-Procedural minimum definition of democracy 

-Prior to this definition, democracy was defined by Schumpter's minimalist definition which states that a democracy exists when you have periodic party winners and losers and that elections themselves cannot define democracy

-Robert Dahl coins procedural  minimum def. in 1971

-democracy is an ideal and cannot be acheived- or has yet to be achieved- so we have polyarchies instead

-democracy has 7 attributes: elections, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage (everyone has right to vote), all citizens have right to run for office, right to form/join associations, right to get information, freedom of expression

-his definition of democracy concerns elections and civil liberties because elections wouldn't mean anything without protected civil liberties 

-social scientist thought Dahl did a good job defining democracy.His definition was applicable to the world at that time between 1974 to the 1990s as it applied to the third wave of democracy happening at that time. For example, Portugal switched from authoritarianism to democracy and became stronger as it fulfilled the procedural requirements for democracy. 

• Term coined by Schmitter and Karl
• it encapsulates Dahl's definition but adds the condition that elected leaders must be able to exercise power
• they were examining latin america and saw that latin american countries fulfill Dahl's procedural minimum definition but at the same time, the military had a lot of power. If the president approved a law, the military had the power to veto it. Also, the military didnt have to use constitutional, official, and legal means to get things done. Therefore, the elected official couldnt really exercise democracy which is why this definition of democracy was created. 
• countries where unelected officials such as religious leaders, or institutions, like the military, can veto elected officials decisions and go through independent means to get things done are not democracies
• Example: Guatemala 

-coined by O' Donell

-democracies must have both horizontal and vertical accountability to be democracies

-horizontal accountability: president is kept in balanced and constrained by judiciary branch and legislative branch so he cannot simply do as he pleases

-vertical accountability: president is vertically accountable to the people meaning that people have the power to vote the president out if they are not happy with him

-delegative democracy has no horizontal accountability

-example: Venezuela under Hugo Chavez: Chavez elected president in 1998 and had vertical accountability. People loved what he was doing because he was providing free health care, education to improve literacy rates, land reform, and subsidized food. The political left and poor loved him whereas political right and wealthy did not. In 2002, the military forced him out of office and reinstated him 2 days later. In 2004, a national referendum is held to ask the people whether Chavez should remain in presidency. In 2006, he is reelected. Legislative branch has never been able to effectively check the president. When he first comes to power, he fires all the legislature by claiming they are corrupt. The actual act of firing them is, however, undemocratic. in 2007, the legislature gives Chavez the ability to rule by decree which basically means he can issue wahtever rules he wants without legislature opposing him. With this new, unchecked power, Chavez raised taxes on the rich and oil and also changed the term limit constraint on the president. Therefore, Venezuela under Chavez is a clear example of delegative democracy because the president clearly has vertical accountability to the people but no horizontal accountability with legislature (esp. after hes given the chance to rule by decree)

-criticism of definition: positive--> it allows you to classify countries that lacking in one or few of the characteristics but overall still represents a democratice regime

-criticism of definition: negative--> this definition may not be very useful because it include some countries that are better off being excluded 

-minimalist: Schumpter: elections happen and there are periodic winners and periodic losers

-examples: Cuba, Afghanistan, Russia, South Africa under apartheid, US before women and blacks have rights

-minimalist definition is far too inclusive and doesn't protect any rights of the citizens 

-maximalist: Smith: definition of democracy should include Dalh's procedural minimum, Schmitter and Karl's expanded procedural minimum, and also social equality

-Smith: democracy has accountability, social equality, and participation

-need competition so that people choose who to elect. democracy must hold elected officials accountable. need participation for president to have vertical accountability. need social equality so that everybody has right to effectively participate because different groups hold more power and practice greater participation than others.

-maximalist definition would exclude the US as a democracy

-minimalist definition and maximalist definition are at opposite ends of the spectrum.They are too extreme definitions that are either too inclusive or too exclusive. Whereas with minimalist definition you are able to categorize South Africa under Apartheid and US without rights for women and blacks as countries with democratic regimes, maximalist definition is too exclusive because even US doesn't qualify under that definition. Scandanavian countries and Netherlands would probably be the only countries that qualify as a democracy with maximalist defintion.Another problem with the maximalist definition is that it has circular reasoning: do we want the outcome of social equality included in the definition of democracy?

-Regime: the rules and procedures that determine who hold power

-Regimes differ in terms of  pluralism(groups in society that are autonomous of the state), ideology (guiding system of beliefs), leadership (leadership based on constitutional rules and procedures), and mobilization (does state generally guide or control civic mobilization)

-totalitarianism: no pluralism, yes ideology, no leadership, yes mobilization

-pluralism totalitarian: no pluralism, if we have individuals and individual groups doing unpredictable things, it will take longer to achieve the utopian state;; eliminate social, economic, and political pluralism 

-ideology totalitarian: believe there is a utopia (perfect state of being); there is plan to get there  that if you must follow, you will achieve utopia

ideology totalitarian: leadership is NOT based on constitutional rules and procedures

mobilization totalitarian: state generally guides and controls civic mobilization

-authoritarian: Linz uses the word authoritarian to define countries that aren't total democracies or totalitarian in terms of pluralism, ideology, leadership, and mobilization

-Linz was thinking about Spain under Franco when he coined the term authoritarian. Franco is still in full swing in the 1960s while Linz is writing about authoritarianism. 

-authoritarian pluralism: pluralism was very limited but not zero; "i just want to unify spain, save it rom the chaos of political parties"; cult of personality

-authoritarian ideology: no ideology; Franco sympathized with fascism but didn't adopt the policies; only ideology is to stay in power!

-authoritarian leadership: no popular elections, all political decisions came back to him

-authoritarian mobilization:there was only one union, official workers union! it was created and maintained by the state. social unions were deemed alright but not political unions because they interfere with ideology (to stay in power)

CHART

Totalitarian  Authoritarian

Pluralism: no political- very restircted; social yes

Ideology: yes no

Leadership: no no

Mobilize: yes almost no political mobilization (France involved with any mobilization that is political, if its not political, then its okay to mobilize)

EXAMPLE: USSR (Stalin) vs. Chile (Pinoche)

Auth: Pinoche: know enemies, know how to stay on good side, limited political pluralism, no guiding ideology (goal is not beyond staying in power), leadership is not based on constitution.. rule in manner that is predictable (predictably defined limits) 

Tot: Stalin: totally unpredictable, no pluralism, yes ideology, no leadership, yes mobilization (state guides/controls civic mobilization), cult of personality 

-authoritarian leaders are forced to retreat and military leaders are defeated by internal or external forces

-scrambling for political replacement because no idea as tow who is the successor of the overthrown government 

-it is a sudden transition, there is no plan

-democracies resulting from transition by collapse are unstable

-Example: Argentina 1980s economic crisis

economy is worsening but military generals remained united. authoritarian leaders are losing legitimacy. there are violent civil rights violations and they are finally coming to light. the population is galvanized and angered. the government had been torturing, kidnapping, and killing civilians and at plaza de Mayo, which was carried out in front of casa rosada, the protestors held pictures of those who had disappeared. People began bringing the issues to the judicial government thus scaring the generals, who therefore stepped up the oppression which lead to them losing even more legitimacy. military leaders take a shot at legitimacy by trying to unite the Argentine people with war against Brazil for the fauklin islands. Britain wins and military leaders have just gotten their butts kicked and lost every last shred of legitimacy. Free elections took place after the generals were deposed and Alfosin, who became first democratically elected president, tried to enact transitional justice to hold the generals accountable for their crimes. 

