HSPS PART II 2014-2015: Comparative Politics Course Overview

HUMAN, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE TRIPOS (HSPS)
PART II 2014-2015
Pol 4: Comparative Politics
Course organiser
Christopher Bickerton (cb799@cam.ac.uk)
Department of Politics & International Studies
7 West Road
Lecturers
(General Lectures)
Christopher Bickerton (cb799@cam.ac.uk)
Pieter van Houten (pvj24@cam.ac.uk)
(Modules)
Glen Rangwala (gr10009@cam.ac.uk)
Aaron Rapport (ar727@cam.ac.uk)
Harald Wydra (hbw23@cam.ac.uk)
Pieter Van Houten (pvj24@cam.ac.uk)
Ian Cooper (ian_d_cooper@hotmail.com)
Iza Hussin (ih298@cam.ac.uk )
Contents
1. Aims and objectives of the course
2. Brief Description of the Paper
3. Modes of teaching
4. Modes of assessment
5. Background Reading
6. Lecture List
7. Supervisions: questions and readings
8. Modules
9. Examination
1. Aims and objectives of the course

This is a broadly focused paper aiming to give students an understanding of the key actors
and dynamics that make up contemporary politics. The paper pursues this goal from a
comparative perspective, meaning that it selects examples from across the world in order to
determine how universal certain political phenomena are, what common causes they may
share, and how different trajectories of political development are possible and why they
occur. The paper also aims to give students a basic grasp of the comparative method, of its
role in political science research, and of the usefulness of comparison in understanding our
political environment. The paper aims to provide students with the conceptual tools needed to
think about politics from a comparative perspective. It also aims to provide them with enough
empirical knowledge for them to appreciate the diversity of political life and to match
generalized insights about the nature of political behaviour with sophisticated empirical
examples that illustrate variation and complexity.
2. Brief description of the course
Comparative politics uses the method of comparison as a way of exploring political
dynamics. The course is divided into two parts: a lecture series plus accompanying
supervisions; a course of modules consisting of 4 to 6 lectures each, plus two supervisions for
each module. This course focuses on three key concepts: states, regimes and interests. Each
of the three themes covered by the lectures will take up one of these concepts in detail.
Assessment will be in the form of an end of year written exam.
Lecture Series
The first theme on state formation will: explore the origins of state formation and theories of
state formation developed by comparative historical sociologists; compare and assess the
strength of various theoretical explanations for the emergence of modern states; compare the
different trajectories of state formation taken by European states and explain the variation in
state traditions amongst contemporary European states; look at state transformation outside of
Europe, particularly at China, post-colonial states and post-communist states in Eastern
Europe; explore contemporary processes of state-building, focusing in particular on
international state-building i.e. the building of state institutions by outside powers.
The second theme on regimes will: study of the origins of different political regimes,
focusing in particular on the origins of democracy and authoritarianism; explore
comparatively the phenomenon of democratization, looking at differences across time and
space; look at the presence of hybridity within political regimes, e.g. the phenomenon of
illiberal democracies; identify variation within the constitutional arrangements of
democratic states, contrasting parliamentary and presidential political systems and federal
and unitary systems.
The third theme on modes of interest representation will: study in detail political parties as a
crucial actor representing interests in political life today; identify the origins of parties and
detail their transformation over time, from factions through to mass parties up to present-day
catch-all and cartel parties; look at the role of parties in contemporary politics and at the
reasons for the high rates of disapproval and declining memberships that parties face in many
parts of the world; an exploration of how interests are represented outside of parliamentary
politics, focusing on interest groups, private actors and non-governmental organizations;
2
theories and models of interest representation, focusing in particular on pluralism and

corporatism.
Modules
The second part of the course consists of six modules, with students being required to choose
two out of the six. These modules focus on specific countries with the aim of giving students
an introduction to comparative political analysis. Whilst involving some geographical focus,
the modules are organized around some key themes of comparative politics, such as state
formation, nation-building and nationalism, religious sectarianism, dynamics of foreign
policymaking and the rise of populism.
3. Modes of teaching
The first part of the paper consists of 16 lectures. Students are expected to attend every
lecture and they will be given three supervisions in Michaelmas term, each of which will
cover one of the three themes into which the lectures have been grouped. The second part of
the course consists of six modules, with students being required to choose two out of the six.
Students will receive supervisions for these modules in Lent term, in addition to the lectures
which they are expected to attend.
4. Mode of assessment
There will be a three hour unseen examination paper in the Easter term, in which students
will be required to answer three questions. The questions will be grouped into six sections.
The first section refers to the material covered in the lectures and students must answer one
question from this section. Students must answer two questions from two of the remaining six
sections.
5. Background reading
The following books are recommended as preparatory reading and as background reading
during the course. Some are of a general nature; others focus on specific themes of
comparative politics or in particular countries or regions. Some of the readings are academic
books, others are written for a broader audience. Students should follow their interest in
deciding what to read.
General
J. Blondel (1995) Comparative Government: An Introduction (London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf)
M.A. Centeno (2002) Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America
(University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press)
S. Finer (ed.) (1979) Five Constitutions: Contrasts and Comparisons (London: Penguin)
[Introduction]
F. Fukuyama (2012) The Origins of Political Order; From Prehuman Times to the French
Revolution (London: Profile)
--(2014) Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to
the Globalization of Democracy (London: Profile)
3
B. Guy Peters (2013) Strategies for Comparative Research in Political Science (Basingstoke:
Palgrave)
R. Hague and M. Harrop (2013) Comparative Government and Politics, 9th Edition
(Basingstoke: Palgrave)
S. Huntington (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies (London: Yale University Press)
R. Lachmann (2010) States and Power (Cambridge: Polity)
M. Mann (1986, 1993, 2012) Sources of Social Power, 4 Volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press) [all volumes available as ebooks]
P. Mair (2014) Ruling the Void: The Hollowing-Out of Western Democracy (London: Verso)
B. Moore Jr. (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the
Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon)
F. Mount (2012) The New Few, or a Very British Oligarchy (London: Simon Schuster)
Y. Papadopoulos (2013) Democracy in Crisis? Politics, Governance and Policy
(Basingstoke: Palgrave)
Europe
T. Bale (2013) European Politics: A Comparative Introduction (Palgrave: Basingstoke)
I. Berend (2010) Europe since 1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
C. Bickerton (2012) European Integration: From Nation-States to Member States (Oxford:
Oxford University Press) [available as ebook]
T. Judt (2005) Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945 (William Heinemann: London)
H. Wydra (2007) Communism and the Emergence of Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press) [available as ebook]
J. Zielonka (2014) Is the EU Doomed? (Polity: Cambridge)
Middle East
A. Hourani (1983 [1962]) Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, new edition)
M. Lynch (2006) Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, al-Jazeera, and Middle East Politics
Today (New York: Columbia University Press)
R. Owen (2004) State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East
(London: Routledge, 3rd edition) [available as ebook]
K. Selvik and S. Stenslie (2011) Stability and Change in the Modern Middle East (London:
IB Tauris) [available as ebook]
J. Stacher (2012) Adaptable Autocrats: Regime Power in Egypt and Syria (Stanford: Stanford
University Press)
Africa
C. Clapham, (1996) Africa and the International System (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press). [available as ebook]
Cooper, F. (2002) Africa since 1940: the past of the present (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Herbst, J. (2000) States and power in Africa: comparative lessons in authority and control
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) [available as ebook]
R. Jackson (1996) Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [available as ebook]
4
Nugent, P. (2004) Africa since independence: a comparative history (Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan).
N. Van Walle (2001) African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis, 1979-1999
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
China
M. Blecher (2009) China against the Tides: Restructuring through revolution, radicalism and
reform (London: Bloomsbury)
R. Mitter (2008) Modern China: a very short introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
[available as ebook]
J. D. Spence (1999) The Search for Modern China (New York: W. W. Norton & Co)
Yongnian Zheng (ed.) (2012) Contemporary China: A History since 1978 (Oxford: WileyBlackwell)
India
F. Frankel et al (2002) Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy
(Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Z. Hasan (2004) Parties and Party Politics in India (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
S. Khilnani (1999) The Idea of India (London: Hamish Hamilton)
A. Kohli (2012) Poverty Amid Plenty in the New India (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
United States
L. Greenhouse (2012) The US Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford
C. O. Jones (2007) The American Presidency: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford
D.A. Ritchie (2010) The US Congress: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University
Press) [available as ebook]
Anthony J. Nownes (2013) Interest Groups in American Politics: Pressure and Power
(Routledge, 2013)
M. Brewer and J. Stonecash (2009) Dynamics of American Political Parties (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press)
6. The Lecture list

1. Introduction (CB, 10 Oct, 9am)
2. The comparative method (CB, 13 Oct, 10am)
Theme 1: States: origins and contemporary dynamics
3. State formation (theory, classical examples, Western Europe) (CB, 17 Oct, 9am)
4. State formation (non-European) (CB, 20 Oct, 10am)
5. International State-building (CB, 24 Oct, 9am)
Theme 2: Regimes: origins and contemporary dynamics
6. Origins of democracy and authoritarianism (CB, 27 Oct, 10am)
7. Democratization (I) (PvH, 31 Oct, 9am)
8. Democratization (II) (PvH, 3 Nov, 10am)
9. Authoritarian/hybrid regimes (PvH, 7 Nov, 9am)
10. Constitutional features of democracy (PvH, 10 Nov, 10am)
Theme 3: Modes of interest representation
11. Parties (origins and European experiences) (CB, 14 Nov, 9am)
12. Parties (contemporary trends) (CB, 17 Nov, 10am)
13. Economic interests (PvH, 21 Nov, 9am)
14. NGOs and civil society (PvH, 24 Nov, 10am)
15. Theories of interest representation (pluralism, corporatism etc.) (PvH, 28 Nov, 9am)
16. Conclusion (PvH, 1 Dec, 10am)
Location: Lectures taking place on Fridays at 9am will be in the Sigdewick Lecture Block
Room 5; lectures taking place on Mondays at 10am will be in the Sidgewick Lecture Block
Room 1.
7. Supervisions: questions and readings

Students will be given three supervisions over the course of the lecture series. They will
receive two further supervisions for each module they choose. Students will receive in total
for the whole course seven supervisions. For the supervisions that are related to the lectures,
and which will be the basis for one section of the final written exam, each supervisor has a
choice of three questions for each of the three themes of the course: States: origins and
contemporary dynamics, Regimes: origins and contemporary dynamics and Modes of
interest representation. The questions belonging to each of these themes are set out below,
along with a recommended set of readings. Supervisors are expected to direct students in the
selection of cases with which to answer questions and are free to suggest extra readings.
Theme 1: States: origins and contemporary dynamics
Description of theme:
This theme is focused on the development of the modern state. The lectures cover topics such
as the origins of the European state system, the relations between states and competing
political units such as city states, city leagues and empires, the explanations given for the
variety between European state trajectories (absolutist, constitutional, patrimonial etc.), the
issue of state formation outside of Europe, the relationship between European states and
global empires, the nature and specificity of non-European and post-colonial states, and the
dynamics of state-building in the 21st century, focusing in particular on the practice of
international state-building, its dynamics and an evaluation of its effectiveness.
Supervision essay questions plus required readings listed below each question:
1. States made war and war made states. How convincing an explanation is this for
the emergence of the modern state?
Core Readings:
M. A. Centeno (1997) Blood and Debt: War and Taxation in Nineteenth-Century Latin
America, American Journal of Sociology 102:6, pp. 1565-1605.
M. C. Desch (1996) War and Strong States, Peace and Weak States? International
Organization 50:2, pp. 237-268.
T. Gongora, (1997) War Making and State Power in the Contemporary Middle East,
International Journal of Middle East Studies 29:3, pp. 323-340.
J. Herbst, (1990) War and the State in Africa, International Security 14:4, pp. 117-139.
Lachman, States and Power (Cambridge: Polity) Chapters 1 and 2
M. Mann, Sources of Social Power, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Chapters 12-15
G. Sorensen (2001) War and State Making: Why Doesnt It Work in the Third World?,
Security Dialogue 32, pp. 341-352.
B. D. Taylor and Roxana Botea (2008) Tilly Tally: War-making and State-Making in the
Contemporary Third World, International Studies Review 10, 1, pp. 27-56.
C. Tilly (1985) War making and state making as organized crime, in Evans et al, Bringing
the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp169-191
2. How European is the phenomenon of the nation-state?
7
Core Readings:
F. Fukuyama (2012) The Origins of Political Order; From Prehuman Times to the French
Revolution (London: Profile)
Chapters 1, 5, 6, and 7
T. Ertman (1997) Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early
Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), Chapter 1
R. Jackson (1996) Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [available as ebook] Chapters 1,2 and 3
3. Can states be built from the outside, through international intervention? Answer with
reference to at least two different cases of international state-building.
Core Readings:
J. Chopra (2002) Building state failure in East Timor, Development and Change, 33:5,
pp.979-1000
F. Fukuyama (2004) The imperative of state-building, Journal of Democracy, 15:2, pp.1731
F. Martin and G. Knaus (2003) Travails of the European Raj, Journal of Democracy, 14:3,
pp.60-74
H. Soifer (2010) What to read on state-building, Foreign Affairs,
February, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/features/readinglists/what-to-read-on-statebuilding-0
Further reading on theme 1:

R. H. Jackson and C. G. Rosberg (1982) Why Africas Weak States Persist: The Empirical
and the Juridical in Statehood. World Politics 35:1, pp. 1-24.
L. Anderson (1987) The State in the Middle East and North Africa, Comparative Politics
20:1, pp. 1-18.
C. G. Thies (2009) National Design and State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa, World
Politics 61:4, pp. 623-669.
V. I. Ganev (2005) Post-Communism as an Episode of State Building: A Reversed Tillyan
Perspective, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 38, pp. 425-445.
A. Grzymala-Busse and P. Jones-Luong (2002) Reconceptualizing the State: Lessons from
Post-Communism, Politics and Society 30:4, pp. 529-554.
R. Bean (1973) War and the Birth of the Nation State, Journal of Economic History 33:1,
pp. 203-221.
G. M. Easter (2008) The Russian State in the Time of Putin, Post-Soviet Affairs 24:3, pp.
199-230.
S. Gunn, D. Grummit and H. Cools (2008) War and the State in Early Modern Europe:
Widening the Debate, War in History 15:4, pp. 371-388.
R. Hague and M. Harrop (2013) Comparative Government and Politics, 9th Edition
(Basingstoke: Palgrave), Chapter 2
D. Helling (2010) Tillyan Footprints beyond Europe: War-Making and State-Making in the
Case of Somaliland, St Anthonys International Review 6: 1, pp. 103-123.
M. Kroenig and J. Stowsky (2006) War Makes the State, But Not As It Pleases: Homeland
Security and American Anti-Statism, Security Studies 15:2, pp. 225-270.
H. Spruyt (2002) The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the Modern State,
Annual Review of Political Science 5, pp. 127-149.
C. G. Thies (2005) War, Rivalry and State Building in Latin America, American Journal of
Political Science 43:3, pp. 451-465.
C. Tilly (1989) Cities and States in Europe, 1000-1800, Theory and Society 18:5, pp. 563584.
Theme 2: Regimes: origins and contemporary dynamics

