POLITICS:

WHAT IS POLITICS?

What is politics?
• Man is by nature a political animal (Aristotle, Politics).
• Politics are present in all societies.

1) Politics as creation of compromise:

• Politics as function: Politics is the art of compromise and consensus in a society and creation of
optimal coordination structures.
• Conditional on territory, social stratification and other factors.
• Durkhemian approach à holistic perspective. Two underlying views:
o Plato: negative, human beings are potential enemies of each other. Politics as resolution of
inevitable conflicts.
o Aristotle: more optimistic: human are social animals, politics promotes the common good.

“Politics is the activity by which differing interests are conciliated by giving them a share in power in
proportion to their importance” (Bernard Crick).

“Politics, in its broadest sense, is the cativity through which people make preserve and amend the
general rules under which they live… politics is thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict
and cooperation” (Heywood)

2) Politics as the art of government:

• Idea of understanding how public affairs are managed. How a society is organized, the system of
social organisation which politics creates and how policies are created by governments.
• Derives from Greek polis, state centered view of politics.
• Politics takes place within a polity, a system of social organization centered upon the machinery of
government.
o Government:
§ Narrowly defined: politics is about those institutions closest to government
(parliament and cabinet).
§ Broadly defined: all institutions of the state.
• This theory only defines politics as the
o Design of institutions (how a society is organized).
o How political outcomes and polices are produced and designed.
 • Problem: doesn’t take into account citizens and other actors that are outside of what is defined
as politics. (Businesses, schools, families, community groups are non-political). It may fail to
describe politics accurately by being too descriptive (mainly descriptive).

3) Politics as processes:
• Politics is everything related to the public life and the processes that create political outcomes.
• Many social groups and individuals interact in a way that shapes decisions
• Looks beyond government institutions.
• Problem: too broad (everything becomes politics/no guiding concept).

4) Politics as power:
§ The approach and description of politics that is most common. It kind of unites the other
approaches.
§ Politics: Who gets what, when how (Harold Lasswell 1958)
§ Power: capacity to achieve a desired outcome.
o A restrictive view identifies this with coercive power (Weberian view).
o A more modern view does not consider coercion as a necessary condition.
In politics, power is usually thought of as a relationship:
o The ability of shaping a government’s outcomes
o The ability to influence the behavior of others in a manner not of their choosing.
o The ability to punish or reward (force or manipulation).

POLITICAL SCIENCE:

Political science: is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government and the analysis of
political activity and political behavior. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics which is
commonly thought of as the determining of the distribution of power and resources.

Political science à social science discipline, object of study à politics.

Most of them should be connected and they overlap with each other. Dividing them into these characteristics
is oversimplifying the study of politics, but it is a nice overview.

OTHER TAXONOMIES:

There are also subdisciplines that can be gathered under the other categories for example:
• Public institutions
• Political Economy
• Political Behaviour
• Public Opinion

How to do well in studying politics?

• Thinking politically: thinking with curiosity about how best to explain why things have come to
be, how they work as they are and with what consequences, what might happen next and why and
what might be necessary for them to be made different’
• Use theories and data, not opinions.

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ANALYSIS:

One of the challenges of political science is that we always have to take many things into account and there
are different levels of analysis (many different things happening at the same time which we have to analyse).

Example of a theory to study and explain different levels of analysis: Coleman’s (1990) bathtub
 • Macro: social situation eg
• Meso: framing eg
• Micro: actor and action eg

This system can be present at different scales: cities, regions, countries, world. It can also be dynamic and
evolutionary.

STUDYING POLITICS AS OPPOSED AS COMMENTING POLITICS:

To study politics: you have to have specialist knowledge:
• Approaches
• Method (for some people).

Political science is methodologically diverse:

• Behavioralism (science).
• Constructivism (ideas).
• Rational choice (rationality).
• Institutionalism (rules and shared norms).
• Post-structuralism (identity).
• Marxism (class).
• Feminism (gender).

But one method or approach will always have to be used.

 TWO MAIN APPROACHES to politics:

Position 1: Politics as a science.

Those who believe the study of politics is a science and they class it as such:
• The study of politics is analogous to the study of the natural world using the scientific method.
• The reasonable grounds for building knowledge is based in empirical observation (what we can
observe)
• The job of political scientists is to reveal the general laws and causal relationships between
phenomena.
• The scientific study of politics should be objective and value free.
• We might not achieve completely reliable answers, but we can reduce uncertainty.

Position 2: The study of politics cannot be a science.

• Politics are a human phenomena. The human world does not behave like the natural world.
• It is impossible to step outside the social and political world à the researcher and the world he
is behaving are inseparable.
• Phenomena do not exist independently of our interpretations of them. Objectivity in the scientific
sense is impossible. Truly value free research is impossible: all knowledge is created within relations
of power- discursively produced.

POSITION 1 POSITION 2
Ontology: what is reality?
Foundationalism Anti-Foundationalism
There is a world out separate from us No reality exists independently of our
It is independent from our knowledge of it. interpretation and observation of it.
The world is socially constructed.
Epistemology: What is knowledge?
Positivism interpretivism
Natural science=social science Natural science =/ social science.
Knowledge based on observation (empirical Knowledge grounded in meaning and
phenomena) interpretation
Research should be objective, value free Research can uncover subjective meanings. All
knowledge is produced via discourse.
Methodology: how can we obtain information about the world?
Quantitative methodology Qualitative methodology
• Scientific method. • Interviews.
• Hard data. • Soft data
• General patterns • Descriptions
• Opinion polls, dataset analysis. • Textual analysis
• The approaches are clearly distinct, but the differences between them are often exaggerated.
• Both approaches are used to reinforce one another, few researchers are ontological ‘purists’.
• All political enquiry involves taking an ontological and epistemological position.
All approaches have strengths and weaknesses. Taking position shapes the way you approach
political problemsà ontological position shapes:
o the type of questions you ask
o the theories you use
o the methods you deploy
o the arguments you make
 POWER, AUTHORITY AND STATES

POWER
• Politics: who gets what and when.
• Key concept: power:
o Related to the capacity of achieving those goals: those with power would have a greater
ability to achieve their goals. Power does not necessarily have to be linked to the person
taking the crucial decisions.
§ For example, in Spain you could argue that the elders have more power in Spain
(40% of budget destined to their pensions), maybe because they vote more than
younger people, media control supports them maybe because it is led by older people
as well.
o Related as well to the structure that emerges: (distribution of power e.g., democracy or
authoritarian regimes). Once you have certain groups that have more power certain interests
and values might emerge. For example, interest of destining 40% of budget to pensions in
Spain. If you are more powerful you are able to shape the interests and values protected by
policies and etc:
§ Interests and values
§ A structure of authority

Power: ability to influence an event or outcome. It allows the agent to achieve an objective and/or to
influence another agent to act in a manner in which the second agent on its own would not choose to act. It
involves:
• Power involves the exercise of volition (will)
• Power over someone else involves altering his or her volition (will).
• Power can be latent or manifest
• Different types of power are generally blended together when power is manifested.
• Power also involves the values and interests that emerge.

