Democracy,
Authoritarianism, and Totalitarianism
POSC 145-1001; Spring 2002, MWF 1:00, WW 212
Prof. L. Barrington, Office: 452 WWP, Phone:
288-5983, E-mail: Lowell.Barrington@marquette.edu
Office Hrs: Mon., Tues., Wed., Thurs., Fri.
11:00-12:00; Mon. 2:00-3:00
Overview: With the end of the Cold War
and the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union,
many politicians, and even some scholars, proclaimed that Western-style
democracy (and its economic half-brother, capitalism) had “won.” It was, in the
words of Fukuyama, the “end of history.” Yet, looking at countries like Iraq,
Afghanistan, and China—as well as a particular country only a few miles south
of Florida—it is clear that democracy has not won yet. It may be winning (and even
appears to be running up the score), but past “waves” of democratization have
been reversed. Whether the current wave will be—or even can be—reversed is one
of the subjects we will discuss this semester.
This course covers the three
main “ideal types” of domestic political regimes—democracy, authoritarianism,
and totalitarianism—as well as transitions to and from democracy. While we will
discuss the “ideal” forms of these various systems and make normative
judgements about particular institutional arrangements, this is not a political
philosophy course. The emphasis will be on these regimes and regime transitions
in practice. You will be exposed to causal arguments about the development of
different systems, with a particular emphasis on existing theories about
democratization.
Writing Development: To help Political
Science majors improve their writing and be better prepared for law school,
graduate school, or work, they take two upper-division “writing development”
courses as part of fulfilling the major requirements. POSC 145 is such a
course. The largest part of your grade for this course will be a 15-20 page
research paper. We will go over the formatting of the paper in class, and you
will be required to turn in evidence of progress on this paper during the
semester. You will also have one short writing assignment. For this assignment,
you will write a letter to a member of Congress about an aspect of United
States policy toward democracy-building in any country of your choosing. Such
letters are an effective way to get the attention of a member of Congress (or
at least the member’s staff) and something you should do more often than you
likely do.
Writing development classes
combine instruction in the subjects of the courses with exercises specifically
designed to improve students’ abilities to do cogent analytic writing. As such,
you will be asked to develop clear, well-reasoned arguments in your writing
assignments and present them using correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
If your writing is unclear and laden with mistakes, you are unable to write
well about any subject (including democracy, authoritarianism, and
totalitarianism). In the “real world,” such sloppy writing will also
affect—fairly or unfairly—how others perceive your work habits and even your
basic level of intelligence. Thus, I take getting you to care about correct
spelling and grammar very seriously, and they will be an important part of the
grade in your two writing assignments. I am particularly appalled by the lack
of correct apostrophe usage, so it is to your advantage to learn the rules for
using apostrophes. The complaint that this is not an English course will fall
on deaf ears, particularly since English courses these days seem incapable of
helping students with their writing.
Requirements: During
the semester, you will (1) show up to class and participate in class
discussions (note that this requires you to have completed the readings before
class); (2) take two written examinations (one during midterms week and one during
finals week); (3) complete a short writing assignment (see the description at
the end of the syllabus); and (4) write a 15-page research paper on a country
that is either a non-democracy or a recently democratized country (see the
description at the end of the syllabus). The various assignments will factor
into your grade as follows: research paper (40%), short writing assignment
(10%), the written examinations (20% each, 40% total), participation in class
discussions (10%). Attendance and participation will also bump you up or down
if you end the semester in the “gray area” between two possible grades.
Cheating, plagiarism, etc. will not be tolerated and can result in a semester
grade of F. Do not test me on that one; you will not like the outcome.
Attendance is required. In addition to participation being factored in your grade, more than six absences will result in your final semester grade being lowered by one grade (B to BC, for example) for each additional absence.
Readings: There
are three books that you are required to purchase: (1) P. Brooker, Non-Democratic Regimes: Theory, Government
and Politics (New York : St. Martin's Press, 2000); (2) R. Dahl, On Democracy (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1998); (3) G. Gill, The Dynamics
of Democratization: Elites, Civil Society, and the Transition Process (New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000). Additional readings will be on reserve (both
in hard copy form at the reserve desk [Memorial Library, 2nd floor]
and electronically through the library’s Web site). Graduate students should do
the “recommended readings” in addition to the required readings each week. They
must also see me to arrange additional assignments.
