SENSURVEILEDNING FOR EKSAMENSOPPGAVER I POL 1000: INNFØRING I STATSVITENSKAP - INTERNASJONAL OG KOMPARATIV POLITIKK, HØST 2011

Transkript

1 SENSURVEILEDNING FOR EKSAMENSOPPGAVER I POL 1000: INNFØRING I STATSVITENSKAP - INTERNASJONAL OG KOMPARATIV POLITIKK, HØST 2011 Besvar samtlige oppgaver i internasjonal politikk og i komparativ politikk. Du har i gjennomsnitt 18 minutter per oppgave. Dimensjoner besvarelsene etter dette. Svar på alle oppgåver i internasjonal politikk og komparativ politikk. Du har i gjennomsnitt 18 minutt per oppgåve. Dimensjoner svara etter dette. Answer all the questions below. Account for the fact that time allows for 18 minutes in average for each topic. Til sensor: Sensurveiledningen er nettopp å anse som en veiledning til vurdering av eksamensbesvarelsene. Det finnes andre gode måter å besvare spørsmålene på enn det som er antydet nedenfor. Sentralt i vurderingen er om besvarelsen (i) er relevant i forhold til det det spørres om; (ii) demonstrerer en grad av kjennskap til stoffet slik det er presentert gjennom pensum, forelesninger, øvinger og andre kilder til innsikt; og (iii) grad av intensjonsdybde i håndtering av stoffet. Det er viktig å ha klart for seg at studentene har hatt 18 minutter til rådighet i å besvare den enkelte oppgave (gjennomsnitt), der det for flere oppgaver kunne vært mulig å skrive en bok. Det ligger i sakens natur at vi ikke kan forvente utbroderte svar, kun svar som fanger essensielle sider ved det som spørres om. INTERNASJONAL POLITIKK 1. Redegjør for hva makt er i internasjonal politisk sammenheng (definisjon), og for ulike typer makt (typologi). Gjer greie for kva makt er i internasjonal politisk samanheng (definisjon), og for ulike typar makt (typologi). Define «power» in the context of International Politics, and account for different types of power. Makt kan defineres som stat A sin evne til å få stat B til å gjøre noe stat B ellers ikke ville gjort gjennom direkte press/oppfordringer og/eller ved å pålegge ulike typer strukturelle føringer for handling. I pensum og forelesninger er det skilt mellom militær (tvangsmakt), økonomisk og myk / ideologisk makt (evnen til å overbevise). Til sammen eller hver for seg er disse typene makt kilder til politiske innflytelse mellom stater. 2. Hvilke forhold kan fremme og hemme muligheten for internasjonalt samarbeid? Trekk på teorier om internasjonal politikk. Kva for forhold kan fremje og hemme moglegheita for internasjonalt samarbeid? Trekk på teoriar om internasjonal politikk.

2 Explain how international cooperation may be hampered and facilitated according to different schools of thought of international politics. Her kan mye sies. Et utvalg: Realister fremhever grensene for samarbeid mellom stater: Strukturrealistene ved å fremheve anarkiet (den uregulerte IP) som en stor begrensning på internasjonalt. Anarki skaper en usikkerhet som reduserer internasjonal samhandling til maktkamp. Samarbeid er mulig når statene oppnår relativt like mye av samarbeidet. Iht. nyrealister kan internasjonale regimer etableres under vingene til en hegemon, men på hegemonens vilkår. Samarbeid innenfor allianser er også teoretisert innenfor realismen. Det er ønsket om større sikkerhet som driver stater inn i alliansesamarbeid. Klassiske realister vektlegger trekk ved den menneskelige natur egoisme, grådighet som begrensninger for å få til internasjonalt samarbeid. Liberalister av ulik tapning ser langt mer positivt på mulighetene for samarbeid: Tette transnasjonale forbindelser (eks. grenseoverskridende handel) er et motiv for mer koordinering mellom regjeringer. Liberale institusjonalister understreker hvordan internasjonale samarbeidsregimer (i) reduserer transaksjonskostnadene ved mellomstatlig samarbeid; (ii) skaffer til veie informasjon som reduserer usikkerhet, mistillit, og gratispassasjeratferd; og (iii) øker overholdelse av internasjonale avtaler. Konstruktivister peker på hvordan verdi- og identitetsfellesskap mellom enkelte stater bidrar til samarbeid mellom stater. Det er også relevant å trekke inn debatten mellom nyrealister og nyliberalister om relative og absolutte gevinster. Pensum og flere forelesninger gir god støtte til å besvare spørsmålet. 3. Redegjør for ulike sider (aspekter, nivåer) ved sikkerhetsbegrepet, og for sikkerhetsdilemmaet /sikkerhetsdilemmaer i internasjonal politikk. Gjer greie for ulike sider (aspektar, nivå) ved tryggleiksomgrepet, og for tryggleiksdilemmaet /tryggleiksdilemmaer i internasjonal politikk. Account for different aspects of the security-concept, and for security-dilemma(s) in International Politics. I forelesningen, men også i pensum, er det redegjort for en sikkerhetsmatrise som skiller mellom ulike nivåer (globalt, statlig, samfunn/individ) og ulike typer sikkerhet (militær, politisk, økonomisk, sosial, miljømessig). Studentene bør kunne gi et par-tre eksempler på konflikter/sikkerhetsutfordringer og plassere dem i ovennevnte matrise. Vi har snakket om to typer sikkerhetsdillemaer: Hoobes som handler om hvordan fordrivelsene av anarkiet på statsnivå (borgerkrig), ikke løser anarkiproblemet (med påfølgende usikkerhet) på internasjonalt nivå. En gevinst ligger dog i at stater er mer robuste enn familier og individer til å overleve under anarkiske tilstander («stater sover ikke»). Herz aksentuerer betydningen av å se sikkerhet som et relasjonelt begrep. Ensidig opprustning for å øke egen sikkerhet kan føre til større usikkerhet for begge parter (større risiko for krig) fordi opprustningen skjer på bekostning av andre staters sikkerhet som vil reagere med forkjøpsangrep eller egen opprustning.