AUTHORITY
• Authority: ability to influence en event or outcome by acceptance of the agents involved.
• Weber: most people obey rules even if they do not agree with them because they accept the
prevailing system of government.
o To have authority it has to be perceived as legitimate and rightful.
• Applied in other areas for example family.
• Difference between power and authority: power involves coercion and authority involves consent.
o Power can or not involve authority.
o Authority can be or not embedded in power.
E.g., does the US supreme Court have power? Authority?
Arguably the US has authority but not power. In theory it is not legally binding (doesn’t have power and
doesn’t involve actual coercion), but it is respected because it has authority. The US supreme court has no
actual way of enforcing their decisions. However, you could also argue that it does have power because it is
part of the system of the United States and there is an element of power involved in the system, their
decisions will be enforced by the executive. There are also other types of coercion rather than just physical
coercion.

Weberian view of authority:

Weber believed that:
• Authority can exist irrespective of the way it is achieved (and this implied no normative grounds
to recognise it).
• Authority does not require to be morally right (does not imply that normative perspective). Those
that consent do not even need to feel its morality right. Believed authority was a way of domination.
(domination has a negative connotation but it can also have a positive one, for example authority of
the Human Rights Act).
• The differences in the way they are achieved can be described as different systems of domination.
Believed there were three systems of domination:
1. Traditional authority:
• Authority comes from custom.
• The authority of eternal yesterday.
• Ruler: patriarch, elder, family head, patriarchal figure, ruling elite. Historically in states à
monarchy.
2. Charismatic authority:
• Personal charm, charisma, personality of leader.
• Weber: authority pf the extraordinary and personal gift of grace.
• Ruled consent by belief, true power or capabilities of the leader are irrelevant, as long as the
followers believe that such power exists.
• Weber says is an unstable source of authority, keeping the charm and belief is eventually
costly.
3. Rational-Legal domination:
• Individual exerts power by virtue of the legal office that they hold.
• The authority that demands obedience to the office rather than the officeholderà leaving
officeà losing authority.
• Citizens obey authority as members of the organization and what they obey is the law.
• Authority is embedded in the office.
• These are rules regulating authority.
Consequences of power (and authority).
• Power as decision making.
• Power as agenda setting.
• Power as restricting the realm of possible
• Power as encouraging self repression.

THE STATE
• State is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of
physical force within a given territory.
• A state is an entity that uses coercion and the threat of force to rule a given territory.
o The threat of force is a tool to be able to rule over the given territory arguably. (e.g., for
taxation, we pay taxes because if we don’t pay them there is the threat of the use of the force)
o When you have structures in a country that contest the use of physical force the idea of the
state is eroded or undermined. (e.g., terrorism)

Are there other requirements for a state to be considered a state?

• Sovereignity: self determination over its territory. Being able to fully rule over your territory on your
own. (However arguably no country is fully sovereign so we might have to be flexible with this).
• International recognition: states should be recognised by other, independent and internationally
recognised states. There are some things in the international arena that you can only do if you are
recognised by other states. Transnistria (a part of Moldova), this region in practice is like a separate
state. There is a separate border, they have their own currency, government and institutions, and
have the monopoly over the use of the force in their own territory. However, they are part of Moldova
because the “state” hasn’t been recognised by other countries (only recognised by Russia). In
practice it operates by a state, but it is not really a state.

What type of community?

• Nation states have been the most common type. But they are not necessarily the only one. We can
have communities which are plural national. Can be a homogeneous human community or an
heterogeneous community.

The state is not: a democracy or a government. There are non democratic states.

State capacity
Main characteristic that defines a country: state capacity.
• Scope: reach of the state, the extent of state regulation and intervention in the lives of its citizens.
Whether the state can regulate all domains of society or whether there are certain domains where the
state has not reached. Sometimes the states do not have complete territorial scope (when the United
 States was expanding towards the west for example, in the west the rule of law did not reach). In
Syria there are some groups that control a part of the territory and thus it is also a limited territorial
scope. There are some countries that are unable to regulate policy in certain areas (e.g., regulation of
violence in the family, regulation of violence in certain ghettos). This also means that the state’s scope
is limited.
• Strength: the ability of the state to perform its more basic functions, i.e. enforce the laws it generates.

A capable state is that one that has full scope and is strong. Complete states vs failed states.
Arguably due to globalisation the state’s capacity has decreased. Countries now depend on other factors such
as the international market. They are not solely dependent on themselves to control their state.
Usually, strength and scope are proportional. Normally states that have strength also have scope.

State failure:
Loss of capacity of legitimacy to the extent that the state can no longer perform its most basic function.
• In reality, there is a continuum of “stateness” or state effectiveness.
• Samuel Huntington: “the most important political distinction among countries concerns nit their form of
government but their degree of government.”

WHY DO STATES EXIST:

• Contractarian view of the state:
o Focuses on the conflict of interest between individuals
o The state is kind of a contract that we have between individuals in society.
o It is created to prevent the state of nature (Hobbes): “war of everyone against every man, in
which life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Human nature is flawed and we need
the state to create order.
 o Individuals in the state of nature face a dilemma. Everyone would be better off if they could all
agree not to take advantage of each other. But if an act of violence/theft were to happen, it
would be better to be the attacker than the victim. Claim: without a common power to keep
them all under control, the people will “choose to steal and kill.”

• Predatory view of the state:

o Focus sin the potential conflict between individuals and the state.
o Focus on how do how elites use the states to take something from citizens and pursue
their goals.
o States use comparative advantage in violence to prey upon the citizenry, this is the main goal.
o States are not neutral.
o State is the main for the elites in power to achieve their goals.
o The concerns of security leads states to use their power to extract resources from citizens.

Creation of the modern state (in Europe after middle ages):

• State is a development of the modern age.
• Process of centralization and expansion of power.
o Monarchs claimed greater power and tight control over a larger territory.
o This is not peaceful processà tension with local elites.
• Nation building is a parallel and instrumental process.
• Creation of a salaried bureaucracy beginning of the 17th to collect and administer taxes mostly to
finance war.
• Process of state creation spans until the 19th century, final stage: napoleon state with an active and
efficient bureaucracy and army.
• Weber: impersonal, rule-based, goal oriented activity, with promotion of officials based exclusively on
merit and performance.
• Spread of the western model:
o Adoption by emerging countries.
o Exported in a minimized and non impersonal version to colonies (patrimonial states).

Why the creation of states?

• Modern state is created:
o War
o Development of industry
o Extension of trade
• There was a need of a single set of laws, communication networks and also taxation.
 INSTITUTIONS:
“Institutions are the humanly devised constraints that structure, political, economic and social interaction. They
consist of both informal constraints and formal rules. Institutions have been devised by human beings to
create order and reduce uncertainty in exchange.” North, 1991.

