 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Once again, I'd like to welcome you again all of you to political science 303 Today is the fourth time we're meeting or the fifth time I forgot so so So this morning We will be continue with our discussion on democracy and democratization Last time you will remember. I hope you do remember that we've covered Some definitional aspects some conceptual aspects of democracy, you know what democracy was how did it evolve? Then we talked about democratization process of democratization And the three waves associated with the process of democratization starting from by about the mid 19th century ending by about the turn of the 21st century Then we did a quick introduction to the distinction between procedural approach to democracy on the one hand and the other one was Come on guys Outcomes very good. So so I'd like to emphasize this Here at this point in time in the course of the you know course in the sense that Scholars conceptualize democracy in two ways One one group of scholars conceptualize democracy as a set of procedures Which are basically rules Okay, rules of the game like institutions Okay, institutionalized stable regular Knowable therefore predictable rules Okay, as long as these rules exist. We do a check box we tick Every box and as long as all of these and at the same time So they coexist at the same time so Procedure number one and procedure number two and Procedure number three and procedure number four. It's never procedure number two or Procedure number three. No All of these should exist coexist at the same time. Okay, so so one set of scholars conceptualize democracy as a set of procedures the other scholars conceptualize democracy in terms of The outcomes of the political system We call these systems democratic these guys argue As long as This political system produces fairness This produce this political system leads to equality this political system Leads to or results in justice Okay, as long as these are These are all present These outcomes are ensured guaranteed. We do not really care about Whether those procedures exist or not. We just don't care these scholars argue It is as you can imagine way much easier to conceptualize operationalize and measure Procedures as opposed to Outcomes therefore most mainstream political scientists think in terms of the procedures Okay, therefore in comparative politics in that respect we generally look for whether these procedures exist and we build all kinds of Databases based on those procedures whether those procedures exist Okay So So we'll continue with the procedural approach We'll look at component procedures based on Schmitter and Carl's discussion in their Seminal article which was Written which was published in 1991 Tight with the title what democracy is and is not Then we'll talk about briefly about qualifiers of these procedures and what we call those regimes some With some deficient elements with some deficient Procedures what whatever we call those regimes And then we'll finally talk about Different models of democracy, you know Not conceptions, but different models of existing democracy Okay Let's continue like this We've covered all this and we were we just were starting off with Schmitter and Carl's procedural approach that is to say the rules and arrangements That need to exist in fact that need to coexist if We want our democracy to be stable. We want our democracy to endure Okay, and these procedures are Several in fact there are seven of these that I wish to highlight here Schmitter and Carl very famously defined democracy as a Modern well, they say modern political democracy is a system of governance is A system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens So rulers are held accountable for their actions by citizens in the public realm and these citizens are acting indirectly through Competition as well as cooperation of their elected representatives so so the rules the procedures the arrangements I Eat procedures here Start with the system of governance. What do we mean or what do they mean by system of governance? When they refer to system of governance, they refer to actually an institutionalized regime of governance Which represents an ensemble a collectivity of stable patterns Determining methods of access to public office so stable patterns institutionalized regimes institutionalized systems which determine How one gets to be Elected for public office They call the system or they represent they they they present the system as an institutionalized regime by institutionalization they mean patterns which are habitually know which are practiced Over and over again regularly practiced that is and which are accepted By majorities by most of the people living in that regime living under that regime living in that country Okay, so so this is a certain type of system of Governance, okay, that's that's procedure number one procedure number two Rulers what kind of rulers? Yes, there are rulers. They've always been rulers as long as there was one form of state or One form of hierarchy there were rulers, but in this Certain specific type of governance The rulers are held accountable They come to power by democratic norms they come to power through The workings the operation of democratic norms, okay, so rulers come to power They enjoy and they continue to enjoy office in accordance with preset principles i.e. democratic principles and They are democratically held accountable, so they're not Just accountable they're held Democratically accountable, okay, so there are rules and procedures for them to be accountable For their actions Okay, so there are norms rules That define how They will be held accountable and these rules and norms are defined democratically, okay a third procedure Public realm This pertains to the making the policy making or the norm making processes collective norm making collective policy making Collective decision-making and the public realm is basically the venue within which These norms are made Produced and reproduced these decisions are made produced and reproduced Okay, so all decisions There are binding and society All of these norms all of these decisions that are binding on society Are all made within the public realm Okay, it's a vague abstract concept But keep that in mind. It is one of the procedures that has to exist it is one of the elements of What makes a democracy and and all of these collective norm making there are rules for making these collective processes and They're all backed by state sanctions So they're institutionally backed by the state Through different sanctions by institutions. I mean the state here defines and enforces These procedures in the public realm