Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
76 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are Robert Kaplan’s preconditions for democracy? He says it is a mistake to export democracy to countries that are “not ready” for it. What is his argument, and do you agree or disagree? |
Kaplan Argues That Democracy Emerges Successfully Only as a Capstone to Other Social and Economic Achievement. Kaplan is using standard modernization theory. Economic development leads to many social changes that naturally lead to democracy. The people demand it. Democracy can’t succeed unless it develops naturally. It cannot be exported. When countries have democracy pushed upon them when they are not prepared, it can lead to chaos and violence. Democracies are Value Neutral Institutions Where the Will of the Majority is Translated by the Government and Policy. (If the people are good, the government is good, if the people are bad, the government is bad. Hitler and Mussolini were elected democratically). 1. The Population Should be Literate and Educated in Order for Citizens to Make Wise, Informed Decisions. Critics of this statement point out that if you insist that education is crucial to successful democracy, you open the doors to exclusion from voting rights due to illiteracy. This has also historically been used to target marginalized groups, as illiteracy can often be tied with class, race, and gender. 2. Democracy Requires an Established Middle Class. The middle class is satisfied with the status quo, which creates and maintains crucial stability in a nation. 3. The Western Enlightenment Tradition. This enlightenment was a reaction to the church and it’s monarchy. It introduced the rights of lower class people. This philosophy underpins democracy. (Reason, instead of religion, science, instead of superstition, critique of tradition and hereditary rule, human rights.) 4. Reliable Bureaucratic Institutions. Rules give the people access to the things they need, and follow predictable reason. Rules apply equally to everyone. 5. A Political Culture of Tolerance. People have to respect people with opposing ideas and opinions. Competition should be healthy, not dangerous. We need faith in the system to avoid population division and chaos. (If trump blames his loss on the system and not him personally, it could upset the entire political culture.) 6. Urbanization. Urban populations are easier to organize. Trade unions are often the base of pro-democratic movements. Governments are more likely to react to the demands of urban populations. 7. Low Birth Rates. Youth are a very destabilizing force. They always want a revolution. More middle class and lower birth rates lead to a more stable country. |
|
|
What is the Argument for Democracy? |
Democracy limits the possibilities of despotism. System of checks and balances. We frequently retreat to moral arguments (freedom, self determination, voice, participation, human rights.) To justify democracy because we don’t have legitimized instrumental reasons for valuing democracy. These moral arguments are all we have, but they are not necessarily powerless. |
|
|
What are the implications of forced democracy? |
Our advocacy for democracy regardless of a state's local conditions amounts to cultural hubris. However, it also amounts to cultural hubris to claim that another state is “not ready” for democracy. It is arrogant for westerners to export democracy to states that do not have established preconditions. |
|
|
What is a Teleological View? Explain Fukuyama's teleological argument (Including Marx's Influence). |
Teleology: The philosophical study of design and purpose. History builds towards a culmination. Fukuyama: Democracy is the end, the highest form of human achievement. Democracy is good, it is widespread, and it is here to stay. Fukuyama mentions that history ends with democracy. By that he does not mean that the world is going to end, but rather he means that humans have reached the peak of their development, therefore the history stops. Fukuyama, like Marx, is an advocate of teleological view which believes that there is an end to everything and that every thing has a purpose. The connection is in that Marx believed that end of one historical period brought the beginning of the next historical period (collapse of socialism brought communism. Marx believed that communism was the highest peak) its the same teleological view that Fukuyama shares but one difference is that Fukuyama saw democracy as the highest peak with the collapse of communism. |
|
|
Sen's 3 Values of Democracy that enrich the lives of citizens |
1. Democracy has Intrinsic values, political freedom and rights to exercise are necessary to human life and well being 2. Democracy has Instrumental value, in that it guides politics and economics in the direction that is desired. 3. Democracy has Constructive value, in that it allows citizens to learn from each other, and helps a society to form its values and priorities through public discussion and information exchanges. (reduced rates of fertility in India)You don’t have to be deemed fit for democracy, you can become fit through democracy. |
|
|
Kaplan Values Benign Dictatorships |
Kaplan argues that benign dictatorships are necessary in countries that do not have the conditions for democracy. He argues that they create and maintain stability in these countries (Chile under Pinochet. Kaplan argues that Pinochet created economic and political stability and fostered growth. But did he really? Pinochet introduced free markets which did accelerate the economy, but came at a large cost to the Chilean population.) The problem is, there is no fundamental mechanism for the control/transfer of power in benign dictatorships, nor is there any way to ensure that the regime stays benign. It can only work temporarily, because although it may bring wealth to leaders and the economy, it cannot instil the values that are necessary for democracy. It is only a temporary fix. The neo-authoritarianism that Kaplan references is not a hybrid at all. The structures that he mentions do not have the structure to stop a dictator gone wrong. There are neo-authoritarian people, but no neo-authoritarian system. The Lee Hypothesis: Non-democratic governments are better at economic advancement. Democracy is a universal value. |
|
|
What is the working Definition of Democracy? |
-Regular free and fair elections -a majority of the population have right to vote. Everyone, regardless of literacy, should vote if they live and are effected by what is enforced in their own country. -ability to express a real preference at polls -candidate who wins majority is able to take office and govern |
|
|
Liberal and Illiberal Democracy |
Illiberal Democracy: Elections, representation, and even political participation are present, but freedoms and rights are not definite. Democracy is about extending power to the people – a radical idea. Political participation. Liberalism is about setting limits on the “Power to the People” ideology of democracy. Liberalism is a conservative idea that believes that democracy is too radical.Liberalism often leads to democracy, but, fearing that the people may gain too much power, sets limits on who can vote. Who “counts”.In our democracy, there is nearly no limits on the franchise. Everyone can vote. |
|
|
What are the forms of institutionalized and non- institutionalized participation? What is Direct Democracy? |