• Institutions are basically the rules of the game in a society: rules, convention, norms, practices that
regulate human interaction.
• They structure incentives in human exchange and interaction, whether political, social or economic
processes.

Why are they relevant?

1. They constraint the actor’s behaviors (define the range of options).
2. They are not neutral: shape power and distribute resources.
3. They do it systematically in a way that allow us to make predictions.

Types of institutions:
• Economic institutions:
o Regulation of economic interactions: contracts, markets…
o Enforcement of those interactions.
o Distribution of economic resources (for example education, ensuring that everyone has
access to education, allowing people to have access to something that otherwise they
wouldn’t have. The same happens with healthcare).
• Political institutions:
o Regulates who has the power over what.
o Regulation the limits of those powers.
o Regulations of how you get your power.

Types of institutions according to ACEMOGLU AND ROBINSON.

• Extractive institutions: designed to extract incomes and wealth from one subset of society to
benefit another different subset.
o Creates a society where one group is subordinate to the other group.
o Extractive economic institutions: lack of property rights and Rule of Law. Lack of freedom in
economic decision making (e.g., labour and market restrictions).
o Extractive political institutions: lack of an effective state and/or lack of basic political freedoms.
Leads to the concentration of wealth and power in a small elite, which ‘extracts’ wealth from
society- lack of Creative Destruction.
• Inclusive institutions: institutions that allow participation by the great mass of people in
economic activities that make best use of their talents and skills.
 o Public economic system- includes everyone. Creates a system which is inclusive through
inclusive institutions. Enables some people to have access to something they would not have
had access to
o Inclusive economic institutions: protect private property, guarantee contracts, and allow
people the right to choose in which economic activities they will engage in (e.g., public
education systems).
o Inclusive political institutions: ensure that the state is strong enough to guarantee security and
property rights (centralisation); and allow equal access among all citizens and interest
groups to the political process (pluralism). Democracy is an inclusive political institution,
especially direct democracy. However, you can also argue that democracy is not totally
inclusive. Not everyone has the same possibilities of becoming a PM in the UK for example
(most of them are male with university degrees in Oxford).

Acemoglu and Robinsonà Institutions should converge, you cannot have an inclusive political institution and
exclusive economic institutions. This is because if people have access to economic growth, then they would
eventually want to push for democracy to be involved in the political system as well. If they have economic
power, they have the power to push to be listened to (through democracy most of the times).
SESSION 12 & 13

INSTITUTIONS (def.):"Institutions are the rules created by people to organise how

we interact in society. They can be formal (like laws) or informal (like social
expectations). These rules reduce uncertainty and shape our behaviour by setting
expectations and structuring how we exchange things with each other."

Why can institutions be good for development?

● They reduce transaction costs
● They can limit power
● They provide stability and reduce uncertainty
● They can encourage (or enforce) collective action/cooperation. - e.g., taxes are an
example of cooperation.
● They can protect property rights
● They provide mechanisms of enforcement
● They can spread rights and opportunities to the whole population (inclusiveness)

● BUT THEY CAN ALSO PREVENT DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH

HOWEVER, they can also prevent development and growth. Bad institutions may reverse
these things (institutions that are not creating opportunities for everyone, institutions that go
against cooperation, etc.) Very clear example can be seen with North Korea and South
Korea- they have practically the same geography, history (up till the 1940s), and culture. The
only difference between them is the types of institutions (one backed by the USSR with
certain types of institutions, another backed by the US with other types of institutions, and
more than 60 years later we can see the massive difference). Obviously, geography, culture,
history, etc. matters, but arguably institutions are much more important in shaping the
development of a country.

Strong positive association between certain institutions and economic performance.

Challenge to this: China.

The origin of institutions

Is there a foundational moment where you can decide your institutions or what determines
the institutions you have? Initial pathway you take is determined by historical factors that
might put you in a path that was unintended. To a certain extent it may be argued that the
institutions you have are most of the time out of your control.

● Long-run factors:
○ Historical factors (such as war or imperial expansions). For example
being colonised by a certain country shapes your institutions, even if you
don’t choose who you are colonised by. There is a difference between being
colonised by France and colonised by Great Britain and the institutions you
inherit. Also, example with the UK and Spain (why did the industrial revolution
happen in the UK and not in Spain). In the 16th century they both needed to
finance costly wars. In Spain centralisation occurred while in the UK they
limited the power of the King. These divergent paths centuries before the
 industrial revolution created the conditions for better institutions (limited
power, property rights, security) centuries later.
○ Deep crises. Losing a war for example may be a good opportunity to create
new institutions. Japan after their loss in WW2 and the change of institutions
that posed the kickstart for success and development. (It is something you
don’t choose, losing a war. But this might create a new opportunity to create
new institutions, which can be both positive or negative.)
○ Geography- difference in institutions between south and north America.
Geography meant that it was more difficult for Europeans to stay in South
America (due to illnesses there and climate). Due to this the Spanish and
Portuguese created institutions that were extractive in nature, their intention
was not to settle there but only to extract resources. In the north however, the
intention of GB and France was not to create a system of extraction of
resources, but to settle there, and thus they created much more egalitarian
institutions. They went there and started a new life. There were not so many
resources in North America and there were not so many illnesses, this
enabled Europeans to stay there. This stemmed from the type of institutions
now present in the countries that emerged from this. Terrain also shapes the
type of institutions (arguably flatter places tend to be more successful due to
the greater ability of cooperation, the greater ability to control the population,
greater opportunity for agriculture to thrive, etc. They have greater state
capacity and have better conditions for growth).
○ Critical junctures
○ Luck?

● Short-term factors:
○ Domestic demand for institutions from crucial groups (who are in power)
○ External pressures related to conditionality (aid, trade, multilateral
organisations like the EU)
○ Every new institutional arrangement produces winners and losers
■ The role of power
■ Reform and veto-players

Previous winners will resist to be the new losers (and they have power that is shaped by
previous institutions).

The result has little to do with the aggregate gains.

EFFICIENCY
● Are institutions efficient when it comes to providing a desired outcome?
Institutions can be evaluated based on their effectiveness in delivering results,
whether it's promoting economic growth, ensuring social stability, or any other
specific objective. However, what defines "efficiency" might vary based on
perspectives and whose interests are being served by these institutions.

○ Efficient for whom? Who has the power?

 Efficiency can be subjective and is often influenced by power dynamics.
Institutions might be efficient for certain groups or individuals who hold power
within the system, catering to their interests rather than serving the broader
population. Thus, assessing efficiency involves understanding whose needs
are being prioritised and whose voices are heard in the decision-making
process.
○ Path dependency and the inertia of inefficient institutions
"Path dependency" refers to the idea that past events and decisions heavily
influence current outcomes. In the context of institutions, this means that once
certain structures or rules are established, they can become difficult to
change, even if they are inefficient or outdated.

● Institutional inertia: lock-in effects

This "institutional inertia" or resistance to change can result in "lock-in effects," where
existing institutions persist even when they are not effective or beneficial anymore.
Inefficient institutions may endure due to historical precedents or because powerful
groups benefit from maintaining the status quo, despite the need for improvement.

