This is a better article on the life and death of Anna Politkovskaya.

Post-Communist Transformations

Post-Communism Lecture

Collapse of Communism

Gorbachev - came into power when Chernenko dies (succeeded Andropov)

came into power on March 10, 1985

always seen as a reformer - but the important thing to remember is he BELIEVED IN COMMUNISM

not a democrat

Just felt communism needed to be REFORMED

Immediately set himself apart from other premiers - very youthful, very engaging, very willing to make Soviet life better--better at public images - would actually MINGLE with people, brought family into spotlight, etc

first - replaced many Kremlin and government personnel - recognized some people had been in offices for too long, needed to shake things up

wanted to reverse Brezhnev era of corruption

called the "bloodless purge"

Real reforms began in 1986 and 1987 - after he solidified leadership and power and became more comfortable

Three pronged approach:

Perestroika - restructuring

Involved Decentralization of political and economic decision making

Devolution of power to local states and governors

Increased openness - not as much censorship

Modernization of technology

New foreign policy - emphasized foreign interdependence

1986 27th Party Congress - openly called for "radical reform"

saw Lenin's New Economic Policy as the perfect ideal

Opened the door for change - but a lot of resistance from other Duma members

Glasnost - openness

wanted a more open society - but doesn't mean he wanted to undermine the supremacy of the party

Said had to have glasnost if perestroika were to work

Also, glasnost would break those centers of power that had grown corrupt and irresponsive to the needs of the people (old party apparatchiks)

Openness would shine a light on corruption, inefficiency, and elite privileges

Chernobyl brought more urgency for the need for glasnost within government bureaucracy, need to share information pivotal, could have prevented massive difficulties

Media - gave Aleksandr Yakovlev (just died) responsibility over social sciences, culture, and media - loosened control over media considerably, more and more contemporary issues were allowed to be discussed in papers - very revolutionary

even tackled the long-taboo subject of Stalin like never before

Demokratizatsia

1987 - these reforms were not welcomed by bureaucrats and existing Duma members. Gorbachev recognized that he would have to remove them from power, so that they wouldn't interrupt his reforms

Introduced democratisation - claimed economic reform needed to be accompanied by political reform

party leaders had become too isolated from the public, needed elections

also, decided to separate the affairs of PARTY and STATE - that way, the two wouldn't become intermingled with drastic consequences

These reforms would open up the events for the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union, the exact opposite of what Gorbachev had worked for

Soviets losing control over economy and political aspects of the state

February 7 - 1990 - Communist Party gave up its monopoly on power

Baltic states declare independence

August Coup - Gorbachev wanted to decentralize some of the USSR's power to the republics, created a treaty for them to sign. Basically would mean the end of the USSR, and the beginning of a new Russia

This idea feared by Gorbachev's govt - his VP, PM, Defense Minister, KGB chief decided to orchestrate a COUP

Gorbachev in Crimea on vacation - they put him under house arrest for 3 days, finally had to let him return to power

End of Gorbachev's power - Russian government took over Union government (under Yeltsin) one ministry at a time

Soviet republics declared independence one after another - Dec 8, 1991 - USSR formally dissolved

So was it purely Gorbachev's actions which brought down the USSR, or was it background?

STRUCTURE VS AGENCY

Dallin: Spread of Corruption - corruption rampant, wanton violation of laws, no area was protected from this

EROSION OF IDEOLOGY - could never look at the Bolsheviks as being omniscient and always wise, too many things went wrong in USSR to believe that, massive disillusionment, beginning with Khruschev's secret speech, Marxist dream never materialized (pardon the pun)

SOCIAL CHANGE - yes, greater education of the masses, but in the Brezhnev area, they realized there were no opportunities for advancement - which slowed down productivity considerably

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMNENT - pressures and demands of the nuclear program finally caught up with the USSR, glasnost opened up foreign media - Soviets can compare their life with others (Soviet life was bad), new technology (telephones, television) made Soviets realize they were missing out on a lot

ECONOMIC DECLINE - economists maintain that economy had been declining since 1960s and needed to be reformed THEN. "Defense burden" proved too great.

POST COLLAPSE - WHAT HAPPENED?

Yeltsin in power:

President of Russia

more economic restructuring : Sharp reduction in govt spending

reduce govt deficit

govt collects new taxes

lifted price controls on 90% of goods, causing prices to

skyrocket

however, still controlled prices on vodka, bread, sugar, and

dairy products

Govt created LOTS of money - led to inflation

PRIVATIZATION - selling state industries to private citizens

by the end of 1993 - 85% of Russian small enterprises were privatized

First - vouchers - sort like taking stock, available to public

However, controlled by OLIGARCHS - who made a lot of money by this

massive corruption

Second - direct cash sales of stocks in state enterprises

However, didn't really work well - all went to oligarchy

Basically, people were disappointed that the only people to profit from privatisation were people with inside government contacts

Different philosophies regarding economic liberalisation:

Shock therapy

advocated by Jeffrey Sachs (member of IMF and World Bank)

includes: sudden release of price/currency controls

withdrawal of state subsidies

immediate trade liberalization within the country

Criticisms: very painful process, results in very high unemployment initially (20-40 %), high price inflation, and there usually isn't a sufficient body of law (property laws, etc) to catch up with reforms

However - highly successful in Poland - steady economic growth after initial crash, confidence in system

Gradual reform

said, economic and political reform need to occur simultaneously

this way, enable law to REGULATE the market, prevent wide scale corruption and theft

ex: China - introduces market reform very slowly, allows population to digest change at their own pace

allows for the development of mores and trust in the system to enable system to work efficiently

Gross disparities of outcome in the FSU

Argument about West to East: scholars argue that the farther West a country lies, the more democratic and economically liberal they are

While the more Easterly you travel - the more autocratic and economically stagnated

Outlier/exception: Mongolia

Examples: Hungary vs Uzbekistan

Hungary

Transition was very different from Russia, which was top-down and autocratic

Transition in Hungary: roundtable approach

Invited all major parties at the time to have a say in how the transition should occur