This theme is focused on political regimes and emphasizes the diversity of political outcomes
that are possible alongside processes of societal modernization and the rise of capitalist and
command economies. The theme looks at the explanations given for why some states develop
in the direction of liberal parliamentary democracy whilst others do not, on the process of
democratization and its geographical spread across the globe, the resilience of authoritarian
regimes in many parts of the world, the rise of hybrid regimes that blur the lines between
democracy and authoritarianism, and the specific constitutional features of democratic
regimes. Emphasis is given to the institutional diversity within democracies, evident in the
contrast between parliamentary and presidential forms of government.
1. What explains the emergence of democracy? Discuss with reference to one or more
specific cases.
Core readings:
C. Tilly (2007) Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [available as e-book]
Chapters 1, 2 and 7.
V. Bunce (2000) Comparative Democratization: Big and Bounded Generalizations,
Comparative Political Studies 33:6/7, pp. 703-734.
A. Przeworski and F. Limongi (1997) Modernization: Theories and Facts, World Politics
49:2, pp. 155-183.
T. Carothers (2007) How Democracies Emerge: The Sequencing Fallacy, Journal of
Democracy 18:1, pp. 12-27.
Readings for possible examples:
V. Bunce (2003), Rethinking Recent Democratization: Lessons from the Postcommunist
Experience, World Politics 55, pp. 167-92
B. Moore Jr. (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the
Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon) Chapters 1 and 2.
T. Ertman (2010) The Great Reform Act of 1832 and British Democratization, Comparative
Political Studies 43:8/9, pp. 1000-1022.
9
S. E. Hanson (2010) The Founding of the French Third Republic, Comparative Political
Studies 43:8/9, pp. 1023-1058.
M. Bernhard (2001) Democratization in Germany: A Reappraisal, Comparative Politics 33,
pp. 379-400.
T. Ertman (1998) Democracy and Dictatorship in Interwar Europe Revisited, World Politics
50, pp. 475-505.
K. Weyland (2010) The Diffusion of Regime Contention in European democratization,
1830-1940, Comparative Political Studies 43, pp. 1148-1176.
Sheri Berman (2007) How Democracies Emerge: Lessons from Europe, Journal of
O. Encarnacion (2005) Do Political Pacts Freeze Democracy? Spanish and South American
Lessons, West European Politics 28:1, pp. 182-203.
T. L. Karl (1990) Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America, Comparative Politics
23:1, pp. 1-21.
K. Remmer (1996) The sustainability of political democracy: Lessons from South America,
Comparative Political Studies 29, pp. 611-634.
J. Mahoney (2001) Path-Dependent Explanations of Regime Change: Central America in
Comparative Perspective, Studies in Comparative International Development 36:1,
pp. 111-141.
J. Grugel (2007) Latin America after the Third Wave, Government and Opposition 42:2, pp.
242-257.
F. Hagopian (1990) Democracy by Undemocratic Means? Elites, Political Pacts and Regime
Transition in Brazil, Comparative Political Studies 23:2, pp. 147-170.
J.L. Klesner (1998) An electoral route to Democracy? Mexicos Transition in Comparative
Perspective, Comparative Politics 30:4, pp.477-97.
G. ODonnell (1993) On the State, Democratization, and some Conceptual Problems: A
Latin American View with Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries, World
Development 21:8, pp. 1355-1369.
G. Munck and C. Skalnik Leff (1997) Modes of Transition and Democratization: South
America and Eastern Europe in Comparative Perspective, Comparative Politics 29:3,
pp. 343-362.
M. McFaul (2002) The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship: Noncooperative
Transitions in the Postcommunist World, World Politics 54, pp. 212-244.
H. Hale (2011) Formal Constitutions in Informal Politics: Institutions and Democratization
in Post-Soviet Eurasia, World Politics 63, 4 (2011).
J. Kopstein and J. Wittenberg (2010) Between Dictatorship and Democracy: Rethinking
National Minority Inclusion and Regime Type in Interwar Eastern Europe,
Comparative Political Studies 43:8/9, pp. 1089-1118.
R. Sakwa (2011) The Future of Russian Democracy, Government and Opposition 46:4,
pp.517-537.
Y. Chu (1998) Labor and Democratization in South Korea and Taiwan, Journal of
Contemporary Asia 28:2, pp.185-202.
T.J. Cheng and E.M. Kim (1994) Making Democracy: Generalizing from the South Korean
Experiences, in E. Friedman (ed), The Politics of Democratization (: Boulder, CA:
Westview Press).
S. Rigger (2004) Taiwans Best-Case Democratization, Orbis 48:2, pp.285-92
A. Varshney (1998) Why democracy survives, Journal of Democracy 9:3 pp36-56 [On
India]
10
J. Sidel (2008) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy Revisited: Colonial State and
Chinese Immigrant in the Making of Modern Southeast Asia, Comparative Politics
40:2, pp127-148.
A. Acharya (1999) Southeast Asias Democratic Moment, Asian Survey 39:3 pp. 418-432.
D. Slater (2009) Revolutions, Crackdowns, and Quiescence: Communal Elites and
Democratic Mobilization in Southeast Asia, American Journal of Sociology 115,
pp.203-254.
K. OBrien and R. Han (2009) Path to Democracy? Assessing Village Elections in China,
Journal of Contemporary China, 18:60, pp. 359-378.
J. Zhang (2007) Marketization, Class Structure and Democracy in China, Democratization
14:3, pp.425-45.
A. J. Nathan (2012) Confucius and the Ballot Box: Why Asian Values Do not Stymie
Democracy, Foreign Affairs 91.
R. Joseph (1997) Democratization in Africa since 1989: Comparative and Theoretical
Perspectives, Comparative Politics 29, pp. 363-382.
R. Sandbrook (1996) Transition without Consolidation: Democratization in Six African
Cases, Third World Quarterly 17:1, pp.69-88.
L. Villalon (2010) From Argument to Negotiation: Consulting Democracy in African
Muslim Contexts, Comparative Politics 42:4, pp.375-393.
D. Branch and N. Cheeseman (2008) Democratization, Sequencing, and State Failure in
Africa: Lessons from Kenya, African Affairs 108: 430, pp. 1-26.
D. Berg-Schlosser (2008) Determinants of Democratic Successes and Failures in Africa,
European Journal of Political Research 47, pp. 269-306.
G. Lynch and G. Crawford (2011) Democratization in Africa 1990-2010: An Assessment,
Democratization 18:2, pp.275-310
B.U. Nwosu (2012) Tracks of the Third Wave: Democracy Theory, Democratisation and the
Dilemma of Political Succession in Africa, Review of African Political Economy
39:131, pp.11-25
M. Bratton and N. Van De Walle (1997) Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime
Transitions in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
V. Nasr (2005) The Rise of Muslim Democracy, Journal of Democracy 16:2, pp. 13-27.
L. Berger (2011) The Missing Link? US Policy and the International Dimensions of Failed
Democratic Transitions in the Arab World, Political Studies 59:1, pp.38-55.
J. J. Linz and A. Stepan (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation
(Washington: Johns Hopkins University Press). [Includes case studies from several
regions]
D. Ziblatt (2006) How did Europe democratize? World Politics 58, pp. 311-338.
Possible further reading:
J. Grugel and M. L. Bishop (2014) Democratization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke:
Palgrave) 2nd Edition.
S. M. Lipset (1959) Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and
Political Legitimacy, American Political Science Review 53:1, pp.69-105.
D. Rustow (1970) Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model, Comparative
Politics 2:3, pp337-363.
M. Olson (1993) Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development, American Political Science
Review 87:3, pp567-576.
D. Brinks and M. Coppedge (2006) Diffusion is No Illusion: Neighbour Emulation in the
Third Wave of Democracy, Comparative Political Studies 39:4, pp. 463-489.
11
B. Geddes (1999) What Do We Know about Democratization after Twenty Years?, Annual
Review of Political Science 2:1, pp115-44.
C. Boix (2011) Democracy, Development and the International System, American Political
Science Review 105, pp. 809-828.
G. ODonnell and P. C. Schmitter (1986) Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative
Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies (Washington: Johns Hopkins University
Press).
T. Carothers (2002) The End of the Transition Paradigm, Journal of Democracy 13:1 pp. 521.
P. Burnell (2013) Promoting Democracy, Government and Opposition, 48:2, pp. 265-287.
L. Whitehead (2011) Enlivening the Concept of Democratization: The Biological Metaphor,
Perspectives on Politics 9:2, pp. 291-299.
2. Why are some authoritarian regimes more resilient than others?

Core readings:
J. Gandhi (2008) Political Institutions under Dictatorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press) [available as e-book] Chapter 1.
J. Gerschewski (2013) The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Cooptation in Autocratic Regimes, Democratization 20:1, pp. 13-38.
M. L. Ross, Does Oil Hinder Democracy?, World Politics 53, 3 (2001), pp. 325-361.
S. Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, Elections without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive
Authoritarianism, Journal of Democracy 13:2, pp. 51-65.
Possible examples and other useful studies:
L. Anderson (1991) Absolutism and the Resilience of Monarchy in the Middle East,
Political Science Quarterly 106:1, pp. 1-15.
E. Bellin (2004) The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in
Comparative Perspective, Comparative Politics 36:2, pp. 139-157.
E. Bellin (2012) Reconsidering the Robustness of Authoritarianism: Lessons of the Arab
Spring, Comparative Politics 44:2, pp. 127-149.
S. J. King (2007) Sustaining Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa,
Political Science Quarterly 122, pp. 433-460.
J. Brownlee (2011) Executive Elections in the Arab World: When and How Do They
Matter?, Comparative Political Studies 44:7, pp.807-828.
G. Tezcr (2012) Democracy Promotion, Authoritarian Resiliency, and Political Unrest in
Iran, Democratization 19:1, pp.120-140.
Y.-T. Chang, Y. Zhu and P. Chong-Min, Authoritarian Nostalgia in Asia, Journal of
Democracy 18:3, pp.66-80.
A. Nathan (2003) Authoritarian Resilience, Journal of Democracy 14:3, pp6-17.
M. Pei (2012) Is CCP Rule Fragile or Resilient?, Journal of Democracy 23:1, pp.27-41 [On
China]
R. MacKinnon (2012) Chinas Networked Authoritarianism, Journal of Democracy 22:2,
pp. 32-46.
J. Sidel (2008) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy Revisited: Colonial State and
Chinese Immigrant in the Making of Modern Southeast Asia, Comparative Politics
40:2, pp. 127-148.
12
D. Slater (2003) Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutions and the Personalization
of Power in Malaysia, Comparative Politics 36:1, pp81-101.
D. Slater (2012) Strong-State Democratization in Malaysia and Singapore, Journal of
S. Ortmann (2011) Singapore: Authoritarian, but Newly Competitive, Journal of
Democracy 22:4, pp.153-64
M. Mietzner (2012) Indonesias Democratic Stagnation: Anti-reformist Elites and Resilient
Civil Society, Democratization 19:2, pp.209-229
M. McFaul (2002) The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship: Noncooperative
Transitions in the Postcommunist World, World Politics 54, pp. 212-244.
L. Shevtsova (2004) The Limits of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, Journal of Democracy
15:3, pp.67-77
P. Roeder (1994) Varieties of post-Soviet Authoritarian Regimes, Post-Soviet Affairs 10,
pp. 61-101.
L. Way (2005) Authoritarian State Building and Regime Competitiveness in the Fourth
Wave, World Politics 57:2, pp365-381.
H. Hale (2005) Regime Cycles: Democracy, Autocracy, and Revolution in Post-Soviet
Eurasia, World Politics 58, pp. 133-165.
T. Ertman (1998) Democracy and Dictatorship in Interwar Europe Revisited, World Politics
50, pp. 475-505.
M. Bratton and N. Van de Walle (1994) Neopatrimonial Regimes and Political Transitions
in Africa, World Politics 46:4, pp.453-89.
K. L. Remmer, Neopatrimonialism: The Politics of Military Rule in Chile, 1973-1987,
Comparative Politics 21:2, pp.149-70
J. Corrales and M. Penfold (2007) Venezuela: Crowding out the Opposition, Journal of
S. Barracca, Military Coups in the Post-Cold War Era: Pakistan, Ecuador and Venezuela,
Third World Quarterly 28:1, pp137-54.
J. Brownlee (2007) Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press). [On Egypt, Iran, Malaysia & Philippines]
J. Gandhi (2008) Political Institutions under Dictatorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press) [available as e-book] Chapter 2 [On Kuwait, Morocco, Ecuador]
B. Smith (2005) Life of the Party: The Origins of Regime Breakdown and Persistence under
Single-Party Rule, World Politics 57, pp. 421-451.
T. Ambrosio (2010) Constructing a Framework for Authoritarian Diffusion: Concepts,
Dynamics, and Future Research, International Studies Perspectives 11, pp. 375-392.
B. Magaloni (2010) The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule,
American Journal of Political Science 54:3, pp.751-765
J. Gandhi and E. Lust-Okar (2009) Elections under Authoritarianism, Annual Review of
Political Science 12, pp. 403-422.
B. Magaloni (2008) Credible Power-Sharing and the Longevity of Authoritarian Rule,
Comparative Political Studies 20:10, pp.715-741.
B. Magaloni and R. Kricheli (2010) Political Order and One-Party Rule, Annual Review of
Political Science 13, pp.123-43
L. Gilbert and P. Mohseni (2011) Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of
Hybrid Regimes, Studies in Comparative International Development 46:3, pp.27097.
M. Boogaards (2009) How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral
Authoritarianism, Democratization 16:2, pp.399-423.
13
Further reading:
P. Brooker (2014) Non-Democratic Regimes (Basingstoke: Palgrave) 3rd ed.
B. Moore, Jr. (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press).
S. P. Huntington (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies (Yale: Yale University Press).
S. Levitsky and L. Way (2010) Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the Cold
War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
D. Slater (2010) Ordering power: contentious politics and authoritarian leviathans in
Southeast Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
N. Ezrow and E. Frantz (2011) Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian
Regimes and Their Leaders (London: Continuum).
3. How important is regime type (parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) for

the democratic performance of a country?
Core readings:
M. S. Shugart (2006) Comparative Executive-Legislative Relations, in Rhodes, Binder and
Rockman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), pp. 344-365. [available online]
A. Lijphart (1992) Introduction, in Lijphart (ed), Parliamentary versus Presidential
Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 1-27.
R. Elgie (2005) From Linz to Tsebelis: Three Waves of Presidential/Parliamentary
Studies?, Democratization 12:1, pp.106-122.
J. A. Cheibub and F. Limongi (2002) Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival:
Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered, Annual Review of
R. Elgie (2011) Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (Oxford:
Oxford University Press) Chapter 1.
Further material (empirical studies and examples):
A. Stepan and C. Skach (1993) Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation:
Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism, World Politics 46:1, pp. 1-22.
J. Gerring, S. C. Thacker and C. Moreno (2009) Are Parliamentary Systems Better?,
Comparative Political Studies 42:3, pp. 327-359.
F. W. Riggs (1997) Presidentialism versus Parliamentarism: Implications for
Representativeness and Legitimacy, International Political Science Review 18:3, pp.
253-278.
T. Hiroi and S. Omori (2009) Perils of Presidentialism? Political Systems and the Stability of
Democracy, Democratization 16:3, pp.485-507.
J. Cheibub (2002) Minority Governments, Deadlock Situations and the Survival of
Presidential Democracies, Comparative Political Studies 35, pp. 284-312.
A. Siaroff (2003) Comparative Presidencies: The Inadequacy of the Presidential, SemiPresidential and Parliamentary Distinction, European Journal of Political Research
42:3, pp. 287-312.
U. G. Theuerkauf (2013) Presidentialism and the risk of ethnic violence, Ethnopolitics 12:1,
pp.72-81 (and responses to this article in the same journal issue).
14
D. Stockemer (2014) Regime Type and Good Governance in Low and High Income States:
What is the Empirical Link?, Democratization 21:1, pp.118-136.
A. King (1976) Modes of Executive-Legislative Relations: Great Britain, France, and West
Germany, Legislative Studies Quarterly 1:1, pp11-34.
F. W. Riggs (1988) The Survival of Presidentialism in America: Para-Constitutional
Practices, International Political Science Review 9:4, pp. 247-278.
O. A. Neto (2006) The Presidential Calculus: Executive Policy-Making and Cabinet
Formation in the Americas, Comparative Political Studies 39:4, pp. 415-440.
S. Mainwaring (1990) Presidentialism in Latin America, Latin American Research Review
25:1, pp. 157-179.
K. Hochstetler and D. Samuels (20100) Crisis and Rapid Re-equilibration: The
Consequences of Presidential Challenge and Failure in Latin America, Comparative
Politics 43:2, pp. 127-145.
S. Mainwaring and M. Shugart (1977) (Eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin
America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). [Includes several case studies]
S. Morgenstern and B. Nacif (Eds.), Legislative Politics in Latin America (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press). [Has chapters on specific cases, and a useful concluding
chapter by Cox & Morgenstern]
G. M. Easter (1997) Preference for Presidentialism: Postcommunist Regime Change in
Russia and the NIS, World Politics 49:2, pp. 184-211.
O. Protsyk (2003)Troubled Semi-Presidentialism: Stability of the Constitutional System and
Cabinet in Ukraine, Europe-Asia Studies 55:7, pp. 1077-1095.
F. Fukuyama, B. Dressel and B. Chang (2005) Facing the Perils of Presidentialism?,
Journal of Democracy 16:2, pp. 102-116. [On Southeast Asia]
N. Van de Walle (2003) Presidentialism and Clientelism in Africas Emerging Party
System, Journal of Modern African Studies 41:2, pp. 297-321.
R. Elgie (1999) (Ed.) Semi-Presidentialism in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
[available as e-book]
R. Elgie, S. Moestrup and Y. Wu (2011) (Eds.), Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy
(Basingstoke: Palgrave). [Gives global overview of cases of semi-presidentialism].
P. Schleiter and E. Morgan-Jones (2010) Whos in Charge? Presidents, Assemblies and the
Political Control of Semi-Presidential Cabinets, Comparative Political Studies 43:11,
pp. 1415-1441.
P. Schleiter and E. Morgan-Jones (2009) Party Government in Europe? Parliamentary and
Semi-Presidential Democracies Compared, European Journal of Political Research
48:5, pp. 665-693.
Further reading:
J. J. Linz (1990) The Perils of Presidentialism, Journal of Democracy 1:1, pp. 51-69.
M. Shugart and J. Carey (1992) Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and
Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
G. Sartori (1997) Comparative Constitutional Engineering, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave)
Chapters 5 and 6.
A. Lijphart (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in ThirtySix Countries (Yale: Yale University Press) Chapter 7.
G. Tsebelis (1995) Decision-Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism,
Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism, British Journal of Political
Science 25:3, pp. 389-325.
15
R. Elgie (2011) Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (Oxford