Participation inside the system: Institutionalized participation. -Elections: Translate the will of the people into a government. However, elections are infrequent, and limited and constrained time-wise. This makes participation very sporadic. Elections offer vertical accountability (The elected representative is accountable in carrying out campaign promises.) -Personal Interest Groups: Niche groups with a particular goal (breast cancer research, the environment, etc.) tend to be dangerous because they can be powerful and wealthy, though reflect the desires of a very small portion of the population. -Political Parties: A political party is a formal organization whose self-conscious primary purpose is to place and maintain in public office persons who will control, alone or in a coalition, the machinery of government. Types of parties: Pragmatic, Ideological, Personalistic. In this form of participation there is vertical accountability, which is the citizens control over the public official. People elect a representative through election and then keep the representative accountable for what they promised. The second model of participation is non-institutionalized participation. Which is a form of direct participation or direct democracy. In this model people debate and make decisions about issues in their community. In this model there is societal accountability where people exert continual pressure on elect officials to expose government wrongdoing, changing policy, or put new issues on the agenda. This can be done through rallying and protesting. People in a community gather to make political decisions that are going to affect them. An example of this is participatory budgeting in which citizens negotiate directly about how money gets allocated. This increases transparency as officials cannot make decisions behind closed doors. |
|
|
Participation is Not a Paradox: |
Public Goods: non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Everyone gets access whether they helped to create it or not (infrastructure, clean air.) The use by one does not diminish the use of anyone else.Rational Choice Theory: If the benefit or the outcome you are working toward is a public good, as it is in cases of political participation, it is not rational to participate. It is a waste of your time and money.Free Riders: Everyone will benefit from a public good once it exists, So it makes much more rational sense to take advantage of the goods without working to create them. |
|
|
What are the motives and benefits of Participation? Explain how Participation is a Paradox. |
Selective Material Benefits: Jobs, help with personal problems, career opportunities. Selective Social Gratification: Meet new people, enjoy the work, find it exciting Selective Civic Gratification: Civic duty, responsibility to community. All of these accrue only to participants, and work with rational choice theory. Collective Benefits: Everyone reaps benefits, even free riders. This motive is contrary to rational choice theory. Collective Policy Outcomes: I really care about this issue, I care about a change in policy.Results.Most people do not cite selective material benefits as a reason for participating. Selective social gratification is important to social types of participation. Civic gratification is high for all forms of voluntary participation. When people participate in activities with intended policy outcomes, they identify collective policy outcomes as an important motivation for participation. Thus, many people participate irrationally. |
|
|
What are the levels of Accountability? |
Vertical: The control of public officials by citizens through elections. The elected group is accountable for their actions, and if they do follow through with their promises, then they will be reelected, but if they do not, then they will be kicked out. Social: Pressure placed on state agencies by CSO (civil society organizations) to encourage elected officials to follow the law of the land. Horizontal: The distribution of authority among different departments or branches of government. |
|
|
What is the Participatory Budgeting? In what conditions is it useful? What are the pros and cons? |
Participatory Budgeting is an innovative institutional format that incorporates citizens into a policy-making process in which citizens negotiate directly over the distribution of public resources. -Arrises from problems such as low levels of accountability, inefficiency in social service provision, corruption, and lack of transparency. Participatory budgeting is solution because: It is transparent, It produces buy-ins from citizens, Limits the chances for corruption, Holds officials accountable. It also allows citizens to have a direct, personal relationship with their representatives. Redistribution without coercion refers to the fair distribution of resources, in terms of participatory budgeting. It's when the people have more of a say in where their resources go as compared to politicians or other officials (hence "without coercion"). -Can be problematic because although it improves vertical accountability, it can undermine horizontal accountability. |
|
|
Wampler on Participatory Budgeting |
Citizens can influence officials in many ways (public hearings, demonstrations, lawsuits, etc.)In Brazil, groups demanding political reform have utilized municipal and state levels of govt to challenge traditional mechanisms of control. Electoral analysis doesn’t tell the whole story. PB allows citizens to be change makers. Promote societal and vertical accountability. Policymaking institution that competes with other state agencies over the distribution of authority, power, and resources. Checks and balances requires third-party power. It may be a risk for mayors because institutional reformers can clash with interests. They have incentives because... 1. If they rely on participatory CSOs to campaign and mobilize votes they are more likely to support PB. 2. If they seek to change political resource distribution they are more likely to support PB May use as a base for political support. Promote strategies and policies. |
|
|
What are the four principles of Classical Liberalism? |
Personal FreedomThe absence of coercion. The right to be left alone. The exercise of the natural rights of every man has no other limits than those which are necessary to secure to every other man the free exercise of the same rights. “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.” – John Stuart Mill.Negative freedoms – Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own property, and freedom to political opposition. Limited Government: The role of the government is to prevent people from hurting one another from force or fraud. The state steps in legitimately at the point when people encroach on each other’s freedoms. This is referred to as the “night watchman state.” Arbitrary power violates the rights over whom their rule is exercised. Citizens have rights that may not be violated by other citizen or the state. The liberal state was also primarily concerned with private property. “A man’s house is his own castle; the wind and rain may enter his castle but the king may never.” Also, Sacred Vs. State. Equality of Right: Involves the rule of law; everyone is equal under the law, regardless of status or wealth. The king is not law, the law is king. It does not imply to this point that all people receive economic or political equality. This is because the classical liberals take the protection of property very seriously. Freedom > Equality. Consent of the Governed: Democracy proceeded historically through extension of the franchise (white male property owners, white males, males, all people over 18). Classical liberalism shifts sovereignty to the people, but doesn’t make a liberal account of who the people are. Because one of the few jobs of government is to protect private property, those with private property are those who should have first say on laws. |
|
|
Democracy and Liberalism |
Democracy is about extending power to the people – a radical idea.Liberalism is about restricting power of the people – a conservative idea. A liberal democracy is one which the scope of things that may be decided by peoples’ votes are limited by a bill of law (constitution). The will of the democratic majority must be limited as not to encroach on the rights of the minority. Liberals believe that autonomous individuals will make a wide variety of choices of how to live the good life and the government must allow people to make those choices. |