Involved former Communist deputies as well as new democratic groups

State NEVER collapsed - it just made a peaceful transition

Developed economic liberalism AND political liberalism simultaneously

First elections - communist party fared poorly - populist, center-right, and liberal parties did well

set the stage for future elections, and peaceful transitions of power

PATH DEPENDENCE ARGUMENT

Uzbekistan

Transition was worse than Russia's

Islam Karimov - head of CPu

When Uzbekistan declared independence, Karimov assumed presidency

Held elections in December 29 of the same year - gained 86% of the vote

Forced democratic opponents like Mohammad Solih to flee the country

Cracked down on Erk and Birlik - two key opposing parties

Term was set to expire in 1995 - in a very criticized referendum, said the results gave him permission to extend power to 2000. Elections in 2000 - got 91.9% of the vote

Karimov's rule due to end in 2005 - but parliament extended it to 2007

Repeatedly criticized for torture - UN has cited Uzbekistan for torture that is "institutionalized, systematic, and rampant"

Boiling people to death

Freedom house ranks it 7 for political rights and 7 for political liberties - Human Rights Watch rates it as one of the worst countries in the world

General Survey:

Baltic States

Were first to declare independence from Soviet Union

all three are liberal democracies, parliamentary republics, with quickly growing economies

point to period of independence - 1920-1940 - where they were democratic, said it made transition easier

immediately seized upon desire to join Western World and Europe upon independence

However, have had problems with extensive Russian minorities, imposing language laws and citizenship restrictions

Central Asian States

Have had varying degrees of democratic and economic success

Tajikistan - one of the poorest countries in the world - had civil war from 1992-1997

People assumed the war was between democrats and Islamists - not true

Fought between Moscow-based government and disenfranchised provinces

Right now, struggling to democratize and grow economically

Kazakhstan - greater success with democracy, however, Nazarbayev has been in power since 1990

however, there are regular elections with competing groups, and a degree of free media

Worrisome trend that it's sliding into authoritarianism - ex: 90% voted in favor of Nazarbayev in 2005 elections, increasing clampdown on media

50% Russian, 50% Kazakh - potentially divisive cleavage in society

Transcaucasus

Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan

Armenia - parliamentary democracy, although suffers from electoral difficulties, fairness of polls

Levon Ter-Petrossian president from 1990 to 1998, when protesters drove him from power - then PM was killed in attack on National Assembly - currently, Robert Kocharian is president, stabilized country

Azerbaijan - ruled by Aliev clan, recently held an illegitimate election, trying to oust him from power

Georgia - currently under a democratic regime of Saakashvili - Columbia Law School - pushed for greater openness and democratization

However - threats to stability in Ajaria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia

Western States

Ukraine - currently under a democratic regime, under Yukaschenko

Moldova - resisting reunification with Romania

Belarus - the last totalitarian state in Europe - Aleksandr Lukaschenko since 1994

came to power democratically

originally attempted to re-integrate Belarus (White Russia) into Russia

No real economic reform has occurred in Belarus

reversed all changes in economy - reinstated command economy

heavily dependent on Russia for oil and gas

Parliament attempted to impeach him - dissolved Parliament

Now, pushing to eliminate presidential term limits

Very repressive - also beheads journalists

No real hope for reform from within

Changes in post- Soviet World

ROSE REVOLUTION - Georgia, 1999

Eduard Shevardnadze in power - used to be in Gorbachev's team of pro-democratisation

Ruled since 1992 - became increasingly corrupt, nepotism in family

Parliamentary elections - Nov 2, 2003 - denounced as SERIOUSLY FLAWED

Massive demonstrations outside of Parliament building - then spread to other cities

Protesters all held roses in their hands outside -

Opposition members in Parliament - interrupted Shevardnadze's speech, forced him to escape with bodyguards

attempted to call martial law - police refused to cooperate - president resigned

fresh elections were held - Saakashvili elected President - has delivered solidly on bringing in the breakaway provinces and in ruling fairly

ORANGE REVOLUTION - UKRAINE - OCTOBER 2005

Similar pattern - presidential election of 2004 - voter fraud, electoral rigging

Orange - was the campaign color of Yukaschenko

general strikes at all universities

camps set up outside Parliament, 24 hour protests for days

as a result, election results were annulled - second elections held Dec 26, 2004 - Yuschenko elected President

TULIP REVOLUTION- KYRGYZSTAN - MARCH 2005

Parliamentary elections of February 27 and March 13 - declared rigged by international observers

Revolution set to oust Akayev (ruling authoritarian) and his family

Protests began in the South (other side of the Tien Shan mountains) but gradually made its

way to the North, where Bishkek (the capital) is

April 4 - Akayev resigns

April 11 - Kyrgyz Parliament ratified resignation

Felix Kulov, former political prisoner, now in power - but state still suffering from corruption and bad governance

Revolutions:

signal a real push towards democratization amongst former Soviet states

reflect the lack of Moscow's power to prevent democratization (Putin has tried)

reflects a more Western-oriented policy, rather than a Moscow-oriented one

World is hoping for more in Azerbaijan, Belarus, other states in Central Asia

Where does Russia lie?

VLADIMIR PUTIN

former KGB head in Soviet Union

Chosen by Yeltsin to run for president - immensely popular - believed he would impose order and stability onto Russia - still reeling from the collapse of the economy and the USSR

Also built up popularity by first Chechen war

After Chechen terrorists attempted to infiltrate Russia (bombing of Moscow apartment houses), initiated brutal response on Grozny and surrounding areas

However - after 2 chechen wars and too much loss of life on both sides, Russians are beginning to criticize Putin for engaging in war

Now: a threat to Russian democracy

Took over national television

Decreased the power of local governors

Converted Parliament into a rubber stamp

Jailed the main financier of the opposition (Yukos - Mikhail Khordokovsky)

Intimidate would be challengers from contesting power

2003 - really started to turn authoritarian

Put former KGB officers in charge of key ministries

Wants to revive Soviet past - important part of history

Attempted to amend the constitution so that the president could choose governors

Just recently, outlawed NGOs from working within Russia

What direction will Russia go in, after 2008, when Putin cannot run again?

Hello class

Please read "Causes of the Collapse of the Soviet Union" for Wednesday

Also - here is the link to the political memoirs of former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, translated in English: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,444660,00.html

Remember to scroll down for details on the extra credit assignment.

