Structure of society Elite behaviour Homogenous Plural Coalescent Depoliticized democracy Consociational democracy Adversarial Centripetal democracy Centrifugal democracy 1980s: distinction majoritarian vs consensual democracies, geographically wider applicable Majoritarian: limitless power to winner, exclusive power, authority hardly constrained Consensus: power shared, minorities included, limited by courts + chambers, decentralized Problem: many mixed forms, very difficult to make a good typology Decentralist vs centripetal democracies Decentralist: diffusion of power, broad political participation, limits on governmental action, separation of powers, strong limits on executive authority, fragmentation of power USA Centripetal: inclusive authoritative institutions, responsible party government, strong unified government, majoritarian + PR, centralized interest groups, well-organized parties Sweden Both result from mixed Lijphart’s mixed cases The problems of holistic models Attempt to model democracies as whole systems Lijphart prefers consensus, Gerring prefers centripetal, both give same weight to different features Problem: not one democracy is totally one type, all are mixed forms Postcommunist democracies: wanted to build state and ensure survival at same time Double-headed strategy leads to different institutional arrangements Also cross-national learning and porous borders more and more diffusion Democracies not closed or self-containing systems , never completely coherent systems [F] AUDIENCE DEMOCRACY? Widespread dissatisfaction with aspects of democracy + declining participation levels World of politics more and more separated from world of citizenry audience democracy Audience moved by spectacle, but indifferent and passive Citizens withdraw from politics, decision-making becomes more depoliticized, bigger role for judges, banks, international organizations, EU, agencies, ... Countered by referendums, primaries, ... ?? Chapter 6: Authoritarian regimes - Brooker [A] INTRODUCTION Until modern times: states ruled by authoritarian regimes; mostly hereditary monarchies Looked primitive in competition with democracies, replaced by dictatorships by organization / leader Personal dictatorship: leader of army (Bonaparte) or of organization (Stalin) One-party rule claiming permanent monopoly over power: Russian Tsars, fascism later personal Russian revolution (1917): Bolshevik Red Army Chinese revolution(46-49): rural revolution, People’s liberation army, control except Taiwan Iranian revolution (1979): mosque-mobilized revolution of Muslims, ayatollah Khomeini [B] WHO RULES? Dictatorial monarchs
Structure of society Elite behaviour Homogenous Plural Coalescent Depoliticized democracy Consociational democracy Adversarial Centripetal democracy Centrifugal democracy 1980s: distinction majoritarian vs consensual democracies, geographically wider applicable Majoritarian: limitless power to winner, exclusive power, authority hardly constrained Consensus: power shared, minorities included, limited by courts + chambers, decentralized Problem: many mixed forms, very difficult to make a good typology Decentralist vs centripetal democracies Decentralist: diffusion of power, broad political participation, limits on governmental action, separation of powers, strong limits on executive authority, fragmentation of power USA Centripetal: inclusive authoritative institutions, responsible party government, strong unified government, majoritarian + PR, centralized interest groups, well-organized parties Sweden Both result from mixed Lijphart’s mixed cases The problems of holistic models Attempt to model democracies as whole systems Lijphart prefers consensus, Gerring prefers centripetal, both give same weight to different features Problem: not one democracy is totally one type, all are mixed forms Postcommunist democracies: wanted to build state and ensure survival at same time Double-headed strategy leads to different institutional arrangements Also cross-national learning and porous borders more and more diffusion Democracies not closed or self-containing systems , never completely coherent systems [F] AUDIENCE DEMOCRACY? Widespread dissatisfaction with aspects of democracy + declining participation levels World of politics more and more separated from world of citizenry audience democracy Audience moved by spectacle, but indifferent and passive Citizens withdraw from politics, decision-making becomes more depoliticized, bigger role for judges, banks, international organizations, EU, agencies, ... Countered by referendums, primaries, ... ?? Chapter 6: Authoritarian regimes - Brooker [A] INTRODUCTION Until modern times: states ruled by authoritarian regimes; mostly hereditary monarchies Looked primitive in competition with democracies, replaced by dictatorships by organization / leader Personal dictatorship: leader of army (Bonaparte) or of organization (Stalin) One-party rule claiming permanent monopoly over power: Russian Tsars, fascism later personal Russian revolution (1917): Bolshevik Red Army Chinese revolution(46-49): rural revolution, People’s liberation army, control except Taiwan Iranian revolution (1979): mosque-mobilized revolution of Muslims, ayatollah Khomeini [B] WHO RULES? Dictatorial monarchs