Chapter 3 CPO2002 Lecture
- 1. State and Society Chapter Three Pearson Publishing 2011
- 2. • Samuel P. Huntington: “The most important distinction between countries concerns not their form but their degree of government.” • Premise of this chapter: The state and society are linked through different forms of political participation. Some states can handle these demands and govern effectively. Others are overwhelmed by them and experience a crisis of governability - the government rules but does not govern. State and Society Pearson Publishing 2011
- 3. • Occurs in democratic and authoritarian political systems • Occurs in many different forms • Legitimate - voting, running for office • Furtive - satire, rumor • Violent revolt • Depends on the opportunity structure created by the political system • Groups engage in different forms of political participation depending upon the opportunities for influence different political structures create • Ex: European political systems create more opportunity for Green Parties, while the US political system creates more opportunity for green interest groups. Political Participation
- 4. • Groups are always seeking the weakest point of political access, depending on the resources political actors can mobilize and their opportunities to deploy them... • Engaging different forms of participation simultaneously • environmental parties and interest groups • One form of participation paving the way for another • elections in Serbia, the Ukraine, and Iran triggered mass protests • Or engaging in different types of participation sequentially • US Civil Rights Movement Political Participation
- 5. • There is an inextricable link between political participation and improving people’s capabilities. • People cannot create institutional structures on their own they must act collectively to succeed • Four types of collective action linking state and society: • • • • Political Parties Interest Groups Social Movements Patron-Client Relations Political Participation
- 6. • Emerge where people have diverse interests and values • Actively recruit and nominate candidates for public office (unlike other forms of political participation) • Criticisms: • • • • they threaten the unity of the political order corruption pandering to special interests they serve the needs of office-seekers, not greater society Political Parties
- 7. • The ideal unified political community is a myth people have diverse interests and values • Despite their disadvantages, parties help structure political conflict and organize government • Parties “stage the battle”... formulating issues, giving them relevance, and then offering a choice of candidates from those issues Why Parties?
- 8. • In Democratic Systems: • Parties compete to win elections and form governments • A sense of what the public wants is transmitted through party competition • In Authoritarian Systems: • Parties are common even in absence of competitive elections • Used to convey government policies down to the people and promote legitimacy Political Parties
- 9. • Entail stable forms of party competition • Distinguished by: • The number of parties they include • multi-party systems (3+) are much more common than the US two-party system • Ideological breadth • Degree of institutionalization • strong vs. weak parties Party Systems
- 10. Characteristics Weak Parties Strong Parties Membership Low High Party Identification among Voters Low High Electoral Volatility High Low Party Unity in the Legislature Low High In Brief: Strong vs. Weak Political Parties
- 11. • What shapes party systems? • Deeply rooted social divisions • Ex: Western democracies are still shaped by key historical conflicts (class, urban-rural, national-local, and church-state) • Electoral Laws • Ex: winner-take-all laws in most US elections create bias toward a two-party system, while proportional representation laws in many European elections create bias toward multiparty systems Party Systems
- 12. • Not all parties and party systems are created equal. Some contribute more to developing citizens’ capabilities than others. • The quality of the link between state and society through political parties depends on the level of party organization, discipline, and program articulation • Programmatic parties - link citizens using a broad appeal and common party program • Poorly-institutionalized parties, parties built around personalities, and parties built on patronage Evaluating Parties
- 13. • Immediately following the US invasion ethnic groups in Iraq (Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis) used bullets not ballots to influence the government and settle disputes • In March 2010 legislative elections were held in which all groups participated • Charges were brought of vote tampering and coercion, but 62% of eligible Iraqi voters participated • The results were as indecisive and divided as the overall society • It is unclear whether Iraq’s political institutions will be capable of withstanding the political conflict over ballots, or whether Iraqis will again turn to bullets In Brief: Iraq - From Bullets to Ballots (and back)
- 14. • Form when people with common interests organize for the purpose of influencing policy-makers • Engage in many of the same activities as political parties - including raising money, mobilizing voters, campaigning for candidates • DO NOT, however, nominate candidates to run for office Interest Groups
- 15. • Interest Group formation faces a number of challenges: • require resources, time, and leadership • Free-Rider Problem - individuals rationally seek the benefits without the costs of membership • These challenges can be overcome, however: • material and non-material incentives • technological innovations (i.e.: the internet) • professional advocacy organizations Interest Groups
