ps2082 Exc15

Examiners commentaries 2015

PS2082 Comparative politics
Important note
This commentary reflects the examination and assessment arrangements
for this course in the academic year 201415. The format and structure
of the examination may change in future years, and any such changes
will be publicised on the virtual learning environment (VLE).
Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading

references
Unless otherwise stated, all cross-references will be to the latest version
of the subject guide (2011). You should always attempt to use the most
recent edition of any Essential reading textbook, even if the commentary
and/or online reading list and/or subject guide refers to an earlier
edition. If different editions of Essential reading are listed, please check
the VLE for reading supplements if none are available, please use the
contents list and index of the new edition to find the relevant section.
General remarks
Learning outcomes
At the end of this course, and having completed the Essential reading and
activities, you should have a good understanding of the way in which
different democratic institutional systems work. Specifically, candidates
should be able to explain:
why institutional analysis is a key aspect of comparative politics
how institutional stability and political legitimation interact
what is meant by political culture and how it influences institutional
behaviour
how presidential systems differ in key respects from parliamentary
ones
the relationship between elective and non-elective dimensions of the
democratic state
the concept of federalism and how it differs from local government.
Examination revision strategy

Many candidates are disappointed to find that their examination
performance is poorer than they expected. This may be due to a
number of reasons. The Examiners commentaries suggest ways of
addressing common problems and improving your performance. One
particular failing is question spotting, that is, confining your
examination preparation to a few questions and/or topics which
have come up in past papers for the course. This can have serious
consequences.
1
We recognise that candidates may not cover all topics in the syllabus
in the same depth, but you need to be aware that examiners are free
to set questions on any aspect of the syllabus. This means that you
need to study enough of the syllabus to enable you to answer the
required number of examination questions.
The syllabus can be found in the Course information sheet in the
section of the VLE dedicated to each course. You should read the
syllabus carefully and ensure that you cover sufficient material in
preparation for the examination. Examiners will vary the topics and
questions from year to year and may well set questions that have not
appeared in past papers. Examination papers may legitimately include
questions on any topic in the syllabus. So, although past papers can be
helpful during your revision, you cannot assume that topics or specific
questions that have come up in past examinations will occur again.
If you rely on a question-spotting strategy, it is likely
you will find yourself in difficulties when you sit the
examination. We strongly advise you not to adopt this
strategy.

PS2082 Comparative politics Zone A
Important note

references
Comments on specific questions

Candidates should answer THREE of the following TWELVE questions. All
questions carry equal marks.
Question 1
How, if at all, should we distinguish legitimacy from popularity? Give examples.
Reading for this question
Connolly, W. (ed.) Legitimacy and the state. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984)
[ISBN9780855206468].
Approaching the question

The distinction between legitimacy and popularity is straightforward
enough in theory though often unclear in practice. It has several
aspects. One has to do with the relationship between international and
domestic political factors. Popularity is mostly a domestic concern while
legitimacy can refer to either domestic or international issues. Of these,
international factors are probably increasing in importance over time
and have sometimes led to direct armed intervention. For example, in
2013, the United Nations Security Council virtually declared the Gaddafi
regime in Libya to be illegitimate and therefore supported military action
to overthrow him. However, the outcome of this adventure was not
entirely successful and one might hazard a guess that there will be less
international intervention purely to effect regime change in the future
than there has been in the past. It may be true that particular regimes that
lose domestic support can be vulnerable to overthrow but most of them
have more to lose from being domestically unpopular.
Legitimacy also implies at least a modicum of due process while popularity
need not. In an ideal world, popularity and legitimacy would go together
in some kind of harmony. In the real world, however, they often conflict,
3
though when they do, this conflict can be resolved in different ways. For
this reason, the question asked for examples.
To take just one, Alexis de Toqueville made the observation of US politics
that political questions usually tend to resolve themselves into judicial
ones (i.e. popularity follows legitimacy and not normally the other way
round). This makes for a certain institutional robustness autonomous
constitutionalism is for the most part legitimate but it also limits what
popularity can do to effect change. For example, a lot of US New Deal
legislation was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court although
it may well have been both popular and legitimate in the sense of
procedurally appropriate.
Question 2
One cannot understand comparative politics without some understanding of
political culture. Discuss.
A different but also valid approach would be to start from the idea that
public opinion in democratic systems tends, though not invariably, to
shape public policy in the long run. For a study of how political culture has
changed over time see:
Inglehart, R. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1990) [ISBN9780691022963].
A more traditional approach to political culture is to be found in:

Almond, G. and S. Verba The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy
in five nations. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963; new edition,
London: Sage, 1989) [ISBN9780803935587]
Almond, G. and S. Verba The civic culture revisited: an analytic study. (Boston:
Little, Brown, 1980) [ISBN9780316034906].
McGarry, J. and B. O Leary Introduction: the macro-political regulation of

ethnic conflict in McGarry and O Leary (eds) The politics of ethnic conflict
regulation: case studies of protracted ethnic conflict (London: Routledge,
1993), pp.141, looks at issues to do with nations and nationalism and is
also relevant to the question.
The essential point of this question is to invite or otherwise agreement
that there is more to comparative politics than the study of institutions.
Core political institutions may be an important part of any political system
but they cannot be the whole story. The notion of political culture adds a
much-needed additional dimension, although political culture itself can be
understood in a variety of ways.
The most straightforward limit to the role of institutions is probably the
role of unwritten rules. These retain some force in some contexts despite
the judicialisation of politics which has been discussed in the subject guide
and elsewhere.
Question 3
Too much respect for human rights risks undermining the principle that
government should be of the people.
The key readings for this topic are:
Zakaria, F. The rise of illiberal democracy, Foreign Affairs 76 (November,
December) 1997, pp.2243.
4

Dahl, R.A. On democracy. (New Haven; Yale University Press, 2000)
[ISBN9780300084559].
The broader literature can also be approached in:

Ackerman, B. The rise of world constitutionalism, Virginia Law Review 83/4
May 1997, pp.77197.
Also relevant is:

OBrien, D. Storm center: the Supreme Court in American politics. (New York:
London: W.W. Norton, 1999) 5th revised edition [ISBN9780393974928].

This is a question where some discussion of individual cases would be
helpful. Most countries have experienced a number of real world dilemmas
to do with the judicialisation of politics.
Most candidates in 2015 showed awareness that a part of the quotation
came from Abraham Lincoln. A competent answer needed to show
understanding that the question was about the internal coherence of
democratic principles. This question has to do with the many complex
philosophical questions involving tensions in the relationship between
human rights and democracy.
Democracy can be vulnerable to self destruction if it is not somehow
protected via some kind of system of checks and balances but too much
protection of minority rights can make the idea of democracy as being
about majority rule almost meaningless.
Question 4
What is the point of elective local government?
There is no simple up-to-date text on elective local government. The best
way of accessing the literature is via authors such as Dahl (2000) who
treat the issue as one of democratic theory.
The main dilemma explored in a good answer is principally one of
participation vs efficiency. There are advantages in localism, provided that
one accepts the argument that participation is a good thing in itself. Local
government permits people to participate in the political process, without
committing themselves to politics full-time. That is good for participation.
But powerful local government can also be an enemy to efficiency because
localism can involve an excessively narrow outlook on public life.
A very important part of answering this question has to do with
distinguishing between participation on principle and economic interests
of various kinds. It is also important that local government is not confused
with state or federal government. A US state, such as Texas or California,
is as big as a number of nation states and does not involve localism.
Question 5
Recent election results in several countries showing increasing political
fragmentation have falsified Duvergers Law. Discuss with examples
Obviously central are:
Duverger, M. Political parties: their organizational activity in the modern
state. Translated by B. and N. North. (London: Methuen, 1978, originally
published 1964) 3rd edition. [ISBN9780416683202].
5

Lijphart, A. Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance
in thirty-six countries. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999)
[ISBN9780300078930].
There are a number of additional works such as:

Sartori, G. Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. (Colchester:
ECPR Press, 2005) 2nd revised edition [ISBN9780954796617].