Lecture/Discussion and Reading
Schedule
* =
Reading from a book you are required to purchase; all other readings on reserve
Readings
*P. Brooker, Non-Democratic
Regimes: Theory, Government and Politics, chapter 1 (pp. 7-20 only).
Question:
Among the various features of the totalitarian ideal type, is there
one that is particularly defining of a totalitarian regime? Which one?
Recommended readings
C. Friedrich and Z. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (1956), especially chapters
1 and 27.
Week 2 (Jan. 21-25): Totalitarianism: In Practice.
January 21: No
class (Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday).
Readings
Question: In what ways did people lead normal lives under totalitarian systems?
Readings
Question:
Despite our thinking that democracy is “best,” authoritarian systems often have
a great deal of support. Why have some authoritarian systems been so popular?
Recommended readings
J. Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000), chapter 4.
Week 4 (Feb. 4-8): Authoritarianism Gets Personal:
Franco, Pinochet, and Other “Greats.”
Readings
M. Cooper, Pinochet
and Me: A Chilean Anti-Memoir (London: Verso, 2001), pp. TBA.
“A Pillar of Shame,” Belarussian
Review, vol. 13, no. 3 (2001), available at: www.belreview.cz/articles/1665.html.
A. Lagnado, “Why the Rural Millions Love a Dictator,” New Statesman, Sep 17, 2001, pp. 20-22.
Question: Is
there a particular personality trait that “great” authoritarian leaders seem to
share?
Question:
Why does Belarus, a European country, still have such an
authoritarian political system?
Recommended readings
M. Ensalaco, Chile
under Pinochet: Recovering the Truth (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2000).
J. Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000), chapter 3.
February 11: Due,
in class: A one-paragraph summary of the research paper (see end
of syllabus).
Readings:
*R. Dahl, On
Democracy, chapters 4, 10, and 11.
P. Schmitter and T. Karl, “What Democracy is...and is
Not,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 2:
75-88.
Question: How
do you define democracy? Given your definition, how easy would be to measure
the concept of democracy in various cases around the world? Using your definition,
how democratic is the United States?
Recommended
readings
As much of The
Federalist Papers as you can get through in one
sitting (but especially Nos. 10, 23, 29, 39, and 51).
A. Lijphart, “Majority Rule in Theory and Practice: The
Tenacity of a Flawed Paradigm,” International
Social Science
Journal, no. 129 (August 1991): 483-493.
Readings:
Question:
Does democracy really make peace more likely?
Recommended readings:
G. Sorensen, Democracy
and Democratization, chapter 3.
Pendulum (1989).
Part
II: REGIME TRANSITIONS: DEMOCRATIZATION
Readings:
*G. Gill, The
Dynamics of Democratization: Elites, Civil Society, and the Transition Process
(New York: St. Martin’s Press,
J. Linz and A. Stepan, “Toward Consolidated Democracies,”
Journal of Democracy, vol. 7, no. 2
(1996): 14-33.
G. O’Donnell, “Illusions about Consolidation,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 7, no. 2
(1996): 34-51.
Question: How
do we know when a democracy is “consolidated”?
Recommended readings:
R. Gunther, N. Diamandouros, and H-J Puhle, “O’Donnell’s
‘Illusions’: A Rejoinder,” Journal of
Democracy, vol. 7,
no. 4 (1996): 151-159.
G. O’Donnell, “Illusions and Conceptual Flaws,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 7, no. 4
(1996): 160-168.
Week 8 (Mar. 4-8):
Causal Factors I: “External Structure” and “External Agency.”
March 8: In class: Exam #1 (on weeks 1-8).
Readings:
*R. Dahl, On
Democracy, chapter 12, pp. 145-148 only.
L. Whitehead, ed., The
International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas
(2001), pp. TBA.
I. Lasota, “Sometimes Less is More,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 10, no. 4 (1999): 125-128.
Busch and Spalding, “1983: Awakening from Orwell’s
Nightmare,” Policy Review, no. 66
(Fall 1993): 71-75.
A. Brown, The
Gorbachev Factor (1996), pp. TBA.
J. Kwitny, Man of
the Century: The Life and Times of Pope John Paul II (1997), pp. TBA.
Question: Is
the new trend toward “democracy support” in foreign aid decisions a good idea?
Question:
Who is most responsible for the collapse of Communism: Reagan, Gorbachev, or
Pope John Paul II?
Recommended readings:
Pope John Paul II, “Democracy and Christianity,” Vital Speeches of the Day, vol. 62, no.