University Press).
Theme 3: Modes of interest representation

This theme looks at the actors in the political process and the interests represented at various
stages of decision-making. It focuses on the key actors in politics: political parties, economic
interests, NGOs and civil-society actors. It also focuses on the different ways in which the
representation of interests can become institutionalized: via pluralist or corporatist modes of
interest representation. The theme is historically very broad, starting with the origins of
interest representation in the form of estates, professional guilds and other characteristic
features of early modern political life. It looks at the role of factions as precursors to modern
political parties, and the emergence of mass parties in the late 19th century. The theme also
concerns itself with European and non-European dynamics. This theme also considers
contemporary forms of representation, such as new populist parties, and inquiries into the
widespread scepticism many people feel concerning the ability of political actors to represent
individual citizens.
1. What role do political parties play in the working of representative government and
how well do they perform this role today?
Core Readings:
T. Ball (2003) (Ed.) Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay: The Federalist with
Letters of Brutus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Federalist 10 [On
factions] [available as ebook]
J. Blondel (1995) Comparative Government: An Introduction (London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf) Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12
R. Dalton, D. M. Farrell and I. McAllister (2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkages:
How Parties Organize Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Introduction
R. Katz and P. Mair (1995) Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy,
Party Politics, 1:1, pp. 5-28
R. Katz and W. Crotty (2006) Handbook of Party Politics (London: Sage) Chapter 4
J. Lapalombara and M. Wiener (1966) Political Parties and Political Development
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) Chapter 1
P. Mair (2014) Ruling the Void: The Hollowing Out of Western Democracy (London: Verso)
Chapters 1, 2 and 3
B. Manin (1997) The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press) Chapter 6 [available as ebook]
E. E. Schattschneider (1942) Party Government (New York: Rinehart) Chapter 1
A. de Tocqueville (2003) Democracy in America (London: Penguin) Chapter 12 [on political
associations] [available as ebook]
Further Readings:
16
T. Bale (2011) The Conservative Party: From Thatcher to Cameron (Cambridge: Polity)
R. Dalton and M. Wattenberg (2000) Parties Without Partisans: Political Parties in
Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [available as
ebook]
M. Flinders, A. Gamble, C. Hay and M. Kenny (Eds.) (2009) The Oxford Handbook of
British Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Chapters 16 and 24
R. Hofstadter (1969) The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the
United States (London: University of California Press)
R. Katz and P. Mair (1996) Cadre, Catch-all or Cartel? A Rejoinder, Party Politics, 2:4,
pp525-34
S. N. Kalyvas (1996) The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press)
R. Koole (1996) Cadre, Catch-All or Cartel? : A Comment on the Notion of the Cartel
Party, Party Politics, 2:4, pp507-523
P. Mair and I. van Biezen (2001) Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies:
1980-2000, Party Politics, 7:1, pp.5-21
P. Mair (1997) Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations (Oxford: Oxford
P. Webb (2005) Political Parties and Democracy: The Ambiguous Crisis, Democratization,
12:5, pp633-650
P. Webb, D. M. Farrell and I. Holliday (2002) Political Parties in Advanced Industrial
Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [available as ebook]
2. How politically significant are NGOs and civil society?

Core readings:
S. Lang (2012) NGOs, Civil Society, and the Public Sphere (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), Chapters 1-3. [available as e-book]
M. Foley and R. Edwards (1998) Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and Social Capital in
Comparative Perspective, American Behavioral Scientist 42:1, pp. 5-20.
R. W. Jackman and R. A. Miller (1998) Social Capital and Politics, Annual Review of
Further readings:
K. Martens (2002) Mission Impossible? Defining Non-Governmental Organizations,
Voluntas 13:3, pp. 271-285.
G. Baker (1999) The Taming of the Idea of Civil Society, Democratization 6:3, pp. 1-29.
L. Diamond (1994) Towards Democratic Consolidation, Journal of Democracy 5:3, pp.4-17
O. Encarnacion (2006) Civil Society Reconsidered, Comparative Politics 38:3, pp357-76
M. W. Foley and R. Edwards, The Paradox of Civil Society, Journal of Democracy 7:3, pp.
38-52.
C. Mercer (2002) NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization: A Critical Review of the
Literature, Progress in Development Studies 2:1, pp. 5-22.
M. Bernhard and E. Karakoc, Civil Society and the Legacies of Dictatorship, World
Politics, 59:4, pp. 539-67
M. Levi (1996) Social and Unsocial Capital, Politics and Society 24, pp. 45-56.
17
J. Staples, What Future for the NGO Sector? Dissent 25 (2008), pp. 15-18.
S. Tarrow (2011) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 3rd ed.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [or earlier ed.].
S. Lang (2012) NGOs, Civil Society, and the Public Sphere (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), Chapters 4-7. [available as e-book]
R. Putnam (Ed.) (2002), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in
Contemporary Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [available as e-book]. [Case
studies on Great Britain, US, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Australia, Japan]
P. Hall (1999) Social Capital in Britain, British Journal of Political Science 29, pp. 417461.
A. Appleton (2005) Associational Life in Contemporary France, in Alistair Cole et al
(Eds.), Development in French Politics 3 (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
R. Putnam (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press).
S. Berman (1997) Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic, World Politics
49, pp. 401-429.
H. P. Kitschelt (1986) Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear
Movements in Four Democracies, British Journal of Political Science, 16, pp. 57-85.
R. Putnam (1995) Bowling Alone: Americas Declining Social Capital, Journal of
P. McDonough, D. C. Shin and J. A. Moises (1998) Democratization and Participation:
Comparing Spain, Korea and Brazil, Journal of Politics 60:4, pp. 919-953.
M. M. Howard (2002), The Weakness of Postcommunist Civil Society, Journal of
M. M. Howard (2003) The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
C. Marsh (2000) Social Capital and Democracy in Russia, Communist and Post-Communist
Studies 33, pp. 183-199.
S. L. Henderson (2002) Selling Civil Society: Western Aid and the Nongovernmental
Organization Sector in Russia, Comparative Political Studies 35:2, pp.139-167.
P. Jones-Luong and E. Weinthal (1999) The NGO Paradox: Democratic Goals and NonDemocratic Outcomes in Kazakhstan, Europe-Asia Studies 51:7, pp. 1267-1284.
G. Guo (2007) Organizational Involvement and Political Participation in China,
Comparative Political Studies 40, pp. 457-482.
T. Hildebrandt (2013) Social Organizations and the Authoritarian State in China
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [available as e-book]
S. Sen (1999) Some Aspects of State-NGO Relationships in India in the Post-Independence
Era, Development and Change 30, pp. 327-355.
A. Varshney (2001) Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond, World Politics
53, pp. 362-398.
E. E. Hedman (2001) Contesting State and Civil Society: Southeast Asian Trajectories,
Modern Asian Studies 35:4, pp. 921-951.
Q. Ma (2006) Non-Governmental Organizations in Contemporary China: Paving the Way to
a Civil Society (London: Routledge).
E. Gyimak-Boadi (1996) Civil Society in Africa, Journal of Democracy 7:2, pp. 118-132.
A. Carl Levan (2011) Questioning Tocqueville in Africa: Continuity and Change in Civil
Society during Nigerias Democratization, Democratization 18:1, pp. 135-159.
M. Pinkney (2009) NGOs, Africa and the Global Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
18
J. Townsend, G. Porter and E. Mawdsley (2004) Creating Spaces of Resistance:

Development NGOs and Their Clients in Ghana, India and Mexico, Antipode 36:5,
pp. 871-899.
A. Brysk (2000), Democratizing Civil Society in Latin America, Journal of Democracy
11:3, pp. 151-165.
S. E. Alvarez (2009) Beyond NGO-ization? Reflections from Latin America, Development
52:2, pp. 175-184.
B. Cannon and M. Hume (2012) Central America, Civil Society and the Pink Tide:
Democratization or De-democratization, Democratization 19:6, pp.1-26.
M. Edwards (Ed.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society (Oxford: Oxford University
Press) [especially Part 3 and Chapter 30]. [Available online]
C Offe (1987) Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics: social movements since
the 1960s, in C. Maier (Ed) Changing Boundaries of the Political: Essays on the
evolving balance between state and society, public and private in Europe (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
James E. Curtis, Douglas E. Baer and Edward G. Grabb, Nations of Joiners: Explaining
Voluntary Association Membership in Democratic Societies, American Sociological
Review 66, 6 (2001), pp. 783-805.
Evan Schofer and Marion Fourcade-Gourinchas, The Structural Contexts of Civic
Engagement: Voluntary Association Membership in Comparative Perspective,
American Sociological Review 66 (2001), pp. 806-828.
The State of Civil Society, 2013: http://socs.civicus.org
John Hall (ed), Civil Society: Theory, History and Comparison (Polity Press, 1995).
Shelley Feldman, NGOs and Civil Society: Unstated Contradictions, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 554 (1997), pp. 46-65.
Wyn Grant, Pressure Groups and British Politics (Macmillan, 2000).
Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikking, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in
International Politics (Cornell University Press, 1998).
3.
How important are economic actors in shaping political decision-making?
Core readings:
Oscar Molina and Martin Rhodes, Corporatism: The Past, Present and Future of a Concept,
Annual Review of Political Science 5 (2002), pp. 305-331.
Richard Youngs, Democracy and the Multinationals, Democratization 11, 1 (2004), pp.
127-147.
Further readings:
William Maloney, Interest Groups and the Revitalization of Democracy, Representation 45,
3 (2009), pp. 277-288.
Christine Mahoney and Frank Baumgartner, Converging Perspectives on Interest-Group
Research in Europe and America, West European Politics 31 (2008), pp. 1253-1273.
Anne Binderkrantz, Interest Group Strategies: Navigating between Privileged Access and
Strategies of Pressure, Political Studies 53, 4 (2005), pp. 694-715. (Uses case of
Denmark)
19
C. Thomas and R. Hrebenar, Comparing Lobbying Across Liberal Democracies: Problems,

Approaches and Initial Findings, Journal of Comparative Politics 2 (2009), pp. 131142.
Kenneth M. Goldstein, Interest Groups, Lobbying, and Participation in America (Cambridge
University Press, 1999) [available as e-book].
Anne Rasmussen, Brendan J. Carroll and David Lowery, Representatives of the Public?
Public Opinion and Interest Group Activity, European Journal of Political Research
53, 2 (2014), pp. 250-268.
Emiliano Grossman, Bringing Politics Back in: Rethinking the Role of Economic Interest
Groups in European Integration, Journal of European Public Policy 11, 4 (2004), pp.
637-654.
Christine Mahoney, The Power of Institutions: State and Interest Group Activity in
European Union, European Union Politics 5, 4 (2004), pp. 441-466.
Cornelia Woll, Lobbying in the European Union: From sui generis to a comparative
perspective, Journal of European Public Policy 13, 3 (2006), pp. 456-497.
Philippe C. Schmitter, Still the Century of Corporatism?, Review of Politics 36, 1 (1974),
pp. 85-131.
Franz Traxler, The Metamorphoses of Corporatism: From Classical to Lean Patterns,
European Journal of Political Research 43 (2004): 571-598
Wolfgang Streeck and Philippe Schmitter, From National Corporatism to Transnational
Pluralism: organized interests in the Single European Market, Politics and Society
19, 2 (1991), pp. 133-152.
S. Avdagic and C. Crouch, Organized economic interests: diversity and change in an
enlarged Europe, in Paul M. Heywood et al, Developments in European Politics
(Palgrave, 2006).
D. Bohle and B. Greskovits, Neoliberalism, Embedded Neoliberalism and Neocorporatism:
Towards Transnational Capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe, West European
Politics 30, 3 (2007).
Gabriel A. Almond, Corporatism, Pluralism, and Professional Memory, World Politics 35,
2 (1983), pp. 245-260.
Peter J. Katzenstein, Small States in the World Economy: Industrial Policy in Europe
(Cornell University Press, 1985). (On corporatist systems in Western Europe)
Suzanne Berger (ed), Organized Interests in Western Europe: Pluralism, Corporatism, and
the Transformation of Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1981).
Charles E. Lindblom, Politics and Markets: The Worlds Political-Economic Systems (Basic
Books, 1977).
Further reading for theme 3:

Lipset and Rokkan (1990) Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments in P.
Mair (ed) The West European Party System (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Mount, The New Few, Parts 2 and 3
Papadopoulos, Democracy in Crisis? Chapters 1, 2, and 5
20
8. Modules
The second part of this course is organized in the form of modules. Each module combines a
country focus with a wider theme or themes of comparative politics which were covered in
different ways in the general lecture series. Most, but not all, modules involve a two-country
comparison.consists of a focused comparison of two countries that is regionally specific and
tied to a wider set of comparative political themes. Module A is on Egypt and Saudi Arabia,
covers themes such as stability and change in authoritarian regimes, and provides students
with an opportunity to explore their interest in Middle Eastern politics. Module B is on US
foreign policy, focusing on the role of domestic factors in shaping foreign policy, such as
interest groups, constitutional rules and the development of executive power. Module C is on
Russia and Poland, covers the theme of democratization and the role of historical legacies in
shaping institutional change, and is tailored towards students interested in Eastern European
politics. Module D is on the rise of European populist parties and their place within the wider
transformations of European party systems. Module E is on South Africa and Zimbabwe and
covers themes such as party formation and democratization. Module F is on Indonesia and
Malaysia and covers themes such as the role of ethnicity and religion in politics and their
relationship to the state.
21
A. The Middle East: Egypt and Saudi Arabia compared (Dr Glen Rangwala)
The course
Over the past sixty years, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have each been, in different ways and at
different times, the core state in the Middle East. Egypt has taken on, sometimes by consent
and sometimes to the chagrin of others, the role of political and cultural leadership in the
Arab world. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has been the dominant economic force in the region,
with its ability to utilise its oil wealth to ensure that all states in the region have to coordinate
closely with it. Both states in their own ways exemplify the politics of the Middle East today.
They also have been remarkably different as polities and societies. Egypt has long presented
itself as the face of modernisation, with political systems harking at different times to
socialism, nationalism, liberalisation, and democratisation. Saudi Arabia meanwhile has been
a highly conservative society, with many areas of public and political life dominated by a
sprawling ruling family that has been deeply resistant to what it portrays as the ideological
fads that have swept the rest of the world.
The lecture series will compare two countries that between them have shared a region, and
which are near-neighbours, but which remain palpably distinct in their political institutions
and political culture. Students can expect to come away from this course with a good grasp of
the modern history of these two countries, and to understand their political systems, which in
Egypts case have been in rapid change since 2011.
They should also be able to draw comparisons. What explains the long experience of
authoritarianism that has dominated both countries modern histories, and it is the same type
of authoritarianism? Does religion play a similar role in garnering political legitimacy? To
what extent do they face the same economic and social challenges? What explains the
different paths that the two countries followed in 2011, with the type of popular movement
that developed rapidly in Egypt to overthrow Hosni Mubaraks government seemingly absent
in Saudi Arabia?
In the reading lists below, [C] means that the item is available on CamTools, [e] indicates that
it is available through the library portal as an ebook, and [OL] means that it is available in an
on-line journal or directly via the provided link. Please do notify the lecturer if you notice
that links are down or have changed.
Essay questions
Why has authoritarianism persisted for so long in Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
What explains the significance that religion has had in the politics of Egypt and Saudi
Arabia?
Lectures and reading lists
Lecture 1: The idea of the Arab world
It is very much worthwhile to start this course by developing a general sense of the historical
evolution and politics of the Middle East. Owen is probably the best way in for a newcomer
to the region, developing both a historical account and themes for analysis. In addition to this
text, a general historical sense of the two core countries that are being examined in this option
22
Egypt and Saudi Arabia is crucial. On Saudi Arabia, Al-Rasheeds account is ideal for
this purpose. Niblock is an alternative, but is less detailed. Kostiner traces Saudi history in
terms of relations between tribes and a centralising state apparatus. Oddly enough, there is no
comparable high-quality history of modern Egypt; many general histories of the Middle East
as a whole give a considerable degree of centrality to the place of Egypt in that history, and it
is perhaps best to approach Egypt through relevant sections of Gelvin (chapters 5, 9-10, 12
and 15) and (maybe preferably) Cleveland & Bunton (the relevant sections of chapters 4-6,
11, 15-16 and 18), before moving on to literature from the second lecture about Egypt.
* Roger Owen, State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East (London:
Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004) [e]
William Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (Westview
Press, 4th edition, 2009) earlier editions, with Cleveland as the sole author, are also fine
Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (London: Faber & Faber, 1991)
James Gelvin, The Modern Middle East: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
* Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2nd edition, 2010) [e]
Tim Niblock, Saudi Arabia: Power, Legitimacy and Survival (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006)
Joseph Kostiner, Transforming dualities: tribe and state formation in Saudi Arabia, in Philip
Khoury and Joseph Kostiner, eds, Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East (Berkeley
CA: University of California Press, 1990) [C]
Lecture 2: The authoritarian mode