3 4. Realisme, liberalisme, konstruktivisme og radikalisme opererer med til dels ulike forestillinger om hva internasjonal fred er, og gjennom hvilke mekanismer fred kan skapes eller opprettholdes. Redegjør. Realisme, liberalisme, konstruktivisme og radikalisme opererar med til dels ulike førestellingar om kva internasjonal fred er, og gjennom kva for mekanismar fred kan skapast eller opprettholdast. Gjer greie. Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, and Radicalism operate with (to some extent) different conceptions of peace, and suggest different mechanisms through which peace can be achieved or secured. Explain. Det er skilt mellom to fredsbegreper fred negativt forstått som fravær av væpnet konflikt (våpenstillstand), og fred ilagt en positiv betydning (som eksistensen av interesseog/eller verdi- og identitetsfellesskap). Det negative fredsbegrepet er best utviklet innenfor realismens, mens liberalister, konstruktivister og historiske materialister (marxister) opererer med ulike typer positive fredsbegreper. Når det gjelder veier til fred (fredsmekanismer) må dette ses på bakgrunn av hvilket fredsbegrep de ulike skoleretninger operere med: For realistene kan et monn av internasjonal orden, stabilitet og fred oppnås gjennom etablering av maktbalanse/gjensidig avskrekking (ved opp-/nedrustning, alliansedannelser). For liberalister kan fred oppnås gjennom styrking av internasjonale regimer og en internasjonal rettsorden, gjennom utvikling av kompleks gjensidig avhengighet mellom stater, og gjennom at stater etablerer liberale og demokratiske styreformer. For konstruktivister går veien til fred gjennom en ny forståelse av hva internasjonal politikk er og kan være, utvikling av felles identiteter og historiefortellinger som understreker fellesskap snarere enn uforenlige forskjeller. For marxister av ulikt slag går veien til internasjonal fred gjennom politisk frigjøring og rettferdig fordeling av økonomiske og sosiale goder. 5. Stater samhandler innenfor rammen av strukturer knyttet til makt, økonomi og normer. Redegjør kort for disse strukturene, eksemplifiser. Statar samhandlar innanfor ramma av strukturar knytta til makt, økonomi og normer. Gjer kort greie for disse strukturane, eksemplifiser. States interact within global structures related to power, economy, and norms. Briefly account for these structures. Illustrate. Her vil vi lokke frem grunnleggende forståelse av at stater samhandler innenfor (i hvert fall) tre delvis overlappende og til dels motsetningsfylte strukturer: Anarkiets logikk der maktstrukturen (fordelingen av makt mellom stater) påvirker muligheten for samarbeid og forekomsten av konfliktatferd. Egenskaper ved den internasjonale politiske økonomien (forekomsten av grenseoverskridende markeder, prisrelasjoner) og den internasjonale arbeidsdelingen (periferi vs. sentrumsnasjoner) påvirker fordelingen av økonomiske goder og det økonomiske grunnlaget for maktutøvelse. Internasjonale normer slik de kommer til uttrykk i Internasjonal Rett og internasjonale regimer kan fungere som forsterkere av