2 (Nov. 1995): 35-39.
Mar. 11-15: No class (Spring holiday).
March 22: Due, in class: Your short writing assignment (see description at
the end of the syllabus).
March 27-29: No class (Easter holiday).
Readings:
*R. Dahl, On
Democracy, chapter 12, pp. 149-163 only.
*G. Gill, The
Dynamics of Democratization: Elites, Civil Society, and the Transition Process,
chapters 1 and 4.
T. Karl, “Petroleum and Political Pacts: The Transition
to Democracy in Venezuela,” Latin
American Research Review,
vol. 22, no. 1 (1987): 63-94.
B. Lewis, “Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical
Overview,” Journal of Decmocracy,
vol. 7, no. 2 (1996): 52-63.
*G. Gill, The
Dynamics of Democratization: Elites, Civil Society, and the Transition Process,
chapter 5.
W. Galston, “Civil Society and
the ‘Art of Association’,” Journal of
Democracy, vol. 11, no. 1 (2000): 64-70.
Question:
Can democracy develop without a middle class? Can it survive severe economic
inequality?
Question:
Does democracy help solve, or does it instead reinforce, sharp divisions in
society?
Question: Is
“civil society” a crucial component of consolidated democracy, or a useless
pile of conceptual mush?
Recommended readings:
B. Moore, “The Democratic Route to Modern Society,” in The Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy.
April 1: No class (Easter holiday, cont.).
*G. Gill, The
Dynamics of Democratization: Elites, Civil Society, and the Transition Process,
chapter 3.
D. Levine, “Venezuela Since 1958: The Consolidation of
Democratic Politics,” in J. Linz and A. Stepan, eds.,
The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Latin America.
Question: If
democracy is really the result of specific actions of individuals, how can we
ever develop models and theories that can predict its occurrence and prospects
for survival?
Question:
Revisit Karl’s article on Venezuela from Week 9. How does her argument differ
from that in Levine’s article for this week on the same transition? Which is
more persuasive and why?
Recommended readings:
M. Burton, R. Gunther, and J. Higley, “Introduction:
Elite Transformations and Democratic Regimes,”
in Higley
and Gunther, eds., Elites and Democratic Consolidation.
Additional Recommended Readings, TBA.
Week 12 (April
8-12): When Agents Create Structures: Choosing a Democracy’s Institutions.
April 12: Due, in class: Two-page (double-spaced) summary of your research
project to date (see end of syllabus).
Readings
*R. Dahl, On
Democracy, chapters 8-9 (and review chapters 10-11).
J. Linz, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” in Diamond and
Plattner, eds., The Global Resurgence of
Democracy.
D. Horowitz, “Comparing Democratic Systems,” in Diamond
and Plattner, eds., The Global Resurgence
of Democracy.
S. M. Lipset, “The Indispensability of Political
Parties,” Journal of Democracy, vol.
11, no. 1 (2000): 48-55.
Question:
In what situations is a parliamentary system better, and worse, for stability
than a presidential one?
Question: In a
democratic country with a highly educated population, are political parties
really necessary?
Recommended readings:
C. Sunstein, Designing
Democracy: What Constitutions Do (2001).
W. Reisinger, “Choices Facing the Builders of Liberal
Democracy,” in Robert Grey, ed., Democratic
Theory and Post-
Communist Change (1997), pp. 24-44 only.
Readings:
*R. Dahl, On
Democracy, chapters 13-14.
R. Dahl, “Equality versus Inequality,” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol.
29, no. 4 (December 1996): 639, 645-648.
V. Bunce, “Democratization and Economic Reform,” Annual Review of Political Science, vol.
4 (2001): 43-65.
Question:
How can democracies with market economies deal with the problem of economic
inequality leading to political inequality? Should they even try?
Question:
Should countries facing both economic reform and democratization do both at the
same time, or one before the other? If the latter, which one should they
attempt first?
Recommended readings:
N. Bermeo, “Sacrifice, Sequence, and Strength in
Successful Dual Transitions: Lessons from Spain,” Journal of Politics,
vol. 56, no. 3 (August 1994):
601-627.
D. Glinksi and P. Reddaway, “The Ravages of ‘Market
Bolshevism’,” Journal of Democracy,
vol. 10, no. 2 (1999): 19-34.
Part
III: REGIME TRANSITIONS: DEMOCRATIC BREAKDOWN
Week 14 (April 22-26): Why Democracies Collapse.