Middle East scholarship has developed a range of ways of explaining the persistence of
authoritarianism in the region; many of these modes of analysis will need revision in light of
the events of 2011. It is important though to understand the general argument about the
region and the specific arguments about Egypt and Saudi Arabia; Schlumberger provides the
best starting point, with chapter 2 (Heydemann) setting out general arguments, chapters 4
(Albrecht), 8 (Pioppi) and 11 (Richter) on Egypt, and chapter 15 (Aarts) a provocative short
coda on Saudi Arabia. The Posusney/Angrist is similar: chapters 1 (Posusney) and 2 (Bellin)
are useful ways in to the topic, chapter 9 (Langohr) is particularly good on Egypt, and chapter
8 (Herb) briefly on Saudi Arabia.
On Saudi Arabia, the most useful texts here are two contrasting articles: the first by
Glosmeyer, the second by Al-Rasheed & Al-Rasheed (and/or see the first chapter of the
authors more recent Contesting the Saudi State, listed with lecture 6, for a more recent
account of the ideology of defensive conservatism); also see the texts with lecture 3. On
Egypt, Kassem is fairly introductory but newcomers to the topic should find it useful to read
this short book as a whole. Perhaps most useful are two perhaps contrasting texts: Stacher,
which is a comparison with Syria, but is focused enough on Egypt, especially in chapter 3 on
elite cooption; and Cook especially chapter 4 which explores the role of the military
specifically. Springborg is good, but dated.
23
* Oliver Schlumberger, ed., Debating Arab Authoritarianism: Dynamics and Durability in

Nondemocratic Regimes (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007) [chapter 4 on C].
Marsha Pripstein Posusney and Michele Penner Angrist, eds., Authoritarianism in the Middle
East: Regimes and Resistance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005).
Maye Kassem, Egyptian Politics: The Dynamics of Authoritarian Rule (Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner, 2004)
* Madawi Al-Rasheed and Loulouwa Al-Rasheed, The politics of encapsulation: Saudi
policy towards tribal and religious opposition, Middle Eastern Studies, 32 (1), 1996, 96120.
[OL]
Iris Glosemeyer, Checks, balances and transformation in the Saudi political system, in Paul
Aarts and Gerd Nonneman, eds., Saudi Arabia in the Balance (London: Hurst & Co., 2005),
pp.214-233 [C]
* Joshua Stacher, Adaptable Autocrats: Regime Power in Egypt and Syria (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2012) [Chapter 3 on C]
Steven Cook, Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt,
Algeria, and Turkey (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2007) [Chapter 4 on C]
Robert Springborg, Mubaraks Egypt: Fragmentation of the Political Order (Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner, 1989).
Lecture 3: Development and disjuncture

Discussions of the politics of Saudi Arabia revolve around its rentier character: Okrulik and
Chaudhry are both comparative accounts that include Saudi Arabia, and are generally within
the rentier paradigm. Hertog provides a well-researched critique: chapters 1 and 8 are
particularly worth reading. See also Foley, for lecture 6.
Analysis of Egypt tends to take a quite different focus of analysis: it is centrally concerned
with the programmes of economic reform or liberalisation continually announced by
Egyptian governments, their economic and political effects, and the reasons for their repeated
stalling. Although making an advanced argument, Kienle is perhaps the best one to read first:
the final chapter, copied to CamTools, brings together the overall evaluation, but the earlier
material in the book provides the necessary substance. Sullivan and Zaki may prompt a useful
comparison. Posusney is a bit dated, but its focus on how economic liberalisation changed
relations between the state and labour unions is still relevant. Roy and Shehata are partly
technical in nature, but both contain provocative political arguments.
* Gwenn Okruhlik, Rentier wealth, unruly law, and the rise of opposition: the political
economy of oil states, Comparative Politics, 31(3), 1999, 295315. [OL]
Kiren Aziz Chaudhry, Economic liberalization and the lineages of the rentier state,
Comparative Politics, 27(1), 1994, pp.125. [OL]
24
* Steffen Hertog, Princes, Brokers, and Bureaucrats: Oil and State in Saudi Arabia (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2010)
* Eberhard Kienle, A Grand Delusion: Democracy and Economic Reform in Egypt (I.B.
Tauris Publishers, 2001) [e]
Marsha Posusney, Labor and the State in Egypt: Workers, Unions and Economic
Restructuring (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997) [chapter 5 on C]
Denis J. Sullivan, The political economy of reform in Egypt, International Journal of
Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 22 (1990), pp.317-334. [OL]
Mokhlis Y. Zaki, IMF-supported stabilization programs and their critics: evidence from the
recent experience of Egypt, World Development 29/ 11 (2001), pp.1867-1883 [OL]
Delwin A. Roy, 'Egyptian emigrant labour: domestic consequences', Middle Eastern Studies,
vol. 27/4 (1991), pp.551-82 [OL]
Samer Shehata, In the Bashas house: the organizational culture of Egyptian public-sector
enterprise, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 37/1 (2003), pp.10332. [OL]
Lecture 4: Religion and the state

In both countries, religion has had a significant role in shaping political discourse. The main
focus of much of the literature on Saudi Arabia is on the form of Islam adopted in that
country, which is usually referred to by outsiders and critics as Wahhabism. Piscatori, a
short schematic article, is old but still probably the best place to start. Steinberg gives a
historical account of the religious elite, but Al-Rasheeds History (lecture 1) is more
thorough. The chapter from Yamani (lecture 6) is on the younger generations views on the
role of Islam in public life. Delong-Bas provides a critical reassessment of the extent to which
what is now often referred to Wahhabism is really a product of the eighteenth-century
thought of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, arguing instead that it is a modern invention.
Literature on Egypt tends to look to the parties that were in opposition prior to 2011 that
made particular appeal to their Islamic credentials, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood:
here, El-Ghobashy is probably the best starting point, with Wickham and Bayat subsequently.
Al-Awadi is an updated text from 2004, but contains a new final chapter and postscript on
more recent developments. To appreciate diversity, one could also look at the centrist New
Islamist Trend (Baker). Wickhams text is best to read in full; the chapter copied to
CamTools is on the development of Islamist networks, but other chapters are also directly
useful, including the postscript, which takes the account up to the 2000s. Clark, on the
development of Islamic social welfare organisations, helps understand the increased appeal of
an Islamic identity, although it is only indirectly about the politics of that identity.
It is also important to look to the way in which governments of Egypt since the 1970s have
all made strong claims to religious authenticity, and also how much of the opposition within
Saudi Arabia has tried to outflank the monarchy through claims to being true upholders of the
countrys religious inheritance. On Egypt, see especially al-Awadi chapter 2 and Bayat. On
25
relations between the Egyptian government and the Coptic population, see especially
Iskander; the shorter pieces by Tadros and Sedra are particularly on the Copts during and
after the 2011 revolution. On Saudi Arabia, see Lacroix on the Sahwa movement; Jones is a
short, and less historically informed, alternative. On Shia political movements in Saudi
Arabia, see the relevant sections from chapter 4 of Louer on the uneasy compromises made
with the rulers; more critical accounts follow with the reading on lecture 5.
* James P. Piscatori, The roles of Islam in Saudi Arabias political development, in John L.
Esposito (ed.), Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change (Syracuse
University Press, 1980), pp. 12338. [C]
Guido Steinberg, The Wahhabi ulama and the Saudi state: 1745 to the present, in Paul Aarts
and Gerd Nonneman, eds., Saudi Arabia in the Balance (London: Hurst & Co., 2005), pp.1134.
Natana Delong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: from Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (London: I.B.
Tauris, 2007) [chapter 6 on C]
Stphane Lacroix, Awakening Islam: The Politics of Religious Dissent in Contemporary
Saudi Arabia (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011) [chapter 1 on C].
Toby Jones, Religious revivalism and its challenge to the Saudi regime, in Mohammed
Ayoob and Hasan Kosebalaban, eds, Religion and Politics in Saudi Arabia (Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner, 2009), pp.109-120.
* Carrie Wickham, Mobilizing Islam: Religion, Activism, and Political Change in Egypt
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2003) [chapter 7 on C]
* Asef Bayat, Making Islam Democratic: Social Movements and the Post-Islamist Turn
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007), chapter 5 [C].
* Hesham Al-Awadi, The Muslim Brothers in Pursuit of Legitimacy: Power and Political
Islam in Egypt under Mubarak (London: IB Tauris, 2014)
Janine Clark, Islam, Charity, and Activism: Middle-Class Networks and Social Welfare in
Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2004) [e]
Raymond Baker, Islam without Fear: Egypt and the New Islamists (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2003) [chapter 1 on C]
Sheri Berman, Islamism, revolution, and civil society, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 1/2
(June 2003), pp. 257-272 [OL]
Mona El-Ghobashy, The metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers, International
Journal of Middle East Studies 37(2005), pp.373-395 [OL].
Libby Iskander, Sectarian Conflict in Egypt: Coptic Media, Identity and Representation
(Abingdon: Routledge, 2012) [chapter 8 on C]
26
Mariz Tadros, Sectarianism and its discontents in post-Mubarak Egypt, Middle East Report
(2011), vol. 259 [OL], via:
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer259/sectarianism-its-discontents-post-mubarak-egypt
Paul Sedra, Reconstituting the Coptic community amidst revolution, Middle East Report
(2012), vol. 265 [OL], via:
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer265/reconstituting-coptic-community-amidst-revolution
Laurence Louer, Shiism and Politics in the Middle East (London: Hurst, 2012)
Lecture 5: Revolution, consolidation, counter-revolution

This lecture will look to the historical distinctiveness of the movements that, in Egypt, led to
the removal of the Mubarak regime in 2011, and the (re-)assertion of military-backed rule in
2013. It also looks to the comparability of these movements with the rebellions that Saudi
Arabia has experienced in its recent past. A good place to start is the Gerges collection, with
chapters 3, 7 and 11 useful on Egypt, and 16 on Saudi Arabia; out of these Chalcrafts
chapter 7 is perhaps the most distinctive. Bellin and Barani are also useful general accounts.
The final chapter in Cook and the article by Martini and Taylor are useful contrasting
perspectives on how significant the overthrow of Mubarak is for Egypts political system.
Stein is useful on the problems of consolidation. The next five pieces on the list are short but
quite different reviews of the potential effects (or the absence of them) of the Arab Spring
within Saudi Arabia. For both countries, it is important to keep track of contemporary
developments. A useful source is Middle East Report, and pieces from July and Winter 2013
and on Egypt are listed as examples.
It is also useful to compare and trace the consequences of past uprisings. Jones is good on
Saudi Arabia. On Egypt, see Abdelrahman on the Kifaya movement, and Bayat and Sadiki on
the earlier bread riots.
* Fawaz Gerges, ed., The New Middle East: Protest and Revolution in the Arab World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014)
Eva Bellin, Reconsidering the robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: lessons
from the Arab spring, Comparative Politics, vol. 44/2 (January 2012), pp. 127-149
Zoltan Barani, Comparing the Arab revolts: the role of the military, Journal of Democracy,
vol. 22/4 (October 2011), pp.28-39, via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4vi
Steven Cook, The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011) [e]
Jeff Martini and Julie Taylor, Commanding democracy in Egypt, Foreign Affairs, vol. 90/5
(Sept/Oct 2011), via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4ii
Ewan Stein, Revolution or coup? Egypt's fraught transition, Survival: Global Politics and
Strategy, vol. 54/4 (August 2012), pp. 45-66 [OL].
27
Mehran Kamrava, The Arab spring and the Saudi-led counterrevolution, Orbis, vol. 56/1
(2012), pp.96-104, via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4vii
Christopher Clary and Mara E. Karlin, Saudi Arabia's reform gamble, Survival, vol. 53/5
(Sept 2011), pp.15-20, via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4iii
* Madawi Al-Rasheed, Sectarianism as counter-revolution: Saudi responses to the Arab
Spring, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, vol. 11/3 (December 2011), pp. 513-526, via:
http://tinyurl.com/pol4iv
Toby Matthiesen, A Saudi Spring? The Shia protest movement in the Eastern Province
2011-12, Middle East Journal, vol. 66/4 (August 2012), pp. 629-659 [OL].
Stphane Lacroix, Is Saudi Arabia immune?, Journal of Democracy, vol. 22/4 (October
2011), pp.48-59, via: http://tinyurl.com/pol4v
Middle East Research & Information Project, Middle East Report Egypt in Year 3 (July
2013) and Editorial (Winter 2013), at:
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero071013
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer269/editors
Toby Jones, Rebellion on the Saudi periphery: modernity, marginalization and the Shia
uprising of 1979, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 38/2 (2006), pp.21333
[OL].
Maha Abdelrahman, With the Islamists? - sometimes. With the State? - never! cooperation
between the Left and Islamists in Egypt, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 36/1
(2009), pp.37-54 [OL].
Asef Bayat, Activism and social development in the Middle East, International Journal of
Middle East Studies, vol. 34 (2002), pp.1-28 [OL].
Larbi Sadiki, Popular uprisings and Arab democratization, International Journal of Middle
East Studies, vol. 32 (2000), pp.71-95 [OL].
Lecture 6: Change and stability

The lecture course finishes with a series of reflections on the extent to which we can
understand the future of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East as a whole from an
understanding of their past. It brings out a series of arguments about the new factors that
affect the politics of these countries, and evaluates critically the extent to which the politics of
the region can be seen to be entering a new era.
Joel Beinin, Political Islam and the new global economy: the political economy of an
Egyptian social movement, CR: The New Centennial Review, 5/1 (2005), pp.11139. [OL]
Madawi Al-Rasheed, Contesting the Saudi State: Islamic Voices from a New Generation
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) [e]
28
Sean Foley, The Arab Gulf States: Beyond Oil and Islam (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2010)
Mai Yamani, Changed Identities: The Challenge of the New Generation in Saudi Arabia
(London: RIIA, 2000) [chapter 6 on C].
Marc Lynch, Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, al-Jazeera, and Middle East Politics
Today (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006) [chapter 2 on C]
Maha Abdelrahman, The transnational and the local: Egyptian activists and transnational
protest networks, British Journal of Middle East Studies, 38/3 (2011), pp.407-24. [OL]
29
B. Domestic Sources of US Foreign Policy (Dr. Aaron Rapport)

Introduction
By most measures the United States is the most powerful country in the world. The U.S. is
centrally involved with almost every important international political issue, ranging from the
international security arena to transnational issues such as climate change, economic
globalization, and human rights regimes. For these reasons, the factors which shape U.S.
foreign policy are of concern to people around the globe. This case study is designed to
develop participants understanding of the domestic factors that contribute to foreign policymaking in the United States. The lectures within the module will familiarize students with
important literature and debates on the intellectual foundations of U.S. foreign policy; explore
power-sharing among American political institutions and their involvement in the realm of
foreign affairs; review the impact of public opinion on political elites and vice-a-versa; and
review how organized interests in US society inform and constrain foreign policy choices.
General background reading for the whole case study

David C. Hendrickson, Union, Nation, or Empire: The American Debate over International
Relations, 1789-1941 (Lawrence, Kans.: University of Kansas Press, 2009)
Walter McDougal, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World
since 1776 (New York: Mariner, 1998)
Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the
World (New York: Knopf, 2001)
Lecture 1: Anti-statism and the US security state

The United States was founded in part on a suspicion of centralized power, yet has developed
the most massive national security apparatus the world has ever known. Can these elements
of US political history and government be reconciled?
Readings:
Daniel H. Deudney, The Philadelphian System: Sovereignty, Arms Control, and Balance of
Power in the American States-Union, circa 17871861, International Organization 49:2
(1995), pp. 191-228.
Aaron L. Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State: Americas Anti-Statism and Its
Cold War Strategy (Princeton University Press, 2000), chaps. 1-3.
Harold Koh, The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power after the Iran-Contra Affair
(Yale University Press, 1990), chap. 3.
Amy Zegart, Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC (Stanford
University Press, 1999), chaps. 1, 6-7.
30
Recommended readings:
Washingtons Farewell Address, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Colin Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy
(Princeton University Press, 2006), introduction, chaps. 1-2, conclusion.
Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
(Metropolitan Books, 2004), chaps. 1-3.
Walter LeFeber, The American Age: U.S. Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad 1750 to the
Present, second edition (W.W. Norton, 1989), chaps. 7-9.
Douglas T. Stuart, Creating the National Security State (Princeton University Press, 2008)
Johnathan Monten, The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, and Democracy
Promotion in U.S. Strategy, International Security, 29:4 (2005), pp. 112-56.
Eugene Gholz and Harvey M. Sapolsky, Restructuring the U.S. Defense Industry,
International Security 24:3 (1999), pp. 5-51.
Alex Mintz, The Military-Industrial Complex: American Concepts and Israeli Realities,
Journal of Conflict Resolution 29:4 (1985), pp. 623-639.
Lecture 2: Presidential dominance and the institutional pendulum