-basically argentina exemplifies transition by collapse and in this case it turned out fine that democracy was enacted and that fair elections that represented the people took place 

-most common form of transition

-need authoritarian leaders and democratic opposition

-there are camps within both authoritarian and democratic camps

-AUTH: hardliners[no democracy, repress opp]/ softliners[like auth but are realistic and see whats coming... cant have legitimacy if continue oppression]

-DEMO: moderates[want dem but dont push too hard because hardliners get top hand]/ radicals[end auth regime by any means necessary]

-camps need to exist and have leaders with enough authority to exercise control over followers so they can make deals with others

-pacted transition: transition by negotiation 

-softliners and moderates need upper hand because they usually make the negotiations 

-Example: 1930 South Africa- white control over black; apartheid

-eventually international sanctions and protests. whites begin to wonder how to deal with black insurgency. authoritarian softliners realize something must be done. the Afrikaans party, or the HARDLINERS, want to keep things the same. the Nationalists, or the SOFTLINERS, are headed by DeKlerk. the moderate democratic oppositional forces are the ANC and PAC. the ANC is the moderates headed by Mandela. PAC is the radical group.Opposition places pressure on authoritarian regime so with internal and external pressure, the auth regime makes economy work. DeKlerk knows Mandela is good so they release him from jail. He shows Mandela he can handle the hardliners and power by constantly keeping a check on the Afrikaans. He tells Mandela that the h.l. are crazy and that if you push them too hard, they're going to say he is too soft and selling out. if that happens, i, deklerk, would lose popular support and the h.l will take over. Mandela also used the radical group as a leverage to negotiate with the other side. Mandela says that black South African tribes give up your guns so that we can get to power. "ONE MAN, ONE VOTE" the black south africans are the overwhelming majority and they put down guns even when violence was committed against them. this made more blacks support the ANC and even some white softliners too. in the 1st referendum, it asked where white south africans support continuing negotiations with mandela and 2/3 said yes. Then, with the implementation f one man one vote Mandela wins with 75% and DeKlerk steps down. 

-authoritarian leaders leave power on their own. If they back out slowly they can control terms of transition. Although end result is democracy, authoritarian leaders still have considerable influence. 

-example: Brazil. Beuaracratic regime. 1964 authoritarian leaders take control. 1984 economic pressures, debts, secondary ISI, strikes and rallies everywhere. generals know that if they try to hang onto power, theyll lose. best option to get what they want is to give up power. generals also have the ability to see to maximize power by looking to Chile and Argentina. In Chile, there were protests once a month for 3 years. in Argentina, there are violent protests. the generals decide to introduce civil rights but maintain social control and so they create 2 parties, the pro govt party and opposition party. the opp party wasnt really an opp party and interestingly the pro govt party became the true opp party 

-in pacted transitions to democracy, there are authoritarian leaders and democratic oppositions.

-hardliners and softliners are from the authoritarian regime except they represent two separate camps

-hardliners are the hardcore authoritarians who do not wish to ever see democracy instituted. They want to continue repressing the opposition.

-softliners, on the other hand, would like to see the authoritarian regime continue but they are realistic and can see what is coming. They know they wont have legitimacy if they continue the repression 

-Ex: South Africa under apartheid:: hardliners = Afrikaans and softliners = Nationalists headed by DeKlerk. DeKlerk began negotiations with Mandela, who a was a moderate from the ANC. 

-Religion is source of society's values and traditions -Religion affects how people think about class hierarchy, politics, relationships but it doesnt mean that everybody shares dominant religious traiditions -political scientists considered the impact of catholicism and protestantism on democracy -Lipsit wrote that something about catholicism is bad for democracy. Could it be the hierarchical structure? In the third wave of democracy (Portugal) there were internal reforms of Catholic Church? -Fukuyama: looked at affects of Confucianism on democracy. Confucianism preaches hierarchy, obedience, and respect.

-Islam is a modern day problem. Some actors believe that Islam does allow for democracy to take root in a country. Stepan, Ibrahim, and Feldham are such actors. Stepan looked at developing nations and saw that they are either equal to or even outpace non Muslim countries in free elections and civil liberties. Ibrahim also said democracy could take root in Muslim countries becaues everybody wants freedom and Islam correlates with democracy. Although he said it would take a lot of work, it is not impossible. Feldman says democracy can take root in Muslim countries because Muslims had laws and caliphs who were held accountable to teh rule of law. Therefore, they have an appreciation for it because it existed/does exist in Muslim culture. Others, such as Nasr and Diamond believe that democracy could take root in Muslim countries given certain conditions. Nasr wrote that there are no features of Islam that make it any better or worse for democracy. The only problem with democracy and Islam is when political parties become inspired by Islam because then there is a chance that the political party could impose theocracy. However, as long as there is a strong private economic sector, and multiple political parties and CSOs, and civilian control over military, Islam does not affect democracy. Diamond argues that there is no problem with Islam and democracy but rather there is an Arab problem. In Muslim countries, until the economy is able to develop independent of the oil curse, democracy will not be to take root. Finally, Fish states religion does impact democracy. He says it is not possible for democracy to take root in Islamic countries because of the status of women. The low status of women is bad for democracy because it marginalizes them and excludes them politics which thereby lead to more extreme laws that are undemocratic.

-Zakaria writes the combination of religion and politics is extremely combustible because religion stresses moral absolutes whereas politics are all about compromise

-what is a favorable context?

--A country that is surrounded by democracy because that way it is likely to become democratic

--Particular countries or groups of countries actively foster democracy and therefore other countries want to belong to that group of other countries (Greece is a possible example as it joined the EU)(Latvia and Estonia are other possible examples after the post-Cold War era)

-Krutz and Barnes in 2002 did quantitative research and found that no relationship exists between economic development and democracy 

-Bandelji and Radu in 2006 conducted qualitative and quantitative research on all post communist countries and found transnational forces. The main driving force was the possibility of joining the EU in central and eastern europe. 