4 eller korrektiver til andre strukturer, og påvirke mellomstatlig samhandling og staters utenrikspolitikk. 6. Redegjør for forskjellen mellom begrepene «politics» og «policy». Gjer greie for ulikskapen mellom omgrepa «politics» og «policy». Account for the differences between the concepts of «politics» and «policy» I Gunnar Fermanns bidrag til boken Anarki, normer og makt av Jon Hovi og Raino Malnes, red. (2011) redegjøres det slik: Det [er] nyttig å innføre et skille mellom to nært relaterte aspekter ved politikk-begrepet politikk som (i) beslutningsstruktur og forhandlingsprosess på den ene side, og politikk som (ii) utfallsinnhold og iverksettelse på den andre. Mer spesifikt kan politikk beskrives ved de strukturer og prosesser hvorigjennom politiske posisjoner besettes og politiske vedtak fattes, og ved utfallene av disse prosessene, med vekt på innholdet i de konkrete vedtakene (målsettinger) og den praktiske utøvelsen av beslutningene (virkemidler). Distinksjonen samsvarer langt på vei med det skillet som på engelsk gjøres mellom politics og policy. Politics -biten av Østeruds politikk-definisjon retter oppmerksomheten mot selve den offentlige beslutningsaktiviteten med vekt på å beskrive deltakernes forestillinger, interesser og innflytelse, samt de konstitusjonelle så vel som de uformelle spilleregler som regulerer den politiske tautrekkingen om innholdet i politiske beslutninger. Policy -aspektet viser på sin side til resultatet eller utfallet av offentlig beslutningsaktivitet dvs. på de offentlige vedtakene slik de kommer til uttrykk i valg av politiske målsettinger, og i valg av strategier og praktisk virkemiddelbruk for å nå disse målene. Distinksjonen er dessuten redegjort for i forelesning. 7. Hva er utenrikspolitikk, og hvordan kan utenrikspolitikk forklares? Kva er utanrikspolitikk, og korleis kan utanrikspolitikk forklarast? What is Foreign Policy, and how may the Foreign Policy of a state be explained? Define the concept of foreign policy, and account for the distinction made between politics and policy. I Gunnar Fermanns bidrag til boken Anarki, normer og makt av Jon Hovi og Raino Malnes, red. (2011) skrives det at utenrikspolitikk kan betraktes som en utad- og formålsrettet virksomhet der strategier velges og virkemidler søkes dosert i lys av utenrikspolitiske målsettinger og den konkrete utfordring staten står overfor. I forelesning er det redegjort for hvordan utenrikspolitikk enten det dreier seg om intensjoner, virkemiddelanvisninger eller faktisk iverksetting kan forklares med utgangspunkt i ulike nivåer: egenskaper ved (i) de globale omgivelsene, (ii) de domestikale/innenlandske omgivelsene, og egenskaper ved (iii) det utadrettede stats- og styringsverket. Studenter som kan si noe om sentrale forklaringsvariable innenfor disse tre analysenivåene skal belønnes ekstra for det. Det samme skal studenter som har skjønt hvordan metaforen «utenrikspolitisk hand-

5 lingsrom» - det sett av handlingsalternativer som gjenstår når de eksterne og interne omgivelsene, samt egenskaper ved stats- og styringsverket har øvd innflytelse på et utenrikspolitisk sakskompleks - inngår i forklaringskjeden av utenrikspolitikk. Spørsmålet har forelesningsstøtte og er har i deler vært behandlet i øving (seminar). 8. Hva dreier ontologi og epistemologi seg om? Velg en skoleretning i studiet av internasjonal politikk, og identifiser denne skoleretningens ontologiske og epistemologiske ståsted/posisjon. Kva dreier ontologi og epistemologi seg om? Velg ei skuleretning i studiet av internasjonal politikk, og identifiser denne skoleretningas ontologiske og epistemologiske ståstad /posisjon. What are ontology and epistemology? Choose one approach to the study of International Politics, and identify the ontological and epistemological positions of this particular school of thought. Her forventes det at studenten skal ha fanget opp at ontologi er teoriens spesifikke værenslære (virkelighetsbeskrivelse) dvs. forestillingen om hvordan verden er slik den er nedfelts i teoriens grunnleggende forutsetninger om aktører, motiver, strukturer og samhandling. Epistemologi er den kunnskapslære teorien er tuftet på og opererer innenfor være seg et objektivistisk, inter-subjektivt eller subjektivistisk grunnlag, sosiale fakta som materialitet eller som ideer. Noen eksempler fra IP: (i) Kenneth Waltz sin strukturrealistiske teori om IP er bygget på ontologisk forutsetninger om at internasjonal politikk som anarkisk strukturert (uregulert), at stater er de primære, enhetlige, funksjonelt likeartede, nyttemaksimerende og overlevelsesorienterte aktørene i IP, og at samhandlingen mellom stater følgelig er preget av usikkerhet og maktkamp. Kunnskapslæren til Waltz er eksplisitt positivistisk (objektivitet, materialitet, vitenskapelig testing), og teorien er basert på et strukturelt forklaringsprinsipp: Det er anarkiet som skaper handlingsvilkårene for stater ikke menneskets natur. (i) Alexander Wendt legger til grunn en konstruktivistisk epistemologi der produksjonen av intersubjektiv mening er langt viktigere for forståelsen av IP enn kartleggingen av materielle atferdsmønstre objektivt forstått. Dermed kommer også konstruktivistisk teoridannelse i IP til å fokusere på identitet (kollektiv selvoppfatning) og normer for samhandling. Dekket i pensum, i forelesninger og i øvingsmateriell. KOMPARATIV POLITIKK 9. Hugh Trevor Roper har karakterisert fascisme som et «dårlig sortert sammensurium av ideer». Hva er de fem kjerne-ideene i fascismen? Har Trevor Roper rett?