another aspect of Modern political democracy and other elements another procedure of modern political democracy is Citizens an essential component here an essential element an essential in that respect One of the rules key rules of the game By citizens we mean by all native-born adults Who are eligible to participate in collective decision-making in the public realm and who in turn may be Voted for office and therefore become a ruler in this system of governance Okay, and All native-born adults Of course, there are age limits for participating in elections But there are no age limits to act as citizens in Civil society organizations in or participating in social movements, right? So so all native-born adults sometimes The native-born term becomes problematic because There is the element of or there are people who are Not necessarily native-born who have migrated to our system of governance, huh? who may be nationalized or naturalized who become citizens and who thus enjoy Political as well as social and economic rights Okay, so it doesn't have to be all native-born adults Please What if what happens if the citizens do not abide by the rules in that case There are state sanctions in the public realm because these collective decisions are made in the first place if a citizen is not abiding by the norms and the decisions and the rules which have previously been collectively made and You know in a legitimate and democratic way Then of course there will be some sanctions backed by the state Have been rejected has The referendum To make decisions What if there is apathy What if there is apathy in the system or what if well This should be allowed in a democratic system We'll talk about this in Three minutes, but so so so this is I mean a precursor to Institutions or procedures of competition and cooperation citizens may compete and Co-operate with one another through established means methods beyond elections so if You're the ruler You're democratically elected for a term of office of let's say four years You make a decision Then citizens should be able to Object to that decision In the interim of those four years within the duration of those four years So we'll talk about that, but just just give me three more minutes Okay, so we'll talk about that in more detail and well, I'll come back to this example Just wait, just wait, but but one of the one of the central procedures of democracy Yes elections should exist But but other aspects other elements other procedures should be existing too, but but before I continue with that Let me go back to the term citizen The concept citizen what used to be called citizens Of course it was limited to White male Well-see but in modern political democracies. This is no longer the case so The number of citizens Have been or has been expanding within a Populist a population that come that that live under that and under a given political regime So citizenship expands in time through time especially through the 20th century Starts from the mid 19th century or modern conceptions of citizenship Expanded all throughout the 20th century Now let me come back to Or come forward to other procedures One major element is competition Schmitter and Carl call this Elements and necessary evil for democracy it has to exist in a democracy This is contra to classic notions of democracy Which were based on direct? participation Leading to consensus so we do not seek Consensus in a modern political democracy Conflict is an essential structural component competition conflict these are all structural components of political regimes and In modern democracy there is even competition Within parties political parties not only among or between political parties. There is also competition within political parties, so By competition we refer to first and foremost of course elections, right? Elections should exist They are the sine qua non of democracy Without which democracy would not exist, right? It's an essential principle Or these elections are essential principles essential procedures set rules of the game institutionalized rules procedures within Modern political systems Elections should be fairly counted Well, I'm sorry fairly conducted and honestly counted Okay, so The fact that elections exist is not enough. They should be fairly Conducted Every political party that that goes into an election They have to be playing on a on an even level playing field and They should be honestly counted Okay, so so this is this is one major Elements within democracy or a competition element of democracy Schmitter and Carl Worn make two warnings here one of them is the fallacy of What they call? electionism the problem with elections is that Schmitter and Carl argue that Elections allow citizens to choose between highly aggregated alternatives offered by different political parties therefore They they emphasize that elections or in elections the running competing political parties offer packages package a by party Why package B by party Z package C by party V We choose between different parties For different packages So they argue that this agglomeration this aggregation Presents a problem because as a citizen you may want to pick and choose Between and among and within those alternatives You may wish to you know Cherepic two items from the manifesto the election manifesto of party a or policy package of party a another two of party B and still another one from party C's Election manifesto so so we have to be very careful with the problem the fallacy of electionism Schmitter and Carl argue another fallacy of electionism is the existence of elections And nothing else sometimes the literature refers to fallacy of electionism in that respect elections exist but no other principle or rules of the game or Procedures exist in a political system. That's not enough Schmitter and Carl warn us Another problem is Problem it's called the problem of majority rule When numbers meet intensities Schmitter and Carl Emphasize in the sense that when a stable and self perpetuating majority Regularly comes to power and Makes decisions Tyranny of majority very good. So when a Majority comes to power again and again and again then The problem of tyranny of majority the potential problem of tyranny of majority may emerge So Schmitter and Carl argue we have to be very careful with respect to Disemerging problem of tyranny of majority, please very good very good, so so When if and when we have tyranny of majority some minority or some minorities may get affected Adversely, okay may get hurt may get harmed. So Majority rule Schmitter and Carl Emphasize should be qualified Through different other elements Democratic elements such as Bill of Rights Constitutional provisions