-income inequality leads to poor quality of public services. this is because the elites dont use the services- they have private resources. They see the public reality but dont know what its like to live in it. They dont support the public services because they dont need them and therefore do not want to spend money on services they wont use.

-Another consequence of income inequality is increasing social compartmentalization. It impacts the quality of lives of the poor and rich, making the lives of the poor worse and the lives of the rich better.Social compartmentalization also impacts political participation. It reduces the level of togetherness in society and fosters political polarization. The rich want lower taxes and dont see the need for higher taxes to support public services that the poor rely on. It results in polarization which means both sides have extreme opinions. 

-polarization, however, isnt necessarily a bad thing. democracy encourages pluralism and therefore these groups have to exist and fight it out in the political arena. Peaceful argument is the foundation of democracy and allows democracy to survive. 

-examples of economically unequal countries = south africa and brazil

-if you have society with large economic disparity, elites dont live in same world as poor and experience life completely differently

--Przeworski et all 2000: did a large sample study of 141 countries between the years 1950 and 1990 and found no correlation between economic development and democratization. They said economic development alone wont bring down dictatorships so in terms of democratic transition there is no correlation between economic development and democracy. They also found that higher per capita income is related to greater democracy stability. In 2003 Boix and Stokes criticized study because it was a skewed sample. by starting in 1950, most wealthy countries were already democracies. In their research, they examined countries starting a century earlier, in 1850. then they would see how regime type and per capita interact. Their results indicated that between 1850 and 1950 economic development was an indicator for democratic transition. from 1950 to 2000 there was still the same correlation just it was less significant. Their study showed that the relationship between democracy and GDP is complex so simply raising GDP doesn't directly lead to democracy.

-economic development is good for democracy.

-research shows that high GDP and democracy are related because high GDP is good for democratic transition and maintenance. 

-economic development impacts education. education impacts the number of people informed about politics. it creats an urge for people to want to make their own political decisions and so therefore, through education, economic development fosters democracy.

-economic development creates a strong middle class. this means people have more leisure time which they can choose to spend on political activity. it also means that people have more money than before. they are therefore more interested in how much government taxes them and what services are provided by government because their money is after all being funded towards public services. they therefore demand representation in politics so that they can have more control over how their money is spent. 

-economic development also impacts organization. with higher GDP, urbanization occurs and people who live in the cities form organizations. this supports democratization and they talk about politics and form more sophisticated ideas. [example of organization impacting democratization can be seen through stones into schools where women in Kabul now come together and discuss politics and create a unified group]

-Przeworski et all 2000: did a large sample study of 141 countries between the years 1950 and 1990 and found no correlation between economic development and democratization. They said economic development alone wont bring down dictatorships so in terms of democratic transition there is no correlation between economic development and democracy. They also found that higher per capita income is related to greater democracy stability. In 2003 Boix and Stokes criticized study because it was a skewed sample. by starting in 1950, most wealthy countries were already democracies. In their research, they examined countries starting a century earlier, in 1850. then they would see how regime type and per capita interact. Their results indicated that between 1850 and 1950 economic development was an indicator for democratic transition. from 1950 to 2000 there was still the same correlation just it was less significant. Their study showed that the relationship between democracy and GDP is complex so simply raising GDP doesn't directly lead to democracy.

-if democracy doesnt yield a strong middle class, it leads to greater class stratification. this leads to class differentiation and ideological differences which create polarization. however, as seen with income inequality, polarization could be good for democracy because democracy fosters pluralism and it would allow an arena for different classes to peacefully negotiate.

-civil society: the sphere of social life that stands apart from private families, the market, and the state. Composed of CSOs and interest groups. CSO is an umbrella term that includes cultural, political, ethnic, and neighborhood groups as well as unions and NGOs. Interest groups are groups of people that organize, channel, and defend interests of specific constituency

-Sartori argues that civil society is not good for democracy because they only keep in mind the interests of their members, not all of society. political parties on the other keep in mind the interest of all citizens 

-mobilization: 

-O Donnell: rule of law exists when government works its will through legislation, all people have right to equal treatment under law, and no one is above the law

-rule of law emphasizes equality

-O Donnell: rule of law doesnt exist in reality (no empirical evidence for it) but all countries should strive for it

-example of countries with NO rule of law include USSR under Stalin

Benefits

(1) adherence to rule of law makes rulers/political leaders predictable. This fosters legitimacy because people in society rely and trust the ruler and see the government as legitimate. if the ruler agrees to subject himself to the ROL people in society rest assured that they wont be prosecuted arbitrarily and therefore govt garners legitimacy 

(2) ROL is necessary for market economy. It allows for people to act with confidence that conflicts will be resolved via legal process. How do you know that the other party will hold their end of the bargain? with ROL we know that matters will be settled in fair and objective manner.Because we know ROL ensures fair and legal processes, we know that problems will be dealt without regard to family connections, ethnicity, religion, etc

(3) ROL maintains social order because it makes sure that laws are enforced. Ex: parking in rio de janeiro. people know that there is a less than 5% chance of getting a ticket if they park where they are not supposed to. the fact that laws are not enforced lead to traffic jams and heavy traffic. if laws were enforced, people would know what to expect if they broke the law and there would be more order (less traffic jams!)

(4) ROL is necessary if countries want to solve major problems in international context. Its good for implementing international agreements to world problems. Ex: copenhagen: ROL makes sure terms of environmental agreement are enforced because people feel the impacts of the decision made. 

Benefits to Democracies

(1) ROL ensures collective will of people is represented. laws reflect what people want done. if laws are not enforced, it is not reflecting collective will of society

(2) ROL legitimates the use of force. Constitution and criminal laws determine explicitly the circumstances, limitations, and capabilities of use of force by state and private citizens. Need restrictions, its explicitly defined. if restrictions are not enforced, may determine who comes to power through violence

(3) ROL  is good for tolerance and equality. every citizen has same rights as any other so ROL helps build democratic culture. nobody gets privileges with ROL or is discriminated against. ROL helps create tolerant mindsets that lead to social equality that are good for democracy. if under law all citizens are equal, ROL emphasizes equality for all and helps create democratic culture of respect and tolerance

-O Donnell: rule of law exists when government works its will through legislation, all people have right to equal treatment under law, and no one is above the law

-rule of law emphasizes equality

-O Donnell: rule of law doesnt exist in reality (no empirical evidence for it) but all countries should strive for it

-example of countries with NO rule of law include USSR under Stalin

hard to implement rule of law because...