6 Hugh Trevor Roper har karakterisert fascisme som eit «dårleg sortert samansurium av idear». Kva er dei fem kjerne-ideane i fascismen? Har Trevor Roper rett? Hugh Trevor Roper once called Fascism an ill-assorted hodge-podge of ideas. What are the five core ideas of fascism? Is Trevor Roper right? Fascism is generally seen as a much less intellectually grounded ideology, even if some contributing lines of thought that are seen as contributors to the fascist ideology may be rather sophisticated. Heywood cites Hugh Trevor-Roper to support his assertion that fascism lacks a rational and coherent core. Summarizing fascism is also difficult because there are two main variants, the Italian (the original, from which the name comes) and the Nazi version. The student should not mistake the German variation for fascism as such, a tempting mistake. Despite this, Heywood identifies a core collection of themes: anti-rationalism, struggle, leadership and elitism, socialism, and ultra-nationalism. Anti-rationalism: fascism stands in opposition to the Enlightenment and its emphasis on human reason. Instead it emphasizes other human drives and impulses emotions, the will and the life force. It celebrates the soul, emotions and instincts. Students could mention Nietzsche and the will to power. Fascism often is clearer about what it opposes than what it supports. Rejection of reason also results in much greater reliance on history, culture and the idea of the organic community. Struggle: This idea borrows much from Darwin and the notion of the survival of the fittest. Struggle is the way to bring about progress and ensure that the fittest and strongest prosper. The ultimate test is war. Goodness is equated with strength and evil with weakness. This leads easily into the eugenics ideas embraced particularly by the Nazis who sterilized and/or murdered the handicapped, Jews and others seen to be threats to the German race. The elevation of struggle also led easily to an expansionist tendency. Leadership and elitism: Absolute leadership and elitism are natural and desirable. A strong leader is natural, there may also be a warrior elite and then there are the masses. Nietzsche again comes in here with his notion of the superman who is above ordinary rules and morals this is translated into the notion of a single supreme leader whose authority is based on his charisma. The absolute leader alone is a spokesman for the will of the people. Socialism: Fascism had a lot of vague ideas about economics, including skepticism about big business and financial institutions. There is also a certain affinity with respect to the notion of the collectivity. But Heywood is careful not to take this too far, since once the fascists gained power in Italy and Germany they tended to soften these aspects in order to cozy up to big business even if they later dominated or took over from them. But Mussolini started out in a socialist party and the name of the Nazi party is the National Socialist Party! Ultranationalism: Fascism embraced an extreme variant of chauvinistic and expansionistic nationalism. Here we have the notion of struggle and of social Darwinism carried up to the national level. Nations (peoples) are arranged in a hierarchy they are

7 certainly not seen as equals. There is a strong notion of a glorious past and the regeneration of the nation through struggle and war. By finding the core themes of fascism, Heywood may make Fascism look more coherent that it was in fact. The major point here is that fascists didn t worry about producing coherent philosophical tracts with propositions that tolerated closer scrutiny or that held together: they were mostly anti-intellectual. Look for a reasonable discussion of this them. 10. Sammenlign ideologiene liberalisme og sosialisme med utgangspunkt i disse ideologienes syn på likhet og individuell frihet. Fokuser på kjernen i hver ideologi (snarere enn spesielle varianter av dem) som diskutert i Heywood. Samanlikn ideologiane liberalisme og sosialisme med utgangspunkt i desse ideologianes syn på likskap og individuell fridom. Fokuser på kjernen i kvar ideologi (snarare enn særskilde variantar av dei) som diskutert i Heywood. Compare the ideologies of Liberalism and Socialism with respect to views on equality and individual freedom. Concentrate on the main body of thought for each ideology (rather than later or hybrid versions) as discussed by Heywood. There is a key tension between the concept of individual freedom and equality, and liberals and socialists solve this problem in different ways. Equality: Liberals see individuals as essentially equal. They are all of equal moral worth and there is a tendency to see them as relatively equal in capacity also (however, there are important limits on this that are important when discussing the concept of freedom). However, the most important thing here is that all have the same rights legal and political equality is a core value. Socialists also prize equality, but see individuals as more potentially equal in capability than is the case in a non-socialist society. Moving towards greater equality is a core value for socialists not just in terms of legal and political equality, but also equality of condition, i.e., social equality. Individual freedom: Individual freedom is the supreme value for liberals, who worry that enforcing social equality will penalize individuals with talent. Liberals are willing to tolerate some inequality in order to maximize individual freedom. The most traditional view of freedom is negative freedom that is, that individuals should be left alone to do what they will. Socialists have traditionally understood freedom in a less individualistic way. They seek the liberation of the individual, but through the achievement of the collective good. Heywood writes that they have generally understood freedom in positive terms to refer to self-fulfillment achieved through either free creative labour or cooperative social interaction. The socialist sees achievement of the full potential of the individual as being achieved through social equality, and social equality therefore takes priority over individual freedom.