● Inefficient institutions might be stable due to these features, even if there are
forces pushing towards institutional change and more efficient structures.

● Powerful groups often stand against economic progress and against the
engines of prosperity.

● Not only institutional resistance:

○ Lack of counterfactual, lack of competition, power is shaped by
previous powerholders (symbiotic relationship institutions and
organisations)

● Can we create efficient institutions? Very little margin. — Creating efficient

institutions is hard because there's very little room for mistakes or changes. It's a
tough process with little margin for error.

Institutions as Equilibria
● An equilibrium is self-enforcing, self-reproducing set of beliefs, norms, values, and
rules, that together generate a regularity of (social) behaviour:
- "self-enforcing expectations" refer to a situation where decision-makers
believe that others will stick to a certain behaviour. Because of this belief,
each decision-maker is motivated to follow that behaviour themselves (based
on what's known as the Nash criterion). This creates a cycle: everyone's
expectation of others' behaviour leads them to behave in the same way, and
by doing so, they further reinforce others' expectations. This cycle keeps
going and becomes self-perpetuating.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?
When discussing democracy, the focus is on the institutions that structure political
interactions—the rules governing a particular type of regime. In this case, there are
two primary types of regimes(regime=institution/collection of institutions): democratic
and autocratic/authoritarian. Democracy is what this is about – the rules of the game
in certain countries.
The key institution in a democracy is the belief that ultimate authority lies with the
people, and the institutions with governing authority are selected by the people
themselves.
Lively (1975) provides seven possibilities:

1. That all should govern in the sense that all should be involved in legislating, in
deciding on general policy, in applying laws, and in governmental administration.
2. That all should be personally involved in crucial decision making (in deciding on
general laws and matters of general policy).
3. That rulers should be accountable to the ruled (that is, be obliged to justify their
actions to the ruled and be removable by the ruled).
4. That rulers should be accountable to the representatives of the ruled
5. That rulers should be chosen by the ruled.
6. That rulers should be chosen by the representatives of the ruled.
7. That rulers should act in the interests of the ruled.

Democracy as a process
● A set of institutional and formal criteria need to be met in order for a country to be
considered democratic
● How you conduct your politics.
● Minimalist view: “Free competition for a free vote” (Schumpeter, 1947)
○ Electoral view of democracy
○ A system where parties compete freely. Those who win, rule. Those that lose
go home. [idea of events at the capitol challenging democracy in the US].

Is this view enough to explain democracy?

Pluralist Vision of Democracy

● Pluralism: fair and open competition for political power between competing groups
and individuals; no groups or individuals systematically excluded from the political
process, tolerance and diversity of viewpoints.
● Pluralist democracies are characterised by:
○ Free and fair elections at all levels of governance
○ Civil liberties: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of
religion, etc.
Elections are a necessary requirement but not a sufficient requirement for democracy.
Arguably democracies are not just elections but also about civil liberties. (And also, arguably
about other factors such as separation of powers, etc.). → Liberal democracies.
Democracy as a process
● The checklist can be made as big as we want.
● Commonly required:
○ Rule of law
○ Protections of minorities
○ Free expression
○ Free association
○ Free media

● Ultimately everything is centred around the idea of accountability.

* Illiberal democracy: we have elections, but not the conditions to make elections effective
accountability mechanisms.

Which types of processes?

● Direct democracy: a system in which the people rule directly. This, however, may
only be possible in a very small-scale society.
● Representative democracy: system where elected persons represent a group of
people.
○ There is a variation in terms of how much representative democracies include
direct democracy mechanisms.
○ Representative and direct democracy mechanisms can produce tensions that
are not easily solved.

Democracy as a result
● We evaluate as democratic if the democratic values are achieved, pursued and
protected.
● Country is democratic if democracy is effectively achieved.
○ Which values, public goods and results should the regime promote/produce?
○ Social goods? Political good? Economic goals? – which goals have to be
achieved. Which results. This presents a problem to the idea of viewing
democracy as a result.

This could be a problem because if a system fails to produce for example healthcare for
everyone due to budget restrictions you might perhaps not consider it democratic, although
in practice it is a democratic country. (I think you have to follow the means to achieve a
democracy. You can’t consider Cuba more democratic than Spain just because it has no
illiteracy, etc. You cannot just completely ignore elections. If you talk about democratic
values then okay, but democratic goals…)
Democracy and participation
Two ideas of the vote
Democracy as representation: Classic view
● Voters choose representatives over a policy programme.
● The programme is a mandate. The government is elected to implement it.
● Democracy is a prospective mechanism of representative governance.
● We participate to “give information”
Participation is the key way in which we can provide a mandate to representatives. If there
are certain groups that systematically fail to participate, or participation on the whole is low
then it shows that the system is not working properly. Arguably without participation
democracy is endangered as there will be a lack of representation.

Two uses of the vote

Democracy as accountability: Elitist view (Schumpeter)
● Any view of democracy based on representation is bound to fail
● Mandates can only be incomplete. The interpretation of a mandate is likely to be
biassed.
● Voters can only credibly use their vote to sanction the incumbent, as a threat to
induce governments to act well.
● Democracy is a retrospective mechanism of good governance.
● We participate to keep good politicians in office or throw out the rascals.

You can also argue that this weakens democracy- the fact that representatives only seek
re-election. The more democracy works as a way of accountability the less likely it is for
governments to focus on long term policies.

Why have some countries been systematically democratic and others

have failed to do so?
Traditionally two views:
1. Economy: Modernisation theory. More growth/development leads to democracy.
Example with the rise of Nazism in Germany while they were suffering the effects of
the Great Depression in 1930. Arguably it gives foot to populism, which arguably
endangers democracy. Greater wealth brings inclusive institutions and greater growth
leads to the creation of a Middle class. A middle ground is important for democracy.
Is it any type of growth and wealth? Maybe not all of them. Resource endowment for
example will not necessarily lead to more inclusive institutions or to democracy.
There are some anomalies, e.g., China.
2. Culture: Some countries have better cultural conditions for democracy. These
explanations tend to be offset in the long run by accounting for power distribution and
economic factors.

However, there are also other factors, such as geography or international relations for
example. If your neighbour becomes a democracy, it is much more likely that you will
become a democracy.
Democracy and Political Obligation

● Why should we obey the laws of the state?

○ The threat of the force

● Does it change anything when they stem from a democratic rule?

○ When laws are made democratically it seems to give them a legitimacy they
might not otherwise deserve. (Political Theory argument)
○ Locke: Democracy is a form of consent. This can be a possible limitation to
our natural right of freedom.

● Alternative sources of obligation

○ The state provides security
○ The state protects our natural rights
○ We obey the state when it maximises happiness
○ We obey the state when it pursues the general will

● In practice, from an empirical perspective, we still face a problem:

○ Voting is not always consenting. What prevents the losers from trying to
become the winners? Democracy depends on a fragile equilibrium. The
losers accept that the government is going to do things they don’t like
because they lost the election.
○ Modern political science stresses the importance of democratic stability.The
question is not whether you become democratic, but whether you stay
democratic.