(1) laws have to be possible to follow. laws are made to be read and understood so therefore they should be clear and explicit. they should be written in the majority language. people need to understand what the laws are and what they are saying. [laws must exist, must be written in manner and language that everyday citizens can understand]

(2) laws themselves are flawed. example: US and South Africa had laws that discriminate and this goes against democracy. if laws are flawed, then there really is no adherence to ROL

(3) laws not equally applied in practice. laws dont equally apply to everybody. EX: in ecuador, a girl saw a woman being beat and raped. she told her host family and the host dad looked out the window and shut the covers. he had seen a wealthy family member doing the crime. he couldnt call the police because they would make the situation even worse. the host family would get in serious trouble so its better to turn a blind eye. laws are only in books and when powerful members of society dont follow laws then there is no ROL

-Przeworski et all 2000: did a large sample study of 141 countries between the years 1950 and 1990 and found no correlation between economic development and democratization. They said economic development alone wont bring down dictatorships so in terms of democratic transition there is no correlation between economic development and democracy. They also found that higher per capita income is related to greater democracy stability.

-Boix and Stokes criticized study because it was a skewed sample.

-Boix and Stokes do the same study again but this time they start a century earlier in 1850. In Prz. et al, by starting in 1950, most wealthy countries were already democracies. In their research, they examined countries starting a century earlier, in 1850. then they would see how regime type and per capita interact.

-Their results indicated that between 1850 and 1950 economic development was an indicator for democratic transition [2% increase in every $1000 increase in GDP]

-from 1950 to 2000 there was still the same correlation just it was less significant [1/2% increase for every $1000 increase in GDP]

 2% increase per $1000 increase in GDP → not just economic growth, but other factors that encourage democracy → relationship between GDP and democracy, but more complicated, increasing economic equality

-Their study showed that the relationship between democracy and GDP is complex: economic growth along with other factors encourage democracy. it is not as simple as economic growth leads to democracy. for example, have to take into account income inequality! when theres a huge gap between rich and poor, the rich get what they want whereas if there is middle class there is more income equality and more chance of democracy

-group of people who unite in an attempt to coin of maintain control of government. They unite for a certain even to win control.

-they have 5 functions:

(1) structure the popular vote: they have to influence who has power and make policy commitments and ideas on which policies can advance. once in power, elected officials will have political power

(2) act as interest mediators: organize chaotic public interests, aggregating different interests together, and articulating those interests via candidate on whom they rely

(3) mobilize support: parties are good at mobilizing support. they are good at fundraising, getting information out, and mobilizing support. They are highly organized and have many resources (this gives them an advantage over interest and social groups)

(4) provide information shortcut: when voting for representatives, instead of having to research a particular candidate we can use his or her political party as ID. in US, we have representative democracy. we vote for representatives who vote on our behalf as compared to us voting on every matter (which is a direct democracy, very impractical). when voting for presidency, voters spend time getting to know candidate. if there is a candidate you know nothing about except the fact that he is a republican, you an get an idea of what he supports and opposes and whether you will vote for them or not

(5) contain and suppress violence: in high ethnic tension countries there may be groups with extreme groups. they want to get their views out there. if that group has the ability to form a political party and get candidate into arena, maybe that group will be more likely work through legal, political means vs violence

current challenges for parties:

(1) catch all parties differ in rhetoric but converge on policy: end up ruling the same because move to middle to get votes

(2) some followers are less loyal to parties: see candidates moving to more moderate grounds and feel betrayed. "I am an ideologically left but these parties are too much in the center to my liking." some people feel left out   EX: pirate party in sweden, focused more on internet acces vs. capitalism or working class 

history of political parties

cadre-->mass--> catch-all

cadre: party composed of elite, not a lot of connection to masses, masses= no right to vote, decentralized

mass: 20th century mass rise, differ in terms of organizational style, centralized, goal is to reach masses, very organized, good at distributing information

catch-all: switch from mass to catch-all because of technology and change in social structure. no voter base, bring in as many people into platform, rely on electoral success, no ideals or targeting specific group because broad platform to "catch" as many people to vote for them as possible

(1) structure the popular vote: they have to influence who has power and make policy commitments and ideas on which policies can advance. once in power, elected officials will have political power

(2) act as interest mediators: organize chaotic public interests, aggregating different interests together, and articulating those interests via candidate on whom they rely

(3) mobilize support: parties are good at mobilizing support. they are good at fundraising, getting information out, and mobilizing support. They are highly organized and have many resources (this gives them an advantage over interest and social groups)

(4) provide information shortcut: when voting for representatives, instead of having to research a particular candidate we can use his or her political party as ID. in US, we have representative democracy. we vote for representatives who vote on our behalf as compared to us voting on every matter (which is a direct democracy, very impractical). when voting for presidency, voters spend time getting to know candidate. if there is a candidate you know nothing about except the fact that he is a republican, you an get an idea of what he supports and opposes and whether you will vote for them or not

(5) contain and suppress violence: in high ethnic tension countries there may be groups with extreme groups. they want to get their views out there. if that group has the ability to form a political party and get candidate into arena, maybe that group will be more likely work through legal, political means vs violence

-SMD system favors 2 party system and therefore produces 2 party system (or plurality)

-SMD favors 2 party system in two ways:

(1) fusion of weaker parties (2) elimination of weak parties by voters because voters leave when they see party has no chance at winning

-relation to catch-all parties: in two party system, both parties competing for one seat. majority rule is important because SMD works like first past the post. Parties have to move towards the center to get votes and this fosters competition. 

think of ice cream stand example: ice cream stands have to move to center of beach so that they can get more people to buy. if you introduce another ice cream stand on the right, it takes away consumers from the center right ice cream stand. Similarly, when people feel betrayed by their party for being too moderate and create a party to represent their left or right views, they overall are ruining their party's chance of winning. 

Ex: in Australia, the green party wanted to run Sara Wells as a candidate but members said no because then Wells would take voters from Brown and they wanted Brown to be elected. 

the correlary to duverger's law is that PR tends to result in mulitple party system.

-prefers political parties as interest mediators vs. interest groups because political parties have everybody's interest [or national will] in mind whereas interest groups only have their members' interests in mind

-if no parties are serving their function as interest mediators, it is bad for democracy because debate in political arena is then fought by interests of constituencies, not everyone

-programmatic challenge: programmatic parties cant make the promises as before because they no longer have the means to follow up on them so they can no longer promise ideological change

-under ISI, circumstances were favorable for working class. Goods were cheaper and more affordable. Workers are consumers and it creates a beneficial spiral because businessman have to give higher wages and lower prices so that workers/consumers can afford to buy goods.