USSR - Communism Chapter

So, we discussed the basics of MARXISM

Basically, a critique of CAPITALISM - which was already well into swing by the 20th century

But, lots of economic oppression, lots of poverty, lots of inequality

So, the world was rife for a Communist revolution, according to some historians

So COMMUNISM - not purely economic: was political and social as well

He believed that the most pervasive and MOST IMPORTANT social cleavage was between ECONOMIC CLASSES

PROLETARIOT VS BOURGEOISIE

Marx's SUPERSTRUCTURE - was the base of society that allowed economic injustice to continue...so in the revolution, EVERYTHING must be destroyed to start anew

"false consciousness" - capitalist world has imposed a reality which is not accurate, human beings must free themselves from this deception

Nationalism, religion, ethnicities - all diversions to distract people from the ROOT problem of their unhappiness

So capitalist democracy would eventually be overthrown by its flaws

Important to note that Marx believed ENGLAND would be the best example for a Communist state

He said, Communist revolution would BEST occur in a state that was:

INDUSTRIALIZED

URBANIZED

DEVELOPED

CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY

As you'll see, neither Russia nor China fell into this category

The rebellion would occur once the proletariat GAINED CONSCIOUSNESS

An important component of MARXISM: INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTION

Will be a source of contention in the USSR

Then Marx envisioned "dictatorship of the proletariat" - didn't really happen, we'll discuss reasons why

HISTORY OF THE USSR

Russia - vast expanse and vast empire, ruled by TSARS since the 1400s, of the Romanov clan

Very feudal system - serfs were only given freedom in 1881, under Alexander III

1917 - Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra on the throne

Tsarist state had been weakened by several forces: greater agitation for democratic reform

great losses in WWI - forced Russia's withdrawal

loss of power and prestige

economic crisis as well

Revolution of 1917

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - was exiled for a while, but came back to stir up trouble

However, when the Tsar was overthrown, it was done so by the February Revolution - Aleksandr Kerensky, attempted to establish DEMOCRATIC REGIME

Many problems, Lenin in Switzerland - DEAL STRUCK TO GET HIM BACK TO RUSSIA

Arrived, and instated the OCTOBER REVOLUTIONwith Leon Trotsky

So it overthrew Kerensky's Provisional Government, which led to a Civil War between 1918-1920, during which the Whites (old order) fought the Reds (Communists)

So what did October Revolution accomplish?

Decree on Land - all peasants who had seized land during war were free from persecution

Also, many peripheral areas declared their independence - Baltic States, Ukraine, some parts of Central Asia

Lenin's Philosophy

Marxism-Leninism:

What Is To Be Done?

Lenin diverged from Marxist theory on a few points:

He asserted that Marxism would happen in DEVELOPING countries

On the matter of achieving consciousness: can only be done through the leadership of the "revolutionary vanguard" - effectively justifying a dictatorship

Also involved "democratic centralism" - party members should be elected democratically, but once the Party makes a decision, all must follow it

Lenin enforced Marx's ideal of WORLD REVOLUTION - one communist state cannot stand alone

Lenin in power:

December 30, 1922 - Lenin declares Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (includes Russia, Belarussia, Ukraine, and Transcaucasian Republics)

NEW ECONOMIC POLICY -

needed to rebuild economy after years of war

somewhat free enterprise

tax agricultural goods - allow farmers to sell them for a profit

peasants can lease land and hire farm laborers

small factories can be owned by individuals

retail trade is allowed

but state would retain control of heavy industry, foreign trade, and banking

Was successful - by 1928, economy had recovered to pre-WWI levels

STALIN

Lenin left no clear successor - battle between Trotsky and Stalin over party leadership

Stalin eventually prevailed - sent Trotsky to Latin America, where he was later killed in a

suspicious car crash

Stalin - small man from Georgia, solidified his leadership in 1929

Important Developments in Stalinist Russia:

Collectivization Campaigns

agricultural production was very low

to stimulate production, Stalin COLLECTIVIZED farms - made larger, state-controlled farms out of the smaller, privately owned farms of the KULAKS (peasants)

KULAKS: opposed collectivization, state control, were richer peasants

Stalin: "eliminate Kulaks" - 5 million sent to Siberia, one million deported, catastrophic famine in 1932, 1940 - 95 percent of farms collectivized - some numbers say that some 10 million were killed in the Ukraine

marked the end of the NEP - full state interference in the economy from now on

Industrialization

ran according to FIVE YEAR PLANS (28-32, 32-37, 37-41..WWII)

CENTRAL PLANNING/CENTRAL ECONOMY - discuss

focused all Soviet resources on development of HEAVY INDUSTRY

wanted to forcibly drag USSR out of traditional, agrarian state into modern

developed economy

thought the success of rapid industrialization would prove to the world the benefits

of socialism

First Five Year Plan - partial success - industrial growth rates at 12 percent

production failed to meet targets

out of balance - sometimes requested less resources than

needed

Second and Third Plans: continued heavy industry push

lowered targets, tried to improve quality of goods

failed targets as well...BUT managed to industrialize the

nation, caught up to speed with West

Came at great cost - consumer goods scarce, many goods rationed

couldn't provide decent housing or sanitation

city populations exploded

1926 - 18 % lived in cities

1940 - 33% lived in cities

International Affairs

Stalin rejects idea of "exporting revolution," focuses only on USSR

But, still supports idea of "world revolution" - Comintern - gather support for Marxism

FP full of contradictions

Expanded contact and trade with capitalist nations

Built up a relationship with Communist China, as Japan attempted to expand inward

became even more involved with Western countries as WWII seemed imminent

Purges

Stalin a very paranoid leader

Purge of the Communist Party - remove all traitors - began in late 1920s, continued for years

Sergei Kirov, party leader in Leningrad, assassinated

Great Purge begins - 8 million citizens arrested on suspicion of disloyalty to state

Most sent to labor camps

Military hard hit, nearly all officers removed

Communist Party - only 37 percent survived purges

Post WWII

Era of cooperation with Allies over after the blockade of Berlin

Era of expansion - USSR reinvaded Baltic republics, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Romania - by 1948 they all established Communist regimes, directly influenced by Moscow

