MOCK

1 Module
MOCK: Thursday,
11:00 am
Everyone joins our
Zoom conference at
10:45 am - 15
minutes before the
mock
 You will need to
1) switch your
camera on
2) share your screen
3) switch your mic on
You will need a
laptop (other
devices don’t allow
screen-sharing+cam
simultaneously)
If you lack a working
place/technical
capacities and want to
write the mock at HSE
>> notification by
Monday
On joining the
conference,
everyone will need
to show their room
and working place
Please make sure
your working place
is tidy (no
papers/devices
around)
When you share
your screen, please
share your SCREEN
Downsize Word a bit
so one can see you
are sharing your
screen and not just
Word
Your mic should be
turned on so that
everyone can hear you.
You don’t have to hear
others (but please take
notice of you chat)
You can have a
5-minute toilet
break after an hour.
Please don’t abuse
this permission to go
to a toilet.
One-by-one and
please notify the
chat
When you come
back, you will have
to show your room
again
After 3 hours, you
will have 15 minutes
to upload your
essays. With
everything still on!
Those 15 minutes
are given just in
case of any
technical difficulties
Format -- doc or
docx
Don’t forget to
include your name
Student number if
you want to be
anonymous
Don’t plagiarise
General tips

● Don’t ignore the third essay

● Thesis answers the question.
● Arguments prove the thesis.
● Conclusion = summary + thesis
● One paragraph = one idea
○ you can use PIE system (point, illustration, explanation)
● Paragraphs in the main body should be roughly the same
size
● Intro and conclusion are not one short sentence!
● Definitions are not half of the essay!!!!
A
General tips

● Thesis should be a clear defendable position.

● Whatever you do, don’t kill your arguments with
counterarguments!
● If you cannot come up with counterarguments, just give
supporting points (evidence, references)
● Ideally, there should be logical connections between the
paragraphs (general to specific, compare or contrast etc.)
General tips

● Conclusion summarises the main part. Don’t put new ideas

there.
● And not in the last sentence of the last paragraph either.
● And definitely no new paragraphs after the conclusion.
● Proper references. No plagiarism.
● Original. Not a retelling of the study guide.
● Check your factual evidence. Give references whenever
possible.
● Specify your examples when needed. Not “An example of
that is France”, but “France in the 1940s”
First class essays

● No major issues: 7-ish max

● For 8, 9, 10 it should be extra
○ creativity (but don’t overdo)
○ independent, original thinking
○ interesting examples
○ knowledge of more than our essential material
○ exceptional quality of argumentation
○ generally exceptional
Our folder

● First chapter essays (“Essay plans”) - checked

● “Exam questions” - previous years’ questions and
commentaries
● Lectures
● COMPOL 2020
● Cheatsheets
● Textbooks and handbooks
Additional?

● https://www.annualreviews.org/loi/polisci
● https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com
● Google scholar
● Не-либген и не-сайхаб
1st chapter

● “Modes of comparing political systems”

● Legitimacy, political culture and political institutions

Learning aims:

● discuss, illustrate, and critically evaluate the relationship

between political stability, legitimacy and political institutions
● state the different definitions of legitimacy, and critically
evaluate them
● explain the relationship of legitimacy to law and political culture,
and illustrate your explanation with specific examples
1st chapter

● Legitimacy: Weber, Beetham, Lipset, Easton

○ What is it and what do you need it for
○ Types and sources
○ Relationship between legitimacy and stability
■ legitimacy and law
■ legitimacy and political culture
○ Democratic and non-democratic legitimacy
○ International legitimacy
○ Dogan mentioning Weber is outdated
● Institutions:
○ formal / informal
○ enforced rules (culture - some rules might be difficult to enforce? Poll
tax?)
1st chapter

● References for institutions:

○ March and Olson, 1984 - The new institutionalism
○ Peters, 1999 - Institutional theory in political science
● Political culture
○ Almond and Verba 1963
○ Putnam 1993
○ Lipset, Inglehart, Huntington
● Surveys
○ Almond and Verba 1963
○ Lagos 1997 “Latin America’s smiling mask”
○ Berinsky 2017
1st chapter

● Democratic/non-democratic legitimacy
suggestions
○ Heywood: p.86-89 ("Democratic legitimacy")
○ O'Neil: p. 189-191 ("Personality cults")
○ Parsons: Chapter 5
1st chapter

What else do we have in our folder?

● Booth and Seligson - Legitimacy puzzle in Latin America:

○ Support for regime is declining, but there is not
relationship with democratic breakdown (or survival)
○ One’s position in society, education, knowledge,
information, and experiences shape legitimacy norms.
○ Contrary to expectations, citizens who are unhappy
with their government’s performance do not drop out of
politics or resort mainly to destabilizing protest.
1st chapter

● Rather, they participate at high rates in

conventional politics and and in such alternative
arenas as communal improvement and civil
society.
● Despite regime performance problems, citizen
support for democracy remains high.

Linz and Stepan, 1996

Klingemann et al. Democracy and Political Culture in Eastern

Europe
2nd chapter

Legitimacy, constitutionalism and political culture

(and consociationalism)
2nd chapter

● explain critically how law and human rights are linked with each other
● explain how political culture has been used as a concept in order to
understand politics, and critically assess the relevance of this concept in
different historical and geographical contexts
● explain the differences of emphasis between theories which emphasise
individual rights as an explanation for democracy and those which
emphasise collective cultures
● explain what judicial review is and how it works in practice
● explain how consociationalism works, why the concept has been
developed and in which contexts, and show specific strengths and
weaknesses of this system.
2nd chapter

● Constitutionalism, human rights vs majoritarianism

○ Ackerman, 1997
○ “Breakdown of pure majoritarianism” in the SG
○ Zakaria
○ Dahl
○ Laegaard 2007 The Cartoon Controversy
● Judicial review, judicial power
○ Dahl
2nd chapter

● Consociationalism / constitutions and democracies in

divided societies
○ Lijphart
■ References from Lijphart
○ Dahl
○ List in the slides
2nd chapter

● Judicial review and judicial power suggestions

○ Sumption’s lectures
○ Classic works that criticise judicial review -- lecture’s slides
○ An article discussing how judicial review can be political:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104905

In our “Textbooks/Handbooks” folder:

● O’Neil p.148-150
● Parsons p. 259-278
● Camarani Ch. 9 (Constitutions and judicial power)
● Boix and Stokes Ch.3 (Comparative judicial politics) - that one is a handbook rather than
a textbook, so it may be more difficult to read.
2nd chapter

What else do we have in our folder?

● Bowen - Why the French don’t like headscarves

● Lerner - Constitution-making in deeply divided societies:
the incrementalist approach
● Quartrup - Referendums and Ethnic Conflict
3rd chapter

● Presidentialism
● Semi-presidentialism
● Term limits
● Impeachments