 Some of our fellows are a little bit late, but before I begin, any questions on the procedures? This is very important, ladies and gentlemen. Let me emphasize once again what's important here. All of these procedures should exist at the same time. If one is impaired, we do not call that system modern political democracy. All right? So all of these are sine qua nonnes, olmazsa olmaz. Sine qua nonnes of a modern political system or modern political democracy. Yes, I have a question over there. The first two, the first two are... Democracy, okay. So you find competition to be so central to all of those, all of the others. So these are more like infrastructural in that respect, and the rest are dominated by the procedure of competition. So of course competition is so central to this kind of a system. But you're right in emphasizing the importance of competition. Competition is so crucial, is so key in the system, without which none of it is meaningful. But don't forget, cooperation is also very important. You should be able to cooperate, to be able to compete. Right? Democracy is not a one-man show. Democracy is about groups, collectivities, voicing interests, articulating needs of one group or in one group against other groups in society. And conflict is a structural component of human life. As long as conflict exists, and it will always exist, because we're all human beings, competition is very important, but so is cooperation. Just imagine a world in which everyone would love one single color and that would be red. All of us would love and want red everywhere, but that doesn't exist, does it? Yes, please. So we said that cooperation is also important. See the reality in the term you get. When the majority is aware of its power of itself, I'd like to cooperate or... It doesn't like you to be there. Absolutely, so when a majority is self-perpetuating, it will not want to compete. That's so true, right? We all want to shut off competition. Who wants to compete against one another? No one would. In order to seize power, in order to maintain wealth, of course you wouldn't want to compete. Be it an individual, be it a household, be it a firm, be it a voter, be it a ruler. Of course no one would like to compete. You want to shut off competition. If there's one intention or inclination in human nature, you want to shut off competition. So if and when a stable majority comes to power perpetually, repeatedly, and this ball game gets repeatedly played, of course there wouldn't be. They wouldn't want to compete. They would want to shut off competition, but that's exactly why all of these should exist, according to Shemitra and Carl and others who emphasize the rules of the game, who emphasize that there should be procedures, component procedures of a modern political democracy. But you're right in emphasizing that in human nature we don't like competition, especially if and when we seize power, we seize adequate wealth. We won't want to compete. We want to monopolize. We want to cartilize. We like oligopolies. We like duopolies. We want to concentrate wealth, concentrate power in the hands of the few, if and when we're powerful. If and when we want to react, oppose, undermine, then we want to compete. Yes, please. That's a good point. So if people are satisfied with what they have, is that what you're asking? Did I get it right? If there's more competition or if everything is there for people, that won't be in kind of state or just in machines and stuff. So it's like democracy actually is a chaotic way of competition. Competition? Absolutely. So if every one of us would be satisfied with what we have, why compete? Why would we be competing? If everyone is happy, if everyone is content, if everyone is satisfied, then we wouldn't need to compete. But we know that for fact the empirical world is much more conflictual. Reality is much more different. Therefore, we can compete against one another because of the structural conflict or structural conflicts. We have different identities. We have different interests. We have different tastes for that matter. We have different needs. We have different voices. So all of these mean that there is conflict built into the structure of a political system. And that means we will compete against one another. So competition is key, but competition is regulated. There are rules and regulations regulating competition. And there should always be cooperation. You should always be able to cooperate to be able to compete. And the rules of the game have to be fair and honest, honestly coded. And it would be clear to everyone. Everyone should know the rules of the game in this political system. Okay. Schmitter and Karl based their approach on a very influential political scientist who wrote a very influential book titled, Polyarchy. Does anyone remember who the author is of Polyarchy? Robert Dahl, 1971. Dahl says about 20 years ago, 20 years before Schmitter and Karl wrote this seminal article, someone says there are procedurally minimal conditions, preconditions for a democracy to exist and also to endure. There should be control over policy by elected officials. So control should be constitutionally vested in the elected officials. There should be naturally free and fair elections. Condition number three, all adults should have the right to vote. Condition number four, all adults should have the right to be able to run for office. Condition number five, there should be freedom of election insured in the system. Citizens should have rights to express themselves freely and collectively, which has something to do with condition number seven. Citizens should have the right to form associations. And going back to condition number five and voice their interests, express their needs. Condition number six, there should be alternative sources of information available in the system. The role of media here, the role of media independent of the state. Citizens should have the right to seek alternative sources of information. These alternative sources of information should exist and should be protected by law. So all of these procedures, all of these minimal conditions should exist. And Schmitter and Karl add two more to these. They argue that elected officials should be able to exercise power without being subjected to appointed or unelected officials such as military bureaucracies or such as bureaucracies or civil servants, retarding, blocking, vetoing what the elected officials wish to carry out. And finally, the polity, the state structure should be autonomous. It should be in that respect self-governing. It should not be a satellite state, that is. It should not be under a predominant system, a political system of influence. A democracy can exist unless it is free of a hegemonic block, unless it doesn't come under the influence of hegemonic alliances or unless it is independent of spheres of influence. So in that