Descent of "Iron Curtain," formal diplomatic break with the West (detente), and Cold War

Stalin's legacies: torturing, killing, repressing religion, attacking humanities- Solzhenitsyn

estimated 20 million died under rule, 14.5 million from starvation

died in 1956

KHRUSCHEV

1956-1964

February 1956 - Secret Speech - denounced personality cult of Stalin and the Great Purges

Key events:

1955 - Warsaw Pact - Done to counter NATO

1956 Revolution in Hungary - after speech, Hungarian nationalists attempted to overthrow Soviet-imposed government. Khruschev brought in tanks, suppressed the freedom fighters, re-instated Communist govt

Split with China over nuclear program

Peaceful coexistence - took a different tact than Stalin, didn't want to engage in full on warfare, just wanted to work at surpassing the West in power

1961 - constructed the Berlin Wall to solidify Cold War and Iron Curtain

exonerated many political prisoners - amnesty program to allow them to live in peace

Liberalisation of the arts - enabled Solzhenitsyn and other controversial writers to publish in USSR

Negatives - suppression of Hungary, construction of Berlin Wall, very poor diplomatic skills, couldn't manage the economy well, very near miss with the Cuban Missile Crisis

Removed from power in 1964

BREZHNEV

1964-1982

Khruschev's protege

Conservative and regressive

tried to emulate Stalin's method of rule

First show trials since Stalin of intellectuals and artists - KGB became very powerful once again

Responsible for bloody crackdown of the Prague spring, in which Dubcek attempted to remove Soviets from power

Brezhnev Doctrine - USSR had right to interfere in the politics of their satellite states

Sino-Soviet relations still bad. In an effort to prevent Sino-American alliance, Brezhnev negotiated Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty 1 (SALT 1) with Nixon, beginning of DETENTE - a relaxation in tensions

1970s - Soviet Union at the height of political power, real rival for the US, extended power to Middle East and Africa, intervened in Angolan civil war, helped with Ethiopia-Somalia war

Economically - a mess

Still relied too much on agriculture

Incapable of modernization or innovation, because it depended on state to decide

Economic stagnation

Too many demands - space program, Afghan war, etc

Standard of living decreased, state provisions deteriorated

High corruption, and growth of the shadow, or black, economy

Brezhnev - era of Stagnation

Andropov

1982-1984 - 16 months in power

tried to improve economy/curtail corruption

anti-alcohol campaign, used Stalinist methods to enforce it

war in Afghanistan continued, relationship with US became worse (military actions, threats of war)

but, he was thought to be in favor of gradual reform - which is why he promoted Gorbachev

Gorbachev - we'll discuss tomorrow

So Soviet Union:

was a repressive state

harsh policies

no freedom whatsoever

very stagnated, very repressive

However, a few positives:

gender equality at all time high - women work as much as men, no gender distinction

moved Russia from an agrarian society to an industrial society in 15 years

successfully united 15 different republics with different religions and cultures, and almost 130 different languages

Required the cooperation of MANY people - nomenklatura - politically sensitive or influential jobs in the state, society, or the economy that are staffed by people chosen or approved by the communist party

also called APPARATCHIKS

So that's the Communist history of the SOVIET UNION

Let's discuss the evolution of Communism in CHINA

Brief overview of modern China

January 1, 1912 - Republic of China declared, ending Qing empire. Power held by Sun Yat-sen of the KMT/Nationalist Party

Overthrown by a former Qing general, who took the presidency

After general died, China became politically fragmented

In late 1920s, Chiang Kai-shek, of Nationalist party, reunified the country, attempted to turn China into a politically modern and democratic state

1947 - Constitutional rule is established, ongoing war with Communists

1949 - Mao Zedong (Tsetong) took power, forced Nationalists to Taiwan (where they maintain they are the "true" China).

People's Republic of China - October 1, 1949

Known as PRC

Developed infrastructure, industry, health care, education - first time in Chinese history

Attempted to follow Soviet example - attempted land redistribution and forced industrialization, to some succeess

Great Leap Forward - began in Hunan in 1958, soon was expanded

the idea was to overtake the UK's economy in 15 years

GLF - produce STEEL - 25,000 communes set up - each commune included 5,000 households

resulted in the forced collectivization of peasants

Economic disaster - killed between 25 and 60 mill people (no agricultural production, mass starvation)

1959 - Three Bitter Years (natural disasters)

CULTURAL REVOLUTION -

1969 - 1976 (arrest of gang of four)

Mao wanted to curtail the power of the communist party - so encourage students to rise up against them

Power struggle with Liu Shaoqi, so Mao wanted to remove his power base

China now would openly persecute intellectuals and artists

great purges and hunts for "counter-revolutionaries"

tried to make people repent and confess in public - this evidence would later be used in show trials and for execution

perpetuated by the "Red Guards"

aim was to destroy the "Four Olds" - old customs, habits, culture, and thinking

a guise to remove threats to communist power

colleges shut - everything was attacked and destroyed that stood for old authority

schools, temples, etc

Mao then purged CP of thousands of officials - one of them was Deng Xiaoping

wound up destroying most of China's social fabric

ended with arrest of "Gang of Four" - led Cultural Revolution, drove hundreds of thousands of people to suicide

(allowed to be arrested in 1976 because Mao died in 1976)

China's historical legacy was nearly destroyed

Minority culture in China was viciously attacked

Was the inspiration for Pol Pot to commit genocide in Cambodia

Social displacement at an all time high

PRC Post-Mao

Deng Xiaoping became leader - not as harsh as Mao

Government gave more and more freedom to citizens (but it's still very limited)

Many economic reforms, inspiring some to label it as a mixed economy

Open Door policy - foreign businesses can invest in China

four special economic zones in S. China - with tax incentives, to encourage investment

since early 1980s - one of the fastest economic growths in world history

creation of urban middle class (15% of population), higher living standards, high GDP

Some negative aspects of limited privatisation of economy: greater wealth disparity, environmental destruction, rampant corruption, widespread unemployment

Still tight control over Tibet and potential dissenters

1989 - Tianenmen Square Massacre

Death of reformist Hu Yaobang, led to student demonstrations in Beijing

Began April 15 - ended brutally on June 4

Protests started out small, got much larger

made demands for a free media, and formal dialogue between authorities and elected representatives of the people

