PSIR 101

Week XII
Fall 2022

Fatih Erol
Before the get go, let’s go over
the structure, institutions, and
agents
Structure, Institutions, and Agents
o Structure, the context incorporating the institutions and agents to
reproduce social practices.
• Two functions:
 Inputs: Political socialization and recruitment, interest articulation and aggregation, political
communication.
 Outputs: Rule making, enforcement, and adjudication

o Institutions, the formal and informal set of rules, proscribing the

behavioral roles, constraining the activities, and shaping the expectations.

o Agents, actors (individuals, groups, organizations) that are shaped by the

structures and institutions and are in constant pursuit of altering those
structures and institutions by transforming their ideologies into policy
preferences and actions.
 Then, let’s see the democratic
structure, institutions, and agents
Arenas of a Consolidated Democracy
Challenges against Democracy
o From the Structure
• Damaged institutionalized uncertainty over the electoral outcomes (i.e., no “shadow of the future”)
• Damaged institutionalized certainty over the tenacity of rule of law and basic rights
 The system turning into a zero-sum game

o From the Institutions

• Structural zero-sum game’s projection into the agents’ logic of action
 Transition from “logic of consequences” to “logic of appropriateness”
 Logic of consequences: Preference-driven; cost-benefit calculation; engaging in imperfect analyses of future
consequences.
 Logic of appropriateness: here, appropriate ≠ ethical; intuition-based; matching between rules, situation, and
action.

o From the Agents

• Ideological polarization and/or one ideology’s dominance over the rest
 Elimination of the three democratic bases
 Private sphere of activity
 Private sector
 Functioning representative institutions
Overview
o Difficulties in Definition
o Definition and Classification
o New Challenges in the 21st Century
Difficulties in Definition
Difficulties in Definition #1
o Authoritarian regime = Non-Democracy
• Yet, no all-agreed definition of a democracy
Different visions regarding the
contestation.
o Geddes et al. (2012): no large party
should be prevented from running for the
election v.
o Cheibub et al. (2010): enough if more
than one party participate in the elections.
“[A]ny means besides direct,
reasonably fair, competitive
elections in which at least ten
percent of the total
population was eligible to
vote;
(i) uncertainty,
or an indirect election by a (ii) irreversibility and
body, at least 60 percent of (iii) repeatability
which was elected in direct (Cheibub et al., 2010, p.
reasonably fair, competitive 69).
elections;
or constitutional succession
to a democratically elected
executive” (Geddes et al.,
2012, p. 6).
Difficulties in Definition #2
o Authoritarian regime = Non-Democracy “[A]ny means besides direct,
• Yet, no all-agreed definition of a democracy reasonably fair, competitive
elections in which at least ten
percent of the total
Different visions regarding the contestation. population was eligible to
vote;
(i) uncertainty,
o Assumption of reasonably free and fair elections. or an indirect election by a (ii) irreversibility and
• No credible reports of vote fraud wide enough to body, at least 60 percent of (iii) repeatability
change the election results. which was elected in direct (Cheibub et al., 2010, p.
• The incumbent not dominating the political resources. reasonably fair, competitive 69).
• However, hardships in making solid judgements + no elections;
shared standards of election monitoring.
or constitutional succession
to a democratically elected
o Assumption of alteration rule introducing Type I executive” (Geddes et al.,
(false positive) and Type II (false negative) errors, 2012, p. 6).
even under highly democratic conditions.
• The incumbents having an advantage
• Long streak of electoral victories ≠ Electoral
irregularities
Difficulties in Definition #3
o Authoritarian regime = Non-Democracy
• Yet, no all-agreed definition of a democracy
Different visions regarding the participation.
o Geddes et al. (2012): 10% threshold with a
right to vote v.
o Cheibub et al. (2010): No cap.
If majority of the population are not
franchised, possibility of being coded as a
democracy.
FALSE POSITIVITY (TYPE I)
“[A]ny means besides direct,
reasonably fair, competitive
elections in which at least ten
percent of the total
population was eligible to
vote;
(i) uncertainty,
or an indirect election by a (ii) irreversibility and
body, at least 60 percent of (iii) repeatability
which was elected in direct (Cheibub et al., 2010, p.
reasonably fair, competitive 69).
elections;
or constitutional succession
to a democratically elected
executive” (Geddes et al.,
2012, p. 6).
Definition and Classification
 Definition and Classification
o Authoritarian regimes ~ non-democracies
• A state where those in the executive are not formally and vertically
accountable to the electorate.
• BUT not homogenous group in terms of stability, economic growth,
and quality of government.

o 3 modes of accessing and maintaining political power :

(Wahman et al., 2013)
Non-
electoral
Regimes • Hereditary succession or lineage (monarchies)
• Actual or threatened use of military force (military regimes)
• Popular elections (electoral regimes)
 No-party
 One-party
 Multi-party
Definition and Classification
o Let’s visit the data site for the select cases.