Types of democracies
How do we design a democracy?

● Three powers:
○ Judicial
○ Executive
○ Legislative

First key question: How are the executive and the legislative elected and related?

The problem:
Every system of government institutionalises a set of decision-making mechanisms. These
decision-making mechanisms pose a trade-off to constitution designers, who can respond in
one of two ways:

1. Concentrate power in the hands of the majority (majoritarian vision). Presidential

systems tend to be a bit more majoritarian. Election to vote on the president which is
majoritarian. However for example the US, is designed in a way which arguably is more
consensual. The system of checks and balances means that the president actually has
many limits. The US is not a perfectly majoritarian system.
2. Disperse power to as many people as possible (consensus vision). Arguably
parliamentary systems are more consensual. Federal systems also tend to be consensual.

Institutional complementaries:

Ref: Arend Lijphart Patterns “Majoritarian” Model “Consensus” Model

of Democracy 1999 Power-concentrating Power-sharing Inclusive
Effective and accountable and representative

Executive-Parties

Government One-party cabinet Coalition government

Executive Executive dominant Balanced exec-legislature

Party system Two-party Multi-party

Electoral system Majoritarian Proportional Representation

Interest groups Pluralist Coporatist

Federal-Unitary

Government Centralised- unitary Decentralised-federal

Parliament Unicameral Balanced Bicameral

Constitution Fleixible More Rigid

Judiciary Parlt.sovereign Judicial review

Central Bank Dependent Independent

Majoritarian democracies
Logic behind the institutional setting:
● Teams of politicians compete for the support of voters.
● The team selected by a majority of the voters are given total control over policy.
● Voters observe social, economic, and political outcomes, and then decide whether to
retain or replace the team that is held responsible for producing those outcomes.
● Institutions are designed to allow full control over policy, but also to maximise clarity
of responsibility and accountability.

Consensus (Consociational) democracies

● Representative institutions are created to reflect the preferences of as many voters
as possible.
● Legislators represent the interests of the full spectrum of voters and vote on issues
the way “citizens themselves would have voted altogether”.
 ● Institutions are designed to maximise the representation of all views found in society
and to make sure that decisions reflect consideration of minority views and sectoral
interests.
● Accountability is not only electoral.
● A majority of voters cannot easily change policy.

GOALS
Majoritarian democracy Consociational democracy

- government accountability and - consensual

transparency of decision-making
- single-party executives,
- effective opposition parties,
- vigorous parliamentary debate,and
decisive elections
decision-making,bargaining and
compromise
- multiple parliamentary parties,
- Broadly representative coalition
governments, and
- dispersed decision-making
processes

Democracy as a accountability Democracy as representation

Why are elections not so useful to hold governments accountable? - typical exam
question. In consensus democracies many times it is not very clear who is to blame, very
difficult to see who is responsible for issues. It also leads to a blame shift. It is also difficult to
do so because a majority of voters cannot easily change policy.

Dangers
1. In majoritarian democracies:
● Permanent majorities: risk of a majoritarian party that knows that constantly
will get elected.
● Lack of checks and balances.
● Minorities can get cornered: is this really more stable?
● Key assumption: we vote based on performance...is this true?
● Dimensions of political competition
● Voters perhaps do not make the best economic judgements.
● Is the system really permeable? Does it really allow for elite replacement?:
New challengers lack the power resources

2. In consensual democracies:
● Ineffective governance and extreme multiparty fragmentation: instability and
deadlocked politics
● Clarity of responsibility is the extent to which voters can identify exactly
who it is that is responsible for the policies that are implemented.
○ Who does what?
● Accountability is the extent to which voters are able to reward or punish
parties for their behaviour in office.
○ Is the responsible party punished?

● Is retrospective voting possible in consensual democracies? Key assumption

in democratic theory is that voters look at the past performance of incumbent
parties to decide how to vote in the current election.
— Does this give the right incentives?
Other institutional decisions: Presidentialism vs. Parliamentarism [in
const. notes]
● Presidential: Democracies in which the government does not depend on a legislative
majority to exist.
● Parliamentary: Democracies in which the government depends on a legislative
majority to exist and is not elected for a fixed term.
● Semi-Presidential: Democracies in which the government depends on a legislative
majority to exist and in which the head of state is popularly elected for a fixed term
are semi-presidential.
○ The head of state or president is elected directly and at the same time there is
a prime minister who is supported by a parliamentary majority.

Features of Direct Democracy: Direct democracy means citizens make decisions directly,
without elected representatives. It contrasts with representative democracy where officials
are elected to make decisions for us.
Direct democracy, like referendums or initiatives, lets us have a say in crucial decisions
directly. It's seen as the purest democracy because we have a direct impact. But sometimes,
leaders might use referendums to influence opinions, like the 2016 UK EU referendum.
Citizens' initiatives are another part where we propose laws or changes without politicians'
involvement. Overall, direct democracy is a way we can actively participate in
decision-making within our broader representative democracy.

Risks of referendums: Referendums come with risks. The majority's rule might overlook
minority interests. Questions arise about whether courts should contradict the majority's
decision. Also, referendums can be influenced by political manipulation or misinformation
spread by media or unreliable sources. Politicians often strategically time referendums for
their benefit, seen in the Scottish referendum. Referendums usually offer only two choices,
leaving no middle ground for compromise. Determining what should be asked in
referendums isn't straightforwardly democratic.

When considering referendums, there are ideas about how to approach them. Some
advocate for limiting the power they hold. Also, rather than substituting representatives
entirely, they should serve as a tool to confirm or reject decisions already made by
politicians. This latter approach wasn't entirely followed in the case of Brexit.
 OVERALL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY

Advantages Disadvantages

- Promoting participation - Citizen information and competence

- Popular sovereignty
- Unpacking range of choices offered
by parties
- Forcing incumbents to confront
difficult issues
- Resolving unexpected questions,
authorising changes in direction
- Settling controversy
- Voter irrationality
- Voter fatigue (if used too often)
- Shifting or avoiding responsibility
(on the part of politicians)
- Short-term versus long-term policies
(may encourage policies that are
popular in the short-term to the
detriment of long-term goals).
- Governability and policy coherence
(places more demands on the state
than what it is able to respond to,
weakening the legitimacy of the
system).
- Lobbying and special interests
- Conservative bias
- Authoritarian and populist abuse
- Costs and logistics
- Polarisation.
- Use of timing, use of single-subject
rule, and durability of outcome.