Government declared martial law on May 20, but protests continued

Finally, state decided to use military force

Sent out soldiers, who were attacked by civilians - then state authorized killings

Death toll varies - Chinese Red Cross say 2600 died, protesters say 7000 died, BBC News says "several hundred people"

Black eye and massive human rights violation

Worldwide uproar - international condemnation

Jiang Zemin

became premier after Tianenmen Square

Three goals: maintain social stability, continue gradual economic reforms, and keep Party's grip on power

was very talented at manipulating the media

began crackdown on Falun Gong

Legacy: some say he focused too much on economic growth, ignored environmental damage

also, enabled widening of gap between rich and poor

left a very unbalanced and potentially polarized populace

added the theory of capitalist business laws into Chinese communism

Contemporary China under Hu Jintao

became premier in 2002

so far, not much independence from Party

although, claims to focus on "putting people first"

Right now, China is cultivating expanding business opportunities with the West

Member of the WTO

preparing for 2008 Olympics

extra-careful about human rights - but abuses still continue - arrest of Falun Gong and journalists still occur

crackdown on foreign Internet and news services

Problems facing China

Too much industrialization in the East (Beijing, Shanghai), not enough in the rural West (Xinjiang)

Curbing population growth -

Most populous country - 1.3 bn (1/5 of world pop)

"One child" policy - only rural families are allowed a second child if first born is female

Leads to infanticide, abandonment, and prostitution

Mass migration from west to east

Ethnic issues

55 minority groups - although 95% are Han

mostly in border areas

Two big forces - Tibet and Uighurs in Xinjiang

Poverty

According to China, they say it was 85 million in 1990 to 29 million now. World Bank disagrees

new class of dispossessed - urban poor

widening wealth gap

Environment

World Bank - 16/20 most polluted cities were in China

also spreading to Japan and Korea

World's second biggest emitter of CO2

Also, rivers in the south are drying up

Social change

switch from traditional lifestyle to modern, urban one

90 million internet users

But...many more without

How to fix?

Notes on Advanced Democracies

Advanced Democracy: high degree of institutionalization, participation, competition, liberty

economic development: open markets and private property, high GDP, PPP

strong liberal democracy, and capitalist economic system (which includes liberal, SD, and mercantilist)

Atlantic democracies are largely identified as Advanced Democracies

Paths

Not every country followed the same path to democracy

some were early democratizers/early industrializers

others came much later

Path dependence - exists when the outcome of a process depends on its past history, on the entire sequence of decisions made by agents and resulting outcomes, not just on contemporary conditions

Critical Juncture framework: antecedent conditions define and delimit agential capacity during a critical juncture in which actors make choices that set a specific trajectory of institutional development and consolidation in motion - and it is very difficult to reverse

Example: Welfare States

antecedent conditions: they've existed for so long

Critical juncture: Contemporary Germany

influenced by its past, and by what its citizens have come to expect

Trajectory of continuing welfare support is in existence

However, if Angela Merkel, at this critical juncture, decides to ELIMINATE the trappings of the welfare state, then a new trajectory is implemented

Freedom and Democracy in Advanced Democracies

largely established and free

Freedom House rankings: largely free

However, are different in what they allow their citizenstodo

example: abortion

some allow abortion in first trimester (Canada, US, Japan, Sweden)

others (like Poland and Austria) make it much more difficult for a woman to choose this option

and in Ireland, it's only allowed if the mother's life is in danger

So freedom is CONTINGENT on where you are

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

advanced democracies widely vary

use of referendum might differ - more used in Canada than the US

Voter registration: state responsibility or voter responsibility?

In US and France, voter's responsibility

Competition:

In UK, strict spending on campaigns

In US, very unlimited spending (even with campaign reform act - get around that with "soft" donations)

also variations in equality - some are SD with expansive social benefits, others are mercantilist in nature - but all are advanced democracies.

NEW MILLENNIUM

Advanced democracies are MODERN: secular, rational, materialistic, technological, bureaucratic, and emphasizing individual freedom above all else

But these states are not set in stone either - they are forced to change with the times

International changes affect them as well

Rise of POSTMODERNISM - shift from concern with material goods, shift towards concern with STANDARD OF LIVING and QUALITY OF LIFE

Will institutions follow in tow? Is it possible to build political systems on the basis of quality of life? Is it advisable?

ex: Bhutan - instead of GNP - GNH - Gross National Happiness

tries to base economy on basic Buddhist values

true human development occurs when material and spiritual development occur side by side and reinforce each other:

a. socioeconomic development

b. preservation and promotion of cultural values

c. conservation of the natural environment

d. establishment for good governance

Pipe dream, or can we achieve this reality?

Are advanced democracies moving towards modernity?

Compare and contrast Sweden and Japan

Japan - newcomer to democracy and industrialization, tremendously successful in the electronics market, is one of the most developed economies in the world.

mercantilist, dominated for past 40 years by Liberal Democratic Party

Sweden - an old democracy, social democratic: pensions, health care, education, very generous

Both have high levels of economic equality, both had long stay in power of one party, both are models of progress - so is there one development model? How should developing nations decide how to choose which system they want to follow?

New Challenges and Opportunities:

old structures and institutions have to deal with new international trends

Two forces at work: integration and devolution

Integration - process by which states pool their sovereignty, surrendering some individual powers in order to gain political, economic, or societal benefits in return

ex: tight connections, tight policies, shared rules

Devolution - political power is devolved to lower levels of government

thought to increase involvement, efficiency, and flexibility - also a good way to stave off ethnic wars

We already discussed the European Union and the problems of the Democratic Deficit, so let's focus on NAFTA:

North American Free Trade Agreement

Free trade sphere in North America - started January 1, 1994

eliminates duties on 50% of US products going to Mexico, and other tariffs would be phased out for the next 14 years

Restrictions removed from: cars and car parts, computers, textiles, and agriculture

It's not a SUPRANATIONAL state like the EU - there are no supranational government bodies, doesn't create a body of law that's superior to national law