o Military regimes: “ [states] in which military officers are major or

predominant actors by virtue of their actual or threatened use of force”
(Nordlinger, 1977, p. 2).
• The least stable version of authoritarianism due to
 Sensitivity to internal splits
 Legitimacy concerns (emanating from the coup)
 Problem of succession (e.g., transfer of power)
 Little experience with politics

o Monarchies: Regimes where a royal person can only inherit the executive
power in line with a tradition and/or the constitution (e.g., no self-
proclamation).

o Electoral regimes:
• No-party: No parties being allowed to participate in the elections.
• One-party: One legal party, tolerance for intra-party competition or competition
from independent candidates or satellite parties (independent in name but no
genuine opposition).
• Multi-party: Electorally authoritarian regimes, with a minimal level of competition
and also opposition but violation of civil liberties.
 Other Classifications
TYPES DEFINITION
Personal and Monarchical Rule Rule by a single leader with no clear regime
or rules constraining that leadership
Military Rule Rule by one of more military officials, often
brought to power through coup d’état
One-Party Rule Rule by one political party that bans or
excludes other groups from power
Theocracy “Rule by God”; holy texts serve as
foundation for regime and politics
Illiberal Regimes Rule by an elected leadership through
procedures of questionable democratic
legitimacy
PRIMARY TOOLS OF CONTROL
Patrimonialism: supporters within the state benefit
directly from their alliance with the ruler (corruption)
Control of the armed forces, sometimes also allied with
business and state elites (bureaucratic authoritarianism)
Large party membership helps mobilize support and
maintain public control, often in return for political or
economic benefits (corporatism, clientelism)
Religious leadership and political leadership fused into
single sovereign authority
A regime where democratic institutions that rest upon
the rule of law are weakly institutionalized and poorly
respected.
(O’Neil et al., 2018, p.
372)
Other Classifications
Types of Non-Democratic Regimes Types of Dictatorships
(Linz and Stephan, 1996) (Geddes, 1999)
1. Authoritarian Regimes 1. Single Party
2. Totalitarian Regimes 2. Military
3. Post Totalitarian Regimes 3. Personal
o Hungary, Czechia, Bulgaria
4. Amalgamation of those three
4. Sultanistic – patrimonialism
Other Classifications

(Brooker, 2014, p. 12)

Emergence
• Until modern times  usually authoritarian regimes  hereditary monarchies

Traditionally inherited personal rule

• Then what happened?

• Democratic regimes and their competititon with monarchies
• Authoritarian regimes needed to be modernized.
Three Phases of Modernization
During 19th and 20th centuries:

1. Rule by a military organization or its leader & legitimazing democratically  using

plebiscite/referendum
o (e.g., In Latin American countries during 19th century)

2. Ideological one party

o Introduction of political parties –but not multi-party systems
o e.g.; Communism, Fascism
o e.g.; in decolonized African and Asian countries in 20th century (also military rule)

3. Democratically disguised dictatorships

• Mid-1970s  a global wave of democratization
• Legitimazing by having competitive multi-party elections
New Challenges in the 21 st

Century
 Party cartelization and
anti-party sentiment

Parties losing interest and

Parties losing interest and capacity in governing
capacity in representing responsibly and focusing
the people on short-term electoral
gains

Crisis of Representation Crisis of Government

Technocratic challenge
Populist challenge to
to existing parties to
existing parties to restore
restore responsibility and
responsiveness
effectiveness
What is Populism?
o Populism as a ‘as a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be
ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps,
“the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite,” and which argues that
politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will)
of the people’ (Mudde, 2004, p. 543).
• A multidimensional concept:
 People-centrism
 Anti-elitism
 Anti-pluralism (Manichean outlook)
   Populist Attitudes Scale

  No. Items

1 Politicians should always listen closely to the problems of the people.

People
2 Politicians do not have to spend time among ordinary people to do a good job (R).
Centrism
3 The will of the people should be the highest principle in this country’s politics.

4 The government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves.
Anti-Elitism 5 Government officials use their power to try to improve people’s lives (R).

6 Quite a few of the people running the government are crooked.

7 You can tell if a person is good or bad if you know their politics.
Manichean The people I disagree with politically are not evil (R).
Outlook 8
9 The people I disagree with politically are just misinformed.

Source of the items is here.