|
|
How did Liberalism Arise? |
A concept that grew out of a struggle between parliament and the steward king of Britain – this is called the glorious revolution. Parliament is now supreme over the monarchy. It established the public authority and the right to rule is not ascribed to a monarch by God. The authority to rule is a trust that can be removed if it is abused. The sovereign can only rule under the constitutional laws of the country. |
|
|
What was the 19th century reform, and the Modern Liberalism it brought? How does the state address certain minorities? |
19th Century Reform: Freedom as capacity; had to be enabled or produced. “A poor man is not free and a destitute man is as much a prisoner as a convict; in fact a convict generally eats better. A man who can’t afford a streetcar ticket, let alone real travel, who can exercise no real choice in matters of food, clothing, and shelter, who cannot follow the siren song of the TV commercials, who can scarcely afford bus fare to the library let alone a proper education for himself or his children – is such a man free in an affluent nation?” – Pierre Berton, The Smug MinorityFreedom must be developed as a capacity. The capacity of freedom of the rich man is greater than that of the poor man. Interventionist Role – the state must intervene to include economic equalization through redistribution. May also include public education and health. The different minorities are refugees, african Americans (or any other ethnicity that descended from slavery), national minorities and immigrants. the state tries to address them in 3 ways; assimilation which is the main method, privatization in which the state is blind to differences, and multiculturalism where the state is sensitive to differences. |
|
|
The Liberal Party in Canada |
The Liberal Party has historically had a commitment to responsible government (classical liberalism). After WWII, starting with PM Mackenzie King, the Liberal Party began to take a positive approach to freedom as a capacity. They began developing social policies (such as Mother's allowance, CPP, Universal Healthcare, Charter of Rights&Freedoms, Liberal Multiculturalism) to enable people to actualize true freedom. The Conservative Party seems to have a stronger tie to classical liberalism. The NDP and The Liberal Party have affinities with Modern Liberalism. Canadian multiculturalism is a variant of it referred to as “Liberal Multiculturalism.” |
|
|
Branches of a Parliamentary System |
The King used to hold all the power, but after some revolutions and conquests, his power was split into the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Executive Branch: Composed of the Queen, Governor General, Prime Minister and Cabinet Queen/Governor General: Neither has any significant power in the Canadian system. Prime Minister: Wields a lot of power in the Canadian system, the power to appoint judges and senators, he is also the head of government, the ruler of the winning party, and sets the agenda of parliament. Because of party discipline, the PM has a lot of power. Prime Minister’s Cabinet: Determines legislative powers and priorities and sets the legislative agenda. The minister initiates all legislative processes (passing a bill). The Cabinet is made up of MPs from PM's party if it's a majority, so MPs are elected, the prime minister decides if they are in cabinet. Prime Minister’s personal advisors in all areas of government – economy, transportation, aboriginal affairs etc…Legislative Branch: Composed of the House of Commons and the Senate, the Legislative Branch debates and votes on legislation. House of Commons: The PM introduces legislation and it is debated. Number of seats dependant on number of votes. If the PM has majority, he wields a lot of power here. Senate: The PM appoints senators, and they are part of the senate until they are 75. Their job is to veto, amend and defend the laws passed by parliament. Judicial Branch: Composed of the municipal, provincial and supreme courts. The courts can veto any legislation that is deemed unconstitutional (i.e. they have the power of judicial review) |
|
|
The Paradox of Presidentialism, and the Branches of a Presidential System |
because there is two separate votes (split ticket) one for the actual president and the other for who makes up the house, and also because the President is not part of a particular party, differing opinions and views can arise between the President and the House. Because both were elected and technically hold the legitimacy of the public, the question becomes who is right, and who is more legitimate than the other (who's view on a particular subject should be implemented). It tries to create a strong and stable executive that can match the legislature. But at the same time, it tries to limit executive power and is fearful if power becomes too concentrated. Through the separation of powers, the president is given powers of veto, etc to stand up to the legislature, which differentiates it from the parliamentary system.At the same time, there are also checks on the president such as impeachment. Executive Branch: The President is the CEO, he is the head of state and government. He has the power to choose officials, responsible for foreign affairs, and is the CIC of the armed forces. He also has the Presidential Prerogative, which means he is able to veto congress. Legislative Branch: Congress serves as a check on the powers of the President – almost all presidential agendas must be approved by Congress. Complete autonomy (no party discipline) leads to inefficiencies in Congress. Composed of the house of representatives and the senate. Judicial Branch: This Branch has the power to check both the powers of the President and Congress. It has the power of judicial review, which means that it can veto any law that is deemed unconstitutional. |
|
|
The Issues with Presidentialism |
Deadlock means you don't have to vote for one party for everything. So executive can be democratic, legislative Republican and judicial Republican. This leads to deadlock because competing views but they need to work together to pass things. Which means that it's possible to have a divided gov't with a legislature of one party and a president of another. In president system, especially in executive branch, winner takes all, no opposition so zero sum power means second place gets no power whereas in parl there is opposition. This also implies over represented winner because they didn't win 100% of votes but they represent 100% of people |
|
|
Differences between the Presidential and Parliamentary Systems |
Voting: President is chosen by the Electoral College, while the Prime Minister is elected by the party who has won the majority based upon vote. Confidence: The Prime Minister can be removed easily with a vote of no confidence, but it is much harder to impeach the President. Discipline: In parliamentary systems party loyalty is necessary, whereas presidential systems have no strict party discipline so members can vote based on constituency. This leads to inefficiencies in the presidential system. Leader's Role: PM is the head of government, while The Queen is the head of state. (only in Canada). President must act as both head of state and head of government, which may have conflicting interests with the electorate (separation of power) |
|
|
Voting |
Voting lodges sovereignty “in the people” -It legitimates government, leaders, and legislation. -obligates citizens to abide by government laws and policies. -By voting you buy into the system and play a role in choosing the policies that you are subject to. Rights come with responsibility. you must abide by the laws you elect. |
|
|
Voting Approaches and Turnouts |