However - it's ECONOMIC INTEGRATION, which might preclude POLITICAL INTEGRATION

Benefits of NAFTA -

Has increased trade between member countries

Mexico has moved from a closed economic system to an open trading partner

Helped usher in democratic reform in Mexico - broke power of PRI and allowed Vicente Fox to be elected President

More environmental cooperation between countries

Jobs have not all headed to Mexico, as it was originally feared

Negatives of NAFTA:

Agricultural producers are the losers in the agreement - Chiapas in Mexico - can't compete with gross US market

Low-income industrial sector: jobs were lost in the US because firms were unwilling to pay the high "minimum wages" when they could get cheaper labour south of the border

All three countries are based on federalism - therefore, free trade is impeded by individual states' regulations

lack of supranational bodies ensures that national interests will prevail over NAFTA interests

Devolution

We already discussed Scotland and Wales

Let's discuss other Canadian cases

Nunavut out of the Northwest Territories

Mention license plate - shaped like a polar bear

gives the Inuit people self-governance

able to control their region

in the belief that peoples should be able to own their resources (after hundreds of years of exploitation by the state)

however, might increase the fractionalization of Canada

Do you think devolution will strengthen or weaken democracies?

SOCIAL CHANGE AND CONFLICT

Postmodern values - more concerned with quality of living, than material wealth and gain

premodernism - people focused on basic forms of authority and survival

then, modernism: rationality, sciences, autonomy

promised development and limitless possibilities

1960s - changed all that

1968 was a pivotal year around the world:

Prague Spring

Tet Offensive launched in Vietnam

Civil rights disturbances

My Lai massacre

conflicts and protests envelop the globe

MLK assassinated

French protests - "May of 68" - tried to take down the government

RFK assassinated

Violent end of Prague Spring

Reflect a change in the world - dissatisfaction of the contemporary state of the world, post WWII tried to find solace in material goods, 1968 rejects this

also, realized the extent of environmental damages from industrialization, technological balances only made life more complicated, and progress was something that was elusive if not impossible

So postmodernism strove to move towards a new idea of progress - improving LIFE

environment, health, leisure....greater focus on equality and diversity

Are they really changing the politics of advanced democraciees?

Yes and no

Greens elected to share power with SPD in Germany - Joschka Fisher

Hand out Joschka Fischer article, discuss for a bit

No - same modes of politics still go on

Politics and economy still remain number 1 focus of governments

Also - the public does want more environmental procedures put in place, especially in the "new" Europe

BUT - governments are reluctant to enact them, and the people might not react so well if they were actually put in place

Will they sacrifice material wealth for environmental protection? Not likely

Resurging Ideologies:

Anarchism and Fascism

Anarchism - possibly given impetus by devolution and integration, lessening the power of the "nation-states"

also, the creation of the Internet fuels the idea that state control or governmental control isn't really necessary

protesters against the IMF, World Bank, WTO could fall into the anarchist camp

say authority needs to be rejected, human beings can work through cooperation and will not be exploited by power

Fascism - growth of hatred and xenophobia - fear of strangers

anti-immigration: oklahoma city bombings, growth of racist groups in all developed societies

Europe too: Jorg Haider in Austria, Jean Marie Le Pen in Le Front National, rise of fringe parties in Germany and Britain

Japan: Aum Shinrikyo cult

Why? What happened here?

Polarized reactions to the new postmodern world, people don't know how to react to it, so this is one way

Economic change

"Industrial" societies are giving way to "post industrial societies"

Postindustrialism - people no longer work in factories, but work in the SERVICE SECTOR

includes finance, insurance, real estate, education, retail sales, transport, communication, health care, legal

Why the shift?

industrial production has gone to less developed countries because it costs

less to produce there

also, jobs require more skills and require more education

link between shift in economy and shift in values

information-based firms means the market becomes accessible everywhere, and doesn't need a central power ---> may have led to devolution in a grander sense

END OF THE WELFARE STATE?

What does welfare state look like now?

Germany

Had to slash its budget by 12.8 billion marks (1999)

Now, all the tax money contributed by ordinary workers is being freed by the state to be invested on the stock market and international exchanges

employers no longer have to contribute to the social welfare system, or provide guarantees for their workers (not to fire them)

health and pension programmes are removed from government control and subjected to the market

workers used to be able to visit specialists --> now, have to go for cheapest treatment, or may be denied treatment altogether

"cost effective" doctor will do most of the health work now

Pensions

before, a state-based pension system

now, pensioners HAVE to enroll in alternative pension schemes

to pay for pensions, higher taxes, as well as higher taxes on petrol and electricity

Are we facing the end of the welfare state? Must the economies of social-democratic states be scaled back so they don't go bankrupt?

Possible reasons:

unwillingness of people to pay high taxes

globalization

Welfare under threat from four sources:

a. globalization of world economy (putting downward pressure on labour costs)

b. aging of the population (fewer workers, to support more retirees)

c. voters don't allow increases in the tax burden to care for increased number of retirees

d. perception that the welfare state is directing funds to those who don't want to work, instead of to the deserving poor (which they are)

Reform is unlikely - politicians don't have the political will, are resisting reforms when they can, and they are willing to pay a high price for the preservation of these systems

So instead of seeing the end of the welfare state - we'll see a counterattack on the forces that are trying to weaken it

So, globalization will be thwarted, trade barriers will be imposed, and free flow of capital will be prevented by legislation

globalization - makes it impossible for governments to impose heavy costs on employers

ex: Germany - two biggest exports are investment and jobs, because of the working conditions there

But globalization is only so powerful - yes, there are jobs that can be outsourced - but many will not: butchers, tailors, tradesmen, personal trainers. So the economy is not going to suffer terribly from outsourcing

Governments are not powerless, either. They can engage in protectionism (French model). There is some talk of states having greater control over the forces of supply and demand - but how this will play out is uncertain

However, these are unadvisable - they may work for the short term, but in the end, the populace will end up paying dearly for these measures that were intend to save their economies

So how will they manage the welfare state?

Develop new sources of revenues outside of taxation - tariffs, and such

ex: big tariffs on American tobacco products

or, energy tax (people won't reduce their energy intake THAT much)

Harvard professor Richard Cooper estimates that a worldwide carbon tax

would yield $750 billion annually by 2020.

Should welfare states be saved? Or should states attempt to emerge with a different model?

CHANGES IN UK AFTER 1997

Unwritten Rules: Britain's Constitutional Revolution

What is Britain's constitution?

- unwritten/ uncodified

- flexible

- unitary

Sources: 1. Statutes: Acts of Parliament, takes precedence -- parliamentary sovereignty

ex: Parliament Acts 1911, 1949

Scotland Act 1998

2. Common law: Rules and customs, judicial systems, and royal prerogatives (exec authority)

freedom of speech

power to make treaties, declare war, dissolve Parliament

3. Works of authority

books and writings which are recognized as sources of guidance on the interpretation of constitutional rules

ex: Walter Bagehot and Blackstone

4. Convention - rules of behaviour considered binding but which lack the force of law

ex: monarch assents to bills passed in Parliament

Prime Minister is member of Commons

5. EU Law - Since European Communities Act in 1972, EU law is superior

Example: Lords decided that Merchant Shipping Act of 1988 was unlawful (unconstitutional) because it violated EU law

First change - British constitution is subject to changes in EU law. Big change - before, parliamentary sovereignty was inviolable

ACTUAL CHANGES

DEVOLUTION - Scotland Act of 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998

Established a parliament for Scotland, a National Assembly for Wales

New legislative assembly for Northern Ireland (although currently suspended)

Issue: Should there be a purely English parliament?

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

1999 - Labour party removed most of Hereditary Peers, but left a few Peers who were elected by the house to represent them. Still had appointed peers. This was the first stage in Lords reform.

2001 - asked for suggestions on what to do with Lords

2003 - presented 18 different options to the Commons, (30 % hereditary, 70& appointed, etc)....all were SOUNDLY rejected

Labour decided that it would eliminate hereditary peers altogether, and make it 100% appointed

Lords used to act as a Supreme Court of sorts

Law Lords: Lord Chancellor Irvine was a member of government, sat in the Cabinet, and presides over the House of Lords

The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are also members of government

therefore, little judicial independence

LEGAL REFORMS

ECHR

Before, parliament was SOVEREIGN - so judiciary could not overturn the law

Also, could not rule on how prerogative powers were used - these were exempt from review

Instead, they just mediated disputes, and made sure ministers acted within their authority -

ULTRA VIRES - action of govt must be based on law

ECHR - European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act of 1998

European Convention of Human Rights -

established human rights for all members of the EU

rights to: life

fair administration of justice

private and family life

speech and religion

marry and found a family

certain rights to education

Prohibited: torture and inhuman or degrading treatement

slavery, servitude and forced labour

criminal laws that are retroactive

discrimination

Examples of cases: requiring defendants to pay the costs of interpreters' fees

rights of transsexuals to change their status

discrimination of homosexuals

delays in bringing people to trial

use of the birch as judicial corporal punishment

Therefore - these are EXPANSIVE human rights. Not just limited to life and liberty anymore

Before 1998, those who had complaints against Britain had to go to the European Court of Human Rights to hear their cases - in Strasbourg, France - Britain lost the MOST cases of any member state

Now, with Human Rights Act of 1998, British citizens can go to British courts to uphold the European Convention

Expands role of judiciary in several ways:

Act makes it illegal for any govt institution to act in contradiction to the principles of the Convention

UK judges must incorporate the findings of the Strasbourg court in their decisions

Must interpret all legislation in a way that is compatible with the act - gives

judges more room for interpretation than EVER before

Constitutional Reform Act of 2005:

Britain acknowledges the need for an independent court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will take over the legal duties of the Law Lords

Supreme Court will be final court of appeal for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland

Therefore, judicial branch will be COMPLETELY separated from legislative and executive power

Mayor of London

For the first time, directly elected mayor

budgeting and strategic planning - works with London Assembly and General London Authority

big legislation: congestion charge

marked the possibility for regional elections throughout England

Less successful attempts at reform:

1. Introduction of Freedom of Information Act - was promised upon election in 1997, however, Labour introduced a much-watered down act in 2000

"right to know"

before bill was implemented, there were reports that govt bodies were shredding and deleting files like crazy

creates a right to access - but public still maintains that most of the most important information remains out of reach of the citizens

2. Electoral System reform

December 1997 - Independent Commission on the Voting System

Commission suggested "Alternative Vote Plus" - retaining single-member system,

but vote for people in order of preference (lists) - second vote for preferred party,

then pool votes so smaller parties would have a foothold in politics

Never happened

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1107628.stm

For the extra credit, I've decided that a current-events themed assignment will do. Find an article from a reputable news source (one of the newspapers/magazines on the list I handed out in the beginning of the semester), and write a one-page reaction to it. In the first paragraph, summarize the article and highlight the main points. In the second, explain how the event relates to what we've discussed in class (political science concepts). You can do up to 5, and can receive 1 point each.

Acceptable news sources may include, but are not limited to: New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Los Angeles Times, The Globe and Mail, International Herald Tribune, Financial Times, The Independent, The Times, The Guardian, The Japan Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Mail and Guardian (South Africa). All these sites are free, but may require registration (also free) to read certain articles.

When handing in these assignments, please also include a copy of the article you are summarizing.

Please hand these assignments in by November 15 (Wednesday).

Political turmoil and street protests: rebellion's bitter legacy lives on

In the first of a three-part series to mark the uprising in Budapest that shook the world half a century ago, the Guardian looks at how the past still divides people

Ian Traynor in Budapest
Thursday October 19, 2006
The Guardian

mre Mecs will don his habitual bow tie on Sunday evening and make his way to the opera house in Budapest, one of the finest buildings in the Hungarian capital, to recall the event that marked him for life and shook the world 50 years ago - the Hungarian revolution.

Mr Mecs sat on death row in a dungeon in Budapest for six years as a result of his revolutionary youth. He fully expected to be strung up on wooden gallows by communist henchmen. For a long time, Mr Mecs, now a 73-year-old liberal MP, could not imagine winning free elections in a democracy or attending solemn ceremonies at the opera.