ELECTORAL SYSTEM
● An electoral system is a set of laws that regulates how the rulers are selected.
● It regulates electoral competition between candidates or parties or both.
● In a narrow sense, it includes the basic rules that transform votes into seats
● In a broad sense, it includes all rules related to the electoral process. Eg:pary finance

Challenges:
Stability and Efficiency Vs.Representation and inclusiveness
Personalism Vs. Parties
Localism Vs. Nationalisation

Electoral systems: types

Main characteristic: electoral formula.
A. Majoritarian: (winner-takes-all systems). These systems are commonly employed in
presidential elections and parliamentary elections. The prevalent approach within
these systems is the First-past-the-post method, used in countries like the UK and
India, etc. Alternatively, certain systems consider second preferences, such as the
Alternative vote and the Single Non-transferable vote.
B. Proportional: PR system will be the result of:1. Electoral formula 2. District
Magnitude 3. Electoral Threshold 4. Open/Closed Lists.
C. Mixed
An electoral formula determines how votes are translated into seats.
The formula is at the district level! But obviously it has consequences at the aggregate level.

Consequences
● Most obvious ones:
○ Number of parties
○ Accountability
○ Government formation
■ Which are the implications?

● Others:
○ Party capture by economic elites
○ Corruption
○ Spending

Federalism
A complex term with multiple meanings.

● A system of government in which political authority is divided between a national (or

federal) government, and its political subdivisions (such as states).
● A system where national and state governments each have defined powers, with
some being shared by both and some being denied to both. There must be some
autonomy of subnational governments.
● This distribution of powers is constitutionally regulated and protected.

So much variation…
Federations vary in:
● Size, population, number of subnational units
● Fiscal decentralisation
● Role of the territorial chamber
● Intergovernmental relations
● Asymmetries across territories

Given so much variation it is difficult to speak about a unique “federal model”

And federal systems also change over time!...
ALLOCATION OF COMPETENCES (I) FEDERALISM
Common characteristics:
• Federal government: international relations, defense, general management of the economy,
monetary union, main taxes, interregional transportation.
• Subnational governments (regions, states, provinces): education, social services, welfare, public
safety, security and local administration.

ALLOCATION OF COMPETENCES (II)

Germanyà marble-cake
USAà layer-cake

Types of federalism:
1. Dual federalism (layer cake federalism).
• Constitution is compact among sovereign states. Powers of the national
government and the states are clearly differentiated.
• Implications:
o Federal government rules by enumerated powers only.
o Federal government has a limited set of constitutional purposes.
o Each government unit (national and subnational) is sovereign within its own sphere.
o Relationship between nation and regions is characterized by tension rather than cooperation.
A rigid wall separates nation and the states.
2. Cooperative federalism (marble cake federalism).
• Constitution is an agreement among people who are citizens of both state and nationà systems has
much overlap between state power and national powers.
• Federal and regional governments do not act in separate spheres, they are intermingled without clear
boundaries.
• Implications:
o Federal and regional governments typically undertake government functions jointly rather
than exclusively.
o Federal and regional governments routinely share the power.
o Power is not concentrated at any government level; the fragmentation of responsibilities gives
actors access to many venues of influence, but also more possibilities to veto.
FORMS OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE:
 POLITICAL CULTURE:

WHAT IS POLITICAL CULTURE?

• Culture: tradition, habits, patterns of behavior shaped by a society’s prevailing beliefs, norms and
values.
• Political culture: refers specifically to political beliefs, norms and values
• Is the product of the collective history of a political system and the individual life histories of the
members of the system.

ORIGINS: DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA:

• Alexis de Tocqueville: a French diplomat that spent 9 moths in the US in 1831 and wrote a book.
o he was interested on why in the US the democracy was growing rapidly and in France no.
o he said that the social condition of the Americans was eminently democratic, this
characteristic was possessed from the birth of the colonies. This is because the seed of
feudalism and aristocracy was never planted in US.

CONCEPT OF POLITICAL CULTURE: ALMOND AND VERBA.

• Question: what makes some democracies persist while others fall more easily into dictatorship?
• Main argument: key factor of the viability of a democracyà political culture that alignes with the
regime structure (a democratic form of a participatory political system requires a political culture
consistent with it).
• Political culture for Almond and Verba refers to the specifically political orientations: attitudes
towards political systems and the role of the self in the political system.
o 3 types :
§ Cognitive
§ Affective
§ Evaluative
o Also recognized the existence of political subcultures of social groups within the political
culture.
• The civic culture (Almond and Verba, 1963):
o Political systems exist in and are born of political culture à to understand political systems
you must understand political culture.
o Every political system is embedded in a particular pattern of orientations to political action …
have found it useful to refer to this as the political culture.
o Orientation to politics involves three components: perception or cognition, preference or
affect, evaluation or choice through application of standards or values to the cognitive and
affective components.
 o When there is a match between culture and regime type, the latter is stable. When there is
a mis-match you see regime instability. Civic culture is the culture best suited to supporting a
stable democracy.
o The political culture of a country stems from the attitudes of its citizens. These attitudes have
been transmitted through political socialisation (parents, school, social environment). They
are profound and enduring. Political culture is a long-term macro phenomenon. It can be
observed through the aggregation of individual level attitudes.

There are 3 ideal political cultures:

• Parochial: no clear differentiation of specific political roles and low expectations among
actors.
o Political specialization is minimal and citizens have no knowledge and opinion of the structure
of the government. Absence of expectation and awareness.
• Subject: role differentiation in political life but passive relationship with citizens.
o Citizens are aware of the government authority and have a positive or negative opinion but
have a passive relationship with it, low political awareness and low political participation other
than voting.
• Participant: interactive relationships between specialized institutions and citizen opinion and
activity, they have knowledge and opinions and contribute actively to the system.
o Citizens have an active role within the political system.
In practice political cultures have mixed types.

The study of 1963:

• Decisive step in political research: simultaneously studying public opinion in five nations.
• Over 5,000 participants in Germany, Italy, Mexico, Great Britain and the US.
• One of the first cross-country comparative survey.
Conclusions:
• Italy: alienated political culture (social isolation, distrust, low political participation, government
perceived as threatening and ineffective).
• Mexico: low significance to government (high national pride, high subjective civic competence but
very low political activity, knowledge and participation).
• Germany: political detachment and subject competence (high political knowledge due to education
but low political discussion an activity in associations, they assume voting is all that required).
• USA: participant political culture, high political exposure, discussion and involvement, high
participation in voluntary associations, hisgh degree of pride in the political system and high social
trust).
• UK: high political participation, interest, efficacy and involvement. High political tolerance.

They concluded that Italy was the most parochial. Mexico and Germany were the more subjective. GB and US
more civic.
Criticism:
• Heavily orientated towards the Anglo-Saxon democratic experience.
• The concept lacks precision and often became subjective, stereotypical description of a nation rather
than an empirically measurable concept.
• Almond and verba: they ignore the variations of political culture within a coutry to create great
categories.
• How does it influence political outcomes?
• Does political culture shape institutions or viceversa?
o The State May Shape Political Culture to Its Own Ends
§ Eg: China. Ja Ian Chong (2014) identifies two key aspects of Chinese history: one
based on the attractiveness of Confucian traditions and the other based on strong
economic, political, and military traditions.
• The Impact of Globalization
o Global convergence of ideas, preferences and values?
• Political Culture Is Used to Explain Why Change Cannot Happen
o Lazy explanation?
o What are the underlying interests?

