Daily Course Meeting Information
Last modified on May 24, 2012. Mary Baldwin College, Staunton VA 24401
Political Science 111: Comparative Politics, Fall 2012
Gordon L. Bowen,
Ph. D.
Professor of Political Science and International Relations
gbowen@mbc.edu
Prof. Bowen's inclement weather policy:
If the College is open, class will occur; if the College is closed,
class is cancelled. To learn if the College is closed on any
stormy/snowy/icy day, call 540-887-7000. Any exception to the
statement above will be posted here.
Sept. 4 , 2012: First class meeting.
Syllabus
will be distributed, course members will introduce themselves, course requirements and
the extra credit option
will be explained.
Class
agenda shown on the screen today may be accessed after class has met by following this
link. That agenda included consumer information on historic course
GPAs earned in this course.
Sept. 6, 2012: Getting Oriented to the
discipline;
Basic Concepts of Political Science.
Class
agenda projected onto the screen during today's class will be available after class meets: follow this link. As some planned material was not presented, especially on the topic of how Aristotelian methods came to be used by modern political scientists, that topic is discussed more fully below (after the "Announcements").
Additionally, if you would like to go over the PowerPoint used in illustrating this lesson, or to look over the final parts not presented to class due to lack of time, please follow this link.
Announcements:
- Don't forget: the final date to drop or add
this or any other Fall 2011 course is this Friday by 4:30 PM.
You need your advisor's signature on an Add/Drop form (available at the
Registrar's Office, and elsewhere), but you do not need the signature of the
professor whose class you may be dropping.
Major topics likely to be addressed during class today
include:
I. The Origins of Political Science
a. Aristotle and Alexander
b. Aristotle and the inductive method
c. Classifying political systems: who rules?
in whose interest?
II. Evolution of Political Science into a Social
Science
a. to 19th Century: Deductive Philosophizing
vs. inductive study of law and constitutions
b. In the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, social scientists began to systematically observe the real world and
to generalize from what they found. They discovered a U.S. politics
substantially at variance with the image that civic education and the study of
formal government and law had produced. Three authors importantly recast
our understandings of the political: Woodrow Wilson's
"Congressional Government," Arthur F. Bentley's Group Theory,
and C. Wright Mills' Power Elite theory.
In Congressional Government (1885),
political scientist (and future U.S. President) Wilson observed the
actual operations of the U.S. Congress and found structures unmentioned
in the U.S. Constitution to be the key to understanding how laws and
policies actually were made. He focused on the Committee System as
the essence in need of understanding if one is to grasp U.S. politics.
A modern scholar employing Wilson's methods and foci would be likely to
need to be alert to observe changing patterns on Capitol Hill.
Until January 2007, such an approach would have led a scholar to zero
in on the contemporary Republican Party caucus, on (then) Speaker of the
House Dennis Hastert, and on key Committees and subcommittees
of the Congress. The 2006 Congressional election ended Republican
control of the Congress. Once the Democratic Party regained control over
both houses (January 2007), one key thing to watch proved to
be the leadership of the House and Senate. Each leadership team
brought its own approach to the management of House and Senate, with
Sen. Harry Reid injecting a new partisan spirit into the upper chamber.
The actual pattern of power in the lower chamber could not be quickly
discerned, and would
require close attention to the relative influence of leaders, chairs,
and the Democratic Party caucus. Their first year in power indicated that while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi prevailed in
denying the Chair of the Intelligence Committee to the most senior
member, the controversial Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL), she could not
convince the caucus to elect her chosen candidate, Rep. John Murtha
(PA), as second-in-command of the House. Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer
was voted into the role of Majority Leader, instead. Despite
Democratic Party majorities in both houses, routine spending bills could
not be successfully passed during the regular budget cycle. In the
U.S., we simply have "weak parties," i.e., central party authorities
have limited leverage over individual elected party members. For
example, after the landslide Democratic Party victory in the 2008
general election, reluctant "Blue Dog" Democratic Party conservatives in
2009 were a leading source of irritation to the Obama Administration and
its efforts to enlist House and Senate to support its Health Care
initiatives.
Disappointed voters returned control of the House of Representatives to the Republican Party in 2011, and Pres. Obama faced strongly "divided government" with that key chamber now being led by Speaker John Boehner, who proved to be limited in his ability to strike deals with Pres. Obama due to the growing influence of the Tea Party faction within the Republican caucus.
In The
Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures (1908), political
science and sociology professor Bentley moved beyond the legislature and
formal institutions of government entirely, seeking to explain governing
as a response to organized social groups. Bentley argued that all
political activity is best understood as the byproduct of groups'
behaviors. Government continued to be the setting within which
groups' influence was thought by Bentley to be sorted out, but
individuals' actions receded as an explanation for what government does.
Individuals' behavior, Bentley thought, conveyed group identities,
objectives, and became influential primarily when coordinated with
others. The lobbying and influence process surrounding the 2009
mobilization of opposition to the Obama Administration's Health Care
initiatives was a good example of the continuing relevance of interest
groups in understanding "who gets what" in U.S. politics.
In The Power Elite (1956),
sociologist C. Wright Mills took group theory several steps further.
Mills argued that while multiple organized groups may exist in any
society, a unified and much smaller set of individuals and groups
actually hold authoritative power, using it to establish rules and laws,
social norms and customs, and other important relationships that shape
the key decisions. Corporate, military, and to a lesser extent,
political elites congeal to reflect common ideals, outlooks, and goals.
Formal government in this scheme of understanding comes to reflect the
priorities of a "power elite" hidden from easy view. It is this
"power elite" that largely holds final authority without occupying
formal office. While Mills tried to distance his argument from the
Cold War clash of ideologies with which it contemporaneously existed,
many of his key conclusions substantially reinforced similar arguments
made by American and European Marxists, and by other apologists for the
Soviet Union.
Pluralism. In
response to the critical implications of group theory and especially to
rebut Mills' views, pluralist theory was developed by Yale political
scientist Robert Dahl, first in a case study of New Haven, CT (Who Governs?,
1963) and later as a complete theory about American democracy, in
Polyarchy (1972), and many other works. Dahl and the
pluralists who have followed him accept Bentley's and Mills' premise
that Constitutional claims of mass self-government are an illusion, but
they counter the implication Mills drew when he suggested that democracy
in America (and other Western states) therefore was essentially a fraud.
Pluralists follow the Aristotelian tradition of observing politics and
political outcomes. When they do, they find groups and elites
wielding disproportionate influence much like Mills found. But the
pluralists additionally observe that there are multiple elites, that
each elite exercises influence only over some narrow realms of policy,
that elites compete with one another, and that over time no single set
of actors always wins. Thus, while "the people" don't really rule
in modern democracy, multiple actors do rule, in a manner that more
approximates a rich competition among social forces than the unified
"power elite" that Mills and Marxist theory insist exists.
c. Behavioral Science and its influence: The quest
for unified Social Science at U. of Chicago led to:
IV. The System Model of Politics:
To a considerable extent, what follows below is the
intellectual child of the late Gabriel
Almond (Stanford University), author of Comparative Politics: A
Developmental Approach and many other works. The Washington Post reported
that Almond died on Dec. 25,
2002.
a. Basic Definitions
Politics
is any enduring pattern of human
relationships which involves to a significant extent Power, Rule
and Authority, (adapted from Robert Dahl, Modern Political Analysis).
Political science
is the systematic observation,
description, and analysis of politics. It focuses on patterns of politics
as they are made to be binding on all humans in a specific geographic
place, especially as it pertains to the allocation of scarce goods
and the allocation of values.
The political system is a conceptual
framework used
to identify the roles which perform the political functions of exercising
power, making rules, and establishing authority. It summarizes the key
relationships in the interaction of the political system with its environment.
Go here for a visual / graphical depiction of these
concepts.
b. Other terms: In common English, other terms frequently
are used to speaking about a particular political system. However, these each
have narrower, specialized meanings when used in political science:
A Nation: a collective identity
of a people as a result of common history, expectations of a shared future,
and, usually, a common language.
The State: the primary actor in world politics
since 1648. All states possess the following characteristics:
- sovereignty: i.e., it alone manages
its own affairs.
- territory
- population:
- recognition by other states
Nation-state: a modern concept which, since
the French Revolution of 1789, has stressed the political unity and independence
of peoples; i.e.:
state = nation = people.
The Government: The formal offices
which official documents of the State designate as those which perform
the political functions (i.e., Power, Rule, and Authority).
c. The political system: using the biological
metaphor of a life form interacting with its environment
The concept of political system
is more neutral than any of these; it is a framework we can use
to observe the world as we find it, and classify what we observe.
Among the key sets of relationships are modes
of receiving input from the social system,
conversion processes
of translating social
demand and support into rules and decisions about allocations,
and output.
Input
has two main forms, demands and supports.
Demonstrations, voting, lobbying, filing lawsuits, armed uprisings, public
opinion, and choosing not to participate all are forms of input into the
political system.
Conversion processes
vary according to
the informal and the institutional structure of the state: parliamentary,
presidential, military government (etc.) each stipulate different modes
of decision making in response to input.