-The way that people vote depends on many things including region, religion, ethnicity, gender, and community, the individual’s values and beliefs, partisanship, and the political leaders present in the election. Elisabeth Gidengil believed that voter outcomes determined on sets of sociological (Cultural backgrounds determine values) and psychological (Immediate factors about issues and campaigns) conditions. As well as the individual, the climate of the election at hand is important to determining voting outcomes. Some elections seem to focus on a primary issue, such as free trade or government evaluation. The actions and events that take place in the running are crucial to voter outcome, as well a when in the election these things happen. Voter turnout occasionally depends on benign reasons such as laziness or satisfaction with the status quo, but when people don’t vote due to political alienation, it is a bad reflection on democracy. Age and education are also variables that affect voter turnout. Rational Choice Approach: Voters cast their votes in accordance the promises and performance of the government/party. Randomized Voter Turnout: Voter turnout becomes much lower because everyone is complacent with the status-quo. Systematic Voter Turnout: Voter turnout is very low amongst poor people, and this is important because they should also have a say in what goes on. Increasing Voter Turnout: Increase convenience, education, competition in and frequency of elections |
|
|
Extending the Franchise |
Enlarging the population of voters. At one time, only male white property owners were considered eligible to vote. This gradually changed into allowing other classes, genders, and races to be involved int he election process. |
|
|
Representative Assemblies |
Voters elect leaders and leaders chose the policy. You delegate power to someone else. The role of the representative assembly has slowly diminished from the managing of the legislature's path, It’s primary job now being to discuss and publicize legislation drafted by the executive branch, after it has already been debated and approved by the cabinet. It’s main power now lies in it’s ability to check the executive branch, evaluating and criticizing its roles and actions. The assembly’s previous responsibilities are now distributed throughout the house, congress, bureaucracy, and parliamentary committees. The Senate is also experiencing a decline of power. There is a general belief that the senate must be reformed, either by turning it into a house of provinces that protects the interest of certain regions, using the Triple-E approach used in the U.S.A, or abolishing it completely. There are several types of representatives. Representatives are both a typical member of a group with values and beliefs, and agents who act on behalf of a principal. Trustees are representatives that act independently after election, relying on personal judgement, while Delegates are mouthpieces, such as city councillors follow and translate the instructions of their constituency. Party members A team player. A loyal member of the cabinet that follows the instruction of the party leader and may only vote and act as a member of their caucus. Party discipline in parliamentary systems have normalized this as the dominant form of representation. The Microcosm Theory holds that a representative should be very similar in values and beliefs as those that they represent. |
|
|
Majoritarian System |
The candidate does not need to win a majority, just a plurality. First past the post. There is a single seat in office. The winner takes all. Majoritarian (First Past the Post): In this system, the country is split into districts, and each district votes for an individual to represent them. Whoever wins the majority of the votes wins the riding, and whichever party wins the majority of ridings, wins the election. Strength: More stable than other systems – a small win popular vote translates to a big advantage in terms of parliament. Weakness: Always over represents the winning party, and is therefore unfair to minorities, and minority parties. Overall: Good system if it is meant to create a stable government, bad if it is meant to equally represent the interests of the population Other Types: Runoff (2 elections, general then final candidates). Preferential: Ranked Preferences |
|
|
Canada's Majoritarian System |
-In Canada, the whole country is divided into ridings, each riding with one representative in parliament (Single Member District). Riding boundaries are drawn to maximize the principle of equal representation. Each riding has approximately the same population. (100 000 in Canada) -Due to population growth and redistribution, sometimes new lines must be drawn or new ridings added. -Those who vote for the losing party are not represented in Parliament. -The winning party is over-represented. (52% of votes translates to 100% of the seat.) -A party must have a concentrated base of support (This is why the Bloc party has lots of seats). But you don't need it to be too concentrated, you usually only need about 35% of the vote to win a riding. -NDPs and Green Party want Proportional Representation systems (because they are unlikely to win majorities), Conservatives want referendum (They are likely to win a majority in a referendum), and the Liberals are unclear (They lie somewhere in the middle) |
|
|
America's System |
Ridings are called districts. Jerry Mandering: Drawing the lines of a district to get a certain result. (e.g. the 12 district was drawn so that it is majority african american to create black majority districts so that black members end up in congress) This is controlled by whichever party is in power. When republicans are in power, they usually try to carve out districts that are not just black majority, but black super-majority. This is giving up one district so that all of the districts around it will be majority white and vote republican. |
|
|
Proportional Representation System |
Proportional Representation System: Members of parliament are elected based on the percentage of votes the party receives (i.e. 40% of the popular vote translates to 40% of the seats). |
|
|
Multi-Member Districts |
Multi-Member System: Each district includes a population (e.g. 20 000 people in each, each riding doesn’t send only one person to ottawa, it sends 5 people. liberals send 2 (40% of vote), conservatives 1 (20%), Green party 1 (20%) and NDP 1 (20%). meaning everyone in each district is represented in ottawa. It is represented by percentage of popular vote. |
|
|
List System |
List System: Voters vote for parties, who publish a list of candidates. Once the election is over, and the party knows how many seats it has, it allocates that percentage of candidates. OPPOSITE OF FIRST PAST THE POST Strengths: This system actually creates a very fair representation of the population in the house. Weakness: Much more likely to produce an unstable minority government that cannot govern effectively. Strengths of Overall System: Creates more representation, and increases voter turnout and number of parties. Voter turnout is increased because people are less worried about fate and know that their vote is directly transferable. Number of parties increases because there are more interests that can be represented, as strategic voting doesn’t become a problem. Weaknesses of Overall System: Overall, the system destabilizes government. The election results are also a lot less predictable in this system. Government is not stable and cannot run as efficiently, and sometimes resorts to ‘horse trading’ trading to get bills passed. |
|
|
Alternative Voting |
Alternative Vote System: Rather than selecting one candidate, voters will rank each of the candidates running in order of preference. If on the first round, one candidate has more than 50% of the votes, he wins. If not, then the candidate with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated, and the votes are distributed to the other candidates in terms of preference.Strengths: This system ensures that the winning party is not over represented, and that the interests of the minority are also taken into account, vis-à-vis their alternative votes.Weaknesses: This system promotes centrist parties at the expense of some more radical ones, and also requires a degree of literacy in order to function. It can produce disproportional results in some contexts. |