Constitutional guarantees civil rights and liberties which are ingrained in the constitutions checks and balances separation of powers federalism Okay, more decentralized systems of policymaking and you know policy formulation and In addition to those they also emphasize that Neocorporatism may exist we'll give examples of neocorporatist Policymaking decision-making when we talk about the German case for example meaning that we have a state here Okay in social policymaking for example the state comes together with labor and Capital and form a tripartite decision-making triangle and Make decisions all together in for example determining the level of minimum wages Okay, so so these elements should complement elections as a side Guarantee to all these elements These elements should exist in addition to this Consociationalism anyone who's heard of the term Consociationalism before Consociationalism We'll talk about this when we discuss life arts models of democracy, but it's it's most it's basically a Consensus-based system with multiple layers and multiple actors Okay involved in norm-making decision-making in the system of Governance in the public realm Okay, which in turn make rulers accountable democratically so so all of these systems all of these I'm sorry all of these elements Should be complimenting elections, but we know that elections Take place periodically Under normal circumstances, let's say we have elections in the year 2000 then we have elections in 2004 we have elections in 2008 we have elections in 2012 and 2016 okay This is let's say for general elections every four years Yes, the ruling political parties Who come to office enjoy office in the interim but within this in this period competition is Not ending competition continues in other forms competition continues through interest associations social movements civil society organizations and others therefore a accountability is Not only taking place at these critical junctures accountability has to exist all Throughout meaning what I what I want to emphasize here. This is also existing This is also a key element of of Schmitter and Carl's discussion What they emphasize is yes elections exist and every four years We held our rulers accountable we vote them Into office again, or we vote them out of office if and when We don't like them anymore But in the interim period We continue to hold them accountable in this public realm in the system of governance We hold our rulers accountable through the workings of interest associations through the workings of social movements through the workings of civil society Okay, so groups or a group or different groups of people With a more or less formal or informal set of goals coming together Making decisions together independent of the government and They wish to articulate their interests Okay, not only at critical junctures of election elections. I'm sorry, but also in other periods So elections are not enough so competition Does not take place only at elections Competition also takes place in or within interest associations or interest associations competing against one another interest associations competing against or objecting to ruling political parties of social movements coming together Making their case against the government or different social movements Confronting one another Okay, so competition exists Throughout competition should exist in a modern political democracy War in Schmidder and Karl. Okay, so so all of these should exist at the same time In order to complement elections citizens in this respect compete To influence policymaking during intervals between the elections so not only at Election one election after another but during the intervals in between the elections So so this is this is very important And And all and these interest associations social movements civil society actors they place some aspects of governance beyond the reach of Majorities so in a way this is a check or a balance against Tyranny majority Fallacy of electionism. Okay, so all of these Should exist co-exist at the same time. That's that's what they emphasize and that that's what they They take to be very important Another element another keep please yes Any Remember we talked about checks and balances Separation of powers. We'll we'll we'll talk about these in way much more detail This is I'm trying to basically go over some conceptual approaches got some conceptual elements, but we'll we'll see All of these with material evidence in each of the five cases that that we shall be discussing, but of course there are Bill of Rights Constitutional provisions Consolidationism Neocorporist decision-making procedures all of these are in fact Elements which protect democracies And also sometimes it doesn't mean anything So how do democratic systems protect themselves that's that's see it's all of these procedures if and when they Co-exist Okay, so all of these procedures if and when they coexist including others that I just mentioned as Long as they exist Simultaneously at the same time These political systems are supposed to endure Okay, but but mind you once again. This is one approach to conceptualizing democracy This is one version of Conceptualizing democracy. This is one group of scholars Which happens to be the mainstream? Which happens to represent the mainstream thinking in comparative political studies as long as these procedures exist at the same time and All of them existing at the same time Without any exception All of them co-existing without any exception These systems of governance we call Democracy this is the procedural approach other guys are saying hey We don't care about them. We find them useless Even if competition cooperation representative system of governance accountability exists They don't guarantee equality. They don't gala guarantee fairness. They don't bring about justice Okay, so So let me emphasize once again that there are two approaches to conceptualizing democracy Yes, within the procedural approach all of these should exist coexist But there is the other side of the debate Scholars who argue that hey these are you know Useless we just don't care about them what we care most is whether a system of governance guarantees those outcomes and that's it Regardless of these procedures regardless of the existing of existence of these procedures so so So in order to come back to your question once again These guys are saying the procedural approach Scholars or scholars who advocate the procedural approach who who conceptualized democracy from the procedural Approach or perspective argue that these should exist at the same time They all should be present. We we should all tick all these boxes If and when we don't we can't