The key forms of output from the political
system are of two basic types, tangible policies and symbolic
policies. These are directed toward the environment in which the political
system exists and alter it; and are known as domestic policy (when
directed toward the social system in which the political system exists)
and foreign policy (when directed toward the environment beyond
the political system).
Sept. 11, 2012 : Concepts for Studying Democracy Comparatively
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
Today's readings by
Schmitter and Karl is
available online (follow this link); and
Sen also is available here: follow this
link.
Review:
Basic concepts of political science may be reiterated.
Political Science
concepts
and definitions linked here, especially the idea of a political system (or the
System
Model of Politics), are found by following these links, as well as in
the Roskin reading. Along with the chart of Aristotle's
original classification scheme for governments these are of some
importance in understanding what political scientists once studied, and do
study.
Discussion questions about today's readings
(follow
links to photos of each author): Schmitter/Karl;
Sen:
Each author emphasizes the social basis of democratic
political life. In reading them, certain common points may
emerge. The questions below are similar to, but not identical to, the
ones the instructor will use in class to bring out discussion about the
ideas posed by the authors, and your views about these issues:
Questions to ponder when doing the readings:
What does each author suggest is the essence of
democracy?
Is a particular form of government, or a particular
set of institutions, necessary for democracy to succeed?
What social conditions must exist for democracy to
prosper?
Is democratization the same as
"Westernization"? Why or why not?
What do the authors contend about the importance of
capitalism? Have you heard elsewhere other views on this issue?
What do you think on this?
In reading, it also might be helpful to note closely the
concept of civil
society as used in Schmitter and Karl.
Is this concept largely consistent with the argument made
in "democracy and its global roots" by Sen?
Prof. Bowen's response to the ideas in these
readings: Democracy rests on more than mere
elections of rulers, in Britain, in the U.S., or anywhere. It rests on
sustaining over time attitudes appropriate to a
democratic citizenry: a people who have learned to accept the contingent
nature of power (i.e., that legitimate power rests on the periodic
consent of the governed; that those who hold power must have those positions of authority reconfirmed through regularly scheduled free and competitive elections), a people who have developed the ability to respect
the right for others to hold views that differ from their own, who
accept the need to compromise, who build attitudes and institutions that protect the
rights of minorities, and who freely choose to try to solve some social problems
on their own without demanding government action.
Sept. 13, 2012:
The Origins of Liberal Democracy
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
Announcements:
- Assigned readings in this portion of the course suggest that
the standard version of the Crusades students may encounter at College
may be in need of re-thinking. For an interesting read about a
book that looks anew at those collisions between the West and the world
of Islam,
follow this link.
- Student interest in researching the extent to
which democracy exists in foreign states often arises after we address
the content assigned for our last class meeting. Prof. Bowen suggests that a broadly informed set of insights
can readily be gathered about any foreign country by comparative use of the annual human rights and
other reports of the U.S. Department of State, Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House. These sources represent a
range of perspectives. If a problem (e.g.,
violation of freedom of the press, or lack of free and fair elections,
etc.) is identified in each of these, or in
several of these, then a student's level of confidence in the
information should rise. Prof. Bowen called attention to a web page maintained by MBC's
Department of Political Science that facilitates such researches, and
this page is linked here.
- Before class make sure you also have read the Roskin
assignments for the course up to today: check the
course syllabus for exact assignment.
Quote of the
day:
"Democracy
is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have
been tried from time to time."
Winston
Churchill, speech to House of Commons,
Nov.
11, 1947
Roskin (i.e., the core text) on the Origins of Liberal Democracy
will be one of the issues likely to be addressed in class discussion. Questions:
1. Issues raised in the Roskin reading for today included:
Did England give to the world the democratic
idea? Why or why not?
Roskin notes that several influences made democracy
possible in Britain. How did each play a role?
feudalism vs. royal power
royal vs. clerical power
processes of democratizing Parliament
Other Factors: What role was played by:
Key leaders: Henry VIII,
Benjamin Disraeli
Key thinkers:
Key historic changes:
- colonialism
- the industrial revolution
- the scientific revolution
2. Concepts that also are likely to be addressed in class
today include ideology, pragmatism
3. A short video interview of former PM
Mrs.
Margaret Thatcher is planned to be viewed and discussed at this point in the course. In it she discusses her view
of the role of public opinion in British democracy.
Consider what you hear:
-
What
did she say about public opinion, polls, etc.?
-
Is
this view different from that of American politicians?
Why or why not?
-
Would
Americans reject politicians who viewed their opinions as Mrs. Thatcher viewed
those in polls in the U.K.?
4. Additional matters that help get us oriented to
the British approach to politics might come up today. Look over the list of Supplemental Materials
supporting PolS 111 created by
Prof. Bowen
on this website. They have been created to help deepen your understanding of the issues in
the course. Feel free to browse there now
and later, e.g.:
- The readings for today introduce
issues about religion in politics, the phenomenon of anticlerical attitudes
in politics, and
some related themes. Violent disagreement about the role of an
established Church plagued England, especially during the violent 17th
century. But the story does not really end there; there are many other
chapters. How did violent disagreements about religious diversity
in Britain eventually get overcome? The histories of the rights of the
Catholic minority, Jews, Muslims, and others each have something to teach
us. One issue of great concern in the 19th century was how to overcome traditional rules
barring religious minorities from entry
as Members in the British Parliament. Follow this link for the story of the first Jewish member of the
British Parliament.
- In a related context that the
tiff between British journalist Barbara Amiel and the French Ambassador (Fall
2001) also might inform.
- The web supplement: 3
recent British Prime Ministers also might be of value to peruse prior to class.
Prof. Bowen often refers to the varied
backgrounds of three recent Prime Ministers described there. From this
the concept of political socialization can be introduced, with emphasis
being placed on the varied sources of influence not just on "great leaders'
lives" but on our own adult political
attitudes: family values learned in childhood, ethnic/religious identity, peers,
workplace organizations (e.g., union membership) and norms, and dramatic
political events (e.g., Sept. 11, 2001).
This emphasis on the guiding force of
our backgrounds and life experiences, however, can be overdone. Prof. Bowen contends that these varied outside influences, while informative, can be
overestimated as the complete explanation of our attitudes and behavior: our history
is not our destiny. Prof. Bowen subscribes to the underlying philosophic belief that human beings possess free will and through
conscious choice exercise a range of control over their behavior.
You, of course, are free to come up with your own
position on these matters.
Sept. 18, 2012 : British Political
Institutions
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
Preliminaries:
Background
about choosing
leaders in British politics:
- Similarly, results of the British General Election of 2005
can help students understand British political institutions. In that election, British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Labour Government were returned to
office despite widespread public ill ease over the war in Iraq
throughout the United Kingdom. Subsequently, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced on Sept. 7, 2006 that it
was his
intention to resign his office within a year so to provide an
orderly transition of leadership in the Labour Party substantially
in advance of the next general election. He made good on his
promise, retiring from formal office during summer 2007,
and it saddens those of us who have found helpful
his consistent acts and articulate voice in support of American
interests. Blair now serves as chief Middle East negotiator
for the "Quartet" of states and organizations (i.e., the U.N.,
the European Union, Russia, and the U.S.A.) seeking a negotiated
end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The choice of a new Prime Minister fell
to the Labour Party alone, not to the voters. In 2007, a new
leader, Gordon Brown, was chosen by the Labour Party's Members of Parliament;
as party leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, he then became Prime Minister.
For some time in 2007-10, the top leader of the U.K.,
Gordon Brown was a man
who never was understood by the electorate to be their likely Prime
Minister when they voted for a Labour candidate in their district.
This demonstrates that ultimately British government is party government,
and the rule by the leading party it embodies rests on the
periodic consent of the voters more indirectly than is the case
in the U.S. Follow these links to see two charts on the results: 2005
election: seats won by party; and
2005 election:
popular vote by party. Note how narrowly Labour won
in the popular vote, yet was able to assemble a parliamentary
majority nonetheless.
I. Before class:
II. In Class we will
continue to attempt to show relationships between styles of political
leadership and solving problems through the use of government. Part of
this involves learning about British Political Institutions
(developed below). The 2007 film, "The Blair Decade," will form
part of today's class and our next class. Organized around a biography
of the political career of PM Tony Blair (1997-2007), the mechanisms of
political rule and accountability of rulers will be amply portrayed.
A segment will be shown on how Blair took charge of his
Cabinet in 1997, reassured financial markets about the moderate nature of
his government, and managed (with the help of
then U.S. President Bill Clinton and former U.S. Senator George Mitchell in 1998 to secure an agreement to end the violence in Northern Ireland.
This agreement is known as the "Good Friday" Accords. Integral
to the stories told both here and in the film is the importance of political parties:
they are key to selection of leaders for the formal
institutions. Parties also shape the variety in public opinion into two
large blocs, Labour and Conservative, and thus "aggregate" diverse
perspectives into coherent alternative sets from which voters choose.
One way this occurs can be revealed through detailed attention to elections
(below, follow the link about "recruiting and holding leaders accountable").