-the switch from ISI to EOI had drastic effects... created the programmatic challenge for labor parties 

-with EOI, cut back on subsidies, less money for spending, less employment in formal sector (everyone in informal), state has less ability to deliver, consumers are now abroad so businessmen have no reason to continue paying high wages... over all, LBPs cannot make the same promises to gain votes because (1) dont have enough money (2) no incentive to do so because they know they cant follow through

-ISI-->EOI = lot of state involvement--> neoliberal (less state involvement)

BEFORE, political parties would make ideological changes but now parties are making claims for better worker protection 

NOW, state has less to spend. parties cant comply with promises because it is in violation with debt appeal package so lack of money is major

labor based parties cannot make same ideological promises

Ex: cant promise better wages

ISI: businesses had workers who were consumers (revenue) and workers (cost) both

if workers demand higher $, at one hand businessmen are sad because losing money, but on other hand, if comply with worker's wishes, workers have more money to buy their goods

switch from ISI--> EOI made workers into a cost for businessmen because they were creating revenue abroad from international consumers

-working class cannot form coalition as easily as before because its harder to organize the workers

-under ISI, workers were in formal sector and worked in same factories, saw same people everyday, lunch with same people everyday, common interests. they were easy to organize because no logistical hurdle in getting people who you see everyday and work with and have so much in common with to get together. 

-when change to EOI, workers move to informal sector and now a logistical organizational problem exists. people now have interest interests. before, LBPs would just appeal to working class because they were in themselves one big group. now, with EOI, there is working class and low class. unions are no longer as strong and people used to rely on unions for when they wanted things from govt. people begin turning to civil societies instead of political parties. 

Workers cant bring same coalitional power to political arena. before had labor unions that were good at expressing workers interests. workers were all in the same place, easy to organize and participate in collective action because they were in similar work and had common interests. with the rise of the informal sector due to the switch from ISI to EOI, people were further away geographically and had different jobs because now theyre in the informal sector and labor parties therefore didnt ahve as many people so they couldn't bring their needs to the political arena. 

-organize, channel, and defend interets of specific constituency

-dont run candidates for office but support them

-influence political arena through supporting/opposing candidates

-example: AARP, NRA

AARP: health care reform, look at interests of elders to advocate 50 as cut off age. want to reach out to constituency of 50 year olds and defend constituency of old people

-Sartori prefers political parties over interest groups because he feels political parties have national will in mind whereas interest parties only cater to their members

-

-Tarrow 1998: group of ordinary people, possibly joined by more influential citizens, that engage in sustained confrontations with authorities to achieve social change

-any group can engage in social movements

-ex: tea party movement in America, civil rights movement

-social movement is not as narrow as interest group, they have more than one problem to address, and have a large constituency whereas interest group is more narrow and focuses on fewer issues and has small constituency

-political parties can start from social movements as seen in Bolivia 

-fluid boundaries

-less organized than interest groups (ex: you know head of AARP but who is the head of the tea party movement?); dont know number of members as is the case with interest groups; advantage over interest group because different branches of the movement are working on different things; more membership based driven (almost like catch all political parties)

-civil society is the sphere of social life that stands apart from private families, the market, and the state

-doesnt include government run groups, groups that dont accept multipel membership, or groups that advocate violency as 1st resort [peruvian indigenous protest is excluded because violence was last resort]

-includes CSOs and interest groups

CSO is a broad umbrella category that includes various cultural, political, ethnic, and neighborhood groups, unions, NGOs

Interest group is a group of people that organize, channel and defend interests of specific constituency

(1) know local interest: national government doesn't really know whats happening in real, ordinary peoples' lives. political parties aren't as in touch with real people as CSOs are. political parties dont know ordinary peoples' interests as well as CSOs do. CSOs know the people better than political parties because after all, CSOs were created through grassroots movement. Therefore, CSOs have an advantage as interest mediators because they know local context and can argue for the real interets that people have.

(2) represent broader interest: political parties have transformed from cadre to mass and now catch-all. parties have incentive to appeal to masses but this means that the needs of some people are not being met such as the Native Americans, indigenous, the poor, ethnic, etc. in terms of getting their interests translated in the political arena, political parties are no good. CSOs can put pressure on parties to for these marginalized groups of people. 

(1) CSOs have no obligation to work within system peacefully. political parties have an obligation to work peacefully within system. democracy gives us the right to disagree but at the end of the day we accept the regime as a whole. CSOs might work within system legally but they have no explicit obligation to do so. parties encourage peacefully workin in system to get elected and have an obligation to use peaceful means. they also have loyal opponents and they have to support the institution because theyre running candidates to head it. this is clearly not the case with CSOs because they dont run candidates and they have no loyal opposition and so they dont have to work within system peacefully.

(2) there is no guarantee that they will represent popular interest. CSOs need resources to survive. as they increase, they need more resources. where do they get the resources? if members cant afford the cost, CSOs have allies and donors that will give them resources but in turn they will have the ability to drive the CSO's agendas. Also, CSOs are not completely autonomous from the state. at state level, CSOs work as contractors and so then they may run into the problem of representing the will of the state over the will of the people. For example, in guatemala and el salvador, ASOCODE was a group to help get peasant farmers better prices for their crops in the international market. The international donors were impressed with the countries transition to democracy so they said keep up the democracy and gave them money. They supported the farmers but they also have their own interests. They said in order to receive money, farmers have to incorporate gender equality and environmental concerns. the peasant farmers had no interest in environmental concerns or gender equity. the point of this is to show that international donors would only give Guatemalan farmers money if they incorporated their interests as well. 

(3) there is no guarantee that CSOs will have national will in mind. Sartori: political parties have national will in mind as compared to having specific group in mind like CSOs. CSOs might use legal means to make sure the interests are heard, but they have no built in need or obligation to do so like political parties.

In Haiti, CSOs are a draw back because there is no civil society in Haiti. Money is spent excessively but there isnt much to show of it. In Brazil, there are 4 main NGOs taht do work but people dont likethem because they dont represent their interests. These 4 NGOs get movies made to raise awareness but they have their on ideas in mind, not the ideas and concerns and interests of the impoverished Brazilians who they are there to help. These main NGOs block smaller NGOs from getting their foot in the door and who knows if these NGOs could better suit the people's needs. 

-Linz and Stepan questioned if there was leeway between the total opposite totalitarianism and democracy.. Authoritarianism fit in neither definitions. Key features of authoritarianism: social and economic pluralism, no political pluralism, no guiding ideology, no constitutional process or procedure to select leader but leader acts in predictable way, no social mobilization. There are many exceptions to this definition of authoritarianism and these are seen through the different subtypes of authoritarian regimes. 