April 26: Due,
in class. Your research paper. (Reminder: Look
again—carefully—at the specifics of the assignment at the end of the syllabus
as well as the “writing guidelines” handout from earlier in the semester).
T. Karl, “Economic Inequality and Democratic
Instability,” Journal of Democracy,
vol. 11, no. 1 (2000): 149-156.
Question: What
causal factors seem most responsible for the breakdown of democratic systems?
To what extent does your answer to this question raise concerns for the future
of the most recently established democratic systems?
Recommended readings:
J. Linz and A. Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1978),
Part I, and whatever cases
interest you.
Part
IV: Conclusion
Week 15 (Apr. 29-May 3): The Future of Democracy:
Breakdown, Continued “Waves,” or Outright Victory?
Readings:
*R. Dahl, On
Democracy, chapters 2, 3, and 15.
R. Putnam, “Bowling Alone” in
B. Brown, ed., Comparative Politics:
Notes and Readings, 9th edition (Fort Worth:
Hardcourt,
2000), pp. 265-274.
Question:
Has democracy won? What will
be more likely in the near future, that non-democracies will turn democratic or
that democracies will turn non-democratic?
Question: Does
it really matter for the future of democracy in America that people are
“bowling alone”?
Recommended readings:
A. Varshney, “Why Democracy Survives,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 9, no. 3
(1999): 36-50.
S. Huntington, “After Twenty Years: The Future of the
Third Wave,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 8, no. 4 (1997): 3-12.
G. Nodia, “The End of Revolution?,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 11, no. 1 (2000): 164-171.
M. McFaul, “A Mixed Record, An Uncertain Future,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 12, no. 4
(2001): 87-94.
(And to remind you that we have not always been so
supportive of democracy…) A. Garfinkle et al., The Devil and
Uncle
Sam: A Users Guide to the Friendly Tyrants Dilemma (New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1992).
May 10: 1:00-3:00 p.m.: Exam #2 (on weeks 9-15).
POSC 145 Writing Assignments
Short Writing Assignment
March 22: Due,
in class: Write a letter to your (Wisconsin or
home-state) US Congressional Representative or write to either of
your US senators. The letter must criticize US efforts (or lack of such
efforts) at facilitating democracy in a particular country. What, specifically,
do you think the US government should be doing differently, and why? The letter
must be single-spaced and no more than two pages. The letter must also
be in an acceptable business-letter format and include the date, the address of
the person to whom you are writing, and your contact information.
Research
Paper Assignment
February 11: Due,
in class: One-paragraph summary of (1) which of the two research
paper questions you will answer, (2) which country you are likely to examine,
and (3) why it appears to be a good case for that question.
April 12: Due, in class: Two-page (double-spaced) summary of your research
project to date. Which question did you choose, and which country did you
choose? How does that country fit with the discussions of causal factors we
have had? Are there any (tentative) conclusions/lessons from your case? The last half-page should be a (single-spaced) list of sources.
April 26: Due,
in class:
In around 15 pages (this means no more than
16!), with 1 inch margins and 12 pt. CG Times or Times New Roman font, answer
one of the two questions below. This is a research paper. I
expect you to find information about the country that you are choosing. You
should look not only at news magazines like The
Economist but also at books and
scholarly journals that may carry articles on your country. Be aware of the
dates of your sources, and do not assume that a book with a 2002 copyright was
written in 2002. You are responsible for knowing the current structure of the
political system of the country you choose, as well as its current economic and
social conditions. We will discuss citation and other formatting issues in class.
(1) Choose a non-democratic country anywhere in the
world. Describe the elements of the political system that make this a non-democracy, and provide a brief explanation for how they got that way.
Then, employing the various causal factors and theoretical arguments about them
that we have examined this semester, assess
the prospects for democratization occurring in this country in the near
term (next three to five years) and medium term (next ten to twenty years). Of
the various factors you examine, which ones should scholars be paying
especially close attention to in this case, and why?
OR
(2) Choose a country anywhere in the world that has
democratized in the last ten to fifteen years but that you consider to be a consolidated democracy. Paying particular
attention to the transition from established to consolidated democracy, explain
the democratization process in this country, employing the various causal
factors and theoretical arguments about them that we have examined this
semester. Given its relative infancy, why are you so confident that this
democracy is already consolidated? What lessons can we draw from this case
about democratic consolidation in other cases?