But another large part is played by leaders themselves: how they comport
themselves, how they unite or divide the public and their party through their use of language and
through the staging of political events. Blair, who held office for
ten years, was a master of these political arts.
An overview of the main points that will likely be covered follows:
-the Westminster Model
-Recruiting and holding leaders
accountable: the impact of the Single Member District system, which is
to reinforce the Two Party Dominant system
-the paths to power followed
by recent British leaders
-role of political parties
- Other comparisons to USA, Germany, Russia
Here is greater detail on British Political
Institutions, matters which
also are addressed in the Roskin text.
- The Main Features of the Westminster
Model:
Responsible Government: merging Executive
and Legislative Power
Party Government
Cabinet Government: Collective Responsibility
- Comparing Executives: UK Prime Minister and US President
Contrasting their Legislative Powers
Describing and exemplifying the informal Checks that exist on the Powers of
the Prime Minister
Contrasting
these with the formal processes in the U.S.
- Comparing Legislatures: Commons and Congress
The role of the presiding officer
in the legislature, the Speaker of the House:
in the U.S., the Speaker is the partisan leader of the largest party in the
House. He (John Boehner) can utilize her power of the gavel to favor
her
party to the extent the rules of the House allow it. Thus, when his Republican predecessor in Nov. 2003 had introduced an
omnibus appropriations bill but it failed to secure enough votes to pass in the
allotted time, the (then) Speaker Dennis Hastert extended the voting time for three
hours so that Republican supporters could return to the Capitol and
vote. In Britain, on the
other hand, the Speaker is non-partisan, and is there to keep order,
only.
Form of Debate: in the House of
Commons it is considered bad form to speak using notes or to carry on for more
than 20 minutes. In the U.S., senators and representatives may speak from notes --even read them-- and the practice of filibuster
(in the Senate, only) can lead to very long speeches. Often these wander off
the topic; in one instance the DC phone book was read aloud simply to consume
time. The purpose of debate in Commons ordinarily is to exchange views
between those supporting the Government legislation and their opponents as
these disagreements concern proposed legislation or administrative problem
cases. In Congress, debate in the full chamber often is used as a stalling
tactic to impede passage of legislation already vetted in Committees.
This is done in the House of Representatives by proposing dilatory
amendments; and in the Senate by this practice plus by the filibuster.
Focus of Legislation.
In a nutshell, British legislation focuses on national issues, whereas much
legislation in Congress focuses on matters of concern to particular localized
districts (in Britain: "constituencies") and interest groups. An excellent example of this was
on display in Washington during the week of August 22-26, 2005, as the
recommendations of a nonpartisan military base closing commission each were
put to separate debate and votes on the floor of the House of
Representatives. Representatives on both sides of the aisle (i.e.:
Democrats and Republicans) equally weighed in to preserve bases in their
district, some successfully and others not. Similarly, the August 2010 announcement by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that he would recommend the closing of a major Joint Operations Center in Norfolk, VA has begun to engender broad, bipartisan opposition in the Hampton Roads region. If the essence of politics
is "who gets what, when and how," in America the Congressional votes to approve, or disallow, such recommendations definitely
reveal who is going to get their bread buttered and who is going to be left
with not a slice. It is not always a partisan matter; often Democratic and Republican Party lawmakers from the same region agree on a common position. This is because the money generated by a military base pours into a
community in the form of wages paid to service personnel, formal
expenditures by the base (e.g. for concrete from a local supplier), and
support for local businesses (e.g., hairdressers, car dealerships,
restaurants) provided by off duty expenditures by base personnel. Take
away that payroll and away go local non-military jobs. The
struggle to retain military bases forms among the best examples of
Congressmen and women "bringing home the pork" ... when our representatives
can keep the one (or more than one) in our district open, lots of people
benefit. Other routine forms of this are highway building, defense
contracting, etc. In 2009-10, competition for Economic Stimulus monies manifested this pattern. But, unlike the U.S., in Britain there is
little tradition of "pork barrel politics" -- legislation designed to
"bring home the bacon" to a member's district, paid for by the taxpayers
of the whole country. Legislators there who fail to bring lavish
spending to a locale need not fear the wrath of voters in the same way
American legislators may. The political culture in Britain simply
doesn't expect this from their representatives.
Role and Function of Committees.
In the 1880s, Wilson wrote "Congress in session is Congress on display,
whereas Congress in Committee is Congress at work." This remains as
true today as 125 years ago. In Britain, the committees once were ad hoc committees,
created only if desired by the Government; and
such ad hoc committees dissolved upon completion of the assigned task.
In recent decades, standing committees resembling those in the U.S. have
been instituted. Membership typically represents all three major
British parties. But legislation considered is introduced to the House
only with approval of the Government.
Place of Legislature
in the "Opportunity Structure."
Political scientist Joseph Schlesinger referred to the ladder of offices through which politicians
can climb to achieve the top executive positions as the "opportunity structure." In Britain, Commons is
virtually the sole opportunity structure in which major parties groom, evaluate, and recruit
Cabinet members, party leaders, and ultimately when they win elections, Prime
Ministers. In the U.S. few sitting members of Congress have become
president in recent decades, and few losing presidential candidates have contemporaneously
been members of the national legislature, either. Mr. John Kerry, 2004
candidate for President of the Democratic Party, was the exception in this regard.
Sen. Barack Obama resigned his Senate seat to devote full time to his successful
2008 presidential campaign. The more
frequent penultimate role of presidents is that of state governor. Think
of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan. American voters
often have seemed to prefer presidential
contenders with state executive experience.
The
legislature, of course, makes some key decisions; even in the U.S. it is not just
about "pork." E.g., when
then Pres. Bush sought to reform the Medicare program, the particulars were
fashioned in Congress, not the White House. In signing the bill, he
admitted the final form of the reform as "not perfect," but signed
it anyway. This reflected the important legislative role of the U.S. Congress. In Britain, great decisions also must pass through the
legislature. Looking at the
British politics of going to War, for example, despite widespread public
opposition, by a vote of 412 to 149 the House of Commons
on March 18, 2003 authorized British armed forces to use "all means necessary"
toward Iraq. This granted legal authority to wage war there alongside the
USA. (The U.S. Congress had delegated this decision to Pres. Bush in
October 2002, in a divided and somewhat partisan
vote.). Contrarily, in Britain, substantial majorities of both major parties supported the resolution,
though approximately 140 members of parliament for Labour voted against Prime
Minister Blair on the issue. Go
here to view charts breaking down this vote by party, as well as illustrating
earlier votes on this topic.
Recruiting
Leaders: the role of political parties and of electoral forms is crucial in
Britain, and requires a more full explanation:
1.
An illustration of the
outcome of the
May 2010 General Election can be accessed by following this link.
2.
An illustration using the May 2005
General Election can be accessed by following this link.
3. Follow
this link to see an explanation of how British (and American) forms of
elections tend to sustain a political party system in which two political
parties dominate.
Other questions for discussion:
Roskin discusses "devolution" as a large goal
once set by the Blair Administration (1997-2007). What limits were there to this
process? E.g., consider Northern Ireland: how readily did the power of the central
government (i.e., in London) there
"devolve" to local authorities as Blair initially intended? Why?
- Go here to read more about
Britain
in Northern Ireland in general.
- For more about the Northern Ireland situation: Prof. Roskin outlined another minority issue in the U.K.,
Britain's problem in Northern Ireland, and the film shown in class
today will explore that problem. The British Irish headache may have
temporarily gotten an aspirin, as Nationalist
and Unionist leaders in Ulster agreed in 2007 to compose a power sharing cabinet. It convened in May 2007, and operated
fairly smoothly, 2007-09. (Read more about it by following
this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6518929.stm).
However, in January 2010, the agreement to share power between
Protestant (i.e., Democratic Unionist Party) and Catholic (i.e., Sinn
Fein party) political parties within the agreed upon Power Sharing
Cabinet and chief executive threatened to break down over the issue of
local control over the police. Fearful that local police would be
too responsive to Sinn Fein objections to traditional Protestant
parades, Democratic Unionists long delayed the transfer of control over
the police from British to Northern Irish hands. Viewing this as
an indication of Protestant unwillingness to genuinely cooperate with
Catholics in building a new Northern Ireland free from sectarianism,
Sinn Fein threatened to quit the Power Sharing Executive in which their
party leader, Martin McGuinness, served as Deputy Prime Minister.
(Go
here for details). After a long period of bargaining, control
over the police was transferred to Northern Ireland authorities in 2010.
Sept. 20, 2012 : Contemporary British Leadership and British Political Culture
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
- Before class, be sure to read Chapter 4
of Roskin, and Vernon Bogdanor, “The Historic Legacy of Tony Blair,”
Current History (March 2007):
http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/BogdanorOnTonyBlair.pdf .
- Optional. Free speech versus security in democracies. France in 2010 enacted a law to ban the wearing of the Burqa and the Hijab (a head-to-toe garment obscuring the eyes, and a similar garment with head coverings but with an eye slit, respectively; both chosen by some Islamic women). Does this choice cross a line democracies should not dare to cross? Read more here.
