COMPARATIVE POLITICS PSCI 2210

SEMESTER 1, 2015/2015WEEK 5SR. ROHANA ABDUL HAMIDCOMPARATIVE POLITICS PSCI 2210Advantages and disadvantages in comparison

Advantages of comparison :To find out about places that we know least about We need to understand foreign governments as it helps uswith political relationships. This is true as the world becomemore interdependent.-In depth understanding is the goal for comparative analysis.- British ministers have poor track record when negotiate withEuropean partners. Why ? Because House of Commons, theypractised aggressive tone with British MPs. Hence they (British ministers) thought the aggressive tone they adopted in House ofCommons would work in Brussels meeting room.

American students puzzle at how British parliamentary system ( or parliamentary system) can produce stable government when the PM can be removed (easily/ at the mercy) of a vote of confidence in House of Commons (Lower House). We discover our own ethnocentrism and the means to overcome it through comparison.

2. Improve our classifications of politics Group institutionsPolitical systems parliamentary and presidential systemWHY ?We are able to search for factors which incline to one form than the other .Example : Why does Malaysia practice parliamentary system ? Why not presidential system? OR when we classify executives into presidential and parliamentary system, we can look at which type is more stable and effective.

3. Formulate and test hypotheses about politicsIt enables us to formulate and test hypotheses about politics.Thus, we develop scrutinize and develop questions such as :Do first past the post system electoral systems always produce a two-party system? Do rich countries always produce democratic political system ?H1 (a) : The first past the post systems / plurality electoral systems tend to produce two-party system or two-plus party system.

.Example :H2 : National wealth (IV) promotes democracy (DV)We observe, the worlds successful and enduring democracies are among the richest countries such as USA, Canada, GB, and Germany. Poor countries such as Vietnam, Egypt and Cuba are not democracies / authoritarian. Note : We need to collect and examine the evidence by relying on the gross national income statistics (GNI) [total income of a country to determine the wealth in the country. For instance, higher level of wealth = rich country; and vice versa].

However, in hypothesis testing, we find evidence that contradict the hypothesis when a few of A) democracies are not wealthy/ poor (India, Brazil, Philippines)B) non-democracies are wealthy/ rich (Singapore, Brunei, Saudi Arabia)

Thus, this evidence shows that national wealth is not a guarantee of democracy. It also demonstrates that the hypothesized relationship is not universally valid.

4. Generalisation, once validated have potential for predictionIt gives us the opportunity to learn lessons across countries.Thus, if we find that democracy is able to survive in a heterogonous country such as Malaysia and Netherland, we can introduce the common form of democratic system in an unstable heterogeneous country. The form of democracy is known as consociational democracy.# Democratic theorists : Fragmented societies that are divided by ethnic, religious or class are unstable for steady democratic governance. Thus, multiethnic countries are not likely to achieve democracy. But, the evidence for homogeneity hypothesis is mixed [ refer to Malaysia and Netherlands]

.Consociational form of democracy :

Elite accommodation in a heterogeneous society. In this form of democracy, the elites overcome their differences and reach effective compromises, sometimes in secret, for the good of the general population.

.ORAuthoritarian leaders may use China as a model to find out or how ( country ) to reduce the control over the economy while retaining the political power. China allows private enterprise but never relinquish its control to private sector powerful companies have substantial government ownership. China state capitalismGDP growth in China = 10% per yearSeven of the top 100 international brands were Chinese (2010). Only one of the seven, Baidu (search engine company) , was not a state-backed corporation.

Difficulties of comparison1. Knowledge requirements2. Same phenomenon, different meanings3. Interdependence4. Selection bias5. Too many variables, too few countries

1. Knowledge requirementThe idea that knowledge requirement increase directly with the number of cases is a misunderstanding . This is because, for a few students, in order to carry comparative study, one is required to hire an expert on a single countries. But this is not correct.