Duvergers arguments are best applied to an electoral environment where
reasonably contented voters have to make marginal calculations about the
future. However, disillusion has often motivated people to vote against a
discredited establishment in favour of something quite different. Throw
the rascals out! or take a chance on me can often be very powerful
mobilising slogans which can simply outweigh any Duverger-type effect at
times of crisis.
It is also the case that parties based on a geographical concentration of the
vote can concentrate support and similarly outweigh a first-past-the-post
electoral system.
Virtually every candidate who tacked this question in 2015 made some
reference to the recent rise of the Scottish National Party. One candidate
thought that the Scottish independence referendum took place in Ireland,
but this was fortunately a rare problem! The real issue is how minority
parties became majority parties in the first past the post political system.
There are several points which can be made here, but remarkably few
candidates made the straightforward argument that popular preferences
can outweigh electoral mechanics.
Question 6
Semi-presidentialism risks producing elective dictatorship. Discuss with
examples.
There is enough literature on presidentialism for a good answer on a subtheme of a broader topic. See:
Linz, J. The perils of presidentialism, Journal of Democracy 1(1) 1990,
pp.5169 is relevant to most sub-themes, including the issue of semipresidentialism. Linz is on the whole a supporter of semi-presidentialism
because of its clarity.
Otherwise the main authors on semi-presidentialism are:

Elgie, R. and S. Moestrup (eds) Semi-presidentialism outside Europe; a
comparative study. (London, Routledge, 2007) [ISBN9780415380478].
For a sceptical institutional argument, see:

Haggard, S. and M. McCubbins (eds) Presidents, parliaments and policy.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) [ISBN9780521171601].

A few years ago, semi-presidentialism was seen as bringing out the best of
both presidential and parliamentary styles of governance.
De Gaulle, who was considered a key example, was seen as a successful
match between strong central government and democratic accountability.
However, the rise of Putin has since raised questions about whether, under
semi-presidential systems, there is a tendency for the executive to become
too powerful.
However, the argument is not completely clear, because the working of

any political system inevitably depends on a variety of things. For example,
Gaullist France used referendums rather a lot while the powers enjoyed
by the Russian presidency are impressive and sometimes go beyond the
Constitution.
Question 7
Poor economic performance is more threatening to democratic stability in a
new democracy than a problematic institutional structure. Discuss.
A good place to start is with literature on why democracy has not broken
down in wealthy countries since 1945. Relevant is:
Lipset S.M. Political man: the social bases of politics. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1983) third edition [ISBN9780801825224].
Candidates might also want to read the following classic text:

Galbraith, J. K. The culture of contentment. (London: Sinclair Stevenson, 1992)
[ISBN9781856191470].

While it is true that this is a difficult question to discuss because we have
no actual cases of democratic breakdown in advanced countries, there are
still things to consider and therefore the topic is still worth discussing. This
question was set at a time when Greece was experiencing severe economic
difficulties. A reasonable approach to the question would have been to ask
why that countrys severe economic problems have not, at least as yet, put
democracy at risk.
This points out a contrast. Greek GDP has fallen by around a quarter in
recent years, whereas Greek economic growth in the 1960s was positive.
Yet there was a military coup in Greece in 1967 whereas it has so far been
unthinkable for democracy to break down in Greece.
Broadly speaking, one could try to answer this by emphasising the
importance of European institutions. The point would be that popular
preferences for membership of the European Union outweighed almost
any amount of economic difficulty. A further question would be why this
should be.
It seems to me that the absence of a credible threat of democratic
breakdown in a number of countries suffering from devastating slumps is
remarkable and it is worth asking why. Greece is not the only case. There
are several in eastern Europe. If it is indeed true that economically underperforming governments can retain popular confidence because of their
international dimension, then some rethinking of democratic politics is
called for.
This makes for some similarity between Latin American style
presidentialism and European patterns of semi-presidentialism.
There is a connection between this question and the question as to how far
presidentialism tends to morphologise into different kinds of institutional
structure. However, not many candidates answered this question in 2015,
perhaps because of a lack of knowledge of Latin American cases.
Question 8
Consider whether term limits are an essential part of democratic presidentialism.
Linz (1990). As with other arguments about presidentialism, it was Linz who
put the issue of term limits on the academic agenda.
For a more recent study see:

Philip, G. and F. Panizza The triumph of politics. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011)
[ISBN9780745647494].