- Tony Blair and his way of governing the U.K. was featured in our most recent class. Optional: Two resources may be of interest to students learning about Blair and British Government in the last two decades:
an excerpt from Blair's 2010 memoir A Journey appeared in the Sept. 13, 2010 edition of Time, and a challenging confrontation with Jon Stewart went on for more than a half hour on the Daily Show of Sept. 14, 2010. Check these items out for an enriched look into the current section of our course.
- Meet the leaders of the British Government and
Opposition
: Prime
Minister David Cameron's Coalition Cabinet; and the somewhat less detailed information BBC has provided about The Shadow
Cabinet of the Labour Party
.
Agenda:
1.
Preliminaries: Questions / comments on the British Political
System, and on the film "The Blair Decade," will be entertained.
2.
Key Elements of the British system of political leadership. Make sure you have clearly in
mind the institutional
structure of the U.K., and the impact this has on leadership, parties,
etc. . (Follow the link to
those notes).
3.
Political Culture and its role in British Politics
will be the main focus in class today.
4. Video on the career in office of Prime Minister Tony Blair
will likely be continued, as we deepen our familiarity with the customs of how the role of Prime Minister fits into the British political system. Pay attention to Blair's style of leadership, and to how effectively the British system was able to hold him accountable for his actions in office. Issues raised in the film today will include insights into Blair's own Christian religious orientation (he converted to Catholicism while in office); his successful
re-election campaigns (2001, 2005); his rocky relations with his
own Cabinet; relations with the U.S. after 9/11, and in regard to the Iraq War; and managing popular opinion about that conflict in
his later years as Prime Minister. Again, his
relationship with his Labour Party colleague Gordon Brown will be another important
focus. These emphases in the film are as they should be: ultimately, in 2007, Blair stepped down and the Labour Party passed the
office of Prime Minister to Brown.
Brown was defeated in the General
Election of May 2010, at which time the Conservative Party, in coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party, returned to power
for the first time since 1997. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, now serves as Prime Minister; Nick Clegg, the Lib-Dem leader, is Deputy Prime Minister.
5. Discussion of the video and readings will follow. To get things
started, consider the following:
Britain's political parties present
themselves as reflecting a broad divide in British society, a gap
associated with different economic classes.
-
Consider the
actual social class backgrounds of
recent British leaders. How well, if at all, have recent British Prime
Ministers actually reflected a class basis for the British party system?
How well do American contending Presidential candidates of the Democratic and
Republican parties?
Review
issues:
Britain
is a stable democracy and the electoral system links the popular will to the
authority of the Government.
But
is the electoral system in Britain democratic?
Why
or why not?
Why, even though now three parties have major roles in British politics,
does Britain still essentially have a 2 Party System?
How is it related to their
system of elections, the Single
Member District system? If a planned national referendum on changing the election laws passes, how would the outcome be likely to effect future Parliaments?
What
advantage does a 2 Party System have as a means of organizing a Government
between elections?
What,
if anything, is lost by having one?
Political
Culture
Political
Culture
is a concept developed in the 1960s by Gabriel Almond (Stanford University,
now retired). He defined it as:
“the
underlying... attitudes, beliefs, values, and skills that are current in an
entire population, as well as those ... patterns ....found within separate
parts of that population... [which] we refer to as subcultures.”
Almond
believed that in studying political systems, one needs to examine both the structures
that perform the political functions, and the political culture.
“As
we learn about the structure and culture of
a political system, our capacity to characterize its properties, and to
predict and explain its performance, is improved.”
Gabriel
Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Comparative Politics: A Developmental
Approach (Boston: Little-Brown, 1966): 23-24.
II.
British Political Culture
Key
terms. What is meant by each?
civility.
pragmatism.
legitimacy.
respect
for authority.
non-violence.
Patterns
in British Politics. What role is
played by, and how is each an example of the structure of British political
culture?
-
class
(in voting behavior)
-
region
(in voting behavior)
-
the
‘public school’ - Oxbridge phenomenon
Sept. 25, 2012: British
Party Politics: the role of infighting in the demise of the Labour Government; Blair and the
legacy of the Iraq
War; fox hunting; the degree of fit between today's coalition partners (Conservatives, Lib-Dems).
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link
As we prepare for class today, the Blair Administration (1997-2007) will be addressed further in
a reading, "Blood Sport," that looks into the legislative process followed
when his Government came under pressure to ban fox hunting. Narrow as
the particular issue was, the difficulties
this issue posed politically provide insight into the nature of British
party politics. Relations with the U.S.
in the 2000's, and Blair's role in bringing Britain into the Iraq War have
in earlier classes depicted other dimensions in the simmering resentment of
Blair's choices that many Labour M.P.s, Cabinet Ministers, and voters came
to hold. Though these issues were not identical to his problems in his relations with his Chancellor of the Exchequer (and subsequent Prime Minister) Gordon Brown,
managing the various factions of the Labour Party ultimately proved to be
Blair's greatest challenge. These were issues that arose in earlier classes, as depicted in "The Blair Decade."
Additionally, the terrorist attack in Britain
of July 7, 2005 (depicted in the film), shaped Blair's role orientation, and
further complicated his relations with Labour factions that were made uneasy
by the "law and order" emphasis Blair put on counter-terrorism efforts, and on the Iraq War.
Matters introduced in the film regarding new limits on civil liberties in the U.K.
imposed by Blair may be discussed.
Before class be sure you have read (required):
Supplemental (optional materials) include:
Sept. 27, 2012: Contemporary Issues in British
Politics: Multiculturalism and extremism
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link
Today, multiculturalism and the toxic
manifestation of some Muslims' extremism in the U.K.
will be our topics. How the British governments have responded is
an important question of policy with implications for all democracies. We will begin our meeting with a brief quiz, then will review what we recall about Tony Blair's response to the terrorist attack on the London transit system of July 7, 2005. Two brief films may be shown to stimulate awareness of the problems (see below).
Of relevance is this required reading:
Supplemental (optional) materials that support
in-depth student learning about the topics of Thursday's class
include:
- A Feb. 2, 2012 news item from BBC concerning the culmination in guilty pleas in court for a group of Islamist terrorists who attempted to bomb the London Stock Exchange. Link includes video.
- A November 2009 article about a group of Muslims in the U.K. who have decided to abandon the war
against the West, which also is available at its original
source, The Independent (of London).
- A news item from Sept. 19, 2011: "British Police Arrest 7 in Suspected Islamist Terror Plot in Birmingham," Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2011: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/british-police-arrest-7-people-in-anti-terror-operation/2011/09/19/gIQArLzVeK_story.html
- Colin Fernandez,
"Wear the hijab or I'll kill you, cousin told girl': Muslim tells of terrifying phone threats," Daily Mail (London, UK: Jan. 19, 2011): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348389/Muslim-woman-told-wear-hijab-Ill-kill-cousin.html#ixzz1BVY0rHzh
- Kevin Sullivan, "British
Press-Freedom Case Involves Anti-Terrorism Law," Washington Post
(May 21, 2008): 11. This is a news update about Hassan Butt,
the individual featured in a brief video we will view today from CBS
"60 Minutes" (March 2007)
- "The
New Anti-Semitism," a September 4, 2007, Washington Post
editorial by Denis MacShane, chair of the British commission of
parliamentarians that issued a 2006 report on anti-Semitism in
Britain.
- Robert Solomon Wistrich, "Anti-Semitism
Embedded in British Culture," Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs 70, 1 (July 2008). An historic overview.
- James Brandon, "The Changing Face of
Salafi-Jihadi Movements in the United Kingdom," CTC Sentinal
v.1, n. 2 (West Point, NY: Combatting Terrorism Center, January 2008): 4-5, http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/the-changing-face-of-salafi-jihadi-movements-in-the-united-kingdom .
- Pew Center for Research; "Muslim
Americans..." (report
summary; or
full report)
- A very brief YouTube statement by
a member of the
British House of Lords (and other experts) from a conference on
radicalization within Islam (January 2010, Herzliya, Israel).
In light of the transitions from P.M. Tony Blair
to P.M. Gordon Brown (2007), and ultimately to David Cameron (2010), the issues which unite and which divide the
parties in the U.K. are of current and lasting interest.
An excerpt (i.e., chapter 4) from the 2006 film "Ever Again"
may be shown
in class. Narrated by Hollywood actor Kevin Costner, this documentary
from Moriah Films of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (Santa
Monica, CA) focuses on the rise of extremism throughout Europe in the first decade of our current century. We
will view the segment about the U.K. Content in the "Ever
Again" segment is meant to stimulate discussion about how democracies have responded, and how they ought to respond, to the threat posed by terrorists.
-
You may be
interested in these additional resources on the topic. Especially of
interest is the January 2007 study of British Muslims' opinions about
various topics (i.e., including attitudes toward terrorist organizations
such as Al Qaeda) released by the British think
tank The Policy Exchange.
Roskin's earlier chapters as
well as today's readings concern the challenge of managing multi-cultural
societies. These serious issues warrant more
attention than Prof. Roskin gave to them, and we will give some focus to it in class
today.
Background:
According to the 2001
British census, there were 1.7 million Muslims living in the
U.K., or 2.7 percent of the population.