-authoritarian regime in which power is held by small group of people or particular institution

-Argentina, Chile (1973-98), Brazil (1964-85), Burma (today)

-Ex: Burma: not a democracy by any means. government is military. military governs through State Peace Development Council. govern as bureaucracy, no legislative branch. 

--Linz and Stepan questioned if there was leeway between the total opposite totalitarianism and democracy.. Authoritarianism fit in neither definitions. Key features of authoritarianism: social and economic pluralism, no political pluralism, no guiding ideology, no constitutional process or procedure to select leader but leader acts in predictable way, no social mobilization. There are many exceptions to this definition of authoritarianism and these are seen through the different subtypes of authoritarian regimes. 

-rational legal structures exist

-yes elections

-leaders need to appeal to people through patronage. gives power to the leader

example of patronage: ghana: leader paying school fees for kids, or funeral bill, wedding bill, water bill, electricity bill, etc. Basically patronage is giving personal assistance in navigating bureaucracy (how to get through legal system). 

-since support comes from certain groups, new leaders may not appeal to same groups

-Linz and Stepan questioned if there was leeway between the total opposite totalitarianism and democracy.. Authoritarianism fit in neither definitions. Key features of authoritarianism: social and economic pluralism, no political pluralism, no guiding ideology, no constitutional process or procedure to select leader but leader acts in predictable way, no social mobilization. There are many exceptions to this definition of authoritarianism and these are seen through the different subtypes of authoritarian regimes. 

-neopatrimonial to the extreme

-unrestrained personal rule and power

-loyalty to ruler/leader is based on fear

-exercise power without constraint

-ruler is unpredictable and despotic

-elections are a sham

-there may be social and economic pluralism but definitely no political pluralism

-military is used a ruler's digression

-difference between neopatrimonialism and sultanism is that with neopatrimonialism you know the supporters and they can be on the good side of the ruler. with sultanism, one day you can be on leaders good side and next day you can be on the bad side. 

-difference between totalitarianism and sultanism is that sultanism has no guiding ideology. totalitarianism does have a guiding ideology. Sultanism also maybe pluralism whereas totalitarianism does not so that maybe factor of pluralism can also potentially differentiate the two.

-term coined by Linz. Trujillo of the Dominican Republic violated human rights and was a brutal dictator. Galindez was writing a dissertation for his political science phD in NY about Trujillo and told Linz about the dissertation. It was hidden. Years later, Galindez is kidnapped from NY, taken to DR, tortured and killed.Thats why Linz elaborates sultanism.

-examples: Romania (Chachesku), Iran (Shah), Nicaragua (Samosa), Cuba (Batista), Haiti (Duvalier), No. Korea, Iraq, Turkmenistan

-Marx original theory offered countries two options after great depression. there was 25-37% unemployment after great depression. he said either reform capitalism or do away with it completely (reform vs. revolution). 

-believed that workers of the world would unite and overthrow capitalism. he saw that there would be problems if elites continued to ignore the workers.

-believed in communist utopia. utopia is the perfect world. at the end of history, state would wither away and there would be equality. the question is how to get there. people raised in capitalism cant just all of a sudden begin living without government and private property. a transition is necessary and Marx calls this transition the dictatorship of the proletariat. he mentions that it is necessary but doesn't mention what is necessary to do it. 

-doesnt believe in class opposition 

-follower of lenin. lenin wanted state control in every aspect of life; wanted decisions to come top down, no grassroots; wanted impersonal scientific theory meaning he wanted smart technocrats to analyze society and all aspects of life and see how to get to utopia; wants to bring about the end of history because it will be utopia- nothing is more important than achieving communist utopia; wants select group of people to determine rules 

-communist party is apostilic, meaning they spread and carry out the message of communism. leaders of communist party are smart and have independent decision making skills. They went to all parts of russia and got people on board and set up a new organizational structure.

-leninism then took off because it had a clear, coherent ideology and knew what it was fighting for. it knew where it was going and how to get there. party leaders were adept with skills that when faced in a situation, they would do what lenin thinks best. 

-stalin was a follower of lenin who rose to power.

-he came from a peasant family. he had smallpox scars and kids made fun of him. when he rose to power he changed his name to stalin which means man of steel. it was a good image for stalin. stalin had the cult of personality. he cultivated a god like image, one of unbending steel. 

-the communist party had a dispute as to what direction to go in. Stalin said that a smaller group of people should hold power and everyone else can be affiliated sympathizers, not really members. Martov on the other hand argued for a big communist party and to have as many members as possible. 

-Lenin liked Stalin's idea whereas everybody else like Martov's idea but because Lenin like Stalin, Stalin's idea became the new reality

-Cult of personality: power and authority. Stalin's will as a person is will of communist party. spiritual and moral leader for the party. viewed as God-like personality

-5 year plans: to get to utopia, everybody has to make sacrifices. Everybody has to pool together and sacrifice right now because there is no sacrifice too big to get to utopia and we want to be on the road to utopia. Economic plans that dictate how much factories and farm produce. Plan to completely revolutionize society but its difficult to do because you can never anticipate the future (think of personal budget, you always spend more than anticipated because things pop up). these plans were for 2 million people in 11 different time zones so there is no way that these plans could be successful.. 

-cadres: cadres are leaders within the party. they are political and social basis for a new class of people and show people how to live in the new society. they report back to Stalin on how the 5 year plans are going and they get benefits for their jobs such as better clothes, foods, and power in society. They lie to Stalin about the success of the 5 year plans because they are afraid for their lives if they dont tell him what he doesnt want to hear.

-Secret police: above the law, they are Stalin's agents to control and enforce the 5 year plans. they dominate all institutions. for example, if farm produce didnt grow Stalin had said they would, the farmer or person responsible would be shot. They were responsible for killing about 4 million people and were the agents to Stalin's brutal regime.

-Stalin killed about 10million people if you include the secret police victims and the people who died of famine because of the 5 year plans 

-Stalin was disconnected from reality because everybody gave him a distorted reality and was replaced by Khrushchev in 1957 after he died. 

-succeeded Khrushchev. Khrushchev had wanted to destroy cadre power but didnt want to use Stalin tactics to do it. Cadres push him out of power because he is threatening their power.

-Brezhnev rolls back and strengthens the cadres during his rule from 1964- 1982. He doesn't want Stalin USSR but he doesn't want to give up the power and benefits of being a cadre

-practices mafia-style rule with bribes and patronages and favors

-cadres become new class of people, collect money from peasants, other classes didn't have sources of revenue, access to special stores and better clothes, food, etc, access to banned books, better education

-cadre abuses: Moscow leader had daughters who wanted paintings in their bedroom so he said go to the Hermitage Museum (which is comparable to the Louvre) and pick whatever painting you want. This happening while everybody else in society is sacrificing and has been sacrificing for 40 years. people are impoverished and have been paying bribes. they pay bribes because they need money and they get money from other bribes. everyone is bribing everyone to get whatever they can.