8 11. Redegjør for first past the post -systemet i valg av lovgivende forsamlinger. Hvor demokratisk er dette systemet? (Tips: Ikke glem å forklare hva du mener med «demokratisk»). Gjer greie for first past the post -systemet i val av lovgivande forsamlingar. Kor demokratisk er dette systemet? (Tips: Ikkje gløym å forklare kva du meiner med «demokratisk»). Explain the first past the post system for electing a legislature. How democratic is this system? (Hint: be sure to explain what you mean by democratic ). The first past the post system is the system of selecting the legislature that is found most typically in Great Britain. This phrase is most often associated with that country. This is a system in which there is a single member district and the person who wins the most votes in the election is selected as the representative for that district. This may well mean that the person selected may have received the votes of less than 50 percent of the voters. For example, there might be a three-way race in which candidate A receives 40 of the vote, B receives 35 percent and C receives 25 percent of the vote. A would be elected even though 60 percent of the electorate in fact voted for someone else. In Britain, this is associated with a Parliamentary government, but this the students should not simply write about parliamentary government. Democratic: If the point of a democratically elected legislature is to represent the people, then this system would seem to violate this idea by allowing those with less than a majority of the votes in their district to be elected. Seen from the perspective of the legislature as a whole, this may result in a legislature in which smaller parties are frozen out and larger parties have far more seats in the legislature (Parliament, since Britain is the most relevant example) than they would seem to merit based on the support they have among the general population. On the plus side, however, it is has been argued that this system creates a Parliament and a government that is based on a large party and is able to act and get its program enacted. Effectiveness is also important in democracy: if the government is the perfect reflection of the make-up of the people yet cannot effectively translate its program into law, then the will of the people is not put into effect. 12. Sodaro peker på fem kjerne-ideer som er essensielle i demokrati-begrepet: Han karakteriserer to av disse som steg i fundamentet og de tre andre som søyler i «demokratitempelet». Navngi og gi en kort forklaring av disse fem kjerne- ideene. Sodaro peiker på fem kjerne-idear som er essensielle for demokrati-omgrepet: Han karakteriserar to av desse som steg i fundamentet og dei tre andre som søylar i demokrati-tempelet. Navngje og gje ei kort forklaring for desse fem kjerne-ideane. Sodaro identifies 5 core ideas that are essential to the concept of democracy: he characterizes two of these as steps in the foundation and three others as pillars of the temple of democracy. Name and give a short explanation of these 5 core ideas.

9 The two steps in the temple are the rule of law and democratic values. The three pillars are popular sovereignty, rights and liberties and economic well-being: This is found on page 172 the third edition of Sodero, and was also used in the lecture. The first step is democratic values. Without these, democracy cannot work. These values are spiritual or moral principles, ideals or qualities of life that people favor for their own sake. Key norms or values include: freedom, inclusion, equality, tolerance, welfare, cooperation, compromise trust and others that combine into a spirit of democracy. The rule of law is the legal foundation of democracy. It means that the power of the state and its officials are limited by the law no one is above the law. Popular sovereignty: the people are the source of the state s legitimacy. The people should participate in governing and the state should be accountable to the people. Rights and liberties: All people have certain basic rights and liberties that cannot be taken way or infringed upon by either the state/government or by the people. What these rights and liberties are may be a subject of dispute. Economic well-being: This is perhaps the most controversial. A certain level of economic well-being is essential for democracy, and modern democracies are held accountable for providing a basic level of welfare for its citizens. It is also a demand of most citizens who live in democracies. The democracy should ensure either equality of opportunity to achieve economic well-being or actively work to ensure at least a measure of equality of condition. 13. Vurder følgende hypotese: et stabilt, effektivt demokrati forutsetter en homogen befolkning». Definer hypotesens viktigste begreper og identifiser hypotesens avhengige og uavhengige variabel. Vurder følgjande hypotese: eit stabilt, effektivt demokrati forutsetter ei homogen befolkning». Definer hypotesa sine viktigste omgreper og identifiser hypotesa sin avhengige og uavhengige variabel. Consider the following hypothesis: a stable, effective democracy requires a homogeneous population. Define the main terms of the hypothesis and identify the independent and dependent variables. This question is first and foremost designed to highlight the important of knowing about theories and dependent and independent variables. The basic notion here is that a homogenous population is the independent variable and democracy is the dependent variable. In defining the main terms, however, the students may find that this can be much more complicated. A homogeneous population can mean many things being similar in terms of race, ethnicity, collective experience, view, religion, etc. The student is here expected to intelligently consider what this might mean. Different answers here are possible as well as the student works to clarify what is meant. Democracy should also