The American president is commonly presumed to be the dominant actor crafting US foreign
policy. However, the balance of foreign policy powers between US political institutions
might also be conceived as a pendulum, shifting back and forth between the president and
Congress depending on political context.
Readings:
James M. Lindsay, The Shifting Pendulum of Power: Executive-Legislative Relations on
American Foreign Policy; and Michael Nelson, Person and the Office: Presidents, the
Presidency, and Foreign Policy, both in James M. McCormick, ed., The Domestic Sources of
American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012). [Available
as an EBook through University Library].
Gordon Silverstein, Imbalance of Powers: Constitutional Interpretation and the Making of
Foreign Policy (Oxford University Press, 1996), introduction, Part III.
William G. Howell and Jon C. Pevehouse, Presidents, Congress, and the Use of Force,
International Organization 59:1 (2005), pp. 209-232.
Louis Fisher, Presidential War Power (University Press of Kansas, 1995), or 2nd/3rd editions.
31
Douglas A. Kriner, After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents and the Politics of Waging Wars
(University of Chicago Press, 2010), chaps. 1-2, 4.
Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents (The Free Press, 1990),
chaps. 1-5.
Scott Silverstone, Divided Union: The Politics of War in the Early American Public (Cornell
University Press, 2004), chap. 2.
Peter Trubowitz, Politics and Strategy: Partisan Ambition and American Statecraft
(Princeton University Press, 2011), chaps. 1-2.
Fareed Zakaria, From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of Americas World Role
(Princeton University Press, 1998), chaps. 1, 3-4.
Lecture 3: Public opinion and government responsiveness

The US public does not possess a wealth of information about foreign policy or politics
generally. Under what conditions might the government be most likely to reflect public
preferences in its foreign policy choices?
Readings:
Ole R. Holsti, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann
Consensus, International Studies Quarterly, 36:4 (1992), pp. 439466.
John H. Aldrich, John L. Sullivan, and Eugene Borgida, Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting:
Do Presidential Candidates Waltz before a Blind Audience? American Political Science
Review 83:1 (1989), pp. 123-141.
Benjamin I. Page and Jason Barabas, Foreign Policy Gaps between Citizens and Leaders,
International Studies Quarterly 44:3 (2000), pp. 339-364.
Bruce W. Jentleson, The Pretty Prudent Public: Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use
of Military Force, International Studies Quarterly, 36:1 (1992), pp. 4974.
Adam J. Berinsky, Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites, and American Public Support
for Military Conflict, Journal of Politics 69:4 (2007), pp. 975-997.
Ole R. Holsti, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy, Revised Edition (University of
Michigan Press, 2004).
Douglas C. Foyle, Counting the Public In: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy
(Columbia University Press, 1999)
Richard Sobel, The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy since Vietnam:
Constraining the Colossus (Oxford University Press, 2001), esp. chs. 1-2.
32
John H. Aldrich et al., Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection, Annual Review of
Political Science, Vol. 9 (2006), pp. 477-502.
Matthew A. Baum, Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the
Inattentive Public, American Political Science Review 96:1 (2002), pp. 91109.
Chaim Kaufman, Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of
the Iraq War, International Security 29:1 (2004), pp. 4-48.
Lecture 4: Sectoral politics and interest groups

Regional, economic, and ethnic diversity leads to a variety of different organized groups in
civil society pushing and pulling US foreign policy in numerous directions.
Readings:
Jeff Frieden, Sectoral Conflict and Foreign Economic Policy, 1914-1940, International
Organization 42:1 (1988), pp. 59-90.
Peter Trubowitz, Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign
Policy (Chicago University Press, 1998), chaps. 1, 4.
John Newhouse, Diplomacy, Inc.: The Influence of Lobbies on US Foreign Policy, Foreign
Affairs, May/June 2009, pp. 73-92.
Robert C. Lieberman, The Israel Lobby and American Politics, and John J. Mearsheimer
and Stephen M. Walt, The Blind Man and the Elephant in the Room: Robert Lieberman and
the Israel Lobby, both in Perspectives on Politics 7:2 (2009), pp. 235-269.
Ken Kollman, Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies (Princeton
University Press, 1998)includes chapter on US trade policy.
Clyde Prestowitz, The Betrayal of American Prosperity (Free Press, 2010), chaps. 2-4, 6-7.
Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents (W.W. Norton, 2002), chap. 3.
Tony Smith, Foreign Attachments: Ethnic Groups and The Making of American Foreign
Policy (Harvard University Press, 2000), chaps. 2-3
Michael Bailey, Judith Goldstein, and Barry R. Weingast, The Institutional Roots of
American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade, World Politics 49:3
(1997), pp. 309-338.
Benjamin O. Fordham and Timothy J. McKeown, Selection and Influence: Interest Groups
and Congressional Voting on Trade Policy, International Organization 57: 3 (2003), pp.
519549.
33
Patrick J. Haney and Walt Vanderbush, The Role of Ethnic Interest Groups in US Foreign
Policy: The Case of the Cuban American National Foundation, International Studies
Quarterly 43:2 (1999), pp. 341-361.
Lawrence Jacobs and Benjamin Page, Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy? American
Political Science Review 99:1 (2005), pp. 107-123
Kevin Narizny, Both Guns and Butter, or Neither: Class Interests in the Political Economy
of Rearmament, American Political Science Review 97:2 (2003), pp. 203-220
Supervision essay questions:

Is it more apt to describe US foreign policy-making in terms of presidential dominance or
divided institutions sharing powers?
Does the mass public need to be informed about foreign policy to influence US foreign
relations?
Did the security institutions created in the immediate aftermath of WWII represent a
continuation or sharp disjuncture from previous US foreign policy traditions?
34
C. Russia and Poland Compared (Dr Harald Wydra)

Introduction
This course introduces students into central selected themes of Russian and Polish politics. It
uses historical, political, and sociological methods in order to understand the making,
functioning, and problems of structures of power, ideology, and culture. This course will
point to numerous family resemblances related to similar patterns of social development and
state tradition but also highlight fundamental differences mainly related to formations of
state, religious orientations, commitments to democracy, or modes of extrication from
communism. The lectures start by a conceptual introduction that is attuned to historicalcultural particularities before addressing selected case studies and, eventually, discussing
comparative elements.
Essential reading:
Brown, Archie (2001) Contemporary Russian Politics. A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Davies, Norman. God's Playground: A History of Poland (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1982).
Sakwa, Richard (2008) Russian Politics and Society. 4th edition. London: Routledge.
Schoepflin, George (1993) Politics in Eastern Europe 1945-1992. Oxford: Blackwell.
Urban, Michael (2010) Cultures of Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wydra, Harald (2007) Communism and the Emergence of Democracy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lecture 1: State traditions and state formation

Kharkhordin, Oleg (2005) Main Concepts in Russian Politics, chapter 1
Koyama, Satoshi. 2008. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a Political Space: Its Unity
and Complexity. Acta Slavica Iaponica 15:137-152. (on camtools)
Sakwa, Richard (2007) Russian Politics and Society, part III.
Schoepflin, George (1993) Politics in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Szuecs, Jeno, Three Historical Regions of Europe, in John Keane (ed.) Civil Society and the
State. London: Verso, 291-332.
Lecture 2: Nationalism and Nation-Building

Beissinger, Mark (2002) Nationalism and Nationalist Mobilisation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, chapter 8.
Brock, Peter (1994) Polish Nationalism, in Peter Sugar and Ivo Lederer (eds) Nationalism
in Eastern Europe. Third printing. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 31072.
Brown, Archie (2002) Contemporary Russian Politics. A Reader , Section 8 Russian
Statehood and the National Question, 343-66.
Brubaker, Rogers (1996) Nationalism Reframed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
chapters 2 and 4.
35
Richard Sakwa (2007) Russian Politics and Society, part III.

Tolz, Vera Forging the Nation: National Identity and Nation Building in Post-Communist
Russia, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.50, No.6, 993-1022 (camtools)
Zubrzycki, Genevieve (2006) The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post Communist Poland. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lecture 3: Leadership and Ideological Traditions

Casanova, Jos (1994) Poland: From Church of the Nation to Civil Society in Public
Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 92-113.
Curry, Jane, Poland: The Politics of Gods Playground, in Wolchik, Sharon L. and Curry,
Jane (2008) (eds) Central and East European Politics: From Communism to Democracy.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield), 165-89.
Jasiewiczy, Krzysztof (1997) Walesas Legacy to the Presidency, in Taras, Ray (ed.)
Postcommunist Presidents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130-167.
Sakwa, Richard (2007) Putin. Russias Choice. London and New York: Routledge.
Wydra, Harald (2001) Continuities in Polands Permanent Transition, chapters 2-4.
Brown, Archie (1996) The Gorbachev Factor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lecture 4: Communism: Revolution and Resistance

Ash, Timothy G. (1991) The Polish Revolution: Solidarity. London: Granta Books.
Bunce, Valerie (1999) Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism
and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kotkin, Stephen (2001) Armageddon Averted. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kubik, Jan (1994) The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power. Rise of Solidarity
and the Fall of State Socialism in Poland. Penn State University Press.
Rothschild, Joseph (1993) Return to Diversity. A Political History of East Central Europe
Since World War II. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Service, Robert (2007) Comrades. A History of Communism. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Wydra, Harald (2008) Revolution and Democracy: The European Experience, in Foran,
John/ Lane, David/Zivkovic, Andreja, Revolution in the Making of the Modern World.
London and New York: Routledge, 27-44.
Wydra, Harald, Communism and the Emergence of Democracy, chapters 3 and 5.
Lecture 5: Post-Communism: The Rebirth of Politics and its Challenges

Holmes, Leslie (1997) Postcommunism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Zarycki, Tomasz, Politics in the Periphery: Political Cleavages in Poland Interpreted in Their
Historical and International Context, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 5 (Jul., 2000), pp.
851-873 (camtools).
Sanford, George (2002) Democratic Government in Poland: Constitutional Politics Since
1989. London: Palgrave Macmillan, chaps 1, 3, 4.
Michta, Andrew (1997) Democratic Consolidation in Poland after 1989, in Dawisha, Karen
and Parrot, Bruce (eds) The Consolidation of Democracy in East-Central Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66-108.
36
Urban, Michael et al. (1997) The Rebirth of Politics in Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, chapter 1.
Jerzy Szacki (1995) Liberalism after Communism. Budapest: Central European University
Press.
Weigle, Marcia (2000) Russias Liberal Project. State-Society Relations in the Transition
from Communism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 382-459.
Wydra, Harald (2007) Communism and the Emergence of Democracy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, chapter 8-9.
Lecture 6: Authoritarian Legacies and Paths to Democracy

Dryzek, John and Holmes, Leslie (2002) Post-Communist Democratisation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1, 6, 14, 16.
Fish, Steven (2003) Conclusion: Democracy and Russian Politics, Barany and Moser (eds)
Russian Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215-51.
Kubik, Jan (2003) Cultural Legacies of State Socialism: History Making and CulturalPolitical Entrepreneurship in Postcommunist Poland and Russia, in Ekiert, G. and Hanson, S.
(2003) Capitalism and democracy in Central and eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press,
Michael Bernhard, Civil Society and Democratic Transition in East Central Europe,
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 108, No. 2. (Summer, 1993), pp. 307-326.
Richard Sakwa (2007) Russian Politics and Society, part VI.
Sakwa, Richard (2004) Putin. Russias Choice. London and New York: Routledge.
Wydra, Harald (2008), Democratisation as Meaning-Formation Insights fom the
Communist Experience, International Political Anthropology Vol. 1, No. 1, 113-32. (on
camtools)
First Supervision essay:

Is there an Eastern European model of nationalism?
Readings:
Brubaker, Rogers (1996) Nationalism Reframed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
23-54.
Casanova, Jos (1994) Poland: From Church of the Nation to Civil Society in Public
Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 92-113.Davies,
Norman (2005) God's Playground: A History of Poland, Vol. 2 (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1982), 3-59 and 367-98.
Hosking, Geoffrey (1997) Russia. People and Empire. London: Fontana, Introduction and 341.
Sakwa, Richard (2008) Russian Politics and Society. 3rd edition. London: Routledge, 201223 and 254-75.
Schoepflin, George (1993) Politics in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 5-37.
Sugar, Peter and Ivo Lederer (eds) Nationalism in Eastern Europe. Seattle and London:
University of Washington Press, 3-54.
37
Tolz, Vera Forging the Nation: National Identity and Nation Building in Post-Communist
Russia, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.50, No.6, 993-1022 (camtools)
Zubrzycki, Genevieve (2006) The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post Communist Poland. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 34-97.
Second Supervision Essay:
How did communist legacies influence democratisation processes in Eastern Europe?
Readings:
Dryzek, John and Holmes, Leslie (2002) Post-Communist Democratisation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1, 6, 14, 16.
Fish, Steven (2003) Conclusion: Democracy and Russian Politics, Barany and Moser (eds)
Russian Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215-51.
Kubik, Jan (2003) Cultural Legacies of State Socialism: History Making and CulturalPolitical Entrepreneurship in Postcommunist Poland and Russia, in Ekiert, G. and Hanson, S.
(2003) Capitalism and democracy in Central and eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 317-51.
Kotkin, Stephen (2002) Armageddon Averted. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 58-112.
Michta, Andrew (1997) Democratic Consolidation in Poland after 1989, in Dawisha, Karen
and Parrot, Bruce (eds) The Consolidation of Democracy in East-Central Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66-108.
Sakwa, Richard (2007) Russian Politics and Society, 424-75.
Urban, Michael (1997) The Rebirth of Politics in Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, chapter 1.
Wydra, Harald (2008) The Power of Second Reality : Communist Myths and
Representations of Democracy, in Woell, Alexander and Wydra, Harald (eds) Democracy
and Myth in Russia and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge, 60-76.
Wydra, Harald (2008), Democratisation as Meaning-Formation Insights fom the
Communist Experience, International Political Anthropology Vol. 1, No. 1, 113-32. (on
camtools)
Further supervision essay questions:
Do transition processes weaken or strengthen state power?
How has nationalism shaped state traditions in Eastern Europe?
Was authoritarian rule in Eastern Europe dependent on national particularities?
Can legacies of the past explain the evolution of post-communist democracies?
38
D. Western Europe: Populism and the crisis of political parties (Dr Pieter Van
Houten)
Introduction
Political parties are at the heart of politics in Western Europe. Their role as key political
actors has a long history, but has been particularly prominent since the end of World War II.
Although there is some interesting variation in their specific roles across countries, political
parties have been the glue that connect the various aspects of politics and the political
system. They mobilize voters, presenting them with programs that highlight and synthesize
various issues based on over-arching political visions or ideologies, and structure the
functioning of parliaments and governments. The most important and powerful parties have
been social-democratic, conservative, Christian-democratic and liberal parties. (Not
surprisingly, the exact shape of the party system and the presence and strength of these party
families vary from country to country.)
Not all is well for these traditional (or mainstream) parties, however. Talk about a crisis of
these parties has been around for at least two decades, but has become particularly strong in
recent years. The vote shares of these parties in elections have gone down in most countries,
opinion surveys unambiguously show that public trust and confidence in political parties has
consistently decreased (although it is now difficult to see how these indicators could get any
lower than they already are), and partly fuelled by technological developments citizens
appear to increasingly turn to forms of political participation and engagement that do not
involve political parties.
A variety of new political parties have emerged. This started with the Green parties in the
1980s, but the most prominent new parties in recent years have been populist parties (mostly,
but not exclusively, of a right-wing nature). Example of prominent populist parties include
the Front National in France, the FP in Austria, Geert Wilders party in the Netherlands,
UKIP in Great Britain, and the Linke (Left Party) in Germany. The populist aspect of these
parties refers to their claim to be to be different from traditional, mainstream parties, and their
aversion to and rejection of existing political elites and politics as usual. These parties tap
into, and arguably further fuel, the popular distrust of political parties, and are the clearest
manifestation of the apparent crisis of political parties. On the other hand, however,
mainstream parties continue to be crucial actors in the politics of Western European states,
and have been trying to respond and adapt to the challenges posed by populist parties and the
public distrust of parties. Whether political parties can regain some of their legitimacy, or
how their political roles will evolve be if they cannot, are among the key questions for the
immediate future of Western European politics.
This module introduces students to the populist challenge to and alleged crisis of political
parties in Western Europe, and the responses of mainstream parties to this challenge. It will
draw on examples from a variety of Western European countries. It addresses an important
topic in comparative politics (following on from lectures 11 and 12 of the Michaelmas
module) and will demonstrate how a comparative approach can help us address questions
about this topic.
Background reading on recent European political history
39
Students doing this module are strongly encouraged to do some background reading on the
post-World War II political history of Western Europe. This will greatly help them
understand the central role of political parties, the context in which populist parties have
emerged and developed, and the challenges that these parties pose for mainstream parties. It
will make it easier to understand the empirical references and examples covered in the
readings for the supervisions. And, not unimportantly, this background reading should be
enjoyable and relatively light (compared to the supervision reading in most papers) for
anyone interested in European politics!
Recommended background readings (choosing one, or at most two, of these is fine):
Tony Judt, Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945 (London: Pimlico, 2005). [Brilliant
history of post-war Europe, but long and occasionally slightly dense.]
William I. Hitchcock, The Struggle for Europe: The Turbulent History of a Divided
Continent 1945-2002 (London: Profile, 2003). [Good and very readable overview of
the main events, developments and political actors.]
Ivan T. Berend, Europe since 1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
[Concise and readable account of the main developments in European politics since
1980.]
Derek W. Urwin, A Political History of Western Europe since 1945, 5th ed. (London:
Longman, 1997). [Solid and useful overview of political developments in Western
Europe until the 1990s.]
Students may also find it interesting although this is not essential for the module to follow
current developments in Western European politics. In addition to daily British newspapers,
good sources are The Economist (www.economist.com), and Financial Times (www.ft.com).
Lectures
There are four lectures for this module. It is strongly recommended that students attend these
lectures. They will introduce the main themes of the module and discuss some examples of
populist parties and how certain mainstream parties have reacted to them. This will serve as
guidance for the readings for the supervisions.
Lecture schedule:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The role of political parties in Western Europe