Candidates found this question rather difficult in 2015 although the
better answers tended to rely on case studies. The real point is how
presidentialism is institutionally specific and how far its consequences
can be reproduced in different ways. For example, to what extent can
executive powers in presidential systems be altered through changing
the electoral system? It is not clear that there is anything completely
distinctive institutionally about presidentialism that would settle the issue.
One of the institutional factors that have come into play since Latin
America redemocratised at the end of the Cold War, has been the adoption
of a US-style system in which a single re-election period was allowed. A
clear majority of Latin American countries now have this system. There
are exceptions, however Venezuela permits indefinite re-election and
Ecuador and Bolivia have looked as if they might be going in the same
direction. Moreover, Argentina has to some extent undermined the point
of term limits by permitting the election of spouses.
The real point is how presidentialism is institutionally specific and how
far its consequences can be reproduced in other ways. For example, to
what extent can political parties in presidential systems be altered through
changing the electoral system? It is not clear that there is anything
completely distinctive about presidentialism.
Question 9
Clientelism is the enemy of good government. Discuss with examples.
Essential is:
Hood, C. The art of the state: culture, rhetoric and public management. (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1998) [ISBN9780198297659]. Hoods approach is, however,
more anthropological than based on classic public administration.

It is generally accepted that Weberian systems are more efficient when
it comes to running the country than clientelistic systems. A significant
part of the relative economic success of many Asian countries, contrasted
with the less happy experiences of Latin America, has been attributed
to this fact. However, there is a political cost to be paid in terms of the
authoritarian characteristics of Asian bureaucracies in contrast to the more
political style of Latin America.
A minority of candidates in 2015 wrote instructively on the bureaucratic
systems prevailing in their own countries. This mostly proved to be a good
idea.
Question 10
Referendums are the best way of resolving constitutional disputes that involve
ethnicity, religion or nationalism. Discuss with examples.
Reading for the question
Relevant are the modern classics dealing with democracy such as:
Dahl , R.A. Democracy and its critics. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991)
second edition [ISBN9780300049381].
Dahl (2000).
Candidates might also want to read the classic text:

Schumpeter, J. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. (London: Allen and Unwin,
1978) [ISBN9780043350324].
There is surprisingly little material on referendums as such, although the

number of referendums held in democracies is surely tending to increase.
However, there is quite a lot of discussion of referendums in the subject
guide. To go much further, candidates would need to have a knowledge of
cases and examples.
It is important to note that the question is an either/or one so candidates
needed to focus only on one of the three concepts in the question,
although there are indeed some similarities.
It is also worth noting that there are different types of referendum
depending on whether they are constitutional or merely focused on policy.
There has been a growing tendency in Europe for referendums to be held
on constitutional matters, however the consequences have been mixed,
with voters sometimes feeling manipulated.
Question 11
What, if anything, can be learned from Webers work on legitimacy?
Where an author is mentioned by name, it is clearly necessary to refer to
his writings. There are several places where Webers best-known writings
can be located. It does not much matter which edition is selected, but the
references in the subject guide are obviously useful, for example:
Connolly (1984).
In addition, there are readings that cover legitimacy from other

standpoints than that of Weber. These include:
Lipset (1983)
Beetham, D. The legitimation of power. (London: Macmillan, 1991)
[ISBN9780333375389].

This question invites candidates to look at Webers work on legitimacy in
the light of subsequent work on the subject.
Question 12
First-past-the-post electoral systems tend to promote artificial political
antagonisms over democratic deliberation. Discuss.
Sartori (2005).