Consider and think critically in preparation for
our discussions: Roskin says in today's readings that Britain and other
European countries "do not handle immigration very well. The
United States handles it much better, precisely because we are all
immigrants or their descendants." Do you agree, disagree,
or have a comment? The following resources may help inform an
answer:
- Early in 2007, the private British
think tank "Policy Exchange" issued a study of attitudes of
British Muslims. The study, "Living
Apart Together: British Muslims and the Paradox of
Multiculturalism", is worth reading in its entirety as
it documents a growing problem. The study demonstrates
that younger British Muslims (i.e., those aged 16-24) are
more inclined to various disturbing attitudes and behaviors
when compared to either non-Muslims or to older British
Muslims.
- More than one third of the younger
sample (i.e., 37 percent) would prefer to live under shari'a
law, rather than under the British laws.
- Thirty-six percent of the younger
sample believe that a Muslim who converts to another
religion should be punished by death.
- More than one in ten (i.e., 13
percent) young British Muslims "admire organizations like Al Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West."
- Nearly three in four (74 percent) of
the younger sample would prefer Muslim women to wear the
veil; only 28 percent of those over 55 feel this way.
- At page 14, the study also cites
polls done by other organizations that indicate that among
British Muslims between six percent and 22 percent of
British Muslims sympathized with the July 2005 bombers of
the London subways and buses. In one poll cited, 31
percent of British Muslims aged 18-24 thought those bombings
were justified.
- Some toxic
problems are not limited to minority communities. In Sept. 2006,
the U.K. Government issued a "Report
of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism."
While Muslim extremists most are faulted in it (i.e., "we conclude that a
minority of Muslim extremists in this country do incite hatred toward
the Jews," p. 53), the Inquiry report also focuses on trends within the
majority community. It discusses, among other things, several
personalities who will have been introduced to the class in the film "Ever Again,"
including (former) London Mayor Ken Livingstone, and it mentions his ongoing
efforts to legitimize groups that openly declare themselves committed to causing harm to
individual British Jews. The 2006 Government Report documents allegations made in the film
of rising anti-Semitic violence in London and elsewhere in the U.K., and
analyzes the disturbing trends associated with these phenomena,
including rising "campus anti-Semitism" on British university campuses
(p. 54), and a "patchy" pattern of response to this by university
officials even though "Jewish students feel disproportionately
threatened in British universities" (p. 42). If PolS 111 students
find these assessments unconvincing, Prof. Bowen calls further attention to a news
item from fall 2006 (as reported in the online Jerusalem Post),
regarding
a controversy within the opposition Liberal Democratic
Party over the public use of anti-Semitic stereotypes by one of its
members of the House of Lords: Baroness Jenny Tonge.
- A web page developed by Prof. Bowen that discusses British restrictions
on civil liberties in
general also is
linked here. The task of protecting the rights of persons to
express unpopular opinions often collides with other legitimate state
interests, such as stopping illegal behaviors. Managing this
tension is a difficult area of policy for all democracies.
- Events have a way of reinforcing
even very recent films. The
suspects arrested in the September 2006 London-based plot to bomb airliners on
their way to the U.S. is a case in point. The war on the West that
some still call the Global War on Terrorism most assuredly is not a
global war of the "have nots" against us wealthy Westerners.
Most of the arrested men (and women) in that ongoing case came from
stable, middle class households, and were not themselves in any direct
sense "deprived" people. Two were British citizens who recently had converted
to Islam. To read the corroborating evidence, go to this
August 11, 2006 news story in the London Times, or see
the Policy Exchange study cited above. (Updates on this matter
from students will happily be received: send them in via email). Court trials establishing
the guilt
of several specific individuals reached their guilty verdicts in 2009.
Oct. 2: No class meeting. Apple Day
Oct. 4, 2012: Introduction to Germany
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class: follow this link.
Contemporary German
Politics: updating the textbook. Germany held its most recent general election on Sunday Sept. 27, 2009,
and Chancellor Angela Merkel (above left) led her Christian Democratic Party to victory
(link
to her victory speech and celebration, dubbed into English).
Parliamentary election results for the Bundestag (i.e., German lower house)
figures released by the German electoral authorities indicated
that her party (the CDU/CSU)
won 33.8 percent of the popular vote, and on this basis formed a Government in coalition with the Free Democratic Party (FDP),
which won 14.6 percent of the popular vote.
The 2009-2013 Bundestag thus has 622 seats with
the governing coalition holding 332 of them (see charts, below). FDP
Leader Guido Westerwelle (above right) became foreign minister, as
tradition holds. (The opposition parties are: the Social Democratic
Party with 23 percent of the popular vote, the Left Party with 11.9 percent
of the popular vote, and the Green Party with 10.7 percent of the popular
vote (figures from the German Government website). The German election system is a somewhat complicated fusion of direct
election in single member districts and proportional representation of
parties' nationwide support. The electoral system is built around a
two ballot method in which voters cast one vote for their district's
representative, and one vote for a party. Seats are distributed to
parties according to the second or party list vote for parties, but only
those parties that receive 5% of the overall nationwide party vote receive
seats. For complete explanation of the rules, follow this link.
September 2009 German General
Election:
source for graphs above:
http://www7.dw-world.de/bw2009/dw_bw_de/html_php/index_en_dw.html
For more complete depiction of the
results, follow this link.
To view
an interactive map with the exact result by party for each of the 299
voting districts, follow
this link and then click on the word
"constituencies" on that
page.
Before class today, read: essay on Germany
, from its start through the Empire
period (i.e., to 1918).
Map
collections used to illustrate this class meeting are linked here, e.g.
Empire Period,
Weimar Era,
Nazi Era
before 1939.
topic: The German Nation and the German States
1.
Final student questions/comments about the Britain unit will be entertained as
class begins.
2. Stages of German Political Evolution
and the Qualities of the German Empire, 1871-1918, are issues scheduled for
attention today.
A brief review
on "The Weak Foundation for German Democracy,"
will likely stress points such as:
a. Government: The German Empire (1871-1918) as an Authoritarian
Political System
b. Politics: Hyper-Ideological parties, little power
c. Society: dependence on the State; migration and emigration; social
strain
a. Political Science terms and concepts also need to be
understood to follow this whole section of the course. Can you define, apply these?
b. Q and A will then probe the qualities of politics and society in the Empire;
other issues that may arise could include: how Prussian economic patterns had
impact on Germany; and how the geo-strategic position of Germany affected German
society and government. (Questions on this may be asked)
c. Why
did events in Russia known as the pogroms have
impact on relations among social groups and politics in Germany? It would be
helpful if some of you have thought through an answer to that which you
would share.
Oct. 9, 2012: Germany's first democracy, The Weimar
Republic
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
Announcements:
- Following up on the course's recent focus on Islamists' extremism and the dangers posed by them to the U.K. and to us, Prof. Bowen calls attention to this linked news item from the U.K. provided courtesy of his colleague at another institution, Jamal Hassan. The news report in the British online publication The Journal Live concerns a British Airlines employee,
Rajib Karim, who currently is on trial for terrorism offenses related to sabatoge against airliners flying from the U.K. to the U.S.A., and other crimes related to his aspiration to become a suicide terrorist. Mr. Karim is originally from Bangladesh.
Before class today, read:
essay on Germany
, from its start through the
Empire
period (i.e., to 1918) and the
Weimar Republic.
Map
collections used to illustrate this class meeting are linked here,
Weimar Era,
Nazi Era
before 1939.
Tidbits from
history: The 1933 Reichstag Fire:
The Feb. 27,
1933 Reichstag (i.e., parliament building) Fire was an event
used by the Nazis to justify their repression of opposition
groups during the election campaign of March 1933.
To view a
picture of this event,
follow this link to a photo of it in a collection of
photos about Nazi Era Propaganda at the U.S. Holocaust
Memorial Museum (Washington, D.C.). The
exhibit features many campaign posters and other period
pieces, with translations into English. The person
accused by the Nazis as the instigator of the arson was a Dutch anti-fascist and others were
charged by the Nazis as part of communist, not a Jewish,
conspiracy against the German Government. Later
historians have reached different conclusions than did the
German courts of that era, conclusions that also differ from
those drawn by the first generation of independent
historians. Ian Kershaw (Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris,
NY: Norton, 2000) used archival materials in the Soviet
Archives to support his alternative thesis that the Nazis
themselves set the fire in order to create a pretext for
their round-up of Communists as part of the election
manipulation of 1933.
The Weimar Republic, 1919-33, is likely to be the major focus today. In reading about it, pay attention to these issues
(among other things):
a. The Cultural Legacy of the
Empire
b. Birth Pains: A divisive rebellion, then the onerous
Versailles
Treaty
c. Political Institutions Exacerbate Conflict
-
Electoral
/ Representation system
- Constitutional flaws:
Article
48
d.
Economic
collapse
e. Emergence of anti-democratic political movements
f. Behavior of the public officials responsible for
protecting the Constitution, 1928-33
Oct. 11, 2012:
The Nazi
Regime and the moral consequences of it.