The populist challenge
The (attempted) responses of mainstream parties
Further examples and the future of political parties in Western Europe
Supervisions
There will be two supervisions for this module. The two supervision questions and reading
lists are indicated below. Students are expected to use examples in their essays, and it would
be good if these examples come from more than one country.
Students who have chosen to do this module will be contacted by the lecturer at the beginning
of Lent term with information about their supervisor and the supervision schedule.
40
Supervision 1
Essay question: Why are populist parties more successful in some Western European
countries than in others?
Basic readings
Paul Taggart, New Populist Parties in Western Europe, West European Politics 18, 1
(1995): 34-51.
Cas Mudde, The Populist Zeitgeist, Government and Opposition 39, 4 (2004): 542-563.
Paul Webb, Political Parties, Representation and Politics in Contemporary Europe, in Erik
Jones, Paul Heywood, Martin Rhodes and Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds), Developments in
European politics 2 (London: Palgrave, 2011).
Hanspeter Kriesi, The Populist Challenge, West European Politics 37, 4 (2014): 361-378.
Possible further reading and examples
Cas Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007).
Matthijs Rooduin and Teun Pauwels, Measuring Populism: Comparing Two Methods of
Content Analysis, West European Politics 34 (2011): 1272-1283.
Cas Mudde, Three Decades of Populist Radical Right Parties in Western Europe: So What?,
European Journal of Political Research 52, 1 (2013): 1-19.
Cas Mudde, Fighting the System? Populist Radical Right Parties and Party System Change,
Party Politics 20, 3 (2014): 217-226.
Nicole Bolleyer, Joost van Spanje and Alex Wilson, New Parties in Government: Party
Organisation and the Costs of Public Office, West European Politics 35 (2012): 971998.
Cas Mudde, Anti-System Politics, in Paul Heywood, Erik Jones, Martin Rhodes and Ulrich
Sedelmeier (eds), Developments in European Politics (London: Palgrave, 2006).
The Politics of Anti-Party Sentiment, special issue of European Journal of Political
Research 29, 3 (1996).
Piero Ignazi, Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003).
Tjitske Akkerman and Sarah L. de Lange, Radical Right Parties in Office: Incumbency
Records and the Cost of Governing, Government and Opposition 47 (2012): 574596.
Stijn van Kessel, A Matter of Supply and Demand: The Electoral Performance of Populist
Parties in Three European Countries, Government and Opposition 48 (2013): 175199.
Dan Hough and Michael Koss, Populism Personified or Reinvigorated Reformers: The
German Left Party in 2009 and Beyond, German Politics and Society 27, 2 (2009):
76-91.
Huib Pellikaan, Sarah L. de Lange and Tom van der Meer, Fortuyns Legacy: Party System
Change in the Netherlands, Comparative European Politics 5 (2007): 282-302.
Sarah L. De Lange and David Art, Fortuyn versus Wilders: An Agency-Based Approach to
Radical Right Party Building, West European Politics 34, 6 (2011): 1229-1249.
Simon Otjes and Tom Louwerse, Populists in Parliament: Comparing Left-Wing and RightWing Populism in the Netherlands, Political Studies (forthcoming; available online).
41
Philip Lynch, Richard Whitaker and Gemma Loomes, The UK Independence Party:
Understanding a Niche Partys Strategy, Candidates and Supporters, Parliamentary Affairs
(forthcoming; available online).
Paul Webb and Tim Bale, Why Do Tories Defect to UKIP? Conservative Party Members
and the Temptations of the Populist Radical Right, Political Studies (forthcoming;
available online).
Carlo Ruzza and Stefano Fella, Populism and the Italian Right, Acta Politica 46 (2011):
158-179.
Paul Ginsborg, Silvio Berlusconi: Television, Power and Patrimony (London: Verso, 2005).
The Five-Star Movement: A New Political Actor on the Web, in the Streets and on Stage,
special issue of Contemporary Italian Politics 6, 1 (2014).
Kurt Richard Luther, Of Goals and Own Goals: A Case Study of Right-Wing Populist Party
Strategy for and during Incumbency, Party Politics 17 (2011): 453-470 (on Austria).
[More readings recently published materials and more examples to be added later.]
Supervision 2
Essay question: How can mainstream political parties in Western Europe respond to populist
challenges?
Basic readings
Peter Mair, The Challenge to Party Government, West European Politics, 31 (2008): 211234.
Russell J. Dalton, David M. Farrell and Ian McAllister, Political Parties and Democratic
Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011),
Chapter 9.
Peter Mair, Ruling the Void: The Hollowing-Out of Western Democracy (London: Verso,
2013), Chapter 3.
Possible examples and further reading
Peter Mair, Ruling the Void: The Hollowing-Out of Western Democracy (London: Verso,
2013), rest of book.
Party Adaptation and Change and the Crisis of Democracy, special issue of Party Politics
20, 2 (2014).
Responsive and Responsible? The Role of Parties in Twenty-First Century Politics, special
issue of West European Politics 37, 2 (2014), esp. articles by Bardi et al, Rose,
Keman and Goetz.
Russell J. Dalton, David M. Farrell and Ian McAllister, Political Parties and Democratic
Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011),
rest of book.
Mark Blyth and Richard S. Katz, From Catch-All Politics to Cartelization: The Political
Economy of the Cartel Party, West European Politics 28 (2005): 33-60.
Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement, Perspectives on
Politics 7, 4 (2009): 753-766.
Ingrid van Biezen and Peter Mair, Political Parties, in Paul Heywood, Erik Jones, Martin
Rhodes and Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds), Developments in European Politics
(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006).
42
Dalton and Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced
Industrial Democracies (Oxford University Press, 2000) [available as e-book], esp.
Conclusion.
Ingrid van Biezen, Peter Mair and Thomas Poguntke, Going, Going, Gone: The Decline
of Party Membership in Contemporary Europe, European Journal of Political
Research 51 (2012): 24-56.
Paul F. Whiteley, Is the Party Over?: The Decline of Party Activism and Membership across
the Democratic World, Party Politics 17 (2011): 21-44.
Bonnie M. Meguid, Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy
in Niche Party Success, American Political Science Review 99 (2005): 347-359. [For
a more extensive version, see Bonnie M. Meguid, Party Competition between
Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008) (available as e-book).]
Tjitske Akkerman, Comparing Radical Right Parties in Government: Immigration and
Integration Policies in Nine Countries (1996-2010), West European Politics 35
(2012): 511-529.
Matthijs Rooduin, Sarah L. de Lange and Wouter van der Brug, A Populist Zeitgeist?
Programmatic Contagion by Populist Parties in Western Europe, Party Politics 20, 4
(2014): 563-575.
Paul Webb, David Farrell, and Ian Holliday (eds), Political Parties in Advanced Industrial
Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). (Has chapters on various
countries)
Klaus Detterbeck, Party Cartel and Cartel Parties in Germany, German Politics 17, 1
(2008): 27-40.
Thomas Poguntke, Towards a New Party System: The Vanishing Hold of Catch-All Parties
in Germany, Party Politics (forthcoming; available online).
Uwe Jun, Volksparteien under Pressure: Challenges and Adaptation, German Politics, 20, 1
(2011): 200-222.
Mapping the Transformation: The CDU in Flux, special issue of German Politics 22, 1-2
(2013).
Hilmar L. Mjelde, How and Why Parties Respond to Membership Decline: The Case of the
SPD and the CDU, German Politics 22, 3 (2013): 253-269.
Florence Haegel, Political Parties: The UMP and the Right, and Frederic Sawicki, Political
Parties: the Socialists and the Left, in Alistair Cole, Sophie Meunier and Vincent
Tiberj (eds), Developments in French Politics 5 (London: Palgrave, 2013).
Liam Byrne, Powered by Politics: Reforming Parties from the Inside, Parliamentary
Affairs, 58, 3 (2005): 611-620. (A Labour MPs views on how his party should reform
to meet various challenges.)
[More readings recently published materials and more examples to be added later.]
Further/background reading on political parties in Western Europe
Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
Peter Mair (ed), The West European Party System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).
43
E. South Africa and Zimbabwe (Dr Ian Cooper)

Introduction
South Africa and Zimbabwe are amongst the most prominent states in Africa. Before 1994,
regional superpower South Africa was regardedto use Nelson Mandelas phraseas the
skunk of the world; its hated system of apartheid (apartness in the Afrikaans language)
attracted global condemnation, sanctions, boycotts, and diplomatic isolation. This worldwide
movement was to some extent spearheaded by Zimbabwe, which emerged in 1980 from its
own struggle against racial oppression to become a leading player on the African political
stage.
Since 1994, however, these roles have to some extent been reversed. South Africa has
become a global symbol of reconciliation and forgiveness, a bastion of African democracy,
and a member (alongside Brazil, Russia, India and China) of the BRIC group of rising
powers. Zimbabwe by contrast has become a pariah, condemned throughout the Western
world for its stagflation, rigged elections, and violent seizure of white-owned land.
Zimbabwes response has been to project itself as the victim of, and a leading voice of global
opposition to, Western imperialism.
Despite their pretentions to regional leadership and their many political, economic and social
similarities, therefore, South Africa and Zimbabwe have moved in quite different directions
over the past twenty years. This module will provide students with an understanding of
political history, recent developments, and current controversies in these two neighbouring
states, alongside an opportunity to apply some of the comparative theories and concepts
developed elsewhere in the course.
A number of comparative questions and puzzles will be explored. How is state-building
undertaken in post-conflict environments? How do ruling elites respond to external pressure
for domestic political change? What lessons, if any, can South Africa draw from Zimbabwes
experience of democracy and dictatorship? And when does single-party dominance break
down?
Lecture 1: Racial segregation, armed conflict, and liberation

Perhaps surprisingly, given its geo-strategic importance during the Cold War period, there are
no heavyweight studies of regional politics in southern Africa. Nugents Africa since
independence contains a useful chapter on the liberation struggles in South Africa,
Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Mozambique, written in a concise and accessible way.
More detailed analysis must however be gleaned from the following works of national history
(an asterix indicates essential reading).
South Africa
*William Beinart, Twentieth century South Africa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Anthony Butler, Democracy and apartheid: political theory, comparative politics and the
modern South African state (London: Macmillan, 1998).
44
Anthony Butler, Contemporary South Africa (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)

[especially chapter 1].
Hermann Giliomee, The Afrikaners: biography of a people. 2nd edn. (London: Hurst, 2011).
*Dan o'Meara, Forty lost years: the apartheid state and the politics of the National Party,
1948- 1994 (Randburg: Ravan Press, 1996).
Martin J. Murray, Revolution deferred: the painful birth of post-apartheid South Africa
(London: Verso, 1994).
Allister Sparks, The mind of South Africa (London: Mandarin, 1991).
Leonard Thompson, A history of South Africa (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001).
Zimbabwe
*Richard Bourne, Catatrophe: what went wrong in Zimbabwe? (London: Zed Books, 2011).
*Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe and Legal Resources Foundation,
Breaking the silence, building true peace: a report on the disturbances in Matabeleland and
the Midlands, 1980 to 1988 (Harare: Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, 1997).
Peter Godwin and Ian Hancock, Rhodesians never die: the impact of war and political
change on White Rhodesia, c.19701980 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Pierre du Toit, Statebuilding and democracy in southern Africa: Botswana, Zimbabwe and
South Africa (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1995) [chapter 3].
Political Biographies
John Allen, Rabble rouser for peace: the authorised biography of Desmond Tutu (London:
Rider, 2006).
Stephen Chan, Robert Mugabe: life of power and violence (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002).
FW de Klerk, The last trek: a new beginning (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998).
*Nelson Mandela, Long walk to freedom (London: Abacus, 1995).
Elinor Sisulu, Walter and Albertina Sisulu: in our lifetime (London: Abacus, 2002).
Lecture 2: Ethnicity, national reconciliation, and the post-liberation state

At liberation, South Africa and Zimbabwe both confronted the challenge of building a
coherent, legitimate state from the ashes of racial oppression. Their strategies for tackling this
problem have however differed. In South Africa, President Mandela championed a policy of
national reconciliation, ethnic identities were downplayed, traditional chiefs marginalised,
and black economic empowerment programmes pursued with caution. In Zimbabwe, by
contrast, struggle-era atrocities were ignored, a substantial section of the Ndebele ethnic
45
minority was massacred, traditional chiefs were empowered, and radical programmes of land
redistribution inaugurated. This lecture consequently asks why South Africa and Zimbabwe
have differed in their approach to state-building.
South Africa
Kanya Adam, The politics of redress: South African style affirmative action, Journal of
Modern African Studies 35, 2 (1997): 231-249.
David Black and John Nauright, Rugby and the South African nation: sport, culture, politics
and power in the old and new South Africa (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998).
Okechukwu Iheduru, Black economic power and nation-building in post-apartheid South
Africa, Journal of Modern African Studies, 42, 1 (2004): 1-30.
Ineke van Kessel and Barbara Oomen, One chief, one vote: the revival of traditional
authorities in post- apartheid South Africa, African Affairs 96, 385 (1997): 561-586.
Nico Nattrass and Jeremy Seekings, Democratic institutions and development in postapartheid South Africa, in M. Robinson and G. White, eds., The democratic developmental
state: politics and institutional design (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Lungisile Ntsebeza, Democracy compromised: chiefs and the politics of the land in South
Africa (Netherlands: E J Brill, 2005).
*Louis Picard, The state of the state: institutional transformation, capacity and political
change in South Africa (Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 2005).
Jessica Piombo, Political parties, social demographics and the decline of ethnic mobilisation
in South Africa, 1994-1999, Party Politics 11, 4 (2005): 447-470.
Jessica Piombo, Institutions, ethnicity and political mobilization in South Africa (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).
Laurence Piper, Nationalism without a nation: the rise and fall of Zulu nationalism in South
Africas transition to democracy, 1975-99, Nations and Nationalism 8, 1 (2002): 73-94.
John Sharp, Ethnic group and nation: the apartheid vision in South Africa, in Emile
Boonzaier and John Sharp, eds., South African keywords : the uses and abuses of political
concepts (Cape Town: David Philip, 1988).
Zimbabwe
Jocelyn Alexander, The unsettled land: state-making and the politics of land in Zimbabwe,
1893-2003 (Oxford: James Currey, 2006).
T.K. Biaya, Managing ethnic conflicts in Zimbabwe, in Okwudiba Nnoli, ed., Ethnic
conflicts in Africa (Dakar: CODESRIA, 1998).
Sara Rich Dorman, Post-liberation politics in Africa: examining the political legacy of
struggle, Third World Quarterly, 27, 6 (2006): 1085-1101.
46
Shari Eppel, Gukurahundi: the need for truth and reparation, in Brian Raftopoulos and
Tyrone Savage, eds., Zimbabwe: injustice and political reconciliation (Cape Town: Institute
for Justice and Reconciliation, 2004).
Amanda Hammar and Brian Raftopoulos, Zimbabwes unfinished business: rethinking land,
state and nation, in Amanda Hammar, Brian Raftopoulos and Stig Jensen, eds., Zimbabwes
unfinished business: rethinking land, state and nation in the context of crisis (Harare: Weaver
Press, 2003).
Jeffrey Herbst, State politics in Zimbabwe (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).
Liisa Laakso, Regional voting and cabinet formation, in Staffan Darnolf and Liisa Laakso,
eds., Twenty years of independence in Zimbabawe: from liberation to authoritarianism
(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003).
Brian Raftopoulos and Daniel Compagnon, Indigenisation, the state bourgeoisie and neoauthoritarian politics, in Staffan Darnolf and Liisa Laakso, eds., Twenty years of
independence in Zimbabawe: from liberation to authoritarianism (Basingstoke: Palgrave,
2003).
Brian Raftopoulos, Unreconciled differences: limits of reconciliation politics in Zimbabwe,
in Brian Raftopoulos and Tyrone Savage, eds., Zimbabwe: injustice and political
reconciliation (Cape Town: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, 2004).
Lloyd Sachikonye, The nation-state project and conflict in Zimbabwe, in Adebayo O
Olukoshi and Liisa Laakso (eds) Challenges to the nation-state in Africa (Uppsala: Nordic
Africa Institute, 1996).
Scott Taylor, Race, class and neopatrimonialism in Zimbabwe, in Richard Joseph, ed.,
State, conflict, and democracy in Africa (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999).
Pierre du Toit, Statebuilding and democracy in southern Africa: Botswana, Zimbabwe and
South Africa (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1995) [chapter 4].
Lecture 3: Democracy and authoritarianism