The degree of artifice in most democratic political antagonisms is probably
exaggerated but it does raise the question of how far the political process
is governed by false emotions. Political scientists today are increasingly
concerned with issues of deliberation rather than just contestation. Is it
possible to improve the quality of democracy by changing the relevant
political systems and, if so, is the adoption of proportional representation
the answer or a part of it?
This was a way of raising the issue of first past the post-electoral systems
in a slightly novel guise. The point is that very aggressive campaigning
for office may well lead the successful candidate into difficulties when it
comes to the kind of post-electoral negotiations that are almost inevitable
in systems of proportional representation. Candidates for office, therefore,
need to balance the pursuit of electoral success with the ability to work
with other parties and with whom it may be necessary to negotiate. It
is surely no coincidence that some of the most exclusionary election
campaigning is generally to be found in presidential systems or systems
like Britain which have a similar concept of first past the post.
10

PS2082 Comparative politics Zone B
Important note

references
Comments on specific questions

Candidates should answer THREE of the following TWELVE questions. All
questions carry equal marks.
Question 1
How, if at all, should we distinguish legitimacy from popularity? Give examples.
The key sources are:
Connolly, W. (ed.) Legitimacy and the state. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984)
[ISBN9780855206468].
Beetham (1991).

The distinction between legitimacy and popularity is straightforward
enough in theory though often unclear in practice. Not least of the reasons
for this is that both terms, and particularly legitimacy, themselves imply
value judgements. The term has several aspects. One has to do with
the relationship between international and domestic political factors
Popularity is mostly a domestic concern while legitimacy can refer to
either domestic or international issues.
However, given the changes in the global political environment in recent
years, it is no longer possible to make a hard-and-fast distinction between
a countrys internal and external affairs. Of these, international factors
are probably increasing in importance over time and have sometimes led
to direct armed intervention. For example, in 2013, the United Nations
Security Council virtually declared the Gaddafi regime in Libya to be
illegitimate and therefore supported military action to overthrow him.
However, the outcome of this adventure was not entirely successful and
11
one might hazard a guess that there will be less international intervention
purely to effect regime change in the future than there has been in the
past. It may be true that particular regimes that lose domestic support can
be vulnerable to overthrow but most of them have more to lose from being
domestically unpopular.
Legitimacy also implies at least a modicum of due process while popularity
need not. In an ideal world, popularity and legitimacy would go together
in some kind of harmony. In the real world, however, they often conflict
though, when they do, this conflict can be resolved in different ways. For
this reason, the question asked for examples.
To take just one possible example, Alexis de Toqueville made the
observation of US politics that political questions usually tend to resolve
themselves into judicial ones (i.e. popularity follows legitimacy and not
normally the other way round). This makes for a certain institutional
robustness autonomous constitutionalism is for the most part legitimate
but it also limits what popularity can do to effect change. For example, a
lot of US New Deal legislation in the 1930s was ruled unconstitutional by
the US Supreme Court although it may well have been both popular and
legitimate in the sense of procedurally appropriate. Relevant examples can
be drawn from other countries as well.
Question 2
One cannot understand politics in any country without some understanding of
its cultural context. Discuss with examples.
For a study of how political culture has changed over time see:
Inglehart (1990).
A more clearly comparative approach to studying political culture is to be

found in:
Almond (1989).
McGarry and OLeary (1993), pp.141, looks at issues to do with nations and
nationalism and is also relevant to the question.

One potentially valid approach is to start from the idea that political
culture is an inherently comparative field of study and specifically to
highlight differences between countries. An alternative approach would
be to start from the idea that public opinion in democratic systems tends
though not invariably to change things in the long run as the influence of
global factors makes itself felt.
Question 3
Too much respect for human rights risks undermining the principle that
government should be of the people rather than by judges. Discuss.
The key readings for this topic are:
Zakaria, F. The rise of illiberal democracy, Foreign Affairs 76 (November,
December) 1997, pp.2243.
Dahl (2000).
The broader literature can also be approached via:

Ackerman (1997).
12
Also relevant is:

OBrien (1999).