Image source: The Guardian
What is Technocracy?
o Technocracy as a “form of representation stressing the prominence of
expertise in the identification and implementation of objective
solutions to societal problems” (Caramani, 2017, p. 55).
• A multidimensional concept
 Elitism
 Anti-pluralist
 Anti-politics
 Scientific approach
  Technocratic Attitudes Scale
  No. Items
1 Ordinary people do not know what policies are good for them.
2 All citizens should vote, even if they cannot do so smartly (R).
3 People can be trusted to govern themselves (R).
4 We need more decisions to be taken in popular referendums (R).
Elitism 5 The leaders of my country should be more educated and skilled than ordinary citizens.
6 I would rather put my trust in the wisdom of ordinary people than the opinions of experts (R).
7 Political leaders should make decisions according to their best judgment, even if it goes against the will of the people.
8 People have political disagreements because they think about their personal interest rather than the interest of the whole country.
9 A good political system should find a compromise between conflicting interests, even if it is ineffective (R).
Anti-
10 It is necessary to listen to all different political opinions before making a decision (R).
pluralism
11 If people were knowledgeable enough, everyone would agree on the political decisions that are best for the country.
12 Politicians just want to promote the interests of those who vote for them and not the interest of the whole country.
13 It is important for politicians to be ideologically committed (R).
14 Politicians spend all their time seeking re-election instead of fixing problems.
Anti- 15 The best political decisions are taken by experts who are not politicians.
politics 16 When deciding for which party to vote, programmes and ideology more important than past results (R).
17 Political parties do more harm than good to society.
18 Elections do not work.
19 In politics, there is no such thing as an objective fact (R).
20 Politicians should be like managers and fix what does not work in society.
Scientific 21 The scientific community is politically neutral.
Approach 22 Social problems should be addressed based on scientific evidence, not ideological preferences.
23 The problems facing my country require experts to solve them.
24 Good policies are designed based on statistics.
Common Points between Populism and
Technocracy
o Both see themselves as antipolitics and specifically
antiparty.
• Populists and technocrats are above party politics. WHY?
 Parties are carriers of particular interests rather than the general
interest.
 Even at the expense of general interest.
 So, parties are individualistic and self-interested (and irresponsible)
 Parties are distorting the link bet. people’s interests and decision
makers.
 Parties’ main goals are electoral competition and government position,
rather than the political action for common good.
The Idea of a Unitary, General, Common
Interest of a Given Society/Country
o Populism and technocracy:
• Homogenous and organic vision of the people and
the nation
• Things either good or bad for the whole country
• Aim is to find and realize the common/general
interest
 Difference is in how to identify this unitary interest
Non-pluralistic View of Society
o Populism and technocracy:
• Politics is doing what is good for all
The true solution is indisputable
Party politics is divisive, endangering a unified vision of public interest
 Party platforms are not needed

o Populism:
• The leadership determines the people’s interests
The leader is one of them (the people)
The leader’s decision-making is unquestionable
Because questioning the leadership = questioning the will of the people

o Technocracy:
• People’s do not possess the faculty of identifying society’s interest.
Unmediated Relationship between the
People and Elite
o Populism and technocracy:
• Still elitist!
• No distortion to understand and realize the people’s
interest.
No Need of Accountability
o Vertical accountability is between the voters and the representatives.
• In populism, the elites and the people are one
 Sanctioning by vertical accountability = self-sanction
• In technocracy, the people do not have the capabilities to judge the action of the elites
 The people should not sanction the elites

o Horizontal accountability is between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

• Constraining elites’ actions through rule of law, human-rights, check—and balances,
international treaties
• For both populism and technocracy, general interest is priority and should not be constrained
by procedures
Differences
Populism Technocracy
o General interest can be identified by the will of the o General interest can be identified by rational
people speculation and scientific procedures
• Max. responsiveness • Min. responsiveness

o Descriptive representation of “common men” by o Min. descriptive representation

the leader • The technocrats are expected to be educated,
knowledgeable, and expert

o Symbolic representation of the “common men” by

the leader o Symbolic representation of the people
• Affective attachment • Society as machine
• Organic comprehensive totality of the people
o Indirect and min. involvement of the people
o Direct and continuous mobilization of the people
• Institutional channels: direct votes, plebiscites
• Non institutional channels: polls, social media
• To renew consent, not express preference
What is One of the Big Problems You See
in Populism and Technocracy?
oNo conception of a legitimate opposition!
oUnder populism:
o The opposition is reduced to the evil elites working against the
nation’s will and interest
o Foreign lobbies and their domestic allies!
oUnder technocracy:
o The opposition is irrational
Clientelism
o “Focusing on clientelism as a method of electoral mobilization, I define it as the proffering of
material goods in return for electoral support, where the criterion of distribution that the patron
uses is simply: did you (will you) support me?” (Stokes, 2007, pp. 604-605).

o «Amoral majoritarianism» – govt. parties’ ignorance and conscious effort to by-pass the rule of
law and the seperation of powers to evade the supervision for the use of govt. resources for
clientelistic purposes (Kalaycıoglu, 2001: 65).

o Similar to the logic of “amoral familism”

• primacy of advancing short-run material benefits to the family at the expense of morality and
trust towards the society,
• then, absent public interest, administrative accountability, inter-personal trust, and
predictability in interactions pave the way to technocratic authoritarian government,
patron-client relationship, and ascendancy of organized crime as substitute to weak
Leviathan (the state) (Banfield, 1967: 83, 85-86, 90, 93, 98-99; Putnam, 1994: 144).