10 be defined as should stable and effective. Here the student can chose the definition. The larger point is that these are not self-evident and how you define the terms makes a big impact in what this in fact means and what you will find when you do your research. It happens that this hypothesis comes from the Sodero book. He suggests that there are in fact two hypotheses here: 1) the homogeneity hypothesis and the 2) heterogeneity hypothesis (that non-homogeneous populations will have unstable and ineffective democracy). It is not necessary to note this for a good grade, but can be a plus. 14. Hvilke er de tre statsmaktene i et land? Tenderer en statsmakt til å dominere de andre? Gi eksempler. Kva for nokre er de tre statsmaktane i eit land? Har ei statsmakt ein tendens til å dominere dei andre? Gje eksempler. What are the three branches of government? Does one branch tend to dominate the others? Give examples. The three branches are the legislative, the executive and the judicial branch. Generally speaking, the legislative branch is responsible for establishing the laws, the executive branch for carrying the laws out or putting them into force and the judicial for trying those who break the law. The trend recently has been for the executive branch to dominate the others, in both parliamentary and presidential systems. The US is one example in which the president has expanded his power at the expense of Congress but this is also true in Britain where particularly under the last few strong Prime Ministers (Thatcher and Blair) the government had dominated Parliament. This is in part due to the resources of the executive vis a vis the legislature. 15. Sodaro drøfter de fremtredende verdiene hos landene som omhandles i pensumboka. Velg Kina, Russland eller Japan: Gir de fremtredene verdiene i dette landet støtte for demokrat? Redegjør. Sodaro diskuterar dei framtredande verdiane hjå landa som omhandlast i pensumboka. Velg Kina, Russland eller Japan: Gjev dei framtredane verdiane i dette landet støtte for demokrat? Gjer greie. Sodaro discusses the values of each of the countries included in his volume. Choose China, Russia or Japan: do values in that country support democracy? Explain. I anticipate that this will be a difficult question, which the student will have to dig deeply to answer. The student may want to relate the values of democracy to those identified in question 12 above (freedom, inclusion, equality, tolerance, welfare, cooperation, trust and others that combine into a spirit of democracy) and discuss whether such values are present in the culture in general; the student may also discuss this question by reference to

11 the history of these countries and/or by reference to whether the country s elites have democratic values. These countries are chosen for a reason: Japan is a country where democracy was established after the war and is a non-western country. The degree of its democracy has frequently been called into question. Russia is a transitional country where democracy may have had a chance one but which seems to be slipping back into autocratic rule (it is classified as semi-authoritarian, downgraded from semi-democracy). It is a country about which this question has often been asked. China is also in an interesting phase, with introduction of a much more market driven economy even while it is ruled by an autocracy. Russia: Sodaro writes that with the fall of communism, Russia did not successfully install all of the 5 elements of the temple of democracy. While things looked promising in the 1990s, the outlook is much less optimistic today. With respect to values, he writes that respect for democratic values such as individual freedom, trust and compromise is waning. Russians increasingly distrust democracy and yearn for a strong leader. There is increasing Russian chauvinism in this multi-ethnic country. The student may discuss the long autocratic tradition in Russia (first under the Tsars and then under Communism), the lack of the enlightenment and liberalism in Russian history, and the lack of other conditions associated with the development of democracy as suggesting that Russian values may not be particularly supportive of democracy. Russians had little opportunity to organize and work together in a democratic fashion. The collapse of communism, however, created great optimism and raised expectations which have been not been fulfilled by subsequent developments. The initial support of Russians for democracy may suggest that democracy is not impossible in Russia, but again, the disappointments of recent years (including a poor economy, the Chechen war and the terrorism that has been associated with it, corruption and so forth) have caused a loss of faith. Japan: Japan apparently embraced democracy after WWII, but Sodaro writes that the big question has been whether Japan has really been all that democratic. After discussing this at length, he concludes that Japan is a democracy, but that there are some serious issues that need to be dealt with. Japanese values are not particularly problematic. Japan scores high on such values as consensus and social harmony, which has the positive side of keeping politics very civil but the disadvantage of inhibiting change and challenging of politicians and other elites, and thus blocking change. (Historically, the Japanese had embraced Confucianism with stressed respect for authority and Buddhism, which led to a degree of passivity. Another element was the acceptance of myths about the divinity of the emperor.) The willingness of the press to criticize the government has grown in recent years and civil rights are both used and generally respected. While many Japanese are tolerant of the small minority groups within Japan, there is nonetheless a strong tradition of national chauvinism and intolerance. Many Japanese feel that they have great personal freedom. One might note that traditional notions about women still inhibit full participation of women in the workplace or politics. Equality has been valued in postwar Japan, with less inequality than in several other democratic countries. Information flows freely.