Most candidates in 2015 showed awareness that a part of the quotation
came from Abraham Lincoln. A competent answer needed to show
understanding that the question was about the internal coherence of
democratic principles. This question invites discussion of the many
complex philosophical questions involving tensions in the relationship
between human rights and democracy. It is a question where some
discussion of individual issues would be helpful. Most countries
have experienced a number of real world dilemmas to do with the
judicialisation of politics.
Democracy can be vulnerable to self destruction if it is not somehow
protected via some kind of system of checks and balances but too much
protection of minority rights can make the idea of democracy as being
about majority rule almost meaningless.
Question 4
What are the principal virtues of elective local government?
There is no simple up-to-date text on elective local government. The best
way of accessing the literature is via authors such as Dahl (2000), who
treat the issue as one of democratic theory.
Some people might think that a list of the principal virtues of local
government whether elective or otherwise is likely to be short because
of the overriding importance of national issues. However, the main
dilemma explored in a good answer is principally one of participation vs
efficiency. There are advantages in localism, provided that one accepts
the argument that participation is a good thing in itself. Local government
permits people to participate in the political process, without committing
themselves to politics full-time. That is good for participation. But
powerful local government can also be an enemy to efficiency because
localism can involve an excessively narrow outlook on public life.
A very important part of answering this question has to do with
distinguishing between participation on principle and economic interests
of various kinds. It is also important that local government is not confused
with state or federal government. A US state, such as Texas or California,
is as big as a number of nation states and does not involve localism.
Question 5
The recent rise of minority parties in several countries has falsified Duvergers
Law. Discuss with examples.
Obviously central is:
Duverger (1978, originally published 1964).
Lijphart (1999).
There are a number of additional works that may be helpful such as:
Sartori (2005).
13

Duvergers arguments are best applied to an electoral environment where
reasonably contented voters have to make marginal calculations about
their future. However, in the real world, contentment is not universal
to say the least. Instead, disillusion has often motivated people to vote
against a discredited establishment in favour of something quite different.
Throw the rascals out! or take a chance on me can often be very
powerful mobilising slogans which can outweigh marginal calculations.
There is a theory that people are more likely to take risks at times of crisis
when they are faced with losses. It is also the case that parties based on a
geographical concentration of the vote can concentrate support and out
vote a leading party whose support is more evenly spread within a first
past the post electoral system.
Virtually every candidate who tacked this question in 2015 made some
reference to the recent rise of the Scottish National Party. One candidate
thought that the Scottish independence referendum took place in Ireland,
but this was fortunately a rare problem! The more serious issue is how
minority parties became majority parties within a first past the post
political system. There are several points which can be made here, but
remarkably few candidates in 2015 made the straightforward argument
that popular preferences can outweigh electoral calculations in other
words people often vote with their desires rather than their tactics.
Question 6
Semi-presidentialism risks producing elective dictatorship. Discuss with
examples.
There is enough literature on presidentialism for a good answer on a subtheme of a broader topic.
Linz, J. and A. Valenzuela (eds) The failure of presidential democracy.
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 2 vols
[ISBN9780801846403] is relevant to most sub-themes, including the
issue of semi-presidentialism. Linz is on the whole a supporter of semipresidentialism because of the systems greater clarity.
Otherwise the main authors on semi-presidentialism are:

Elgie and Moestrup (eds) (2007).
For a sceptical institution-based approach, see:

Haggard and McCubbins (eds) (2001).

A few years ago, semi-presidentialism was seen as bringing out the best
of both presidential and parliamentary styles of governance. De Gaulle,
was once seen as providing a good example of a successful match between
strong central government and democratic accountability. However,
the rise of Putin has since raised questions about whether, under semipresidential systems, there is a tendency for the executive to become too
powerful.
In fact, the validity of the claim is not completely clear, because the
working of any political system inevitably depends on a variety of things.
For example, Gaullist France used referendums rather a lot while the
powers enjoyed by the Russian presidency are impressive and sometimes
go beyond the Constitution.
14
Question 7
Economic crises are more threatening to democratic stability than a problematic
institutional structure. Discuss.
A good place to start is to ask why democracy has not broken down in
wealthy countries since 1945. Relevant is:
Lipset (1983).
Candidates might also want to read the following classic text:

Galbraith (1992).