Since 1994, South Africa has come to be regarded as a model African democracy, with
vibrant elections, freedom of speech, and a remarkably liberal constitution. Zimbabwe, by
contrast, has often been accused of sliding from democracy into electoral authoritarianism.
Such narratives raise a number of important questions. Has Zimbabwe ever been truly
democratic? Why does democracy seem to have taken root in South Africa and not in
Zimbabwe? And what are the prospects for democratic consolidation in both countries?
South Africa
William Beinart, Twentieth century South Africa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Anthony Butler, How democratic is the African National Congress? Journal of Southern
African Politics 31, 4 (2005): 719-736.
47
*Steven Friedman, An accidential advance? South Africas 2009 elections, in Larry

Diamond and Marc F. Plattner, eds., Democratization in Africa: progress and retreat
(Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2010).
William Gumede, Thabo Mbeki and the battle for the soul of the ANC (Cape Town: Zebra
Press, 2005).
Julie Hearn, Aiding democracy? Donors and civil society in South Africa, Third World
Quarterly 21, 5 (2000): 815-830.
Courtney Jung and Ian Schapiro, South Africa's negotiated transition: democracy,
opposition and the new constitutional order, Politics and Society 23, 5 (1995): 269-308.
Tracy Kuperus, Building democracy: an examination of religious associations in South
Africa and Zimbabwe, Journal of Modern African Studies, 37, 4 (1999): 643-668.
Tom Lodge, Politics in South Africa: from Mandela to Mbeki (Oxford: James Currey, 2003).
Tom Lodge, The ANC and the development of party politics in South Africa, Journal of
Modern African Studies 42, 2 (2004): 189-219.
Tom Lodge, The future of South Africas party system, Journal of Democracy 17, 3
(2006): 152-166.
Michael MacDonald, Why race matters in South Africa (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press. 2006).
Roger Southall, The state of democracy in South Africa, Journal of Commonwealth and
Comparative Politics 38, 3 (2000): 147-170.
Roger Southall, Zunami! The context of the 2009 election, in Zunami! The 2009 South
African elections, edited by Roger Southall and John Daniel (Sunnyside and Dunkeld: Jacana
Media and Konrad Adenauer Foundation, 2009).
Roger Southall and Morris Szeftel, Choosing the freedom to be free: the South African
elections of 1994, in John Daniel, Roger Southall and Morris Szeftel, eds., Voting for
democracy: watershed elections in contemporary anglophone Africa (Aldershot: Ashgate,
1999).
Zimbabwe
Peter Alexander, Zimbabwean workers, the MDC and the 2000 election, Review of African
Political Economy 27, 85 (2000): 385-406.
*Michael Bratton and Elderd Masunungure, Zimbabwes long agony, Journal of
Democracy, 19, 4 (2008): 41-55.
International Crisis Group, Blood and soil: land, politics and conflict prevention in Zimbabwe
and South Africa (Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2004).
*Norma Kriger, ZANU(PF) strategies in general elections, 1980-2000: discourse and
coercion, African Affairs 104, 414 (2005): 1-34.
48
Liisa Laakso, When elections are just a formality: rural-urban dynamics in the dominantparty system of Zimbabwe, in Michael Cowan and Liisa Laakso, eds., Multi-party elections
in Africa (Oxford: James Currey, 2002).
*Adrienne LeBas, From protest to parties: party-building and democratization in Africa
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Elderd Masunungure, ed. Defying the winds of change: Zimbabwes 2008 elections (Harare:
Weaver Press, 2009).
Tandeka Nkiwane, Opposition politics in Zimbabwe: the struggle within the struggle, in A.
O. Olukoshi, ed., The politics of opposition in contemporary Africa (Uppsala: Nordic Africa
Institute, 1998).
Brian Raftopoulos, Beyond the house of hunger: democratic struggle in Zimbabwe, Review
of African Political Economy 54 (1992): 59-74.
Brian Raftopoulos, Reflections on opposition politics in Zimbabwe: the politics of the
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), in Brian Raftopoulos and Karin Alexander, eds.,
Reflections on democratic politics in Zimbabwe.(Cape Town: Institute for Justice and
Reconciliation, 2006.
Tor Skalnes, The politics of economic reform in Zimbabwe: continuity and change in
development (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995) [especially chapter 9].
Blessing-Miles Tendi, Robert Mugabes 2013 presidential election campaign, Journal of
Southern African Studies, 39, 4 (2013): 829-843.
Phillan Zamchiya, The MDC-Ts (un)seeing eye in Zimbabwes 2013 harmonised elections:
a technical knockout, Journal of Southern African Studies, 39, 4 (2013): 955-962.
Siphamandla Zondi, Zanu-PF and MDC power-sharing: Zimbabwe at a crossroads? in Hani
Besada, ed., Zimbabwe: picking up the pieces (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).
Lecture 4: External influences on domestic politics: political influences

From the 1960s onwards, South Africa was at the epicentre of a global campaign against
racial oppression. Its sportspeople were banned from the Olympics, its products boycotted, its
oil supplies curtailed, and its businesses denied credit. These pressures played an important
role in driving change within domestic politics. By contrast, Zimbabwes pariah status
appears actually to have strengthened the regime in its efforts to retain power. This lecture
will therefore ask why external influences succeeded in promoting change in South Africa,
but have so far had only a limited impact in Zimbabwe.
South Africa
Guy Arnold, South Africa: crossing the Rubicon (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1992).
James Barber, Mandelas world: the international dimension of South Africas political
49
revolution, 1990-1999 (Oxford: James Currey, 2004).

William Beinart, Twentieth century South Africa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
David Black and John Nauright, Rugby and the South African nation: sport, culture, politics
and power in the old and new South Africa (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998).
*Neta Crawford and Audie Klotz, How sanctions work: lessons from South Africa
(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999).
Lewis Gann and Peter Duignan, Hope for South Africa? (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press,
1991) [especially chapters 6 and 7].
Joseph Hanlon, Beggar your neighbours: apartheid power in southern Africa (London:
Catholic Institute for International Relations, 1986).
Haider Khan, The political economy of sanctions against apartheid (Boulder: Lynne Rienner,
1989).
Chris Landsberg, From tar baby to transition: four decades of US foreign policy towards
South Africa (Doorfontein: Centre for Policy Studies, 1995).
Dale T. McKinley, The ANC and the liberation struggle: a critical political biography
(London: Pluto Press, 1997) [especially chapter 5].
Francis Nesbitt, Race for sanctions: African Americans against apartheid, 1946-1994
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004).
Laurence Picard and Edmond Keller, South African patterns of change and continuity, in
Edmond Keller and Laurence Picard, eds., South Africa in southern Africa: domestic change
and international conflict (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1989).
Price, R. M., The Apartheid State in Crisis. Political Transformation in South Africa 19751990 (Oxford, 1991) [especially chapter 7].
Richard Weisfelder, SADCC as a counter-dependency strategy: how much collective
clout? in Edmond Keller and Laurence Picard, eds., South Africa in southern Africa:
domestic change and international conflict (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1989).
Zimbabwe
Abiodun Alao, Mugabe and the politics of security in Zimbabwe (Montreal: McGill-Queens
University Press, 2012).
Chris Alden, A pariah in our midst: regional organisations and the problematic of Westerndesignated pariah regimes: the cases of SADC/Zimbabwe and ASEAN/Myanmar (London:
Development Studies Institute, 2010). [Available at:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28468/1/WP73.2.pdf]
Hani Besada, ed., Zimbabwe: picking up the pieces (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)
[especially Part III].
Stephen Chan, Southern Africa: old treacheries and new deceits (New Haven: Yale
50
University Press, 2012).

Pieter Esterhuysen, Zimbabwes external relations, in Michael Hough and Anton du
Plessis, eds., State failure: the case of Zimbabwe (Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies,
2004).
James Hamill and John Hoffman, Quiet diplomacy or appeasement? South African policy
towards Zimbabwe, Round Table, 98, 402, 2009.
Ian Phimister, South African diplomacy and crisis in Zimbabwe: liberation solidarity in the
twenty-first century, in Brian Raftopoulos and Tyrone Savage, eds., Zimbabwe: injustice
and political reconciliation (Cape Town: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, 2004).
Ian Phimister and Brian Raftopoulos, Mugabe, Mbeki and the politics of anti-imperialism,
Review of African Political Economy, 31, 101 (2004): 385-400.
International Crisis Group, Zimbabwe: the politics of national liberation and international
division (Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2002). [Available at:
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=28732]
Miriam Prys, Regional hegemon or regional bystander: South Africa's Zimbabwe policy,
20002005, Politikon, 36, 2 (2009): 193-218.
Richard Schwarz, Coming to terms: Zimbabwe in the international arena (London: IB
Taurus, 2001).
Ephrem Tadesse, Public participation, policy processes and violent conflict : responsive and
participatory governance in South Africa (Johannesburg : Centre for the Study of Violence
and Reconciliation, 2006) [especially chapter 4].
Blessing-Miles Tendi, The origins and functions of demonisation discourses in Britain
Zimbabwe Relations (2000), Journal of Southern African Studies (2014) [published
online].
Jeremy Youde, Why look East? Zimbabwean foreign policy and China, Africa Today, 53, 3
(2007): 3-19.
F. Indonesia and Malaysia: religion, ethnicity and the state (Dr Iza Hussin)
Introduction
This module begins within the regional context of Southeast Asia to raise broad comparative
politics questions about order and disorder, state-building and consolidation, religion,
ethnicity and democracy in the modern period. Indonesia and Malaysia present a startling
contrast, given many shared historical, cultural and social factors, and provide fertile ground
for the application of the methods and theoretical approaches of political science inquiry,
while at the same time raising questions about their universal applicability. The second
lecture of the module will raise a number of comparative questions for these two cases,
focusing in particular on the impact of colonial legacies on institutions and political culture,
51
and varied pathways towards nation- and state-building in the post-colonial period. The third
and fourth lectures examine in greater depth two issues for the analysis of politics in
contemporary Indonesia and Malaysia: state management of religion and ethnicity, Islam in
particular, and the uncertain relation between popular politics and democratisation.
Supervision essay questions
1. What accounts for the differences between Indonesian and Malaysian state policies
towards religion in the post-colonial period?
2. Does democratisation lead inevitably to the rise of ethnic and religious strife?
Compare the cases of Indonesia and Malaysia.
Lecture 1: Southeast Asia contexts for comparison
Southeast Asia presents a number of analytic challenges for the student of politics, among
them: fluid borders and boundaries, overlapping states and polities, mobile populations, and
an enormous diversity of language, religion, culture and institutional histories. This lecture
presents Indonesia and Malaysia in the context of the region, and discusses critical
scholarship on the region that seeks to question dominant theories of political science on
electoral politics, authoritarianism and democratisation, religion and culture.
Readings:
Anthony Reid, "Nineteenth Century Pan-Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia." Journal of Asian
Studies 26, no. 2 (1967): 267-83.
Clifford Geertz, Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1990.
Engseng Ho, Empire Through Diasporic Eyes: The View From the Other Boat,
Comparative Study of Society and History 2004, 210-246.
Erik Kuhonta, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu, eds. Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory,
Region, and Qualitative Analysis, eds. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008.
Ronit Ricci, Islam Translated: Literature, Conversion, and the Arabic Cosmopolis of South
and Southeast Asia. Chicago: Univ Chicago Press 2011.
Lecture 2. Indonesia and Malaysia: Comparative Questions
This lecture focuses upon political institutions and processes of state-building in Indonesia
and Malaysia, from the pre-colonial to post-colonial periods, and their impact on issues of
identity, state capacity, political culture and varieties of authoritarianism.
Readings:
52
William Roff, Islam and the Political Economy of Meaning: Comparative Studies of Muslim
Discourse. London: Croom Helm, 1987.
Daniel S. Lev and Ruth Thomas McVey. Making Indonesia, Studies on Southeast Asia.
Ithaca, New York: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, 1996.
Anthony Reid, 'Revolution and federalism: Indonesia and Malaysia compared', Asian
Currents, vol. 66 2010, pp. 5-7.
Dan Slater, Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutions and the Personalisation of
Power in Malaysia, Comparative Politics 36:1 (Oct 2003), 81-101.
Laffan, Michael Francis. Islamic Nationhood and Colonial Indonesia: The Umma Below the
Winds, Soas/Routledgecurzon Studies on the Middle East. New York: RoutledgeCurzon,
2003.
Dan Slater, "The Architecture of Authoritarianism: Southeast Asia and the Regeneration of
Democratization Theory." Taiwan Journal of Democracy 2:2 (December 2006), pp. 1-22.
Meredith Weiss et al, eds. Political Violence in South and Southeast Asia: Critical
Perspectives, UNUP 2010.
Anthony Reid, Imperial Alchemy: Nationalism and Political Identity in Southeast Asia,
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Lecture 3: Ethnicity and religion

This lecture traces the construction of ethnicity and culture as part of state projects in
Indonesia and Malaysia, particularly in the colonial and post-colonial period, with a focus on
Islam.
Readings:
James Scott, Political Ideology in Malaysia: Reality and the Beliefs of an Elite, Yale
Southeast Asia Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
Charles Hirschman, The Making of Race in Colonial Malaya: Political Economy and Racial
Ideology, Sociological Forum, Vol 1 Issue 2 Spring 1986.
Robert W. Hefner and Patricia Horvatich, eds. Islam in an Era of Nation-States: Politics and
Religious Renewal in Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press 1997.
Michael G. Peletz, Islamic Modern: Religious Courts and Cultural Politics in Malaysia,
Princeton Studies in Muslim Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002.
53
John Bowen, Islam, Law, and Equality in Indonesia: An Anthropology of Public Reasoning.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Joel Kahn, The Making and Unmaking of a Malay Race. Social Analysis, 49(2) 2005.
Hefner, Robert W. Sharia Politics: Islamic Law and Society in the Modern World.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press 2011.
Tamir Moustafa, Liberal Rights versus Islamic Law? The Construction of a Binary in
Malaysian Politics. Law & Society Review, vol. 47 (2013) 771-802.
Michael Feener, Shari'a and Social Engineering: The Implementation of Islamic Law in
Contemporary Aceh, Indonesia, OUP 2013.
Jeremy Menchik, Productive Intolerance: Godly Nationalism in Indonesia, Comparative
Studies in Society and History 2014, 56(3):591-621.
Lecture 4: Popular politics and state control
This lecture looks to popular politics in Malaysia and Indonesia, and points to a range of
questions on the horizon: gender, sexuality, class, that combine with electoral, racial and
religious politics in each case to highlight new and troubling questions about democratisation
and civil society.
Readings:
Aihwa Ong, and Michael G. Peletz. Bewitching Women, Pious Men: Gender and Body
Politics in Southeast Asia. University of California Press, 1995.
Joel Kahn, Other Malays: Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in the Modern Malay World.
University of Hawaii Press 2006.
Weiss, Meredith, What a Little Democracy Can Do: Trajectories of Reform in Malaysia and
Indonesia. Democratization, 14:1 (February 2007), pp. 26-43.
Anthony Reid, 'Introduction: Negotiating Asymmetry: Parents, Brothers, Friends and
Enemies', in Anthony Reid and Zheng Yangwen (ed.), Negotiating Asymmetry: China's Place
in Asia, NUS Press - National University of Singapore, Singapore 2009, 1-25.
Amy Chua, World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred
and Global Instability, Doubleday 2003.
Dan Slater, Altering Authoritarianism: Institutional Complexity and Autocratic Agency in
Indonesia, in Explaining Institutional Change: Agency, Ambiguity, and Power, James
Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Meredith Weiss, Student Activism in Malaysia: Crucible, Mirror, Sideshow. Cornell
SEAP/NUS Press, 2011.
54
9. Examination
Examination for this course will be in the form of a written exam taken in Easter Term. This
exam will last three hours and students will be expected to answer questions that cover
material from both the lectures and the modules. There will be no essay-based assessment for
this course. Students will receive guidance on the examination from supervisors and from the
course organiser. A copy of the examiners reports in previous years is given below. Students
should remember that these reports refer to Pol 4 as was organized in previous years. 20142015 is the first year of a new syllabus and examination method.
10. Examiners reports for Pol 4
Examiners Report for 2011-12