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
Announcements: Read and
digest the rest of the Bowen essay on Germany, i.e. the sections on the
Nazi regime,
genocide, and the
case study on the
Holocaust in Lithuania, ASAP please.
Extra Credit oral reports can be delivered on
Feb. 16 (i.e., the date of our next class), if you have read and written a book review essay of
Fogelman or Hallie (see syllabus).
A resource on German political history maintained by the Bundesarchiv of the Federal Republic may interest students. Sections
include documents and pictures from the Weimar Republic, the Nazi Era,
the German Democratic Republic (i.e, communist East Germany), and the
Federal Republic.
Follow this link to browse and learn.
I call my students' attention to an interesting article related to this section of our course (and to some eye opening comments about it that reveal the problems it discusses are not confined to the Arab world), recently appeared in the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard University. Read it here: Eric T. Justin, "Protocols of the Elders of Crazy: on anti-semitism in the Arab World," (October 3, 2011).
I. Video: "Out of the Ashes" by
Abba
Eban
This film was part of a nine part PBS series that
won the coveted Peabody Award for excellence in journalism in 1984.
Students who have further interest in today's film can find supporting information
from the film's broadcasters, including
links to
supporting resources, a timeline of the whole set of episodes in the
film series (including
this era), and
resources for
teachers making up lessons on this era. The film is available for purchase from the
Hartley Film Foundation.
PolS concept related to this section of the
course: Totalitarianism
Think critically about the issues as you view "Out of the Ashes." Write down any questions you have;
raise them if you wish in class discussion. If you prefer anonymity, email
them to the instructor and they may be used in subsequent classes.
II. Discussion of film and issues it raised.
The thesis of Daniel Goldhagen in Hitler's
Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (NY: Knopf, 1996)
may be introduced during discussion. Goldhagen probes the origins of German
anti-Semitism and finds deep roots in German political culture, an explanation
at odds with others who see political anti-Semitism in Germany as largely a
byproduct of propaganda and agitation created by a small group who seized
control of the German state during the Nazi era. This book is among those available for
extra credit essays and oral reports.
III. Activities of value prior to
this class, or after it in preparation for subsequent class meetings:
- Think about your prior
learning about the Holocaust and related topics. This also may guide you to
questions and reflection about this section of the course.
- The value of visiting the
United
States Holocaust Museum in Washington
DC also is to be emphasized. (Their online exhibits are a great
educational tool, but a half day spent viewing the museum's exhibits is
the best way to gain access to the important story that is retold
there. We are only 140 miles -- a 2 1/2 hour road trip-- from the
Museum).
- Students also should digest fully the
assigned
reading on this topic. The section on Lithuania
may prove especially instructive.
- Renting and viewing the video of the film "The Nasty
Girl" also can help a student grasp how post-war Germany has wrestled with
the issues. This feature film should be readily available, but if you
can't find it,
Prof. Bowen will be glad to loan his copy to students.
- The Handouts / web pages prepared by
Prof. Bowen, "Trivializing
Nazism and the Holocaust:" and
"Applied
Hatred: the case of the Columbia disaster as seen in
contemporary Middle East," also attempt to make a
focus on prejudice as a modern phenomenon come alive. In this light,
- I also call my students' attention to an interesting article (and to some eye opening comments about it that reveal the problems it discusses are not confined to the Arab world), that recently appeared in the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard University. Read it here: Eric T. Justin, "Protocols of the Elders of Crazy: on anti-semitism in the Arab World," (October 3, 2011). The exchange below that article about Justin's year in Jordan, which is more an argument that pits the views of various current Harvard students against one another, makes especially jarring reading.
Oct. 16, 2012:
Responding to Genocide:
the "Rescuer phenomenon"
Class
agenda to be projected onto the screen today is available
now: follow this link.
Activities of value prior to
class:
- Think about "Out of the Ashes". Write down any questions you have on our unit thus far;
some may be included in class, but you need not be identified if you prefer
anonymity; email
them to the instructor.
- Think about your prior
learning about the Holocaust and related topics. This also may guide you to
questions and reflection about this section of the course. Again, either
pose them in class or email
them to the instructor prior to class.
- The value of visiting the United
States Holocaust Museum in Washington
DC also is to be emphasized. (Their online exhibits are a great
educational tool, but a half day spent viewing the museum's exhibits is
the best way to gain access to the important story that is retold
there. We are only 140 miles -- a 2 1/2 hour road trip-- from the
Museum). One item available online pertains to today's content on
rescuers. It is in their "Voices of Anti-Semitism" podcast
series, which includes this six minute testimony by survivor Johanna Neumann, who relates
her feelings about her enigmatic rescuers in Albania, the Pilku
family, who both behaved with sensitivity toward those she rescued
and yet admired Hitler. I recommend it.
- Students also should digest fully the assigned
reading on this topic. The section on Lithuania may prove especially instructive.
- Renting and viewing the video of the film "The Nasty
Girl" also can help a student grasp how post-war Germany has wrestled with
the issues. Online vendors may have this feature film; if they don't,
Prof. Bowen will be glad to loan interested students his copy.
- The Handouts / webpages prepared by
Prof. Bowen, "Trivializing
Nazism and the Holocaust:" and
"Applied
Hatred: the case of the Columbia disaster as seen in
contemporary Middle East," also attempt to make a
focus on prejudice as a modern phenomenon come alive.
1. Any volunteers who wish to deliver oral reports on
Hallie or Fogelman may do so. Oral Reports on Fogelman, "Conscience and
Courage" or on Hallie, "Lest Innocent Blood..." may be presented
today for extra credit. To receive extra credit for the oral report, a
written book review on the book must be turned in. This may be
done at the start of class today, or at any course meeting to receive extra credit.
But to get the extra credit, the written book review essay must also be
done.
Prof. Bowen may explain some of Fogelman's methods used in coming to her conclusions; and some of her insights (to the extent
that student oral reports focus on other matters).
2. Two films will also be part of class this week.
A film shown today, "Courage
to Care," will depict the rescuer phenomenon. It will reinforce content of student oral reports, as several of the key personalities in the extra credit books are interviewed in the film.
3.
Other discussion questions:
What does the German experience, 1871-1945,
show us:
- about the majority rule formula and the potential for a "tyranny
of the majority"?
- about the qualities of leadership?
E.g., what difference is there between leadership in a democracy and
the Nazis' concept of the "Leadership Principle"?
- about German political culture?
- about the relationship of attitudes of prejudice and racism to policies
of genocide? E.g., was prejudice a sufficient condition to produce
genocide, or were other elements (e.g., a totalitarian state; a
racialist ideology) needed?
4. Prof. Bowen will likely emphasize that while prejudice
and racism have existed broadly in many societies throughout history, genocidal state policies have
been rare. In 20th century Europe, experience has demonstrated that
genocide required:
- the
joining together of large state bureaucracies with industrial - scale processes
of death production, and
- the conversion of free presses
into instruments of propaganda and mass hate, and
- the organized fanning of the
flames of social prejudice through the legal, political, and military
apparatuses of totalitarian states.
Even with all these present, policies
of genocide were to a significant extent cloaked by a fog of wartime in order to operate.
Genocide outside of Europe
(e.g., in Cambodia, 1975-79; Rwanda, 1994) appears to have been less dependent
upon large state bureaucracies and the existence of an industrial stage of
national development.
Prof. Bowen's primer on
Fogelman's "Conscience and Courage":
Eva Fogelman bases part of her book on theories
developed by others:
Latane
and Darley’s Theory informed part of her work:
- noticing
that something is wrong
- interpreting
the situation as one in which people need help
- assuming
responsibility to offer that help
- choosing
a form of help
- implementing
that help
Eva
Fogelman presents a Classification Scheme of 5 types of motivations of
rescuers:
1.
moral rescuers:
-ideological,
e.g., Irene Gut Opdyke: seekers of justice
-religious,
e.g. , Nelly
Trocmé
-emotional
2.
Judeophiles
3.
Concerned
professionals
4.
network rescuers, e.g. the Danes
5.
child rescuers
Other
Interesting Points in Fogelman:
Socialization
matters:
“rescuers’
acts grew out of their basic character, their core values and self
images” p.169; early childhood very important; rescuer childhood homes
were where fathers reasoned rather than threatened.
-rescuers
frequently were first born, or had cared for younger siblings
-many
rescuers themselves had hard childhood illnesses, or had suffered recent
loss of loved one, establishing empathy with victims
Sometimes
we really are "islands":
-self
interest (broadly defined) was the central motive; few of “John Dunne’s people” found (p. 158)
-being a
witness while in a group inhibits individuals’ from undertaking
rescue actions
-rescuers
usually were asked to help
Rescuing
is about values, not training, not gender. This evidence decisively rebuffs the gender based
morality hypothesis offered by feminist Carol Gilligan.
-only 5%
of rescuers were trained professionals in the “caring professions”
-men,
women equally represented among all types of rescuers
Even
in rescuing, life isn’t fair
-Who to
rescue: girls > boys;
younger > older
-being a
rescuer transformed the individual, creating a “rescuer self.” Sometimes this alienated rescuer from family, spouses, lovers.
-After
the war, many rescuers were not accepted back into their communities and
had to emigrate.