12 China: This is also a country with a long, autocratic past. The communist party still dominates the country today, and while there is more scope for political activism in China than before, it remains an autocratic country. Both the era of emperors and of communism bred a collectivist mentality rather than an emphasis on the individual and individual rights. Chinese culture embraces hierarchy and order. Sodero writes that both Chinese elites and masses doubt whether China is ready for democracy chaos is feared. However, there is evidence that the Chinese are able and willing to criticize authority when allowed to do so, even if the government is not eager to hear it. The student might note the legacy of the cultural revolution, the let a hundred flowers bloom movment, the democracy wall movement, the Tiananmen square protests, the growing tendency of Chinese to complain about local authorities and the lower level elections that do take place in China today to suggest that respect for authority certainly has its limits. China does have a growing nationalism and tolerance may be an issue. Equality was certainly a value of importance during communism, at least on paper, but there is a strong elite tradition in China. The recent economic growth is once again introducing big differences in wealth in the country; the success of a growing private sector seems to suggest that China could well support a democratic political system. 16. Sodaro argumenterer at holdninger hos den politiske eliten er en viktig forutsetning for demokrati. Hva mener han med det? Illustrer ved å hente eksempler fra to av følgende land: Frankrike, Tyskland, Japan, Storbritannia, Russland eller Kina. Sodaro argumenterar at holdningar hjå den politiske eliten er ei viktig forutsetning for demokrati. Kva meiner han med det? Illustrer ved å hente eksempel frå to av følgjande land: Frankrike, Tyskland, Japan, Storbritannia, Russland eller Kina. Sodaro argues that the attitude of political elites is an important condition for democracy. What does he mean by this? Illustrate using examples from 2 of the following countries: France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Russia or China. Sodero s main point is that elites must embrace the basic values of democracy in order for democracy to succeed (freedom, inclusion, equality, tolerance, welfare, cooperation, compromise trust and others that combine into a spirit of democracy ) and that the attitudes of elites are particularly important in during the construction of democracy. It is the elites who traditionally push or broker the transition to democracy. They must often mobilize support for the compromises that must also be made in such transitions. Once democracy is established, Sodaro argues, it is really the government by elites who are in turn accountable to the people. Elites here means the leaders of key groups throughout society key political and economic leaders, for example, but also military, bureaucracy and so forth. If elites don t support democracy it is unlikely to last. Elites are after all, those with command of resources in a society. Their support, or at least the support of key

13 elites, is essential. They open up the political space within which democracy may evolve perhaps accidently -- or actively support the people and the democratic ideal they become allies of the democratic forces in society. France: France s elites have traditionally been less supportive of democracy. The aristocracy was close out of power by absolutist monarchs, and lost power (and often their heads) with outbreak of the French Revolution (although some did support it). The middle class split between those who favored more democracy and those who favored an authoritarian solution. The Church and other elites never accepted the revolution, and continued to support authoritarian solutions. The French road to a stable democracy has accordingly been much more rocky, and France has gone through a series of constitutions. There remain elitist, non-democratic elements in France today. The French President is much more aloof and does not answer to Parliament (although he Prime minister does). The French civil service is also very powerful, closely linked to private enterprise, and its members are not elected. They constitute a true political elite today. The political right in France today supports a strong central state, although Charles degaulle did redefine the right as a supporter of democracy. Today, there is broad support for the current system, but it is one that has clear elitist tendencies. Britain: Britain s slow transition to democracy was driven by elites as well as pressed from below. It started perhaps with the Magna Carta in The British Parliament subsequently came to provide a home for opposition to kings who sought absolute control. Absolutism in Britain was successfully defeated with the English revolution, the overthrow of Charles I and the rule of Oliver Cromwell. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 and associated events led to the supremacy of Parliament and eventual creation of a constitutional monarchy. While this meant that an absolute monarchy did not develop, a transition to democracy was slow, taking place over many years as the House of Commons grew in importance and came to overshadow the House of Lords. Throughout this process, elites clashed with each other, with important elements of the elite supporting transitions in an increasingly democratic direction. Japan: Japanese elites were key figures, of course, in the support the non-democratic regimes of Japan before WWII and in embracing the new, democratic form of government after world war II. Democracy was not a Japanese tradition. The country was ruled by feudal-like lords until the Mejii Resoration of 1868 which set the country on the road to modernity. It is in this period that the close cooperation between the Japanese state and large business conglomerate known as Zaibatsu were formed. Together the state and these businesses formed a barrier to the development of democracy. However, some elites became intrigued by the idea of democracy, formed parties and pushed for change. In 1889 Japan s first constitution was took effect. This was a promising opening for the development of democracy. This opening led to instability as workers and others took advantage of the new system to protest and press demands. In the interwar period, and important backlash developed among powerful elites which ended in the militarization of the government. In 1936 a military coup took place and the military ruled until the defeat of Japan in The military was discredited with Japan s defeat. The American occupation government created a new government for the country, and purged many of the old leaders from the government. A new Japanese set of leaders were drawn from

14 outside the old set of leaders, especially from business. Together they forged a new system which was democratic but which was also dominated by a few parties, especially the Liberal Democratic Party, that managed to dominate Japanese politics until recently. Germany: Germany as a single country was a relatively late creation in Europe. In 1848, German liberals tried to create a unified German democracy, but had no success in attracting significant German elites to the project, which collapsed. German intellectual elites embraced much more elitist ideals than liberals in, for example, Britain. The commercial classes, often the source of democratizing ideals, was much weaker than n Britain. The unification of Germany came in an age of nationalism, when the individual was to be subordinate to the state. The state was forged by military force with Prussia as a dominant force: here democratic ideals did not flourish. Some democratic like elements of the German state after 1871 were introduced by Bismarck to divide the liberal opposition, which never gained much traction. The Reichstag did not develop the power of the British parliament. The old regime collapsed as a result of WWI, leaving the weak Weimar Republic which proved unable to establish a stable regime. Elites eventually rallied around Hitler. The Nazis, however, pushed aside old elites. The total defeat of the country at the end of WWII discredited leaders associated with that regime and lead to a new start with a new elite which embraced democratic values. A few prewar leaders who were not tainted by association with the Nazis were given power (Adenauer) and a new generation emerged in the post-war era. Today, German elites support the democratic regime. Russia, somewhat like France, was a country in which the aristocracy became subordinated to an all powerful monarch (here, the Tsar). The Church too was subordinated, to an even greater degree than in France. The military also supported the Tsar. As the 19 th century drew to a close, however, some members of the aristocracy began to press for change and intellectual elite (the intelligentsia) began to call for change. An economic elite really failed to emerge before 1914, and there was little middle class: the Tsar remained the source of privilege and power and little power was devolved to others. There was little successful pressure for change until Russia s defeat by Japan in 1905, when the Tsar was force to create the Duma, a parliament-like institution of very limited power. Russia s system collapsed totally as a result of WWI, leaving a vacuum filled eventually by the communist party. Under this system, a new elite developed who owed its position, wealth and power to a highly undemocratic system. It became very brittle, and when Gorbachev attempted to reform it, the system cracked. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, new elites have emerged, many of whom are not committed to democracy. These are the new Russian oligarchs or tycoons who have amassed great economic power in the country. China: China has no tradition of democracy. The Chinese emperor was an absolute ruler and was supported by a bureaucratic elite. Main challenges tended to come from regional warlords, who asserted their power at times when the Emperor grew weak, but these were not democratizing elements. The west presented a big challenge to China, as its technology and other accomplishments cast doubt upon the supposed superiority of China. The success of the western powers created a major debate in China as to the value of western ideas and ways, and the degree to which China should emulate the west, with

15 the development of a movement in favor of democracy. However, the main contenders for power after the collapse of the monarchy were none too democratic the KMT formally embraced democracy but felt the Chinese were not yet ready. Their main competitors were the Communist party which embraced an alternative to western democracy. The dominance of the Communist Party since 1949 has lead to elites who rely upon the Communist Party for their position, although reformers do emerge from their ranks now and then, pushing the system in a less authoritarian direction. Democracy has simply not had many champions in China, although it is possible that this may be slowly changing today. It may be that like in the case of the Soviet Union, elements of the political elite could support reforms that allow a movement for democracy to emerge in the future. Students might note that intellectuals who have criticized the government too forcefully and openly supported western-style democracy have frequently ended up in jail.