-under brezhnev we have new class divisions that are worse than before. it is against leninism because leninism tries to get rid of class divisions.

-people also no longer sure what they are fighting for after 40 years which is also against leninism because leninism had a clear cute ideology and a purpose to fight for

-Gorbachev wanted to institute transparency. If government is transparent about whats happening bureaucratically, maybe we can be more efficient

-while Gorbachev was instituting this transparency, chernobyl happens. 

-with transparency instituted in media, and Gorbachev planning to publicize incompetence, chernobyl happens and becomes the symbol of glasnost

-period of reconstructing economically and politically

-encourage limited private ownership- not because wanted to liberalize but because people were famished

-no longer need to be citizen to be communist member

-decision making transferred from cadres to the locals- once again, it wasn't to liberalize or democratize, but to generate profit

-with perestroika, people learned about outside world. they saw countries that were "worse" than them such as south korea and the other east asian tigers taking off.

-with perestroika came the ethos of distrust because there wasnt much to show for the 5 year plans 

-perestroika made them realize they dont have organized civil society 

-1986 radioactive explosion in ukraine

-happened when Gorbachev was trying to establish glasnost 

-100,000 people had to evacuate and it was an international concern because the radioactive particles were carried by the wind blowing west towards western europe

-became the symbol of glasnost 

cadres: cadres are leaders within the party. they are political and social basis for a new class of people and show people how to live in the new society. they report back to Stalin on how the 5 year plans are going and they get benefits for their jobs such as better clothes, foods, and power in society. They lie to Stalin about the success of the 5 year plans because they are afraid for their lives if they dont tell him what he doesnt want to hear.

Stalin: wanted cadres

Khruschev: wanted less cadre power

Brezhnev: gave cadres power and they became a separate class and therefore not really following leninism anymore because leninism has clear ideology and wants to get rid of class division

-Secret police: above the law, they are Stalin's agents to control and enforce the 5 year plans. they dominate all institutions. for example, if farm produce didnt grow Stalin had said they would, the farmer or person responsible would be shot. They were responsible for killing about 4 million people and were the agents to Stalin's brutal regime.

-shows there is no rule of law in USSR because secret police are above the law

-stalin wants secret police and khrushchev doesn't like them so has the head of secret police shot 

-rooted in Syrian word peace

-means submission

-believe in one God, Allah and prophet Mohammad

-it is a religion, differs from Islamism which is a political movement 

-followers of Islam are Muslims and not all Muslims are fundamentalists

-20% of world population is Muslim and most Muslims have nothing to do with Islamism

-most Muslims interpret Quran in way that coincides with democracy 

-some actors believe that democracy cannot take root in Islamic countries. Stepan, Ibrahim, Freedman believe there is nothing about Islam that makes democracy impossible in Muslim countries. Diamond and Zakaria believe democracy can take root in Islamic countries given certain conditions. Fish believes that democracy cannot take root in Muslim countries because of the low status of women.

-Some actors believe that Islam does allow for democracy to take root in a country. Stepan, Ibrahim, and Feldham are such actors. Stepan looked at developing nations and saw that they are either equal to or even outpace non Muslim countries in free elections and civil liberties. Ibrahim also said democracy could take root in Muslim countries becaues everybody wants freedom and Islam correlates with democracy. Although he said it would take a lot of work, it is not impossible. Feldman says democracy can take root in Muslim countries because Muslims had laws and caliphs who were held accountable to teh rule of law. Therefore, they have an appreciation for it because it existed/does exist in Muslim culture. Others, such as Nasr and Diamond believe that democracy could take root in Muslim countries given certain conditions. Nasr wrote that there are no features of Islam that make it any better or worse for democracy. The only problem with democracy and Islam is when political parties become inspired by Islam because then there is a chance that the political party could impose theocracy. However, as long as there is a strong private economic sector, and multiple political parties and CSOs, and civilian control over military, Islam does not affect democracy. Diamond argues that there is no problem with Islam and democracy but rather there is an Arab problem. In Muslim countries, until the economy is able to develop independent of the oil curse, democracy will not be to take root. Finally, Fish states religion does impact democracy. He says it is not possible for democracy to take root in Islamic countries because of the status of women. The low status of women is bad for democracy because it marginalizes them and excludes them politics which thereby lead to more extreme laws that are undemocratic. 

-fundamentalist Islamic political movement that seeks to replace secular government with theocracies, to replace secular law with shariah law, and to enforce Islamic values in all spheres of life

-what do they want: want the eradication of western influence from Muslim world. want theocracy. different islamist groups have different goals.

-how to eradicate western influence from Muslim world: (1) eliminate US support of Israel (2) pul out all American/Western forces from ME (3) create pan Islamic state

Ex: Al Qaida wants a pan Islamic state that encompasses ME, Africa and parts of EurAsia. Once they get the West out then they can create a super state.

-not all Islamist movements are violent, it depends on how people interpret the Quran and not all Islamist groups want violence

-why are movements arising now?: movements are ancient, not a new phenomenon. the way islamism is today is a recent phenomenon because islamism in modern world today is not what it used to be. Islamist movements were sparked after WWI and grew in the 50s but took off in the 80s. Islamist movements were sparked by Iranian revolution of 1979. Iranian revolution: secular, western supporting shah is overthrown and is replaced by Ayotallah who institutes a theocracy. this is the first time the world has seen an Islamic state. Shortly after, Afghanistan, Sudan, Palestine and Nigeria followed

-Islamism as a response to relative decline of Arab Muslim world dominance. there was a point in history where Muslims controlled government and Arabs were center of civilization. 19th century leaders and politicians saw Europe as center of civilization. Then Europe emerged as center and Muslims realized this could be permanent. early reformers saw this as rival but also as model to create synthesis. Some Muslims say that this Arab Muslim empire declined not because of straying from fundamental principles of Islam but because strayed too far from Shariah law. to stop decline, start following Shariah 

-Islamist reaction to colonialism: movements emerging now enough is enough, no more European colonization. West wants control of Middle East. They feel this way because of Iraq and Iran and feel that the West is trying to subjugate the people of the ME

-Islamist reaction to contact with west: Muslims are straying for sharia law because of western influence so to get back on track, eliminate and cut off all contact with the West and then we can rise to dominance 

-in relation to democracy, basically everyone wants a better society so they turn to sharia law but this poses poor prospects for democracy

-in Zakaria's article, it is argued that Islamism in some ways began with the book written by Sayyid Qutb called Signposts on the Road. Nasser had imprisoned this leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and in response he wrote this book. He said Nasser was an impious Muslim and that his regime was un-Islamic. Fundamentalism grew because other Middle Eastern regimes grew more distant and oppressive in the years following Nasser. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood helped Islamist ideas flourish and they gave people an incentive to find meaning and change the world 

-Islam is not the problem but Arab is the problem. The fact that Islamic, Arab, and Middle Eastern are used interchangeably is a problem because they are not all the same thing. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country and it is a democracy and its doing fairly well, so clearly, the problem for democracy is not Islam. Even India has a large Muslim population and they have a strong government.