Oct. 18, 2012:
De-Nazification: Societal and Institutional Change in Germany
after 1949
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
Announcements:
- For those interested in learning more about the persistence of Holocaust denial, and about the specific ways in which this form of organized hatred of the Jews acts as a barrier to the mutual understanding necessary for peace among the peoples of the contemporary Middle East, please see this Fall 2011 article on U.N. efforts to include Holocaust education in the curricula of schools they operate in Gaza and Jordan. Note: U.S. tax dollars form the largest source of funding for these U.N. schools.
- Midterm is
soon: Please purchase Blue
Books / Green Books at Bookstore, bring them to Midterm exam on Feb. 28, 2012 .
A short video from the CBS "60 Minutes" program (Jan. 9, 1994) entitled "Passau and the Nasty Girl" will be shown in class today.
It is a case study of de-Nazification in post-war Germany : Broadcast originally on January 9, 1994, it tells the story of Anna Rosmus and her experiences as a German schoolgirl with an interest in her town during the Nazi era, beginning with her investigations as a middle school student in 1981. How the town (Passau) reacted to her inquiries and research papers is retold on the video. The segment depicts not only one small city under National
Socialism, but the enduring impact of that period on modern Germans. A feature film, "The Nasty Girl," may be rented which also tells Anna Rosmus' story. (Follow
this link for more from CBS on the film, including a transcript; and also
including a 2000
update). Rosmus later immigrated to the United States, and lives in Maryland.
Prof. Bowen contends that a focus on Passau is a
fair focus on a representative German town. While Bavaria, where it is
located, differs from the rest of Germany in important ways (e.g., residents are much
more likely to be Roman Catholics than is true in northern German regions), the themes raised about de-Nazification also have created tensions in other regions and throughout German society.
Three works by Anna Rosmus
are among the options for the book review assignment, as listed on the
current, most up-to-date version of the syllabus for our course.
I encourage students to read Rosmus' books.
A map
illustrating the
post-war
Occupation Zones in Germany is linked here
Making Germany democratic. One theme Germans emphasized early in the post-WWII process of transforming their society was de-militarization; i.e., breaking the heavy influence of military forces on government, and breaking the traditional Prussian reliance on military force as a means to solve problems. Toward this end, German Governments chose to take conscious steps to end the separation of the military from society that had gone along with having an elite, revered professional armed forces during the Empire and Nazi days. One feature of this new policy was conscription, or "the draft." Under laws in effect since 1956, all German young men have been obligated to serve in the armed forces and, while service was short (usually one year or less), it was expected that every male would be as likely as his neighbor to have to serve. (Alternate jobs of similar duration in civilian service were made available for those who objected). In recent years, only 17 percent of those eligible to be conscripted actually served, and recently the term of service was cut to 6 months. These issues are discussed in a recent article: Michael Slackman, "Memo from Berlin: As Past Recedes, Germans Reconsider the Draft," New York Times (August 30, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/europe/31germany.html?_r=1
- Issues related to the content of recent
classes sometimes lead to strained comparisons about the internment of Japanese-Americans by the U.S. Government during World War II, the Nazi camps, and the related contemporary
issue of how citizens of our democracy might respond to a similar roundup of Muslims, or
Arabs, today. On these issues, this helpful article by John Leo ("The Internment
Taboo") is available: follow the link.
- Tangentially, Prof. Bowen sometimes also refers to the
somewhat related problem of crowd reactions to political violence by telling a personal
story about crowd
psychology and mob behavior he witnessed in 1970, at San Jose CA, at an
election rally at which U.S. President Richard Nixon was the key
speaker. To read an account of this event, follow
this link.
Prior to class, consider these questions:
What was de-Nazification? Was it successful?
What was done in the German Basic Law (i.e., constitution) to:
(illustrate each)
check the threat of anti-democratic political forces?
improve the accountability of the elected officials?
reduce the number of political parties in the legislature?
increase the authority of the executive power in government?
Have these changes succeeded?
Modern Germany: overview of points that may be addressed
De-Nazification: Transforming the Political Culture: how did the Germans overcome the
legacy of Nazism?
Two periods will be focused upon: the era of occupation by
the Allies (1945-49) and the era under the rule of the Christian Democrats,
1949-69.
Some of the main features of de-Nazification by
the Allies may be described. Soviet and Western methods can be contrasted. The impact on German public opinion was significant.
Well over 100,000 Germans were
detained; most ultimately were released after short jail terms.
Nuremberg Tribunal (1945-46): Voluminous evidence
of the system of war crimes and crimes against humanity was presented
through newspapers, radio, and newsreels in movie houses. There the
German population learned how top Nazi leaders were tried, convicted,
sentenced, and nearly all subsequently were hung. 78% of Germans found
these trials “fair;” 55% saw verdicts as “just,” 21% saw as “too
mild,” only 9% viewed it as “too harsh.”
12
Successor Trials (1945-47) of others occurred: 5025 were convicted of war
crimes: 806 sentenced to death, 486 executed.
Prof. Bowen sometimes tenders asides at this point, regarding the durability of
international "friendships," e.g., the
French-American alliance; and about the more general issue of how long gratitude
remains among a people liberated by military means from abroad.
- Kuwaitis' gratitude also seemed especially short lived
after the U.S. liberated them in 1991, but neither is French memory
particularly long or particularly deferential to American views of American
needs in time of national danger.
- Prof. Bowen could point to French
Pres. Jacques Chirac's October 18, 2002 meeting and banquet in Beirut,
Lebanon with the leaders of French speaking nations worldwide, a meeting which
included in attendance the leader of Hezbollah.
Hezbollah, an Iranian sponsored Lebanese terrorist organization and political
party, is believed responsible for the 1983
bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut in which 241 Americans
perished. Hezbollah (alternate spelling: Hizballah), though a legal political party
in Lebanon, remains on the list of international terrorist
organizations regularly identified officially by the U.S. Government.
(Link goes to official list released April, 2009).
- Of course, the French are not the only ones who have
acted in a way to provide legitimization to that band of murdering terrorists.
As I have identified, in Fall 2005 the Presbyterian Church,
USA (i.e., the national religious body with which this College inexplicably chooses
to affiliate) met with Hezbollah, despite a series of incredible 2004 claims
that their earlier meetings with these terrorists in 2004 were not "officially" part of the Presbyterian Church, USA's "peace mission" to the
Middle East. These matters brought public ridicule and appropriate
shame onto those involved, yet the Presbyterian Church, USA has continued to
associate with Hezbollah, as my Fall 2004 published editorial documented. Hezbollah, a Lebanese faction loyal to and operating as an arm of the Islamic Republic of Iran, remains a clear threat to U.S. national security, as was revealed in the attempt in September - October 2011 by the government of Iran to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. by a bomb to be planted in a Washington, D.C. restaurant (Cafe Milano).
The contention is NOT made that the U.S.
"liberated" Germany. We did not. We occupied it as a
defeated state, and treated its population initially as potentially
hostile. This was a justified perception: Jeffrey Herf (Divided
Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys
Cambridge MA: Harvard U.P., 1997) has shown that substantial minorities (30 to
40 percent) in Germany continued to express admiration for the goals of
National Socialism during the period of occupation.
The tension between two divergent U.S. post-war Cold War goals
can be juxtaposed:
in pursuing the goal of de-Nazification sometimes compromises were made to
advance an anti-Communist agenda. Two individuals from the Nazi era were
linked to the dilemma posed to the West in achieving these different goals: Reinhard Gehlen and
Werner von Braun. (For more on Gehlen, see
the Federation
of American Scientists' article on him; or this
brief
encyclopedia entry). Both were recruited by the U.S. to
work for U.S. agencies after the war: Gehlen by the intelligence community, von
Braun by NASA.
The political biography of Konrad
Adenauer is informative, especially insofar as it related to the transformation of the small
pre-Nazi Center Party into a broad based, post-war "catch-all" party
of the right in West German politics: the Christian Democratic Union.
Adenauer, the 59 year old mayor of Cologne at the time of the Nazis' ascent to
power, was marginalized but suffered no lethal threat during the Nazi
era. Indeed, his comfortable life during this period was
subsidized partly by gifts from a Jewish friend who had emigrated to the
U.S. Jailed briefly on two occasions by the Nazis, Adenauer also was not
part of any active resistance to Nazism. His wife, however, died shortly
after the War, in part due to her confinement by the Nazis.
Jeffrey
Herf's (6-7, 12) thesis about the impact of de-Nazification on partisanship
may be presented:
“…the
price for postwar integration of those Germans compromised by their beliefs
and actions in the Third Reich was silence about the crimes of that period.
Memory and justice might produce a right-wing revolt that would
undermine a still fragile democracy.
So
democracy had to be built on a shaky foundation of justice delayed—hence
denied—and weakened memory…. [T]he West Germans could foster either
memory and justice or democracy but not both.
In the 1949 election… Adenauer’s victory made plain that
reticence about public memory of the Nazi past was crucial, if notfor the
preservation of democracy in West Germany, then certainly for the electoral
victories of the Christian Democratic Party.