Why?This is because, the focus should be on comparison . Example : If you are required to discuss the general trend of proportional representation of electoral system worldwide, you are not required to know in- depth knowledge of the electoral systems in each country worldwide OR those who debate the merits of presidential and parliamentary government cannot read all that has been written about the operations of executive in

.every country where these forms of government have been tried. In CP: knowing what needs to be known, and being able to find out and not to know what there is to know.

2. Same phenomenon, different meaningsIn CP, meaning of an action depends on the conventions of the countries concerned. This is because, CP needs to understand how politics is viewed in different countries. Example : Democratic countries do not equate military coup as a fairly peaceful mechanism for the circulation of elites. This is because democratic coup reflect undemocratic and instability in a country.

.Religious Fundamentalist : West = terrorist, negative. Muslim= Religious activists, positive What shall you call a group of people who attacked WTC and Pentagon (11/9/ 2001) ? martyrs or murderers?How do you define Israelis / Palestinians nationalists ? Terrorists or freedom fighters?Hence, comparing the like is not always straightforward process should adopt interpretive approach Interpretive approach : ideas which political actors themselves hold about the activity.

.According to Patrick Chabal and Jean Pascal Daloz, we must take into account culture when comparing different societies evaluate the role of culture in political analysis. Their analysis explains the political representation in Nigeria and Sweden .According to the authors, in the study of ostentation (display of wealth and luxury) for political legitimacy ; Nigeria and Sweden are at the opposite ends of a spectrum.

Example :

Nigeria (-ve) Sweden (+ve)-Display of wealth is a sign of power, flamboyance is the key as it is a material proof of the MPs ability to nourish clientalist networks. - Convert wealth into political support and prominence

-Lowest personal profile, avoid luxury, display of wealthOrdaniriness, image of banality appear like every other swedes -Prefers casual wear ruling out exclusive elegance.

3. InterdependenceThis is closely related to globalization. This is because, countries learn, compete, invade each other in the process of interaction. Specific institution forms also reflect diffusion. For instance, the presidential system in Latin America was imported from the US; and ombudsman (literal =grievance person) is copied from Sweden.Example : Swedish ombudsman (to ensure the authorities are carrying out their duties ; look after citizens interests when dealings with government) was established in 1809. The institutions spreaded to other countries such as Denmark(1955) and Norway (1962). Now there are about 140 countries with ombudsman.

.Therefore, countries cannot be treated as independent entities.

4. Selection bias1) Unrepresentative countries : In CP , we often choose countries that speak the language; large and powerful. Why ? We feel safe. Risk : end up cover few countries. For instance, we do not study the presence of democratic values in Vietnam, Mynmar in South East Asia because we are not natives speakers (do not speak their languages). Instead, we study developed countries, rich countries, countries that uses English as the medium of instruction.

2) Unrepresentative selection of variables: The level of focus : financial and economic data. Why? This is because financial and economic variables may receive more attention by government and private agencies. Thus, in the study of CP, we often see a large number of research examines the relationship between economic conditions and popularity.

3) Positive cases : When we select similar positive cases of phenomenon only. Consequently, we are not doing any comparison (even if we do, it is very limited). This is because, in CP we should consider variationsHow ? We select cases with similar dependent variables. In the study of successful democratization, we often select countries which have democratized successfully. However, the conditions of a successful democratization can only be identified through a comparison with failed transitions.

5. Too many variables, too few countries.Political comparison can never be as precise as laboratory experiments. Therefore, with nearly 200 sovereign states , it is impossible to find a country which is identical to another country in all respects except for the factor ( electoral system) whose effects we want to detect. Thus, we cant test all the possible explanations of a political difference between countries. Example : 1) Democracy survives in Netherland and Malaysia through the arrangement of consociational democracy. One the favourable conditions conducive for consociational democracy is about equal size of every segment in heterogenous population.

But what we find :Malaysia : Malay is overwhelmingly the majority in Malaysia /non equal segment size Netherland : The size of each segment is about the equal size

Therefore, which factor is conducive to consociational democracy?The size of each segment is about the equal sizeThe size of each segment is not equal size