THE REVIVAL OF POLITICAL CULTURE.

• 70’s and 80’s political culture lost relevance in theories.
• Revival in the 90’s because:
o Modernization of East Asian countries/rise of Islamic fundamentalism that atre hard to
expalain without refering to culture.
o Collapse of communism and the hard transition to democracy.
o Publication of Putnam’s book: “making democracy work”
§ Social view that departs away the ideal of national homogeneity.

ROBERT PUTNAM: MAKING DEMOCRACY WORK (1993)

• Change of focus compared to the civic culture. From the persistence of democracies to the
functioning of democracies.
• Research question: what are the conditions for creating strong, responsive, effective representative
institutions.
• Institutional performance: cabinet stability; statistical and information services; meeting budget
targets, bureaucratic presponsiveness; housing and urban development…
• Study focus: Italy.
o North and south: Regional governments with similar institutional structure were introduced at
the same time.
o However central and north regions have been more efficient in democratic performance and
the difference has remained stable for decades.
 • Where this difference stems from?
• Social capital: features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust thast
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.
• Networks and especially voluntary civic associations help the development of trust among members
and foster strong norms of reciprocity, qhich facilitate future networking.
• Example: football clubs.
• Example. Rotating credit associations-why participants don’t drop out when they receive the pot?
• What is social capital: is abput networks, not associations,
o Social network and norms of reciprocity.
o Core insight: social networks have value for individuals and for communities.
o Networks are important because:
§ Transmit information
§ Help overcome dilemmas of collective action
§ Encourage reciprocity and trust
§ Influence identities and thus encourage altruism
• Social capital can be used for bad purposes, but mostly is used for good purposes.

BOWLING ALONE ARGUMENT:

• Social capital → in the way we are moving into more segregated societies.
• Density of personal networks and levels of inter-personal trust in the US Have declined.
• Now we are spending less time with people that aren’t like us.
• Opportunities for informal civil interaction have declined which has led to lower rates of participation,
efficacy and engagement with politics.
• Causes:
• Women’s move into the labour force - social revolution that reduced number engaging in civic
groups
• Mobility - ‘re-potting’ / disrupting of roots
• Demographic shifts
o Family breakdown
o Fewer children
• Technology - television viewing reduces time spent active in our communities.

POLITICAL CULTURE: RECAP AND CONCLUSION.

• Political culture is a long-term variable that help us understand political orientations as well as the
performance of democracy.
• Political culture is explained by history.
• But does it change?
o It might change and do it in predictable ways (eg. Bowling alone argument)
 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

Range of political participation is endless.

Formal or conventional:
• Voting
• Contacting politician
• Discussing politics
• Election/Campaign related work
• Donations
• Involvement in group to raise issues with government
• Joining political party

Informal or non conventional:

• Demonstration.
• Direct action (violence).
• Boycotting.
• Civic volunteering (community work).
• Workplace/education/health related activism.

Definition: actions undertaken by ordinary citizens that are intended, directly or indirectly, to influence the
selection of government personal and or the policy decisions they make.
Discussing policies can also be an example of political participation.

Types:

Conventional participation:
• Uses the channels of representative government.
o Low initiative acts: voting (not a lot of effort by the individual).
o High initiative acts: active participation by individuals to obtain benefits for a group. They
can be associated with electoral process or they can be separate (contacting officials for
example).

Non conventional participation:

• Challenges or defies government channels or the dominant culture.
• Usually stressful for both participants and their opponents, and tends to interfere with daily living of
people.
• People participating in unconventional ways such as direct political action tend to share 3
characteristics:
o Distrust of the political system (so they do not use the channels).
 o A strong sense of political efficacy (they believe they can change something and do a
difference, also they tend to be more informed and engaged).
o Highly develop sense of group consciousness (if it’s not done collectively it is usually not very
effective).

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRACY: THE TRADITIONAL MODELS.

Why do people engage in politics? Due to interest, motivations, education…
Ways to explain political participation.
1. Civil voluntarism model: Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995). Why some people fail to participate?
3 types of reasons:
• They can’t: they lack the time (for participation, for getting informed…), civic skills (for
involvement), or money (for contributions).
• They don’t want to: they aren’t interested in politics.
• Nobody asked: they are isolated from the networks that mobilize people.
This leads to the 3 components for the CVM model of political participation:
Resources / Engagement / Recruitment.
The motivations and capacities to take part in politics are developed in non political settings and
institutions: family, school, workplace, religious institutions and voluntary organisations.
Motivation and resources accumulate over time through these lifetime experiences: give more advantage to
the already socially privileged.

2. Cognitive engagement models:

• Education is key to cognitive engagement:
o Making sense of politics.
• Cognitive abiliy to:
o Understand how to participate effectively.
o Information to participate.
• Correlation with economic resources (opportunities).

3. Rational choice explanation:

Uses the framework of collective action problems to a broader set of participation acts.
• No excludability of polices produced by the government.
• According to Olson’s logic of collective action the costs of participating are so high (and also
the probability pf influencing the outcome so low) that the benefits of participating should not
outweigh the costs.
• If benefits are higher than costs à participation.
Rational decision based on costs and benefits.
Example: voting.

The equation of voting from a rational choice perspective à Utility of vote = p B + D – C

Pb+D (benefits)> C à vote (utility).
C(costs)> Pb+D ànot vote (desutility).

Micro level approaches: individuals:

• Possession of resources to bear the costs of participation (info, time…)
• Demographic features: age, gender (women voted less before but now more bc they have more
collective mindset), marital status (single people vote less than married people because thay have
someone to do it with, less costly)…
• Greater socio-economic status linked to development of social norms that foster turnout (feelings of
obligation an citizen duty).
• Higher socio-economic status: more exposed to mobilization efforts by parties and public institutions.
• Those that already participate in social groups tend to vote more.

