and provides a lower level of
social expenditure.
o They may do this with full or partial state ownership of specific industries
(called parastatals) to create or control businesses viewed as critical to the national
interest.
o Political-Economic Systems and the State: Comparing Outcomes
o Political scientists use several measures to compare economic development across countries.
o Gross domestic product (GDP) is the total value of all goods and services produced in a
country.
o Some economists calculate GDP data based on purchasing power parity (PPP), which
is the buying power of income in each country.
o The Gini index is a mathematical formula that measures inequality and poverty.
o The Human Development Index (HDI) measures the overall well-being of a country's
people.
o What Is the Future of Liberalism?
o For the past two decades, social democracy and liberalism appeared to be the only viable political
economic systems. Those countries that use these two systems have also been undergoing
further economic liberalization—cutting taxes, reducing regulation, privatizing state-owned
businesses and public goods, and expanding property rights.
o Despite its gains, liberalism has not decisively triumphed over other ideologies.
o Economic liberalization and growth around the world has also coincided with uneven
development.
o Inequality decreased between the bottom and the middle of global income distribution, while
it widened between the middle and those at the top

Defining Democracy
o Democracy is a political system in which political power is exercised either directly or indirectly by
the people.
o More specifically, liberal democracy is a political system that promotes participation (such as
voting in elections) and competition (such as between political parties), and emphasizes liberty and
civil rights.
o Liberal democracy does not require a liberal ideology or a liberal economic system. For example,
social democracies or countries with mercantilist economic systems may have liberal democratic
institutions.
o Origins of Democracy
o The early Greek political system of direct democracy provided democracy's foundation of political
participation.
o The Roman Empire emphasized republicanism, which includes the separation of powers (power
sharing between institutions) and representation through elected officials. This has become the
most prevalent form of democracy in the modern age.
o Democratic rule has risen and fallen over time. The “modern” era of democracy begins in thirteenth-
century England with the Magna Carta. This document provided a basis for a legislature and
asserted that all freemen should enjoy due process before the law, thus setting the stage for the
idea of liberty and, later, the United Kingdom’s slow transition to democracy.
o Contemporary Democratization
o Modernization approaches argue that as societies become more socially and economically
sophisticated, they have a desire for more control over the state, leading to democracy. This
approach has fallen out of favor since the 1970s.
o Some scholars argue that the concentration of power and wealth matters more than a country’s
overall wealth. If a relatively few elites control power and wealth, they may act as a barrier to
political change.
o A flourishing civil society—clubs, organizations, and social connections that exist outside the
state—may help foster democracy by encouraging citizen engagement.
o International pressure, through direct involvement of foreign governments or through international
trade and cultural sharing, may encourage democratization. Countries that are more connected to
the global community and have less wealth concentrated in the government may be more
susceptible to international pressures favoring democratization.
o Finally, some scholars argue that a democracy cannot function unless a country's political culture
promotes certain values. Others argue that political culture does not prevent countries from
becoming democracies, but may instead determine the nature of democracy once a country
chooses to adopt this system.
o Institutions of the Democratic State
o Liberal democratic institutions vary dramatically across countries, but we do see some common
concepts.
o All countries have an executive branch that carries out the laws and policies of the state.
o The executive has two key roles: head of state (representing the people nationally and
internationally) and head of government (running the state and implementing policies).
o In some countries, one person assumes each role, while in others, one person handles
both.
o Legislatures are in charge of writing and passing laws in a democracy. Countries
have bicameral or unicameral systems—legislatures with two branches or a single branch. This
is often related to federalism, as federal states typically rely on an upper house to represent local
interests.
o All liberal democracies adhere to the rule of law—a system in which all individuals and groups,
including those in government, are subject to the law regardless of their power.

o While the nature of law and the specific court system may vary across democracies,
all liberal democracies have a judiciary to help administer and enforce the role of
law.
o Most democracies have a constitutional court that ensures that laws are
compatible with the constitution, though these courts may differ in their powers
of judicial review (abstract versus concrete).
o Models of Democracy: Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential Systems
o Parliamentary systems are found in the majority of democracies around the world. They display
two key elements: 1) prime ministers and their cabinets are often members of the legislature; and
2) the legislature elects, and removes (when it holds a vote of no confidence), the prime minister
from office.
o In presidential systems, the people select the president, and the president is usually both the
head of state and the head of government. In this system, the president can choose the cabinet,
which may be made up of people from within and outside the legislature. There are greater checks
and balances in a presidential system than in a parliamentary system.
o In a semi-presidential system, the executive is separate from the legislature, but executive
powers are shared between the president and prime minister. Developed in France, this system
has also been adopted in some parts of the former Soviet Union (such as Russia) and parts of Asia
and Africa.
o Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential Systems: Benefits and Drawbacks
o Some scholars argue that parliamentary systems make for better democracy since the close
relationship between the legislature and the executive in a parliamentary system leads to greater
efficiency. In addition, the prime minister may be easily removed by the legislature. Critics point out
that adopting this system may result in a loss of public oversight over the executive and the passing
of legislation.
o Presidential systems allow the public to directly select their executive. However, the stronger
checks and balances between the executive and legislature in a presidential system can make
passing legislation more difficult. Presidencies may also provoke more conflict, as they are "zero-
sum" offices, where power is not shared. Finally, even if a president loses the confidence of the
public, he or she cannot be replaced except through new elections, making these systems
inflexible.
o While semi-presidential systems may look like the "best of both worlds," conflicts can arise between
presidents and prime ministers, and power can become overly concentrated in the executive. In
some cases, this type of system has become a platform from which democracy has been
dismantled.
o Political Parties
o Political parties are a necessary part of democratic governance.
o They help organize political debate, making it easier for governments to enact policy agendas and
for people to evaluate a politician’s performance and a candidate’s promises.
o The number and diversity of parties vary widely between countries, and is shaped in part by a
country's electoral system.
o Electoral Systems
o How votes are cast, counted, and translated into legislative seats is an important component of how
political power is allocated in a democracy.
o All democracies divide their populations into a number of electoral boundaries or constituencies
that are allocated a certain number of legislative seats, though the size of a constituency may vary
widely. Liberal democracies tend to use one of two electoral systems: plurality or majority systems
that use single-member district (SMD), or proportional representation (PR).
o In an SMD system, each constituency is allocated one seat in the legislature and the candidate or
party who wins the most votes (or a majority of votes, depending on the system) in that district wins
the seat.
o Variants of SMD systems include first past the post (or plurality) systems and majority
(also known as runoff) systems.
o In plurality systems, the candidate with the most votes wins.
o In majority systems, the winning candidate must win a majority of the votes. If no
candidate does this in the first election, the top two candidates must win a
majority in a second “runoff” election.
o Due to their winner-take-all nature, SMD systems tend to favor large parties and
marginalize or eliminate small parties. In addition, because voters are choosing one

candidate to represent their district, national politics may be driven by local rather than
national interests.
o PR systems use multimember districts (MMDs), and seats in the legislature are allocated
according to the proportion of votes the party receives. The size of each district may vary greatly
from one PR system to the next.
o PR makes it easier for smaller parties to gain representation (fewer votes are wasted
because seats are given to a party based on the number of votes they received whether
they win or not).
o Party discipline and ideology are often more pronounced in a PR system.
o Some countries use a mixed electoral system of PR (people vote for a party) and SMD (people
also vote for an individual candidate) to try to balance the benefits and tradeoffs of these two
systems.
o Referendum and Initiative
o In some democracies, policy can be set through elections by the use of the referendum (in which a
policy is placed on the ballot and voted on by the people) and initiative (where people gather
signatures in order to place a policy on the ballot for a vote).
o While this expands the participation in the policy process, some analysts argue that voters are not
equipped to decide on complex public policies.
o Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
o Civil rights refer to the promotion of equality; civil liberties refer to the promotion of freedom.
Together, these concepts often include the right to practice religion, to speak freely, and to equal
treatment under the law, among other rights.
o Democracies around the world vary in the number and types of rights emphasized in their
constitutions. Some of the rights rest in the individuals, such as the freedom of speech, while other
countries place the state as the defender and creator of these rights, such as the right to education.
o Liberty is therefore not simply the absence of controls over our scope of action, but also something
that must be created, institutionalized, and defended.

Defining Nondemocratic Rule
o Nondemocratic regimes are those controlled by a small group of individuals who exercise power
over the state without being constitutionally responsible to the public. We also sometimes use the
term authoritarianism to refer to these states.
o Nondemocratic regimes restrict individual freedom, though their relationship with equality is less
clear. Some strive to provide social and economic equality, while others value neither freedom nor
equality.
o In regards to ideology, some nondemocracies are highly ideological; others reject ideology and
simply pursue power for the state or its leader.
o Totalitarianism and Nondemocratic Rule
o Totalitarianism is a form of nondemocratic rule involving a highly centralized state with a strong
ideology that seeks to transform and fuse the institutions of the state, society, and economy.
o Totalitarian regimes often use violence to maintain control and destroy obstacles to change, though
this does not mean that all violent regimes are totalitarian.
o Origins and Sources of Nondemocratic Rule
o Modernization theory argues that nondemocratic regimes are more likely to emerge in poor
countries that lack a middle class. Without a middle class, politics is more likely to become
polarized because there are few people in power and a wider population that is weakly organized.
o Critics, however, point out that modernization can lead to nondemocratic rule, and this
disruptive process may undermine or replace existing democratic regimes.
o In highly unequal societies, those who monopolize economic power may also monopolize political
power.
o This may be because elites are less willing to share power when they fear losing their
economic opportunities.
o Some analysts argue that countries suffering from the resource curse—those with
abundant natural resources (such as oil or minerals)—are less likely to emerge as
democracies. Since the state does not have to rely on the population to pay taxes in order
to generate wealth, they have no need to respond to public demands. Also, since natural
resources are not portable, those in power know that should they give up power, they may
not be able to maintain their wealth, giving them a greater incentive to maintain
nondemocratic rule.
o Nondemocratic regimes generally have a weak civil society.
o People in power often destroy or undermine civil society, and people may view the state
as the primary arena for social organization.
o Populism, an anti-institutional ideology, may emerge in these societies. Populism does
not guarantee an antidemocratic outcome, but it can destabilize democratic practices and
provide a foundation for antidemocratic leaders to come to power.
o Some civil society can also be antidemocratic (like organizations that prefer the rights of
one ethnic or religious group over others). Action by these organizations can undermine
democracy if they believe the political process is only legitimate when it meets their needs
and marginalizes others.
o International actors may support nondemocratic rule. Some countries may seek to promote
authoritarian leaders in other countries, over a democratic opposition, as a way to further their own
foreign policy goals.
o Foreign occupiers may undermine democratic movements, and Western imperialism has
contributed to a long-term trend of nondemocratic rule due to such things as arbitrary borders
and weak state development.
o Some scholars claim that certain cultures are more supportive of nondemocratic regimes; others
argue that cultures are neither inherently democratic nor inherently nondemocratic, and that there is
too much variation within cultures to make such sweeping claims.
o Nondemocratic Regimes and Political Control

o Nondemocratic regimes maintain political control in a number of ways.
o Some societies may use coercion (compelling individuals by threatening harm to their life or
livelihood).
o With the rise of the Internet and cellular technology, surveillance (watching the population and
punishing those who criticize the state) has become more sophisticated, and more regimes seek to
monitor and control electronic communication such as e-mail, social networking, and text
messages.
o Not all regimes rely on punishment or surveillance as a central means of control. They may instead
turn to co-optation (bringing outsiders into a beneficial relationship with the regime).
o Co-optation may take the form of corporatism, in which the state controls and approves
all social and economic institutions, or clientelism, in which the state provides favors to
people who offer support.
o In some cases, clientelism may lead to rent seeking or even devolve into kleptocracy.
o Nondemocratic regimes may also reinforce their rule through emphasis on veneration of the
leadership using personality cults. A charismatic leader is held up as all-powerful and the
embodiment of the nation, and anyone who criticizes that leader is punished.
o Models of Nondemocratic Rule
o Nondemocratic regimes may display personal or monarchical rule, which rests on the idea that one
leader is equipped to run the country.
o These regimes often stay in power through some form of patrimonialism, whereby the
leader, in return for obedience, provides benefits to a small group of supporters.
o Some nondemocratic regimes have military rule, in which the military, often through a coup d'état,
wrests power from the government and usually restricts civil liberties and bans political parties.
o As militaries have an overwhelming capacity for violence, coercion is a common aspect of
military rule.
o One variant of military rule follows the logic of bureaucratic authoritarianism, a regime
that asserts that a technocratic leadership focused on objective, rational, and technical
expertise can solve the problems of a country without public participation.
o Commonly associated with totalitarianism, one-party rule is the situation in which one party
monopolizes power, with other parties banned or excluded from power.
o In these systems, political, social, and economic institutions may be captured by party
control.
o Corporatism and clientelism are common tactics of one-party states. In return for their
support, party members are often granted privileges denied to the public at large.
o Some nondemocratic regimes are theocracies, meaning that faith is the foundation of the political
regime and affects nearly all political decisions and institutions.
o Illiberal regimes are those that contain institutions that seem democratic but are not respected or
seen by the people as legitimate or effective. It is unclear whether illiberal regimes are transitional,
in the process of moving from nondemocratic to democratic rule (or vice versa), or a new form of
nondemocracy that uses the trappings of democracy to perpetuate its control.

What Is Political Violence?
o Political violence is violence outside of state control that is politically motivated.
o Some political scientists see political violence as part of "contentious politics" or collective political
struggle, which includes such things as revolutions, civil war, riots and strikes, but also more
peaceful protest movements.
o Crime and warfare share some attributes with political violence, but political scientists do not define
them as political violence.
o Why Political Violence?
o Scholars who seek to explain political violence use three categories of factors: institutional,
ideational, and individual.
o Institutional explanations for political violence focus on how state, economic, or social
systems contribute to political violence.
o Ideational explanations focus on the effect of political and religious ideas in causing
political violence.
o Individual explanations focus on what motivates individual people to engage in political
violence—because of either rational or psychological factors.
o Comparing Explanations of Political Violence
o The three approaches to explaining political violence—institutional, ideational, and individual—may
be compared on their view of free will versus determinism and on universal versus particularistic
approaches.
o Institutional explanations are more deterministic, while individual explanations tend to afford more
free will. Ideational explanations lie somewhere in between.
o Institutional explanations are more particularistic, while individual explanations tend to be more
universal; again, ideational approaches lie somewhere in the middle.
o These three types of explanations are frequently put in competition with one another, but they
actually work best in conjunction.
o Forms of Political Violence
o Revolution is a public seizure of the state in order to overturn the existing government and regime.
o Unlike a coup d'état, in which elites overthrow the government, the public plays a key role
in a revolution.
o Revolutions often, but not always, involve violence.
o Scholars group studies of revolution into three phases:
o Earlier scholars focused primarily on describing revolutions. Their explanations were often
unsystematic, laying blame on bad governments or leaders.
o The second phase of scholarship took a more psychological approach, such as
the relative deprivation model, which argued that revolution occurred when there was a
gap between public expectations and actual conditions in a country.
o Later work focused on institutional explanations, including how competition for power in
the international system can lead weaker states to institute reforms that may breed
discontent and thus incite revolution.
o Today, scholars try to reintegrate individual and ideational arguments with these
institutional explanations for revolution.
o If we study the consequences of revolutions, we find that revolutionary leaders seldom achieve
what they set out to do. States that experience revolutions tend to become less democratic and
more violent. Some research suggests that revolutionary states may be more likely to engage in
interstate war, directing the internal violence outward.
o Terrorism is the use of violence by nonstate actors against civilians in order to achieve a political
goal. State-sponsored terrorism occurs when a state directly supports terrorism as an instrument
of foreign policy.

o In contrast to terrorism, guerrilla war involves violence by nonstate actors targeting the state.
While the line between the two can be blurry, combatants in guerrilla war generally accept the
traditional rules of war, including limits on targets.
o Drawing from institutional explanations, some scholars point to weak economies and low levels of
education as explanations for terrorism; however, many terrorist leaders and followers come from
economically advantaged backgrounds. Economic factors may be compounded by political
institutions, as states with weak state capacity, autonomy, and public participation may provide
incentives and opportunities for violence.
o Ideational explanations (blaming a particular ideology or religion) are common but do not
sufficiently explain cause and effect. Individual explanations focus on the feeling of injustice or
humiliation that, some feel, comes at the hands of oppressors. Some scholars point to nihilism and
apocalyptic viewpoints—beliefs that all values and institutions are meaningless, and that violence
can destroy a corrupt world and usher in a new order—as causes of terrorist violence.
o Though most scholars argue that terrorism has not been successful at achieving its long-term
goals, it does have a significant political impact.
o Terrorism has been successful at disrupting economies and destabilizing politics in some
countries and can be a tool to provoke international conflict.
o Fighting terrorism may lead to a weakening of democratic institutions and civil rights,
which may result in less trust in government and less public control over it.
o At an extreme, the instability created by terrorism can bring down a regime.
o Terrorism and Revolution: Means and Ends
o Terrorism and revolution often share similar motivations—often the transformation or destruction of
existing institutions. It is perhaps unsurprising that terrorism can trace its modern origins to the
French Revolution.
o The often-revolutionary nature of terrorist groups may help explain why their tactics and targets may
differ from guerilla groups. Guerillas typically accept their opponents as legitimate actors, making them
more open to negotiation or compromise. Terrorist groups reject opposing forces, leading their
violence to be more indiscriminate and widespread.
o Political Violence and Religion
o As ideology has waned, religious fundamentalism has reemerged in the public realm.
o There are three main factors that connect religious fundamentalism to political violence:
o A hostility to modernity, as fundamentalists often argue that the institutions of the modern
state have stripped the world of greater meaning and caused people to suffer.
o A “cosmic war,” as fundamentalists may believe that modern states actively seek to
exterminate and denigrate believers.
o Messianic, apocalyptic, and utopian beliefs may lead fundamentalists to engage in greater
violence, as they believe that while modernity currently has the upper hand, the righteous
believers will triumph in the end.
o We have seen fundamentalists engaging in terrorism in a number of countries and across a variety
of religions.
o Countering Political Violence
o Democracies may be better positioned to address problems of political violence. Some argue that
democratic regimes allow enough political participation to diffuse the possibility of political violence
by providing more options for political opposition.
o Even democracies may struggle when faced with violence from domestic or international actors.
Democracies that are victims of political violence may curtail certain freedoms in order to increase
security, creating what some have called a "surveillance state." In their search for security,
democratic states may actually erode democracy and contribute to greater political violence by
acting in a way that may be interpreted as the state conspiring to destroy its opponents

Society is a broad term referring to a collection of people bound by shared institutions that define how
human relations should be conducted.
o Within each society, individuals identify themselves in different ways. Identities such as ethnicity,
nationalism, and ideologies help shape politics and the state.
o Ethnic Identity
o Ethnic identity, or ethnicity, is specific attributes and societal institutions that make one group
of people culturally different from others.
o Ethnic identities are generally ascriptive—they are assigned at birth.
o The components of ethnicity may include language, religion, geographic location, customs, and
history, among other factors.
o Most societies are composed of multiple ethnic groups, each with their own norms and standards of
behavior.
o National Identity
o While ethnic identity may be largely cultural, national identity is inherently political. A nation is a
group of people who desire self-government, often through an independent state.
o National identity often, but not always, develops from ethnic identity.
o The American national identity may be considered an example of a national identity based
on other factors besides ethnicity.
o National identity can lead to nationalism—pride in one's people and the belief that they have their
own political sovereignty separate from others'. Nationalism may create tensions between groups,
but it is not inherently bad, as is often believed.
o Citizenship and Patriotism
o Citizenship is an individual's or a group's relationship to the state. States are obligated to provide
certain rights to their citizens, and citizenship may require certain obligations from these citizens,
such as paying taxes or serving in the armed forces.
o Across different countries, citizenship may vary in clarity and power.
o Citizenship may give rise to patriotism—pride in one's state. Since patriotism emphasizes the
state, states that are weak or illegitimate often struggle to imbue their citizens with patriotism.
o Ethnic Identity, National Identity, and Citizenship: Origins and Persistence
o Ethnic identity began to emerge in Europe and was related to the formation of the modern state.
During this period, increased trade fostered the development of cities, which in turn fostered
homogeneity of language, religious beliefs, and social customs.
o In the eighteenth century, when states began to protect these common values and assert a unified
political future, national identity took hold. This led to the development of nation-states, and
ultimately the concept of citizenship.
o In some countries, ethnic and national identities have given rise to conflict. Ethnic conflicts are
struggles between ethnic groups to achieve political or economic goals at each other's
expense. National conflicts are struggles between groups over sovereignty.
o These conflicts may arise from a number of factors relating to the society, economy, or politics.
o Societal explanations emphasize ethnic heterogeneity and the degree of integration or
polarization.
o Economic explanations concentrate on the struggle for resources between groups and
levels of poverty.
o Political explanations examine the capacity or autonomy of the state or the form of the
regime.
o How do we best prevent or end ethnic and national conflicts? We may turn to institutions to help us
create a system that responds to group needs and fosters cooperation. Some scholars advocate
power sharing such as devolution, but others contend that those structures may "freeze" group
conflicts.
o Political Attitudes and Political Ideology

o Political attitudes are views on the necessary pace and scope of change in the balance between
freedom and equality in a particular context. There are four basic political attitudes:
o Radicals argue for dramatic, often revolutionary change of the current political and
economic order.
o Liberals favor evolutionary change. Unlike radicals, they believe change can come within
existing political structures.
o Conservatives do not see change as necessary and instead argue that the current
systems and structures provide order and continuity.
o Reactionaries seek to restore political and economic structures to an envisioned past
ideal that may never have existed.
o While their goals differ, the approaches of radicals and reactionaries are often similar.
o What counts as “radical,” “liberal,” “conservative,” or “reactionary” often varies from country to
country.
o Political ideologies are values held by individuals on the fundamental goals of politics. There are
five primary political ideologies:
o Liberalism, which informs our current notion of liberal democracy, holds that politics
should seek to achieve the highest level of freedom for all people.
o Communism seeks to achieve equality through state control of economic resources.
o Social democracy, or socialism, hopes to achieve economic equality, but strives to do
so through private ownership and market forces.
o Fascism rejects freedom and equality, arguing instead for hierarchical divisions between
people.
o Anarchism rejects the notion of government altogether.
o Even when the name is the same, ideology and attitude are not necessarily the same. For instance,
the ideology of liberalism would be a conservative political attitude in the United States or Canada,
while social democracy would be a liberal attitude.
o Religion, Fundamentalism, and the Crisis of Identity
o Fundamentalism is an ideology that seeks to unite religion with the state. More specifically, it
seeks to make faith the sovereign authority, thereby creating a theocracy.
o Its emergence is a modern phenomenon, and fundamentalists base their beliefs on what they
perceive as failures of ideology and the modern state.
o As a political attitude, fundamentalism may appear reactionary, radical, or as a combination of the
two.
o Political Culture
o Culture is the social roadmap that people follow in society—the norms, guidelines, and priorities for
how people organize their lives. Political culture consists of the basic norms for political activity in
a society.
o In political science, the study of political culture has changed over time.
o One example of political culture scholarship includes Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, which argues that cultural divides are a major
cause of conflict in the modern world.
o Ronald Inglehart has released some of the best data we have on political culture, known as the
World Values Survey. Inglehart ranked societies on two dimensions: traditional versus secular-
rational values, and survival versus self-expression.
o As societies modernize, they undergo transformations in important political institutions and values;
however, cultural heritage means some of these social values are more resistant to change.
Culture and development continue to shape each other in ways we do not expect.