take one we don't call that system of political democracy or a modern political democracy Is that clear? That's that's very important. So all of these have to coexist Then comes cooperation Yes, there should be competition as the necessary evil in a modern political democracy, but there should also be cooperation cooperation Shubitra and Carl argue should exist and Citizens must cooperate in order to be able to compete So cooperation should exist For Honest and fair competition They should be able to cooperate Collectively mobilize collectively articulate their interests collectively express their needs in order to be able to compete against one another in Collectivities Okay, so citizens should be able to cooperate in institutions collective institutions such as political parties Interest associations civil society organizations social movements Political movements, okay, they should be able to come together Express their needs voice articulate their interests and freely mobilize and Be able to cooperate in all of these Institutions They should be able to make voluntarily Make collective decisions freely voluntarily make collective decisions independent of any institution which includes the state of course, okay, and Citizens should also be able to deliberate among themselves within civil society which are diverse units of social identity social interests Once again independent of the state For a civil society association organization to be and remain civil It should be independent It should be autonomous from the government, okay, and In this way civil society and all those forms of cooperation Including political parties social movements interest associations and all those represent intermediate levels of governance between the state and the individual so these are Intermediate levels of governance or instruments of governance between the state and the individual and And all of these are to ensure Restraining the arbitrariness or potential arbitrariness of state Institutions or rulers themselves so They should be able to participate in Not only policy-making but also conflict resolution Okay, so all of these should exist at the same time and And finally Representatives Who are these representatives these representatives in a modern political democracy are democratically chosen and They're held accountable by citizens in the public realm Okay, they're democratically chosen and they're held accountable by citizens in the public realm Channels of representation Schmidt or and Carl point to two major channels one is electoral as you can imagine, right elections they help represent Interests they help articulate needs they help voice Different voices and they are periodically Accountable I mean rulers the elected officials representatives are periodically accountable to citizens on the basis of territorial constituencies elections Whenever you go to the pole station ladies and gentlemen you remember that You reside In a district and you vote on the basis of that district huh, so so Constituencies are based on territoriality geography when you go to the polls Anyone who's ever participated in elections either as a Vote as being a voter like casting a vote or you know representing themselves in the class Anyone who's who's participated in elections here? No one Hey, come on guys all of you have or most of you have right so when you go to the polls those of you who reside at the residences whose official residence is The residences like like up here You vote for Chankaya the district of Chankaya, right those of you who Reside elsewhere in Ankara you vote for their own for your own districts Those of you or some of you may have to go back to their own cities Of where their official residence is and vote there so so so representatives in terms of challenge of representation Elections take place based on territorial constituencies and In addition to those territorial constituencies there is of course interest representation through interest associations Social movements civil society actors Which is Is a special kind of representation in addition to or as well as Constituent consider territorial constituencies You may be representing your functional interests. You may be representing your class interests You may be representing your ethnic interests or ethnic identities. You may be representing your Your your religious identities, okay, so all those should exist in a modern political democracy so just to conclude in a modern political democracy all of these Procedures Schmitter and Carl and others whose side with them. They should exist side by side with one another and all of these should coexist Meaning that they should be there as a as a Collectivity So we cannot say oh in this political system. We call this modern political democracy, but cooperation is impaired All of these should exist in high quality and They should they should be enduring they should be stable. They should be predictable within system a regular system of governance Any questions? I think I covered a lot in about 45 minutes So what we'll come back to this as we as we continue in the course, okay, so so if there will be questions You may be right raising When we study these five five different cases. So we'll talk about them in more detail. Yes, please An interest association any example of an interest association ladies and gentlemen Lobby representative What else trade unions or labor unions any others business associations? Any anything else the union of Architects and engineers Huh, which have been very influential chambers of commerce chambers of industry Anything else? So all of these are representing sometimes functional interests, but sometimes not so so all of these are civil society associations representing some kind of interest or Representing some kind of identity Okay, any other questions Please democracy overthrown by democracy Plutocracy Market their ideas Mm-hmm, of course in the American system in the US system In part that's why Schmitter and Karl warned us against this agglomeration problem policy package of party a policy package of party b You want to pick and choose you you just can't right? There are two major political parties that come to power that alternate coming to power in the US for example, right? And Citizens are you know felt obliged to vote for one or the other so this is this is one major major problem of agglomeration aggregation problem Okay, yes Of course, yeah So is this allowed in the political system? Of course it is allowed in the political system and and in in in a modern democracy conceptualizes such all of these Interest representation should be allowed in the system. Okay Any other questions? All right, so let's take a break