respect, polities must be autonomous, independent. And for example, the polity must be autonomous, independent so that there should also be no mechanisms of neocolonialism, let alone classic forms of colonialism, but also neocolonial pressures should not be prevalent in a country for that country to be characterized by a modern political system of democracy. So all of these, in fact, are subsumed under the seven procedures that Schmitzer and Karl describe. From here, let me continue with different other forms of democracy which we sometimes call democracy or authoritarianism. We'll talk about varieties and versions of authoritarianism in political science 304. But let me briefly talk to you about or signal to you what we mean by qualified forms of democracy, not modern political democracy, but qualified forms of democracy. But before that, I have a question here, please. In the system, yes? You mean is there an absolute freedom, a perfect freedom of expression? Of course, human beings are constrained by habit, tradition, custom, norms, culture, right? Identities? Can there ever be fully free expression? In that respect, my answer is just like yours. There isn't. But as long as you can express your needs, your voice, as long as there are channels of representing those that we call a democracy, and those channels are constitutionally protected. And not only constitutionally protected, but also socially sanctioned. As long as they exist, they're predictable, they're knowable, we all know that those channels exist, those instruments exist, as long as this is the case and all others are existing, then we call this modern political democracy. But you're absolutely right. There cannot be a full freedom, 100% freedom of expression. Of course, we're tied up by norms, by culture, by identity, by era, by our own identities, by group think, by all other kinds of norms and habits and traditions and customs. Very good point. And also ideologies for that matter, please. By unelected officials, that's okay, that's a good question. By unelected officials, they mean, well, we all mean appointed officials. Of course, elected officials exercise powers being subjected to interest associations, social movements, civil society organizations, and their expressions of interest, voice, need. But Schmitter and Karl are talking about unelected officials. In that respect, they talk about appointees, political appointees. For example, military bureaucrats or state bureaucrats who want to, for example, veto or retard or slow down a reform process. They say a legislation has been passed in a parliament. It is now time for the street level bureaucrats to implement it. But those bureaucrats may come together and decide not to implement it. Or they say, we're not implementing it today. We'll see whether we implement it tomorrow. And tomorrow comes, they may say, we're not implementing it today. Excuse me. So what they warn against is the existence of unelected officials, i.e. appointed officials, i.e. bureaucrats in that respect. And they should not be able to exercise powers beyond, above and beyond, those who are elected in the first place. All right, is that clear? Very good. Any other questions, ladies and gentlemen? Very nice. Okay. Then comes different types of, well, whether it's tricky to call these systems democracy. O'Donnell, Guillermo O'Donnell called or coined the term illiberal democracy. We know that the liberal democracy is all about political participation and civil rights. Illiberal democracy is or exists when a formal establishment of democratic electoral process exists. Okay? So elections exist. But there are shortcomings in terms of constitutional liberties and freedoms. And there are limits on arbitrary exercise of executive power. Yes, there are, you know, there are some elements of democracy of those procedures. Most of them exist, but some are deficient. O'Donnell presents this as illiberal democracy is more democratic than authoritarian regimes, but less liberal than representative democracy, or is more democratic than representative democracy, I'm sorry, but less liberal than representative democracy. It has a strongly majoritarian bent. It is inclining towards majoritarianism. Therefore it is strongly majoritarian and consists in constituting through clean elections in majority, produces a clean majority that empowers someone to become for a given number of years the embodiment of, I'm sorry, the embodiment and interpreter of high interests of the nation. So I am elected. I represent the high interests of the nation. I embody the high interests of the nation. And in this system of illiberal democracy, O'Donnell argues, after, I mean, when the elections take place, the elections are done, voters are expected to become passive, but cheering audience of what the executive does. So these are hybrid systems which O'Donnell calls illiberal democracy. They're in between authoritarianism and democracy. We generally call them democracies, but we call them illiberal or impaired democracies. Another term that was invented much more, that was conceptualized much more recently, is what's called competitive authoritarianism. If we do this like this, competitive authoritarianism. It slides more toward authoritarianism, but there is the competitive element. The term was invented by Stephen Levitsky, Harvard political scientist, and Lucan Wei. They wrote this very influential text a few years ago with the same title, competitive authoritarianism. And in this system, the government appropriates state resources for partisan distribution. The government appropriates state resources for partisan distribution, distributing the goodies to as partisans, to those who are affiliated, who vote for the same political party. The state staffs or PACs, state institutions with loyal citizens or loyalist citizens, and it carries out this task in a systematic way. The government in general in these systems controls the media and provides only limited opportunities to opposition parties. And all of these, I'm sorry, the government controls the media and provides only limited opportunities to opposition parties. In Whitehall culture, in Britain you mean, that maybe, we'll see. The government controls all British media, can you say that? The government controls all British media. There are no alternative sources of access. The government may control, sure, the government's worldwide control, well, wants to control the media, right? Who wouldn't want to control the media? But it's a matter of degree. The extent to which control increases, then we slide towards competitive authoritarianism. The reason why I didn't want to emphasize competitive authoritarianism is that it is more authoritarian than illiberal democracy. So, illiberal democracies are still democracies, but impaired democracies. Competitive authoritarian systems are somewhere in between democracies and complete