-Arab culture is very patriarchal, so much in a sense that high positions of power, which include leaders, supervisors, rulers, etc, have to display a strong paternal image. They will not be tolerant of dissent and expect only respect. The only way to dethrone an individual in this position is to replace him with another who is equally patriarchal.

-Also, Arabs wanted to modernize. You can see that through Nasser in Egypt. He was heavily influenced by the West, even his ideas of pan-Arab stemmed from Western ideas, like Germany and Italy being united by a common language. It is just that they made the wrong choices and implemented in the worst possible way. For example, socialism produced bureaucracy and stagnation and economists never really moved on after economic failure- they didnt do anything to right the problem. Basically, even though they had originally wanted to move towards democracy, they ended up falling into dictatorship. Today, Arab countries are actually less free than 40 years ago. 

-The problem is the Arab resource curse, not poverty because these countries are wealthy. The resource curse allows Arab countries to gather unearned income. Easy money leads to little economic and political modernization. The government doesn't have to tax its people because it already has so much money. Normally, taxation lends itself to democracy because in turn on the tax money that the government collects from the people, it provides accountability, transparency and representation. Take Egypt for example. It is a small country but significant gas and oil exporter. It gathers about $2billion a year from ships crossing the Suez Canal in transit fees, about $2.2 billion a year from the US, plus the remittances sent back from Egyptians working in the Gulf states. Thus, a significant amount of Egypt's GDP comes from unearned income. Jordan, another Arab country, gets about 6% of its annual income from aid from the US. Governments need to tax their people so that it can better represent the people and be more responsive. By asking little of them, they give them little.

-Apart from the issue of representation, the resource curse of Arab nations also tends to make the government repressive because it has so much wealth. There is never a lack of money for the military or the police. For example the oil curse generates enough money that Saudi Arabia and Oman spend 13% of their GDP on military and Iraq was spending somewhere between 25 and 40 percent. Oil rich states claimed that their wealth would lead to modernization. However, modernization was more along the lines of McDonalds and Rolex instead of free market, political parties, rule of law, accountability, etc. The modernness of these countries arent even home grown because these countries import goods and workers from abroad. 

-Mosques became the place to discuss politics since the Arab world is virtually a political dessert. Mosques are the only places that cannot be shut down or banned so it became the place where all hate and opposition towards the regime grew. Religion therefore became associated with oppression. Religion is a problem because it stresses moral absolutes whereas  politics is an area of compromise.

-Democracy has to be established through grassroots movement but Western world can definitely help the process.

-Road to democracy: (1) Instead of aiming for democracy first, aim for conditional liberalism (2) Economic reform: institute capitalism so that real middle class can form and business class not based on feudalism. a genuine entrepreneurial business class can be the single biggest most important force of change for the ME.

-if Egypt can transform economically and politically, it will be empirical proof that Islam can coexist with modernity

-Combine Arab culture with economic dynamism, religious tolerance, liberal politics, and modern outlook on world

-importance of constitution

- takes the maybe standpoint on whether democracy can take root in Islamic countries

-wrote the Rise of Muslim Democracy

-there are no features of Islam that make it any better or worse for democracy

-in Turkey, you can see political parties inspired by Islam. They are similar to the W. European Christian political parties

-Political parties inspired by Islam are problematic. If they win elections and get the president to office, they can institute a theocracy

-democracy-not theocracy- can take root in Islamic countries as long as proper economic, military, and political institutions are in place

-econ: if there is a strong private sector, business owners will oppose theocracy. They will oppose it because they want to trade with the rest of the world and if they live in a theocracy, the world wouldnt be as keen to trade with them

-political: need multiple parties because they can act as counter balance. Political parties and CSOs together would oppose theocracies.

-military: civilian control over military is crucial. If a Muslim political party wants theocracy, they would need the military on their side. If the military is under civilian control, then the political parties cant impose theocracy. Military control over government means that the military is subordinate to civilian authority. officers and generals should see themselves as subordinate to civilians. it also means that the military doesnt have an independent budge, the civilians control how much money military gets. 

-with strong private sector, a bunch of political parties, and civilian control over the military, democracy will be able to take root in Islamic countries. 

why are movements arising now?: movements are ancient, not a new phenomenon. the way islamism is today is a recent phenomenon because islamism in modern world today is not what it used to be. Islamist movements were sparked after WWI and grew in the 50s but took off in the 80s. Islamist movements were sparked by Iranian revolution of 1979. Iranian revolution: secular, western supporting shah is overthrown and is replaced by Ayotallah who institutes a theocracy. this is the first time the world has seen an Islamic state. Shortly after, Afghanistan, Sudan, Palestine and Nigeria followed

-(1)Islamism as a response to relative decline of Arab Muslim world dominance. there was a point in history where Muslims controlled government and Arabs were center of civilization. 19th century leaders and politicians saw Europe as center of civilization. Then Europe emerged as center and Muslims realized this could be permanent. early reformers saw this as rival but also as model to create synthesis. Some Muslims say that this Arab Muslim empire declined not because of straying from fundamental principles of Islam but because strayed too far from Shariah law. to stop decline, start following Shariah 

-(2) Islamist reaction to colonialism: movements emerging now enough is enough, no more European colonization. West wants control of Middle East. They feel this way because of Iraq and Iran and feel that the West is trying to subjugate the people of the ME

-(3) Islamist reaction to contact with west: Muslims are straying for sharia law because of western influence so to get back on track, eliminate and cut off all contact with the West and then we can rise to dominance 

-(4) Response to political alienation: rise of islamist movement is a response to political alienation. Islamists are well off financially and educated (EX: Osama bin Laden born into family worth more than $5 billion) movements have taken off in countries with oil wealth (aka resource course). The resource curse is responsible for why these countries havent democratized and why fundamentalist movements are happening. Elites rely on the resource wealth and dont have incentive to modernize and create democracies that would lead to the creation of a middle class. The elites opress and control the people without being responsive to their needs. this makes the majority feel alienated which is where fundamentalists come in. Fundamentalists offer them more control over their lives.