1. In his article, “Transitions from Postcommunism,” Michael McFaul identifies seven commonalities between the recent “democratic breakthroughs” in Serbia (in 2000), Georgia (in 2003), and Ukraine (in 2004). “Identifying the common factors that contributed to success in these cases,” he explains, “may be our best method of predicting future democratic breakthroughs not only in this region but perhaps in others as well.” Briefly explain three of these seven factors.
Minimally acceptable answers had to mention and elaborate briefly on three of the following:
Each country had “a semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime;”
Each country’s incumbent was unpopular;
Each country has “a united and organized opposition;”
This opposition had “an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results were falsified;”
The existence of “enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote;”
In each case there was a “united and organized opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud;”
“Divisions [existed among each] regime’s coercive forces.”
2. Marc Morje Howard provides three possible explanations for the significantly lower rates of public participation in civil society in postcommunist countries than in old democracies or in post-authoritarian states. Briefly explain two of these causes and why communism has led to each of these legacies.
Minimally acceptable answers had to mention and explain two of the following:
Mistrust of communist organizations (explain previous compulsory membership in communist organizations);
The persistence of friendship networks (explain shortage economy and politicization of public sphere leading to need for private networks of trust);
Postcommunist disappointment (explain disillusionment with limited success of economic and democratic transitions since collapse of state-socialist system).
1. In his article, “What Beijing Can Learn from Moscow,” Ian Buruma argues, “the one party system is itself the main source of instability.” Briefly explain 2 of the arguments he gives to support this claim.
For a P+ answer, you needed to elaborate coherently on two of the following arguments:
1. Single dominant party leads to widespread presence of corruption and mafia economy
2. Lack of institutional check on gov power- purges are symbolic, leading to little support for rule of law (some people phrased this as "corruption" in the Chinese system, which was adequate as long as you explained how corruption leads to stability in this case)
3. Any sign of civil society quashed- anything outside of party control, any type of private initiative, is made impossible- this leads to anger, resentment, psychological trauma which is dangerous to party
2. Robyn Meredith conveys the following joke to describe economic reform in India: “…India is like a drunk walking home: it takes one step forward, then two steps sideways, but eventually makes it home.” What does this mean? Why, according to Meredith, do reforms progress in a less-than-linear fashion in India when compared to China?
Minimally acceptable answer: India has a democratic system (unlike China, which has an authoritarian government) therefore it is accountable to both the press and the Parliament. This accountability means that reform has a stop-and-go nature to it.
Better answer: India, unlike China, has a democratic system that makes institutional consensus difficult to achieve. This means that the Indian government cannot easily introduce broad, sweeping economic changes to a public that may suffer from them. Consensus is not necessary in an authoritarian state, so the state/Party can push through what it wishes, allowing for more immediate and drastic change.
No comments:
Post a Comment