This was the first year of the new paper in Comparative Politics, and the first time that a
paper in Politics & International Relations had been examined through a mixed assessment
process, compromising a long essay and an exam. It was taken by 84 students in Part IIA and
4 students in Part IIB. The same assessment process and marking standards were applied to
both groups of students.
The 5,000 word essays, submitted in Lent term, adopted a variety of approaches, and a broad
spectrum of abilities was apparent to the examiners. Most students had prepared their essays
thoroughly, drawing upon a wide range of sources, including (where appropriate) primary
materials such as official and archival documents, news reports and interview texts. It was
encouraging to see the enthusiasm and energy with which some essays were evidently
researched and written. A relatively small number of students however still treated this
component of the course in a similar way to normal supervision essays, looking at only a
small number of major academic works on the topic, and content simply to regurgitate their
main points. Such essays would normally gain no more than a mid-2.2. An associated
problem was that a few students relied exclusively upon one text or one author for an account
of a case study; all political events of any complexity are amenable to different
interpretations, and one cannot engage critically and effectively with a case unless one has
explored these differences.
In terms of substance, many of the best essays were able to both address major conceptual or
theoretical issues, and to argue in detail about specific cases. Almost all of the best essays
recognised and explained a broad theoretical framework within which to situate their
answers, and were able to develop arguments and counter-arguments within this framework.
The essay was then developed through an in-depth exploration of a relatively small number
of cases. A few essays tried to use too many cases (in some essays, there were attempts to use
five or more cases), which resulted in a degree of superficiality, and some care is needed in
ensuring that the number of cases chosen is appropriate for the question. It is difficult to
provide general guidance about the essays, as the type of the question and students own
preferences will sometimes lead towards different essay structures there is no set formula
for writing long essays for this paper. Nevertheless, all the best essays for this paper managed
to find a balance between conceptual and descriptive material, and reviewed and evaluated
counter-arguments.
55
There were a number of common problems of format, style and presentation. The most
apparent problem was that a large number of students still do not have an appropriate system
for referencing and bibliographies. A short account of how to reference is included in the
paper guide, and a more detailed version is included in the Politics & International Relations
Handbook. Many students seem to have ignored this, and instead adopted their own
anachronistic system, or indeed no system at all, for referencing and bibliographies. It really
is important that by the time students are in their second years that they learn how to organise
their references in a recognised, systematic way.
Whilst some essays were immaculately written, a significant number of essays contained
persistent grammatical problems. It was difficult to tell whether this was down to carelessness
or ignorance. It was clear that quite a few students do not know how to use semi-colons,
deploying them where they should be using commas. If students think this is a problem, they
should talk to their directors of studies and/or tutors urgently, as most Colleges are able to
provide remedial help. Essays which contain repeated typos and grammatical mistakes cannot
achieve a mark higher than a 2.2, so it really is worthwhile to sort this out.
The third common stylistic problem was that of quotation. Some students leaned too heavily
on extensive quotation from academic sources, with a few essays containing multiple
paragraph-length quotations. Two students copied text verbatim or near-verbatim from
sources, properly referenced but without quotation marks. This is considered plagiarism, and
both students were significantly penalised. In relation to both issues, it is important that
students learn to put arguments in their own words; there is no point in just reprinting what
someone else has written. The whole point of the essay, after all, is to encourage you to make
your own arguments in your own terms.
Essays that exceeded the word limit were penalised. In one case, a student was brought below
a class boundary for this essay, which resulted in an overall class lower than they would have
otherwise received.
Notwithstanding these problems, 14 students (all in Part IIA) obtained an average mark in the
first class range for their essays. 27 students obtained a high 2.1 (a mark of 65-69), and a 27 a
low 2.1 (60-64). 18 students received 2.2s, and 2 students received 3rds.
The Easter term exams produced slightly fewer 1sts than the essays but more high 2.1s. 12
students received a first class average, and 33 received marks in the 65-69 range. 27 received
low 2.1s, 14 received 2.2s, one student received a 3rd, and one student withdrew. The
majority of students demonstrated a good amount of detailed and relevant knowledge about
the regions and cases, although often this knowledge was not applied sharply enough to what
exactly the question was asking hence the high number of 2.1s.
All questions on the exam paper drew at least five responses, except for q.5, on differences in
the forms of authoritarianism that were present in Eastern Europe, which did not tempt a
single student. The most popular question was q.8, on the religious discourse of opposition
movements in the Arab world, which had all of 42 students taking it. q.11, on whether the
2008 presidential elections were unwinnable for the Republicans, and q.12, on explanations
for the survival of the Congolese state, were the next most popular, each drawing 28
responses.
56
Perhaps the two most common problems found in the exam scripts were those of not thinking
quite carefully enough about what the terms of the question meant, and of not considering or
weighing up alternative explanations for the phenomenon that was being asked about. In the
first category, an example is q.4, which asked about the effect of nationalism on state
traditions in Eastern Europe. Only one of the eight students taking this question made a
serious attempt to unpack the notion of state traditions, and evaluate the extent to which
nationalism can be considered as something external to those traditions (it was no surprise
that this student received a high 1st class mark). Other students used the term as if it had a
clear and unambiguous meaning, but without stopping to review the different types of
activities (resilient institutions, enduring expectations, formalised rituals?) that could be
incorporated within this notion. As a result, it was never clear what exactly they were arguing
about, even by the end of the essay.
A similar problem attached to the notion of what made an election unwinnable in q.11:
some students gave an extensive account of the reasons why the Republicans lost, and
concluded that made the election unwinnable for them. But this is to render the question
meaningless. Implicit in the question is some distinction between elections that are
unwinnable and winnable elections that are still lost and that needs to be worked through if
the question is to be answered successfully.
The second type of problem comes from those students who picked one explanatory mode
and simply pursued that unreflectively throughout the essay. This was most obviously so with
q.8, on religion and opposition in the Arab world. A large number of these essays staked the
claim at the start that governments in the Arab world have used religion heavily as a form of
legitimisation, and therefore opposition groups have to respond using a similar frame. Much
of the rest of these essays was then devoted to an account of how the Saudi and Egyptian
governments had instrumentalised religion. But this link doesnt necessarily follow, at least in
any sort of straightforward way. A governments adoption of a set of symbolic reference
points could just as straightforwardly lead to the discrediting of those symbols. Opposition
movements may deliberately adopt strategies of legitimisation that distinguish their approach
from those of a government. It would need to be explained why this has not happened, at
least to the extent it might have done, for the argument to work.
Most students who answered q.12, on the reasons for the survival of the Congolese state,
were able to distinguish different reasons, and were able to categorise those reasons (typically
bringing into their accounts the role of external interests, international assistance, the interests
of the Congolese elite and institutions, popular nationalism and everyday coping strategies).
Somewhat too often this just became a list, with a paragraph or two on each reason. The best
answers by contrast were able to weigh these accounts up against each other, for example by
working through a series of successive explanations but showing the limitations of each of
them alongside the explanation, and their intersections.
Few students need more encouragement to understand the regions and cases in depth; there
were only a small number of essays which demonstrated inadequate knowledge or made
serious factual mistakes. Focusing an essay on the question though remains a problem. It was
striking how many answers to the question on whether parliaments can control the executive
in Western Europe (q.3) gave general accounts of the constraints on executives, with
sometimes large sections of the essay unrelated to the role of parliaments. The question on
the convergence of policies between France and Germany (q.1) also led some students into
giving accounts of the long-standing differences of the policies of these two countries, with
57
barely a word said about convergence or divergence over time. q.13 on how Congos
historical legacy has shaped its political economy was answered by some students by giving a
simple narrative history of Congos economic structure. A little bit of careful thought and
planning would surely have been enough in each of these cases to make students realise that
they were in danger of wasting a lot of time on writing about matters that were not relevant
for answering the essay question.
The other great waste of time came from laborious introductions that provided overviews of
essays. The number of students who expended a large of proportion of their essays explaining
all the things that their essays would argue was disappointing, even distressing. One student
wrote the first half of each of the two essays explaining what would be argued, before going
on to repeat exactly the same material in the same order in the second half of each essay.
Exam essays are inevitably short; there is no point at all in telling the reader what they will be
reading within a page or two.
The most pleasing aspect of reviewing the exam scripts was in appreciating the extent to
which students had clearly developed quite extensive knowledge, and a sense of the key
debates, about regions and countries which at the start of the year few of them had much
familiarity. Many essays brought in recent events, occurring after the latest academic
literature or the last supervisions, indicating that interests have been developed through the
course that persist beyond the lecture room. Even if it didnt always come out in the essay, it
was apparent that most students taking this paper have read and thought a lot about the
complexities and uncertainties of the politics of these diverse regions of the world.
Examiners Report for 2012-13
This was the second year this Comparative Politics paper ran in its current format, which
includes a mixed assessment process: a 5,000 word essay and a two-hour exam. This year the
paper was taken by 88 students in Part IIA and 5 students in Part IIB. The same assessment
procedures and marking standards were applied to both groups of students.
The marks for the 5,000 word essays, submitted in Lent term, were as follows: 13 students
received a mark in the first class range, 24 students received a high 2.1 (65-69), 24 students
received a low 2.1 (60-64), 27 students received 2.2s, 4 students received 3rds, and 2 students
received a Pass mark. These results are a bit weaker than last year, especially on the lower
end of the scale, where there were more 2.2 and 3rd marks than last year (and last year there
were no Pass marks).
As last year, the best essays, while applying quite different approaches, all found a good
balance between conceptual and descriptive material, and were sensible and convincing in the
number of cases and examples that were used. Moreover, they based their analysis on a
relatively wide variety of sources and considered different arguments and interpretations. It is
clear that many students again worked diligently on their essays and conducted a
considerable amount of research for them.
Essays which received lower marks suffered from many of the same problems as last years
weaker essays: poor writing and editing (which, if severe, limit an essay to at most a high 2.2.
mark), inconsistent referencing styles, too much reliance on quotations rather than the
candidates own words and arguments, and/or reliance on only a small number of arguments
(thus ignoring possible counter-arguments) and sources. It was also noticeable that several
58
essays strayed too far from the questions set and, thus, did not really provide answers to these
questions. Another common problem was that the relation between the general arguments in
an essay and the specific cases/examples was not sufficiently explained, or in some cases
that the empirical material was hardly introduced or set up at all.
Despite some excellent essays, as well as a considerable number of very competent essays, it
has to be said that the performance on these essays was overall rather disappointing. Looking
at their exam performance (in this paper as well as in other papers), many students taking this
paper should be able to do better on their essays than they did. One of the issues may be that
some students dont take this part of the assessment seriously enough. However, given the
nature of the classing criteria, especially for Part IIA students, a low mark on the essay can
have a very significantly negative effect on the possibility of receiving a good overall class.
Students taking this paper in the future should be aware of this.
The Easter term exams produced better results than the essays. 16 students received a first
class mark, and 39 students received a mark in the 65-69 range. A further 23 students
received a mark in the 60-64 range, while 15 students received 2.2 marks. The large majority
of the students showed that they had developed good knowledge and understanding of the
cases and regions, although as last year sometimes this knowledge was not applied
directly enough to the specific question (rather than the broader topic) to warrant a first class
mark.
All questions received at least one answer. Most popular was the Middle East section, where
27 students answered q.7 on economic factors, 21 students answered q.8 on post-Arab Spring
religious tensions and only 7 students attempted q.9 on democratisation risks in the region.
As for the other two regional modules, the section on Eastern Europe received 21 answers
(6 for q.4 on nationalism and ideological traditions, 9 for q.5 on the influence of communist
regimes on democratic transitions, and 6 for q.6 on models of democracy), while the section
on Western Europe received 23 answers (4 for q.1 on parties and party systems, 11 for q.2 on
political executives, and 8 for q.3 on policy approaches in France and Germany). The case
study on US elections received 31 answers (23 for q.10 on the 2008 election and 8 for q.11 on
the post-1968 Republican majority), while the case study on Congo received 32 answers (13
on q.12 on external influences on the Congolese state and 19 on q.13 whether Congo can be
considered a failed state). Finally, the case study on environmental policy in China received
14 answers, which were unevenly distributed (13 for q.14 on policy implementation problems
and 1 for q.15 on managing the environmental consequences of economic growth).
Compared to last year (when this problem was discussed at some length in the examiners
report), there were not as many answers that failed to engage with the exact wording of the
question. Some such problems still occurred, for example, for q.3, where not all answers paid
enough attention to the word still in the question, and for q.8, where some answers provided
a general account of the role of religion in the politics of Egypt and Saudi Arabia without
considering how the Arab Spring may have influenced the extent to which religious tensions
became more salient and openly expressed than before. A few answers to q.4 also did not
sufficiently address how ideological traditions were interpreted and whether nationalism
can be seen as a phenomenon that is (at least analytically) separate from these traditions.
A more significant problem continued to be that many answers resort to just listing a list of
factors (e.g., on q.2, where some answers did not attempt to argue why some sources of
power can be seen as more important than others, and on q.14, where good answers went
59
beyond listing the problems to indicate what the underlying sources of these problems are) or
rely on a single and sometimes simplistic line of reasoning (e.g., in answers to q.8, where
some answers based their answer entirely on the role that religion had played in the
legitimacy strategies of the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia without arguing why religion
remained important or perhaps became even more important after the Arab Spring).
Furthermore, there were again some essays that spent too much time on an introduction
and/or repetitive conclusion rather than use the time and space to further develop certain
arguments or examples.
It is clear that most students gained a good understanding of the details and complexities of
the regions and cases that they studied. The best essays managed to convey this through a
close focus on the actual question and a consideration of different arguments and points.
Many of the answers that obtained 2.1 marks provided solid accounts, but lacked some
analytical focus on specific arguments or examples. The weaker answers contained factual
mistakes, did not focus sufficiently on the questions, or only addressed a very limited set of
points.
60

HSPS PART II 2014-2015: Comparative Politics Course Overview

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

HSPS PART II 2014-2015: Comparative Politics Course Overview

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

HUMAN, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE TRIPOS (HSPS)

1. Aims and objectives of the course

theories and models of interest representation, focusing in particular on pluralism and

Nugent, P. (2004) Africa since independence: a comparative history (Basingstoke: Palgrave

6. The Lecture list

7. Supervisions: questions and readings

Further reading on theme 1:

Theme 2: Regimes: origins and contemporary dynamics

2. Why are some authoritarian regimes more resilient than others?

3. How important is regime type (parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) for

R. Elgie (2011) Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (Oxford

Theme 3: Modes of interest representation

2. How politically significant are NGOs and civil society?

J. Townsend, G. Porter and E. Mawdsley (2004) Creating Spaces of Resistance:

How important are economic actors in shaping political decision-making?

C. Thomas and R. Hrebenar, Comparing Lobbying Across Liberal Democracies: Problems,

Further reading for theme 3:

Lecture 2: The authoritarian mode

* Oliver Schlumberger, ed., Debating Arab Authoritarianism: Dynamics and Durability in

Lecture 3: Development and disjuncture

Lecture 4: Religion and the state

Lecture 5: Revolution, consolidation, counter-revolution

Lecture 6: Change and stability

B. Domestic Sources of US Foreign Policy (Dr. Aaron Rapport)

General background reading for the whole case study

Lecture 1: Anti-statism and the US security state

Lecture 2: Presidential dominance and the institutional pendulum

Lecture 3: Public opinion and government responsiveness

Lecture 4: Sectoral politics and interest groups

Supervision essay questions:

C. Russia and Poland Compared (Dr Harald Wydra)

Lecture 1: State traditions and state formation

Lecture 2: Nationalism and Nation-Building

Richard Sakwa (2007) Russian Politics and Society, part III.

Lecture 3: Leadership and Ideological Traditions

Lecture 4: Communism: Revolution and Resistance

Lecture 5: Post-Communism: The Rebirth of Politics and its Challenges

Lecture 6: Authoritarian Legacies and Paths to Democracy

First Supervision essay:

The role of political parties in Western Europe

E. South Africa and Zimbabwe (Dr Ian Cooper)

Lecture 1: Racial segregation, armed conflict, and liberation

Anthony Butler, Contemporary South Africa (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)

Lecture 2: Ethnicity, national reconciliation, and the post-liberation state

Lecture 3: Democracy and authoritarianism

*Steven Friedman, An accidential advance? South Africas 2009 elections, in Larry

Lecture 4: External influences on domestic politics: political influences

revolution, 1990-1999 (Oxford: James Currey, 2004).

University Press, 2012).

Lecture 3: Ethnicity and religion

10. Examiners reports for Pol 4

Examiners Report for 2011-12

Anda mungkin juga menyukai