This is a difficult question to discuss because we have no actual cases of
democratic breakdown in advanced countries but we do have potential
hypotheses to consider. This question was set at a time when Greece was
experiencing severe economic difficulties. A reasonable approach to the
question would have been to ask why that countrys severe economic
problems have not, at least as yet, put democracy at risk.
We immediately see a contrast. Greek GDP has fallen by around a quarter
in recent years, whereas Greek economic growth in the 1960s was
positive. Yet there was a military coup in Greece in 1967 whereas it has
so far been unthinkable for democracy to break down in Greece since the
1960s.
Broadly speaking, one could try to answer this question by emphasising
the importance of European institutions. The point would be that popular
preferences for membership of the European Union outweighed almost
any amount of economic difficulty. A further question would be why this
should be.
It seems to me that the absence of a credible threat of democratic
breakdown in a number of countries suffering from devastating slumps is
remarkable and it is worth asking why. Greece is not the only case. There
are several in eastern Europe. If it is indeed true that economically underperforming governments can retain popular confidence because of their
international allies, then some rethinking of democratic theory is called for.
This makes for some similarity between Latin American style
presidentialism and European patterns of semi-presidentialism.
There is a connection between this question and the question as to how far
presidentialism tends to morphologise into different kinds of institutional
structure. However, not many candidates in 2015 answered this question,
perhaps because of a lack of knowledge of Latin American cases.
Question 8
Consider whether term limits are an essential part of democratic presidentialism.
As with most other arguments about presidentialism, it was Linz who put
the issue of term limits on the academic agenda. See:
Linz and Valenzuela (eds) (1994).
Linz (1990).
For a more recent study of presidentialism, see:

Philip and Panizza (2011).
15

Candidates in 2015 found this question rather difficult and the
better answers tended to rely on case studies. The real point is how
presidentialism is institutionally specific and how far its consequences
can be reproduced in different ways. For example, to what extent can
executive powers in presidential systems be altered through changing
the electoral system? It is not clear that there is anything completely
distinctive institutionally about presidentialism that would settle the issue.
However, one of the institutional factors that have come into play since
Latin America redemocratised at the end of the Cold War, has been the
adoption of a US-style system in which a single re-election period was
allowed. A clear majority of Latin American countries now have this
system. There are exceptions, however Venezuela permits indefinite reelection and Ecuador and Bolivia have looked as if they might be going in
the same direction. Moreover, Argentina has to some extent undermined
the point of term limits by permitting the election of spouses. And the
experience of hand-picking successors has not been encouraging (Isabel
Peron, Maduro, Kirchner, etc.).
Question 9
Clientelism may be the enemy of good government but it helps to ensure
political stability. Discuss.
Essential is:
Hood (1998).

It is generally accepted that Weberian systems are more efficient when it
comes to running the country than clientelistic systems are. A significant
part of the relative economic success of many Asian countries, contrasted
with the less happy experiences of Latin America, has been attributed
to this fact. However, there is a political cost to be paid in terms of the
authoritarian characteristics of Asian bureaucracies in contrast to the
more political style of Latin America. The US specifically rejected the idea
of a meritocratic civil service in the 19th century because it was seen as
undemocratic.
A minority of candidates in 2015 wrote instructively on the bureaucratic
systems prevailing in their own countries. This mostly proved to be a good
approach.
Question 10
Referendums are not the best way of resolving constitutional disputes that
involve ethnicity, religion or nationalism. Discuss.
Relevant are the modern classics dealing with democracy such as:
Dahl (1991).
Candidates might also want to read the classic text:

Schumpeter (1978).
Political scientists have devoted surprisingly little attention to

referendums, although the number of referendums held in democracies
is surely tending to increase. However, there is quite a lot of discussion of
16
referendums in the subject guide. To go much further than this, candidates

would need to have a knowledge of cases and examples.
It is important to note that the question is an either/or one so candidates
needed to focus only on one of the three concepts in the question,
although there are indeed some similarities.
Central to the question is the perception that there are different
types of referendum depending on whether they are constitutional
or merely focused on policy. There has been a growing tendency in
Europe for referendums to be held on constitutional matters. However,
the consequences have been variable, with voters sometimes feeling
manipulated.
Question 11
What, if anything, do we have to learn from Webers work on legitimacy?
Where an author is mentioned by name, it is clearly necessary to refer to
his writings. There are several places where Webers best-known writings
can be located. It does not much matter which edition is selected, but the
references in the subject guide are obviously useful, for example:
Connolly (1984).
In addition, there are readings that cover legitimacy from other

standpoints than that of Weber, including:
Lipset (1983).

This question invites candidates to look at Webers work on legitimacy in
the light of subsequent discussions of legitimacy.
Question 12
First-past-the-post electoral systems tend to disenfranchise large sections of the
electorate. Discuss.
Sartori (2005).

The degree of artifice in most democratic political antagonisms is probably
exaggerated but it does raise the question of how far the political process
is governed by false emotions.
Political scientists today are increasingly concerned with issues of
deliberation rather than just contestation. Is it possible to improve the
quality of democracy by changing the relevant political systems and, if
so, is the adoption of proportional representation the answer or a part of
it? The question itself was a way of raising the issue of electoral systems
in a slightly novel guise. The point is that very aggressive campaigning
for office may well lead the successful candidate into difficulties when it
comes to the kind of post-electoral negotiations that are almost inevitable
in systems of proportional representation. Candidates for office, therefore,
need to balance the pursuit of electoral success with the ability to work
with other parties and with whom it may be necessary to negotiate. It
is surely no coincidence that some of the most exclusionary election
campaigning is generally to be found in presidential systems or systems
like Britain which have a similar concept of first past the post.
17

ps2082 Exc15

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ps2082 Exc15

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Examiners commentaries 2015

Examiners commentaries 2015

Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading

Examination revision strategy

PS2082 Comparative politics

Examiners commentaries 2015

Examiners commentaries 2015

Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading

Comments on specific questions

Approaching the question

PS2082 Comparative politics

A more traditional approach to political culture is to be found in:

McGarry, J. and B. O Leary Introduction: the macro-political regulation of

Examiners commentaries 2015

The broader literature can also be approached in:

Also relevant is:

Approaching the question

PS2082 Comparative politics

There are a number of additional works such as:

Approaching the question

Otherwise the main authors on semi-presidentialism are:

For a sceptical institutional argument, see:

Approaching the question

Examiners commentaries 2015

However, the argument is not completely clear, because the working of

Candidates might also want to read the following classic text:

Approaching the question

PS2082 Comparative politics

For a more recent study see:

Approaching the question

Approaching the question

Examiners commentaries 2015

Candidates might also want to read the classic text:

There is surprisingly little material on referendums as such, although the

In addition, there are readings that cover legitimacy from other

Approaching the question

PS2082 Comparative politics

Approaching the question

Examiners commentaries 2015

Examiners commentaries 2015

Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading

Comments on specific questions

Approaching the question

PS2082 Comparative politics

A more clearly comparative approach to studying political culture is to be

Approaching the question

The broader literature can also be approached via:

Examiners commentaries 2015

Also relevant is:

Approaching the question

PS2082 Comparative politics

Approaching the question

Otherwise the main authors on semi-presidentialism are:

For a sceptical institution-based approach, see:

Approaching the question

Examiners commentaries 2015

Candidates might also want to read the following classic text:

Approaching the question

For a more recent study of presidentialism, see:

PS2082 Comparative politics

Approaching the question

Approaching the question

Candidates might also want to read the classic text: