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