authoritarian systems. But I wish to share with you some of the ideas that also come to discussions when we talk about democracy, democratization, forms of democracy, types of democracy, and sometimes models of democracy. Yes, please. That's a very good question. Elections exist. Yes, they're freely carried out and honestly conducted, honestly counted. But my point here is, I mean, the point I want to make here is that, remember all of these? Only when all of these exist at the same time we call this modern political democracy. If otherwise we call these systems illiberal democracies are competitive authoritarian systems. Having just elections is not enough, right? All of these other instruments, other procedures have to coexist for us as political scientists or comparative political scientists to be able to call that system or categorize this system to classify this system as modern political democracy. Any questions? Please. Check some balances in a way, yes, but what we want to do is that we want to get rid of competition, right? So once again, competition is a key or has to be a key structural characteristic of modern political democracy. Just as it is in the system of capitalism, which we can talk about in another class, in another course on international political economy next term. Any other questions? I think I'm quite done with democracy, procedures, and all others. I want to do a quick start to models of democracy if there are no questions. We're all done, okay? But you can always ask questions next class. Sometimes it takes some time for our categories to sync, okay? So it takes time to digest some information, some knowledge. So please have a look at your notes and please do the readings. The readings are, the articles are very straightforwardly written. These are seminal articles which we sometimes ask about in graduate committees. For example, when we do a master's committee, when we want to recruit master's students or PhD students, we ask about, you know, what are the, you know, give us a definition of democracy or modern political democracy? Or do you know, or can you count some, you know, what are the approaches to democracy? How does, I mean, how do scholars approach democracy? How do they conceptualize democracy? What are the constituent component procedures in a democracy? Or if I, I sometimes ask, if I, if I give you a set of procedures such as competition, cooperation, public realm, rulers, accountability, this, that, and the other, which of the two approaches am I talking about, the procedure approach or the outcome approach? Wouldn't these be good questions in a graduate exam? Okay, so, so, so my point here is that this is some basic, fundamental, basic, but in that respect, isn't it? Fundamental information that I'd like you to remember. And of course, these, these will come across in other classes that complement or that build upon or on this course, okay? We shall also be talking about the same thing. Touch upon democracy when we do political science 304. Because for us to be able to define authoritarianism or varieties of authoritarianism, we should have an idea about what we should also remind ourselves what democracy is. And mind you, the title of the article is What Democracy Is and Is Not, okay? So, so I'd like you to, to remember this. I saw a hand, but I don't remember who was, please, yes. Can you ask me what democracy is? I will tell you the... Okay. Okay. The so-present, poor guy, authoritarianism, power. Okay, power, by demos, okay? Capitalism and democracy cannot coexist, yes. There's a huge debate on this. So, don't you think we need a new ideology, with new precautions against the possibilities? This was, this was, this was the name of the, this was the name of the debate about 900 years ago when Churchill said very infamously, does anyone, anyone remember what Churchill said about democracy? Democracy is... No, he says it's the worst system. It's the worst system, as long as we don't count the others. So, democracy is treacherous, democracy is, it has its faults, but it has some of its virtues too, given the alternatives. So, so, and the procedural approach really touches down upon, I mean, really takes all these elements as constituent, constitutive elements of what a modern political system should look like. But there are others who argue that democracy exists only at the outcome approach, only when it guarantees those outcomes. So, you may, you may want to, you may wish to side with, with those guys. Well, sure. No, I'm done, of course I understand, and I sympathize to a certain extent. No, of course, of course. And in vain, that they, they don't, they don't mean anything. Please. Dictatorship of capital. That may be one, one alternative thinking about democracy, right? Lenin's ideas, you know, it's the, it's the bourgeoisie, which basically is the ruler in the system. And it's a structure of exploitation. It's a structure of subordination. So, so there are many, many, many approaches to democracy. Most of us like democracy. Some of us do not like democracy. But, but most of us still want to, I mean, as rulers, I mean, rulers would wish to characterize their regime as, we are a democracy. We are a democratic country. So, now let's see what type of democracy exists. I'll continue discussing this next class. But I wanted to show you a preview of, of Leiphardt's model. Aren't Leiphardt a Dutch political scientist? Very influential political scientists. And, and he says that there are two ideal typical models of democracy. By ideal typical, he means they do not exist in the real empirical world. These are polar opposites. I use them as heuristic devices to, to, to make a point. There are some real world approximations. But the majoritarian model, neither the majoritarian model nor the consensual model really exists in reality 100%. Leiphardt says that these two models exist. But he says that when we talk about democracy and he was talking about democracy back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, he was saying, when we all refer to democracy, we generally refer to one type or one model of democracy, which is the majoritarian model, which he says is misleading. So we shouldn't, when we talk about democracy, we shouldn't really center our discussion on the majoritarian model and the majoritarian model only. There are other models which really exist in reality, which can be termed as consociational or consensus models. And that, perhaps, this model is more democratic in essence, more than in a name. So next class on Friday will be talking about the distinction between the majoritarian system and the consensual, consensus or consociational system. So please complete your reading of Schmittur and Karl and also have a look at Leiphardt's very small article that you can access through Moodle. And we'll discuss details on Friday. Thank you so much and I'll see you on Friday.