|
|
Mixed Member System |
Mix of PR and People first vote for the candidate running in their district, and the second vote is for the party they prefer. Majority of Canadians prefer this, |
|
|
Strategic Voting |
Voting for a party that they don’t support because they are afraid that the party that they despise might get into power. According to democratic theory, this is bad, because it doesn't truly reflect their interests. |
|
|
Considered and Rejected Theories on greater racial tolerance in Brazil than US or SA |
1. Portuguese colonialism was more racially tolerant. In Reality, Portuguese colonialism and Brazilian slavery were just as vicious. The early Brazilian state was not colour blind. The Catholic church was at best ambivalent toward blacks and certainly unable to force better treatment of them. 2. Higher level of Miscegenation: (interracial marriage or sex. Carl Degler proposed that racial relations are less polarized when many people are of mixed race, This allowed for more social fluidity in Brazil. Those of mixed race were reclassified in South Africa (Mixed people are "coloured") and America (The "One-Drop Rule") |
|
|
Anthony Marx on Institutionalized Racism |
Physical differences, mixing, and demographic proportions were significant but did not pre ordain specific racial categorization, domination, and conflict, or lack thereof. To explain these divergent outcomes requires looking beyond the biological fact of miscegenation, to why continuous physical variation was interpreted as such or forced into strict categories of race. Economic Reasons: -protecting whites from black competition -providing whites with cheap black labour -reserving the better jobs for whites The overriding conclusion is that "the principle function of segregationistideology was to soften class and ethnic antagonism amongwhites, subordinating internal conflicts to the unifying conception ofrace." Nation-State Consolidation Racial domination encouraged cross-class white unity, rather than exclusive loyalty to one's own class interests. Intrawhite conflict was diminished, and growth proceeded. The construction of racial domination requires clearly established boundaries of physically distinct categories. Historically, physical differences, and economic development may reinforce such categorical domination, but they do not preordain it or the form it will take. It is state policy that officially categorizes people as black, white, or mulatto and that enforces legal discrimination. States make race by institutionalizing racial categories into law for political reasons. During political campaigning (especially in the US) the divide between blacks and whites become more prominent as it was used as a political tool. The use of racial hierarchy is to control who is a citizen (inclusion/exclusion) and who can vote, to put it simply |
|
|
Htun: Minority Representation |
Htun: Many countries specifically allocate access to power along lines of gender and ethnicity. Many countries have written laws that ensure that underrepresented groups will have access to representation. People should be represented by people who look like them and share experiences. A representative parliament must have a demographic reflection of society. These types of laws take to certain forms |
|
|
Htun: Minority Representation: Candidate Quotas in Parties |
Candidate Quotas in Parties: The Parties themselves must field candidates who are members of a certain group, and the parties themselves are required to field them in a way that makes it likely that they will win. Districts: field women in a riding that they will win. This changes what parliament looks like, changes the legislature. Parties look different. Has no impact on which parties are represented, or their beliefs. |
|
|
Htun: Minority Representation: Reserved Seats in Legislature. |
Reserved Seats in Legislatures: Accomplished through separate electoral roles, special districts that limit competition, exceptions to counting rules, and provisions of d direct appointments to legislature. (In Germany, French, Italian, and German speaking people must be represented in proportion). In India, there are reserved seats for castes. In NZ, 7 seats are always saved for Mauri.) Categories of people will be represented and elected in higher proportion. |
|
|
Htun: Minority Representation. Different Minorities require different representation. |
Gender groups demand party quotas, ethnic groups demand reservations. The reason for this is that gender and ethnicity work differently politically. Gender differences cross cut different political parties, there are no women’s parties. Women span the political spectrum. Gender quotas have the logic of a class action suit. |
|
|
Free Trade |
Billateral: Between two countries Multi-Lateral: Among Several Countries Economically, Free Trade... 1.Reduces the cost of trade through elimination or reduction of tariffs and import duties, making trade more efficient. 2. Expands the size of the market for certain goods by allowing for product specialization. Despite this, they make many protective practices illegal, such as protection of labour, industries, and resources. Regional free trade agreements occasionally forbid favouring one’s own companies over foreign ones. Pro-Free Trade: corporations, manufacturers (Interest in selling to a larger market) Anti Free Trade: Labour, farmers, environmentalists. |
|
|
NAFTA |
Free trade agreement between the USA, Canada, and Mexico. (1994) Each economy has seen a modest increase. Canada has seen growth in agriculture; America has jobs after exporting them to Mexico. |
|
|
Chapter 11 |
An investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS CLAUSE). Designed to create rules and structure for resolving disputes between states. It protects the rights of investors in other countries. The goals of free trade is to facilitate free trade and encouraging foreign investors to invest in other countries. This requires a strong rule of law system that assures that the assets will not be seized by another country. When the provision was negotiated, the goal was to protect against nationalization or expropriation (when the govt seizes the assets of a country). It has not been used for this reason. Chapter 11 has never been used in a case of expropriation because it has never been needed. It has been used to get around environmental laws, health regs, and labour regs. It has mostly been used for disputes in which an investor or corporation claims the govt regs or laws violate “free trade”. |
|
|
Cases of Chapter 11 |
EHTYL CORP (1997): Canada enacted a ban against MMT gasoline additive, but the ethyl corp argued that if Canada banned MMT, it interfered with the ability to do business in Canada. The gov’t of Canada had to repeal the ban, apologize, and pay the company a settlement (13 mil). The company even forbid the debating of the MMT ban in the government, because it was bad for publicity. The money was taken from the base core budget of environment Canada, because environment Canada was responsible for passing the law to begin with. METAL CLAD (1997): American company sued the Mexican government because a small town denied the company the ability to build a toxic waste facility. They had to pay Metal Clad a 16mil settlement. ST. MARYS (2011): Hamilton fears of a quarry contaminating ground water. The provincial govt issues a zoning order to protect the cite from being turned into a quarry. The company then claimed that this is unfair and discriminatory, St. Marys take this to NAFTA, and the Ontario government had to pay a 15mil settlement, along with an apology. UPS: The Canadian postal service is interfering with their business, Canada gives benefits to their own postal service. Canada won this caseMETHANEX (2005): Canadian company challenged Cali state law to phase out a gasoline additive, MTBE, a known carcinogen. Cali had to demonstrate that the ban was neutral. It was not only on Canadian companies, so it did not give an advantage to American gas companies. The ISDS clause was the first investor-state dispute settlement protection. The negotiators also understood that it would only be used in literal cases of expropriation. |
|
|
NAFTA's Implications |
The target has been any type of regulations that interfere with the free market. Domestic companies cannot bring cases to NAFTA if the dispute is within the country. This gives more power to foreign companies than domestic ones. This creates incentives for companies to have relationships across borders that will give them standing under NAFTA. Since 1994, different variations of Chapter 11 have been included in every free trade agreement. They are controversial with governments because they have an impact on the sovereignty of governments. Canadians are particularly concerned with the ISDS clause, as the most cases have been brought against Canada. |
|
|
The Trans-Pacific Partnership |
Would be the largest trade partnership in the world. The TPP would replace NAFTA, the countries would make themselves vulnerable to the investor regulations of 11 other countries. Every country in the world has a free trade agreement, the an agreement that has an effect on the country’s sovereignty. |
|
|
The EU |
A political and economic unit of 28 countries in Europe. Initiated after WW2. The initial goal was to enable the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital. A powerful common market. The hope that countries that trade together will be more peaceful to one another. The EU produces 24% of worldwide GDP. Has a council, parliament, commission, and court of justice. A common security policy. The Eurozone: A monetary union that uses the EURO as currency. Governed by the European Central bank. |
|
|
EU and Domestic Policy |
-The EU has occasionally been unpopular because of its legal and political bodies that can interfere with domestic policy. The EU has a lot of power over domestic regulation on agriculture, fisheries, external trade, and the environment. Britain has complete control over welfare, security, health services, education, and criminal and family law. There are different controls over different sectors of domestic policy. |
|
|
Brexit |
-Britain joined the EU to get access to the common market, and the ability for brits to live and work in other parts of Europe. -The degree to which sovereignty is affected is contested, as Brexit's "Leave" supporters said that 70% of British domestic policy was influenced, while the "Stay" side claimed it was 15%. -Their biggest concern was immigration. Membership in the EU means the free movement of EU citizens throughout the Union (Enter, work, live). -Refugees can’t actually get into Britain without EU passports, but the Schengen Agreement allows refugees to pass to any EU countries once they have been admitted into one country. British people were really voting for the ability to control their own borders. |
|
|
The Vote |
The president, David Cameron, put the decision to referendum, making the promise during his campaign in order to stave voters from voting for UKIP (The right wing party that argued for Brexit). In the end, the country was quite evenly split, but ultimately voting to leave. Young people wanted to stay, old people were more likely to vote to leave the EU. England and Wales voted to leave, where as Scotland and Ireland voted to stay. David Cameron resigned, and Theresa May was voted in. The process will begin in march of 2017. |
|
|
The Kyoto Protocol |
The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, from the UNFCCC that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, based on the premise that… 1. Global warming exists 2. It is a result of man-made CO2 emissions. The point of the treaty was to get developed countries (biggest emitters) to reduce emissions by a certain amount by a certain date. |
|
|
Carbon Trading |
Carbon trading is a market-based tool to limit Emissions. The carbon market trades emissions under cap-and-trade schemes or with credits that pay for or offset green house gas reductions.Cap-and-trade schemes are the most popular way to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other emissions. The scheme's governing body begins by setting a cap on allowable emissions. It then distributes or auctions off emissions allowances that total the cap. Member firms that do not have enough allowances to cover their emissions (Emitted too much) must either make reductions or buy another firm's spare credits. Members with extra allowances (Haven't used their allotment) can sell them or bank them for future use. Cap-and-trade schemes can be either mandatory or voluntary.A successful cap-and-trade scheme relies on a strict but feasible cap that decreases emissions over time. Logic: There is a global emissions problem. It makes sense to reduce emissions wherever it is cheaper to reduce emissions. Rich countries are paying poor countries to develop clean energy. To develop differently than they themselves developed over the past 300 years. But it's based on the proposition that we have a lot of time to reduce emissions. |
|
|
The Canadian Economy |
The Canadian Economy is a commodities economy. Driven by oil and gas. in 2009, Canada signed the Copenhagen accord. Committed to reduce greenhouse gases by 17% by 2020, but instead, it has increased its emissions. In 2011, Canada backed out of the Kyoto Protocol under Stephen Harper because it was nowhere near meeting the targets that it had committed to. |
|
|
The Collective Action Problem, Prisoners Dilemma, The Tragedy of the Commons |
Collective Action Problem: When individuals (or countries) fail to act in their own best interest because they are not sure what other individuals (or countries) will do. "I am not going to reduce my emissions because I don’t trust that you will reduce yours (even though we would both be better off if we both reduced emissions)." Prisoners Dilemma: Everyone would be better off if they could trust each other (No one reduces emissions because it doesn't trust the other to do the same). The Tragedy of the Commons (Ozone layer, Ocean, Atmosphere): It is in best interest of everyone to keep these commons safe, but it is in everybody’s individual interest to use all of the resources that they can. As a result, the resources are gone, and no one can use them anymore. If the US, China, Russia, and India are not reducing, It’s too expensive for Canada to reduce emissions. |
|
|
Collective Action and Policy |
Domestically, The usual solution is government. They can compel corporations and individuals to do things that are in the public interest. Governments solve collective action problems by passing laws or prohibiting certain toxins or enforcing traffic, parking, labour rules. Collective Action Problems are particularly eminent on a global scale because there is no world government. This is why we need treaties like the Kyoto protocol, which countries are legally bound to. However, countries can chose to pull out or not be involved at all. India and Brazil say that these are a new form of neo-colonialism, in which developed countries try to dictate what countries of the global south can and cannot do. Trying to limit India’s capacity for development by implementing restrictions. |
|
|
China |
China is the biggest polluter in the world, producing 29% of the total carbon emitted worldwide. Most emissions from coal power plants that have been built in the past 20 years. China has invested so much in the plants, meaning that the economy will be built upon these plants for the next coming decades. The coal-based economy has been doubling every decade. The Chinese negotiators would not sign the agreement in the number was in the document. Chinese negotiators agreed that emissions need to reduce. Emission has to start to decrease all together. China is blamed for the failure of the Copenhagen agreement. China says “a significant proportion of emissions are being driven by the production of goods that are sold in Canada, Europe, and the United States. (20% of Chinese emissions). Developed countries have exported dirty production to china and india. China says that these countries need to own that carbon. China is the manufacturing base, but are producing the goods that developed countries are consuming. |
|
|
American Domestic Policy |
The US failed to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It was signed under Bill Clinton. It did not come into force until 2005. Not enough countries had signed until that point. Republicans in the senate in 2005 argued the the Kyoto protocol would be detrimental to american industry. At this point, America was the biggest emitter; meaning a reduction in oil business, which would have been bad for many of Clinton's supporters in Texas who worked in oil. The USA promised to reduce emissions 17% from 2005 to 2020. Barack Obama said that they were prepared to negotiate more than that. They also offered help to developing countries in promoting clean development. Obama needed to show that China would also set forth these reduction goals. He needed to prove that it wouldn't be a huge cost to America and a huge benefit to Chinese industry. With the Copenhagen agreement, Obama had a final chance to implement policy changes. But China didn't play the game, and refused the numbers. It’s a 2 Level Game: Politics on International and Domestic Level. |
|
|
Kyoto in Canada |
Kyoto and Canada: Federal multilateral agreements and legislation are required to make agreements on national, political, and municipal levels. The provinces have jurisdiction over Energy and Natural Resources. If the prime minister complies, provinces must agree to the terms. In the 90s, Canadian federal negotiators are involved in negotiating. Canada is playing a leading role. It must be ratified by the federal government, but implemented by the provincial government. |
|
|
The National Energy Program |
National Energy Program: The Goal of the NEP was to keep domestic Canadian oil and gas prices lower than the world market price in order to redistribute revenue from the oil industry and lessen the cost of oil for eastern Canada. Oil producers should sell Oil for cheaper to Canadians so we don't have to pay the cost of the high international costs. Canadian economy has extra assistance. BUT the national energy problem would also require the oil-producing provinces to sell the oil at artificially low prices in order to prop up the Canadian economy. In the 1980s, Alberta threatened to leave Canada due to this plan. It almost tore the country apart. Divided provinces along an east-west axis. The argument was that this was an illegal interference of the federal government in the business of provincial matters. Since that plan, no government has implemented a proper energy plan in fear of overstepping their boundaries. It is unfair for certain provinces because not all provinces produce oil. There is practically no room to actually pass legislation that would implement the agreement. Alberta argues that it will have to pay the price if Canada signs on. |
|
|
The Paris Treaty |
Unlike Kyoto, Paris does not include what individual countries are required to do (set particular goals) and is not legally bound. The paris agreement lets countries make their own decisions about how they are going to achieve the goal. This is not going to work, but it will keep us below some threshold (1.5). After this the agreements will grow stronger. It is not legally binding because the US already ratified the Copenhagen agreement. The paris agreement is part of an agreement that has already been ratified. The US senate does not have to ratify the paris agreement, it is already in place in the US. But it does have to be implemented. |
|
|
Naomi Klein |
As soon ago as 2008, climate change was a major issue on both sides of the political spectrum. Today, a majority of people with conservative views deny it’s existence, let alone talk about solutions. The issue of climate change fits perfectly into the liberal cultural cognition of egalitarian battles for social justice, equality, and reduction of corporate power. For conservatives, however, the idea of climate change threatens the intrinsic belief in the power of markets and large corporations that has underpinned their platform for decades. To admit that massive government intervention and freedom of industry is crucial would be to admit ideological defeat. For this reason, those with right wing views tend to believe that climate change is a hoax or a ploy to abolish capitalism, gathering “proof” from conventions, organizations, and scientists that are often funded by fossil fuel companies. There is a clear correlation between economic privilege, and climate change denial. Positions of power are largely held by white men in developed countries who likely won’t be impacted by the immediate effects of global warming such as severe droughts, storms, and rising sea levels, along with their structural and economic implications. The ability to “adapt” is a luxury, and by blaming climate change’s victims for not adjusting, the rich and powerful deny their accountability. Free trade agreements block any kind of environmental policy, as countries within a trade union can accuse others of “illegal discrimination” if they favour environmentally conscious or local inputs over others. The fear of seeming “anti free trade” has kept governments from minimizing privatization, corporate deregulation, and tax cuts. Climate change policies like the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC are invariably followed and blocked by free trade organizations like WTO and NAFTA. Exporting labour can shift blame for emissions from a developed countries to those with lower wages and rights for workers. America often holds countries like china and india to blame for environmental degradation, while almost half of the production that takes place is for north american and european-consumed products. Developed countries are also not held accountable for transportation emissions. The ideology that views the planet as as an expendable resource also views employees as such. For the past 20 years the need for environmental action has been ignored. This is largely due to short term, individualist, capitalist thinking. “Green technology” and the belief that we can fight climate change with human kind’s ability to defy nature is only another manifestation of capitalist beliefs that got us in this situation in the first place. We have been stalling while climate change’s impact is becoming more dangerous. We now require policy that contradicts capitalist ideology, such as long term-planning, tough industry regulation, high taxes on the rich, and a favouring of the public over the private sector. |
|
|
Bush Post 9/11 |
With high approval ratings after 9/11, bush could arrogate considerable power, mostly under the name of “the war on terror”. He could do whatever he wanted under the guise of “homeland security” (Torture, Surveillance)the threat of terror unleashed a regime of militant democracy (the use of legal restrictions on political expression and participation to curb extremist actors. the opposite of liberal democracy. Refers to a regime where basic rights are restricted for the purpose of protecting democracy.Undermines the fundamental principles of democracy for the purpose of protecting it. |
|
|
Lowenstein's Militant Democracy |
The only way to stop fascist parties from using democracy to gain power (to subvert democracy) is to adopt special measures to limit the freedom of certain dangerous members of the population. The 3 components to a militant democracy 1. Concentrate power in the executive 2. Use emergency as an excuse 3. Pass ad hoc legislation to restrict rights of expression participation and assembly to prevent fascist movements from exploiting democratic freedoms to undermine. democracy. |
|
|
The main issues with Militant Democracy |
-Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate targets. -Knowing when it is legitimate to intervene. (what threat is threatening enough?) -Make sure that some president or party wont declare emergency for partisan gain. |
|
|
The Patriot Act and Signing Statements |
The Patriot Act: Expansion of government surveillance measures resulting in interception of communications of anyone without warrant, oversight, or accountability). Bush secretly allowed the ASA to eavesdrop on calls and emails sent from us to other countries. Signing Statements: Giving organizations the legal capacity to disobey any law or statute that conflicts with their interpretation of the constitution. The laws disobeyed tended to concern national security, governing detention, and limiting coercive interrogation. Bush also used signing statements to avoid things like affirmative action and whistle blowing. |
|
|
Militant Democracy and Power Concentration |
The concentration of power in the executive undermines the check and balances that underpin democracy. (executive, legislature, judicial) each branch should have equal power from independent sources.Once the power is given, the office of the presidency is much more power, and the office still has a lot more power today than it did pre-9/11. Another problem is distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate targets. |
|
|
Illegitimate Target Problem |
After 9/11, the Illegitimate target problem is radicalized (Racial profiling of Muslim MenMilitant democracy is less justifiable when it violates the civil rights of one particular racial or religious group. |
|
|
America in Iraq and Afghanistan |
Afghanistan: Osama bin laden was protected under the Taliban. The USAs involvement in Afghanistan persisted long after the goal of eradicating al Qaida. It didn't end until 2014 when NATO forces withdrew and handed responsibility to the afghan military. By the time bin laden was killed, the terror networks could no longer be disabled by his death alone. Iraq: The us invaded Iraq in 2003 for 2 reasons 1. Allegedly, Iraq had nuclear weapons, that were intended for use. 2. Saddam Hussein was helping Al Qaida (this had a great deal of resonance in the USA)Iraq didn't actually have nuclear or chemical capacity; the evidence may have been fabricated. Also, Al Qaida was not protected or persisted by Hussein, and was not even present until after the invasion of it. In fact, the govt of Iraq Saddam Hussein was opposed and a coalition was put in place. |
|
|
Just War Theory |
Just War Theory 1. War is just when the perceived harm of the war is less than the harm that would be incurred by failing to go to war. 2. Was is just when all other options have failed. 3. War is just when there is a reasonable expectation of achieving a just peace. 4. War is just when the goal is the protection of innocent lives. The war in Afghanistan is just, the war in Iraq was not. Criteria is subjective, and the idea of the possibility of there being a just war is opinion oriented. In 2001, Iraq and Afghanistan was ruled by government that infringed upon human rights. The international community had reason to think that it might have a responsibility to intervene to protect afghans against abuses. Do they justify violating national sovereignty? In Iraq, Hussein was responsible for civilian murders and ethnic cleansing, but had no relationship with al Qaida. The claims that justified Iraq’s invasion were false. |
|
|
Traditional Just War Theory: |
Just ad bellum (The right to wage a war) 1. Just cause 2. Legitimate authority 3. Right intention 4. Probability of success 5. Comparative advantage 6. Last resort Just in bello (Justice in war) 1. Discrimination: the distinction between combatants and non-combatants 2. Proportionality: One should minimize and avoid harms on civilians, but when it is necessary, its benefits must be larger than the harms being done on civilians. Jus post bellum (justice after war)1. The duty to rebuild what one has destructed (eg. after the WWII, the US helped to rebuild the Japanese political and economic system, e.g. transferring technologies and democratic system) |
|
|
Opinions on War and Sovereignty |
1. Invasion of another country is never justifiable, as sovereignty must be protected. You cant impose liberal human rights on the rest of the world, the west must respect sharia law. 2. Invasion is justifiable if a government is carrying out grave human rights abuses against its own population. Prioritizes human rights over human rights. 3. Invasion is justifiable if a government is harbouring and operating in partnership with terrorists who pose a grave threat to the security of another nation. one nation is using its sovereignty to endanger the sovereignty and security of another nation. |
|
|
Militant Democracy in France |
Widened powers of police and security agencies. no debate about deterioration of civil liberties. State of emergency was approved by senate and assembly with almost no opposition. Increased government powers to escalate security like broader use of house arrests, electronic bracelets, search without warrants. The interior ministry could shut down websites and network accounts that talked about terrorism. They can eavesdrop on internet and mobile phone users. Everyone that was affected by these measures were muslim. there was widespread support for these measures among citizens. Polls found that 90% of the french populations supported measures permission to arrest detaining, and raid people. right to lawyer, privacy, etc, (western enlightenment) all govern our relationships and our society. these rights and freedoms are the core of our beliefs about ourselves and are universal. those beliefs depend on safety and security, and people’s commitments to the rights appear to evaporate. |
|
|
Patterson and Just War |
Morality: It values human life, Calls for ethical accountability for one's actions, Emphasizes the important of the motive of actions, and acknowledges the cruciality of governments and law. Practicality: Political leaders that frame their war aims in terms of taking the moral high ground are more likely to receive necessary support from constituents and the international community. When military leaders are believed to be doing the "right" thing, soldiers will fight better, longer, and harder. Cost/Benefit Analysis: You shouldn't fight a war if it isn't winnable. Proportionality: A minimum of force should be used to accomplish objectives. This realizes that sooner or later the war will end, and destructiveness will have consequences for the length of fighting, the cost of rebuilding, and the prospect of long term peace and security. Discrimination: Not targeting civilians. It's easier and cheaper to keep war to the battle fields. Civilian casualties have unpleasant and unintended consequences like retaliation. It's also more difficult to pick out possible threats. Active threats are those who are actively waging or materially supporting conflict. |
|
|
Patterson: Old vs. New War |
Old Wars: were between legitimate authorities (states), were generally a dispute over property (land and resources), were fought by combatants (Soldiers who were distinct from civilians), were fought away from civilians, used limited tools of warfare, and could not be conceived as global. New Wars: A revised just war framework would have two concerns at heart: Regard for human life, and the privileging of domestic and international security. |