Hungarian revolution - 50 years on Political turmoil and street protests: rebellion's bitter legacy lives on In the first of a three-part series to mark the uprising in Budapest that shook the world half a century ago, the Guardian looks at how the past still divides people Ian Traynor in Budapest Thursday October 19, 2006 The Guardian Brief victory … Hungarians crowd on to a Soviet tank during the short-lived revolution in October 1956 that was brutally crushed by the Russians. Photograph: AP Imre Mecs will don his habitual bow tie on Sunday evening and make his way to the opera house in Budapest, one of the finest buildings in the Hungarian capital, to recall the event that marked him for life and shook the world 50 years ago - the Hungarian revolution. Mr Mecs sat on death row in a dungeon in Budapest for six years as a result of his revolutionary youth. He fully expected to be strung up on wooden gallows by communist henchmen. For a long time, Mr Mecs, now a 73-year-old liberal MP, could not imagine winning free elections in a democracy or attending solemn ceremonies at the opera. Article continues "The statistics were very bad," Mr Mecs recalled. "Almost 400 of us were sentenced to death and 233 were executed. At one point 19 out of 20 of the condemned were being executed, so I didn't think I would make it." The night at the opera should be a happy occasion, a celebration of Hungary's passage from a depressed Soviet satellite state to a vibrant free democracy. Instead, the 50th anniversary events starting on Sunday will be bitter and divisive. "This anniversary should be a chance to make a fresh start at a moment where everyone can agree. Unfortunately no one believes this can happen," said Pal Germuska, a historian at the city's 1956 Institute. "The freedom fighters and the killers are still living in this society. Fifty years is not enough to sort out all these problems." Dozens of foreign dignitaries are to travel to Budapest at the weekend to take part in the anniversary rituals. But with Hungarian politics polarised to the worst extent since communism was routed in 1989, the national holiday may turn into a bad-tempered fiasco. President Laszlo Solyom is to host the opera house ceremony, but veterans of 1956 are threatening to walk out as soon as the prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, arrives, vowing not to "breathe the same air" as a politician whose governing socialist party is the successor of the communists who helped the Russians crush the 1956 uprising. The prime minister, who has been the target of weeks of protests in Budapest after admitting lying to win a second term in April's elections, is also to make a speech in the presence of international leaders in parliament next Monday, the anniversary of the day the revolution erupted with a student demonstration on October 23 1956. Rival parties That could also turn sour. Rival political parties and organisations are to stage their own separate commemorations. The main opposition said yesterday that it would boycott the Gyurcsany speech. Things could also turn ugly today when police attempt to clear the square in front of parliament, where anti-government demonstrators have established a month-old camp. "How many 1956s are there out there and which one is the right one?" asked the political scientist Ferenc Hammer. It is a question that Hungary is still not able to answer. Joseph Rothschild, the US historian of eastern and central Europe, suggested this definition: "These events in Hungary were not a mere rebellion or uprising or insurrection or putsch or general strike, but a genuine and domestically victorious revolution, defeated only by overwhelming foreign force." Three years after the death of Stalin and a few months after the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, denounced the tyrant in his famous secret speech to the Soviet communist party, the Hungarian revolution initially hinted at a loosening of Soviet dictatorship in the heart of Europe. In the summer before the Budapest uprising, there had been a workers' insurrection in Poland that extracted concessions from the Kremlin and encouraged Hungary's reformist communist hero, Imre Nagy, to go further. Ten days into the revolution, the scale and the boldness of the Nagy project was made plain when he ordered the Red Army out of Hungary, reinstituted political pluralism in place of monopoly communist rule, announced Hungary was pulling out of the Warsaw Pact, Soviet communism's answer to Nato, and declared Hungary's military neutrality, as had happened in neighbouring Austria the year before when the Russians ended their postwar presence. Nagy opened to question the Kremlin's absolute power in central and eastern Europe. He had been encouraged both by Soviet dithering and US support. But the Hungarians were betrayed by the Americans and hammered by the Russians. The Kremlin sent in the tanks to crush the revolution after 13 days on November 4. The Americans, who had been broadcasting tips on how to make petrol bombs and defy the Russians, promptly averted their eyes as the Russians bloodily suppressed the insurgency. More than 2,500 Hungarians were killed, some 20,000 wounded, and another 200,000 fled, first to Austria then on to America, Canada, and Australia, in Europe's first big refugee crisis since the second world war. Suez distraction For decades the conventional verdict has been that Washington was too preoccupied with the Suez crisis to intervene for the Hungarians. But combing the US and Soviet archives, an American-Hungarian historian, Charles Gati, has argued persuasively this year that the Eisenhower administration perpetrated a cruel trick on Hungary and had no intention of challenging Moscow. "Washington offered only hope, no help," Mr Gati wrote recently. "The Eisenhower administration's policy turned out to be a hoax, hypocrisy mitigated only by self-delusion." A month after Mr Mecs received his death sentence in May 1958, Imre Nagy was executed, his corpse dumped in an unmarked grave. The 33 years of "goulash communism" that followed the doomed uprising were, said Mr Hammer, a period "of systematic forgetting. It was Orwellian." The revolution was renamed the "counter-revolution" by the ruling communists. "Some think it's legitimate to connect 1956 to the events going on here now. That's absolutely false," said Mr Mecs. "There's no connection between 1956 and the current situation." The eyes of the world will be trained on Hungary next week in admiration for the plucky freedom fighters and their glorious defeat. But they may be watching an ugly spectacle. "Hungary has never been united. Even in 1956 it was united only for a few moments," said Mr Germuska. "This is a big anniversary. And it's a big missed opportunity." Timeline 1956 National revolt against Soviet rule and Imre Nagy becomes prime minister. USSR crushes uprising and Janos Kadar takes over 1958 Communist government executes Nagy for high treason 1968 Kadar gradually introduces free market reforms. Farmers and industrial workers given increased rights 1988 Democratic reforms introduced 1989 Proclamation of the Republic of Hungary and end of communist rule 1990 Budapest stock exchange opens and Hungary leaves the Warsaw Pact 1990 Jozsef Antall elected prime minister in country's first free parliamentary elections 1991 Soviet troops leave and the Warsaw Pact dissolves 1999 Hungary joins Nato 2004 Joins the EU April 2006 Election returns Ferenc Gyurcsany and socialists to power September 2006 Violence erupts in Budapest as it emerges that government lied during elections Linda MacDonald