EXPLAINING THE VOTE

Sociological alignments: CLEAVAGES
• Seminal work on cleavages: lipset and Rokkan (1967): “party systems and voter alignments: cross
national perspective”
There is a historical cleavage/division to which people are very committed and they vote aligning
with this groups that they historically belong to à resulting in the party system (mirrors the historical
divisions of the countries).
Events that took place even 5 centuries ago still have an impact determining current voting patterns
(for example in 1517, Martin Luther and Protestantism à Christian democratic parties were created,
product of division centuries ago that still existing).
Meaning of cleavage: any social division that is deep enough to create a collective identity. Normally
this give rise to organizations (ie political parties) which will promote and protect whatever interests in
question are (Lipset and Rokkan 1967).
It implies much more than a simple division: specific connotations:
o Strong social division: polarizing, mostly no middle ground, zero sum interests.
 o Collective identity, mutual recognition and willingness to act. This created identities
promotes willingness to act.
o Expressed in organizational terms that emerges to defend the interests.
This nurtures our identity, the way we vote à as we systematically vote like that it creates the
parties patterns.
• Lipset and rokkan distinguish two main factors and 4 main cleavages:
o The National revolution created two cleavages:
§ Centre – periphery cleavage (identification or not with the nation).
§ State – church cleavage.
o The industrial revolution created two cleavages:
§ Rural – urban cleavage.
§ Workers – employers cleavage.
• Major similarities across countries: important role of the class cleavage.
• Major differences: related to the role of other social cleavages.
• Different patterns of cleavage sin the countries:
o Only one cleavage develops (ex: Austria).
o Reinforcing cleavages (ex: Spain)
o Cross cutting cleavages: multidimensional political (ex: Italy, Neth, Switzerland…)
• In sum: 2 features characterize the cleavage structure of a particular society:
o 1- particular cleavages that have survived historically as lines of division.
o 2- the extent to which those lines cut across one another.
• This social identities which have an impact on electoral behavior. Remember that there is also an
organizational expression of cleavages:
o Cleavages translate into party system through voting.
o Cleavages can determine which parties exist (party system).
o Cleavages reproduces themselves.
DE LA ÚLTIMA SESIÓN:

2. PARTISANSHIP
Classic American literature observed a continuity in voting for the same party ⇨ it has to do
with an emotional link.
- Individuals develop an emotional link to parties. A sense of belonging
- Long-term attachment; change only under extraordinary circumstances. Mediate all
political inputs.

1. PARTY IDENTIFICATION
● Influences votes directly but also indirectly
● (we support a party sometimes just like we support a sports team)
● Humans need identification.

2. We create dynamics
There is a debate and research concerning how it varies in countries with less party
systems.
➞ PARTISANSHIP IS PRIMARILY LEARNT THROUGH SOCIALISATION AND THE
HABIT OF VOTING
● Primary groups: family, friends
● Secondary groups: church, school, college

Depending on what party you defend, the same piece of info/news is processed in different
ways.
- Ex: the party you didn’t vote for does a good job, someone who didn’t vote that party
might have a different perspective on that.

Information shortcut, perceptual screen or identity based? This is very important for its
implications.
➔ Why a decline? Where are we going?
Two theses:
1. Realignment: we need identities, these links because its a part of the human
requirements, socialisation with groups. Politics cannot easily move away
from that.
2. Dealignment: we are different to others, new citizens much less connected,
more individualistic, less committed to a party. Politics of dealignment, will
eventually decline and will have more candidate politics.

● Some say that Partisanship is an INFORMATION SHORTCUT

[because you see what a party believes in and that is enough, you just look at one
aspect that you believe in and that is enough for you, you don’t need to look at other
parties]
CRITIQUES
➔ Retrospective voting is lost with partisanship
➔ Party changes: if a party has stable voters they will have stable policies. But if a party
doesn’t they’re more likely to change their policies to gain more voters: instability.

VOTING IN THE PAST DECADE: there is an evolution of political participation, and more
sophisticated electorate (higher education).
- There is less partisanship identity in the positive sense.
(people are more willing to change parties)
- But there is partisanship in the negative sense (people know what they don’t want)

➝ People have started to lose their partisan links, low trust in political actors and public
institutions.
➝ BUT people have not lost their links to their communities and what they believe in that
political community.

● A critical citizen or dissatisfied democrat isn’t a bad thing.

1. Having low levels of trust makes you keep an eye on them. If you trust them,
you let more things pass. — distrust leads to change.
2. The negative aspect is that it can gradually undermine democratic ideals.

MEDIA (from minimal effects to some effects)

Minimal effects starting in the 1940s. Here they stated that media has “limited effects”

● Minimal effects: dismissed the idea that the media had a direct/extensive change on
public opinion.
➞ This idea has progressively been abandoned as new research emerged.

SELECTIVE EXPOSURE: MEDIA

● If you have strong ideals, it's hard for you to be influenced by the media.
● But most people also listen to media ideals that align with them.
- People actually try to avoid channels of information that go against their
beliefs. → it can even annoy people to have to listen to other ideals.
● Nowadays, the media is believed to have at least some effects.
- But either way people usually don’t listen to channels that don’t align with
their ideals.
- But manipulation in these channels can be done in subtle ways.

THREE EFFECTS (can have 3 direct effects):

1) Agenda-setting: media telling us not “how” to think but “what” to think about. It
involves deciding what gets attention and airtime in the news, shaping what people
consider important.
2) Priming: aims to peopeare/prime people to consider specific issues in a particular
way by highlighting certain aspects/ideas, influencing people’s perception/thoughts.
 3) Framing: is how news/stories are presented to focus attention on specific events and
shape their meaning for people. It’s about how events are portrayed and interpreted,
influencing how people perceive and understand them.

INDIRECT EFFECTS (“two-step effect”)

Example: election debates (doesn’t usually change your view)
- But they are important because they frame who won.
- You don't necessarily have to watch it, but if you as someone who doesn’t have a
strong opinion hear that “x politician” did a good job it does eventually have an effect.
➞ Media has a stronger effect through indirect means than through direct ones.

What are the effects on engagement and participation?

People tend to participate/vote more when they are more informed.
Because you feel like you have something to say.

CONDITIONAL MODELS:
(it’s not only about who you vote for, but if you participate at all)
1. Individual level “filters”:
Those who are most interested, engaged will pay most attention to political news,
and can filter it – we need to already be engaged to increase our engagement.
2. Media
There are different ways to get informed and this changes the way in which you
perceive the news.
(Newspapers activate you more than TV entertainment shows)
- General entertainment vs. “serious” news

From Media to “Social Media”

Social Media: the source of info is completely detached from the initial source (potentially).

What implication does this have on democracy?

Who is E-POLITICISED? Means actively engaging in politics online, participating in

discussions, sharing views and using digital tools for political involvement.
● Internet use declines among older citizens (the most reliable voters)
● Heavily used by middle/upper-income people.

Are social media users politically relevant?

- Media users can bring the right of freedom of speech closer.
- But social media can also make you believe things that are not true.
[understanding the political representativeness of twitter users– there are some people that
monopolise the information on social media]
➞ you might believe that on social media everyone can express what they want when they
want, but sometimes peoples opinions expressed online would have the same effect as
going out on the street and shouting it to nobody.
The top users have the most effect (they’re only 25% but have 97% impact)
Bottom users rarely express their opinions and they’re 75% (most of them receive relatively
few likes and retweets)

● The more open and engaged you are in tweets — the more open you are the more
impolite responses you get.
(this causes politicians to engage less with citizens)
- So, platforms that would ideally allow citizens to engage with politicians, does
the opposite.
(women get more backlash on the internet for being open than men); this
shows that some voices are more silenced than others.

● This all leads to politicians becoming more cautious about engaging with citizens.

Social Media might increase our sources, but reducing our diversity.
- Echo Chamber: it's like being in a room where everyone agrees with you, so you
only hear what you already believe, making it hard to consider other viewpoints.