- 16. • The political structures of a country affect interest groups just as they affect political parties • The number of interest groups • divided, decentralized policy-making structures allow for more interest groups because there are multiple points of access (ex: US) • unitary, centralized structures limit access and the number of interest groups (ex: Sweden) • The type of interest groups • pluralist systems vs. corporatist systems Interest Groups
- 17. Characteristics Pluralist Groups Corporatist Groups (Ex: US, Canada, Italy) (Ex: Austria, Sweden) Number of Interest Groups Many Few Internal Organization Decentralized Hierarchical Coverage Low density Encompassing Relationship to Government Lobbying Participates in policymaking In Brief: Pluralist and Corporatist Interest Groups
- 18. Table 3.1
- 19. • Interest group behavior has consequences for people’s capabilities • The quality of the link between state and society through interest groups depends on their level of cooperation and efficiency • Pluralist interest groups compete, preventing cooperation and efficiency • Corporate interest groups do not experience these problems, and can achieve broader appeal • Fewer and bigger really is better. Evaluating Interest Groups
- 20. • Comparing social movements and interest groups/political parties: • Engage in more unconventional and confrontational forms of political participation • From peaceful assemblies to protest marches • Not as formally organized or hierarchical, either • More ideological and contentious • Require a more demanding level of participation • Often personal attendance or sacrifice • Seek to promote group acceptance and enact changes in policy Social Movements
- 21. • The emergence of social movements was facilitated by the spread of democracy • Early social movements focused on economic demands (1700s) • Post-industrial social movements addressed cultural divides as well as economic ones • New social movements had more decentralized structures because they were distrustful of bureaucracy • Ex: 1997 Nobel Peace Prize and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines • Increasing global interdependence has led to the growth of international-level social movements • Ex: World Social Forum Social Movements
- 22. • A system in which a patron offers or withholds some material benefit in return for political support • Ex: access to work or land, school tuition, medical care, etc. • Most common in countries with widespread poverty and lawlessness where the “haves” are in a position to bargain for support from the “have-nots” • Based on norms of reciprocity • Continuous and direct contact between patron and client reinforce these feelings of obligation • There is a mutually-reinforcing relationship between clientelism and poverty Patron-Client Relations
- 23. • Weak states become overloaded by the demands of state-society linkages such as political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client relations • Crisis of Governability - the government rules but does not effectively govern • Ex: the lack of effective public health infrastructures in Africa contribute to the AIDS epidemic • Often weak states cannot even maintain law and order, exerting little authority beyond the capital city • Ex: the Taliban effectively rules over rural portions of Afghanistan and Pakistan • Corruption is often high in weak states Weak States
- 24. • Strong states are able to effectively respond to the demands of state-society linkages, transforming these demands into executed policy • Effectively maintain law and order, collect taxes, execute policies, and enjoy high levels of popular legitimacy • Governments in strong states also have autonomy from public pressures • They are equipped to respond to social pressures, but are simultaneously insulated from conflict and can act in the public interest Strong States
- 25. • Are stronger states better at promoting people’s capabilities? • Yes, considering indicators such as infant mortality, literacy rates, political violence, and democracy Weak vs. Strong States
- 26. Figure 3.1
- 27. Figure 3.2
- 28. Figure 3.3
- 29. Figure 3.4
- 30. • Linkages between state and society include political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patronclient relationships • Citizens engage in these forms of political participation depending on the resources they have and their opportunities to deploy them • Strong states can manage the flow of demands through these linkages and govern effectively • Weak states become overwhelmed and suffer a crisis of governability • Strong states are more conducive to developing citizens’ capabilities than weak states Conclusions
- 31. • Is more political participation by citizens always better? Can there be too much of a good thing when it comes to political participation? • Can democracy exist without political parties? • What are some of the differences distinguishing political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client relations as forms of political participation? Under what circumstances do people use one as opposed to the other form of participation? • How would you operationally define strong and weak states? • What can be done to improve state quality; to transform failed states into sustainable states? Critical Thinking Questions
- 32. • This is the question asked by Putnam’s book Making Democracy Work. • Compares effectiveness of 15 regional governments in 1970s Italy • The governments on paper looked identical, but had very different levels of government effectiveness • Hypothesis: that regional institutions in Italy would be shaped by and reflect the social context in which they operated Comparative Political Analysis: Why do some political institutions work better than others?
- 33. • Good performance depended on: • the ability of institutions to manage internal affairs • the appropriateness and extensiveness of legislative solutions • bureaucratic responsiveness • Results: The regional institutions with the best performance were located in areas with a high levels of civic trust and many local organizations Comparative Political Analysis: Why do some political institutions work better than others?