The emergence of a national electoral majority in favor of the
argument that daring more democracy required more memory and more justice
did not take place until the 1960s… The prospect of Social Democratic
victory increased pressures within West Germany in favor of a hard line
toward the Nazi past.”
A case study in de-Nazification: A brief
news report about the "Nasty Girl" of Passau,
a "60 Minutes" segment from January 9, 1994, usually is shown at this point
in the course.
(Follow
this link for more from CBS on the film, including a transcript; and also
including a
2000
update). Anna Rosmus' travails, dating from 1981, are retold on the video. All
arose from her schoolgirl efforts to research her town's history under National
Socialism. Viewers learned more about the extent to which de-Nazification in
Passau has been controversial, and other encounters with local memory. A feature film of this
same title may be rented which tells the whole of Frau Rosmus' story.
Aside: Prof. Bowen contends that a focus on Passau is a
fair focus on a representative German town. While Bavaria, where it is
located, differs from the rest of Germany in important ways (e.g., it is much
more Catholic than other regions), the themes raised about de-Nazification
have created tensions in other regions and throughout German society.
Three works by Anna Rosmus
are among the options for the book review assignment, as listed on the
current, most up-to-date version of the syllabus for our course.
I encourage students to read her books.
Trends in German Public Opinion:
a chart indicating the direction in Germans' sources of national pride also may
be presented or discussed.
Oct. 23, 2012: Changing Germany: Political Institutional
change, and contemporary German politics
above: Angela Merkel,
Chancellor of Germany (Christian Democratic Party of Germany)
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
Prof. Bowen will likely soon introduce a resource for understanding how contemporary Russians understand their country and the world, "Russia Now," an insert that occasionally appears in the printed version of the Washington Post (authored from Russia by Rossiyskaya Gazeta), and its online companion, "Russia Behind the Headlines," which is accessible online.
Readings today address contemporary German politics.
See your course syllabus for full details. Included among today's
assigned readings is an article on "Angela
Merkel's Germany." For a still more contemporary analysis of
the German leader today,
follow this link to a January 2010 portrait of her policies from Time Europa.
But before we can seriously address those issues, post 1949 changes in German
Political Institutions need to be understood. The section below will help
students recall materials presented in class, setting the stage for Q
and A at the start of our class regarding what was changed between Weimar and
the modern German political system, 1949-2010.
Linked materials concern
the
concepts of coalition and alliance in general. Not focused on Germany,
that webpage explains these concepts generically. German governments are
coalition governments, as Roskin explains clearly in the course textbook.
Understanding how coalitions work can inform an understanding of how
German domestic relationships among political parties have changed between the
Weimar and the current eras. Coalitions also pertain to a comparative understanding of
differences between U.S. and German party politics. Coalitions in Germany
are made between separate political parties, are formal arrangements negotiated
by party leaders, and endure over several years (and usually for the entire
period between general elections). Coalitions in the U.S. sometimes
involve members of both parties. But these temporary agreements are
informal understandings among elected representatives, not among party leaders;
they are almost always linked to the passage of a single piece of legislation;
and they do not long endure. Indeed, both major U.S. political parties
should be understood to be broad groupings of officials elected under a common
party label, but who emphasize different issues and hold varied ideologies that
reflect the political subcultures of different U.S. states, regions, or other
elements of political identity. Northern Democrats tend to differ from Southern
Democrats; Connecticut Republicans tend to differ in their views from mountain states' Republicans, etc.
Related but distinct
from this is the concept of alliance,
which denotes a relationship between countries.
German Political Institutions
Key Problems Needing remedy:
Executive Power
- stable tenure in office was needed
- reliable legislative support was needed
- accountability to electorate was needed
Legislative Power
- reduction in ideological conflict was needed
- representative-locality ties were needed
- responsiveness of Central Government to regional interests
was needed
Creation of Limits on Government: Remedies in the "Basic Law"
Limits on Government:
- The Basic Law, or Constitution, enumerates a wide range of rights of citizens:
18 separate provisions in Basic Law.
- Example: Under the 4th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, searches can be conducted only upon "probable
cause" and with a warrant signed by a judge. In Germany, the
citizen enjoys far greater protection from wiretapping than has evolved in
the U.S. under the 4th Amendment.
- The Constitutional Court, or highest court of the
German judicial branch, is empowered with Judicial Review power.
This is present in the U.S., but not in the U.K. German judicial
review may be even more significant a check on Government than in the U.S.
because the Constitutional Court can set its own agenda by issuing
advisory opinions; the U.S. Supreme Court must wait for issues to be
presented to it in cases raising live issues about already enacted laws or
already committed executive actions. Prior or "advisory
opinions" are not issued in the U.S..
Executive Powers in the Federal Republic
- The German Chancellor is the chief executive
and political leader of the country. The President is ceremonial,
only. The Chancellor exercises leadership of Cabinet members, but they
retain considerable day-to-day authority over the ministries they supervise.
- Fixed Term of office: four year term for Chancellor, Bundestag.
Set by the calendar, as in U.S., not by the whim of the ruling party as in
U.K. And yet, in 2005, the Constitutional Court ruled to permit a
new election only three years into a Bundestag term. This was
permitted after Chancellor G. Schroeder appealed to it to allow an early
balloting.
- "Constructive No Confidence motion" requires new Chancellor be named
before an unpopular Chancellor can be dumped. This procedure only
was used successfully once, in 1982. In 2005, Chancellor Schroeder
persuaded the President that no possible coalition could be formed and that
new elections were needed, instead. The Constitutional Court ruled
that in this one instance, a new election was permitted. (Since German
law is code based, rather than "common law" based, this action does not set
any precedent that guides future similar situations). The election was
held in Sept. 2005. The results were indecisive, but Schroeder's SPD
party finished second. After some weeks of inter-party deal making,
the leading party in the 2005 election, the Christian Democratic Union and
its ally, the Christian Social Union, agreed to form a "Grand Coalition"
government in cooperation with the SPD. The leader of the CDU, Angela
Merkel, became Chancellor; Schroeder resigned his leadership of the SPD, and
joined the Board of Directors for Gazprom, the Russian natural gas company that is largely owned by the Russian Government. (Can you even imagine a former U.S. President going to work for the Russians?) . For
more, see below.
Legislative Power in the Federal Republic
- Ideological parties' influence has
been reduced by requirement of support
for Basic Law (Art. 21).
- Small parties' influence has been reduced through
the 5% rule:
a party must win at least this amount nation-wide or no seats are awarded to a
party. (However, if candidate seats ARE directly won by a
party, then the elected official takes his seat. If three such seats
are won, then the party also receives seats in a percentage corresponding to its
national vote percentage).
- The ties of voters to a representative are enhanced through
two vote system. Each voter marks two places on the ballot: 1st vote
is for an individual
representative; 2nd vote is for a party list. A voter may "split" his vote
by awarding his individual candidate vote to a member of one party, and his
party list vote to another party. Many voters do this so to insure
enough votes are earned by the party that is the "junior partner" in the
likely coalition with his/her preferred party. Only parties with 5% or
more may win seats, so insuring that the party of the junior coalition partner clears this hurdle often motivates voters to choose an appropriate small party in casting his/her party list vote.
- Regions' (laander) influence
has been enhanced by creation of a two house legislature.
In opting for bicameralism, Germans created an upper house modeled on the pre-17th Amendment U.S. Senate.
It is
called the Bundesrat. Delegates to the Bundesrat are chosen by the laander governments, not by the people directly.
All Budesrat delegates are chosen by the party (or party
coalition) that holds the majority of seats in each of the laander legislatures. In the Bundesrat, these representatives
of the several laander vote
as a block.
The Modern German Electoral System
The Bundestag (lower house)
622 seats from 2009 to 2013 (614 after Sept. 2005 election
to 2009); number varies
slightly after each election to insure exact proportionality of party
representation that corresponds to popular vote.
Proportional Representation method of elections
Two vote ballot:
- candidate vote
- party vote
5 Percent threshold for any seats
exception:
- small parties which have 3 candidate seat victories
are awarded those seats
Leadership in the Bundestag
Chancellor and Ministries write most legislation
Strong Party Discipline
The Bundesrat (upper house)
Basic Facts:
- 69 seats
- appointed by, represent each regional (Länder) governments
- 3 votes to four small Länder, 4 votes to seven medium population Länder, 5 votes to one Länder (Hesse), 6 votes to the four most populous Länder
- bloc voting by each Länder delegation
legislative role, powers
- initiates little legislation
- must approve all amendments to Basic Law, and all laws which affect
laander functions
- can exercise delaying "suspensive veto" over new laws
- Bundestag can over-ride with simple majority
- Bundesrat can veto Bundestag over-rides
- Bundestag can over-ride with 2/3 majority
German Elections: In Fall 2009, Germany
held a General Election. The charts and linked articles below
provide background information.
1. Regarding recent General Elections that brought Angela Merkel to office (2005), and that reaffirmed her
role as Chancellor (2009), the following items would be of
interest to a highly motivated student:
Results of the General Election
of Sept. 22, 2002 compared to the September 18, 2005 election and the Sept.
27, 2009 election
Elections in 2002 and 2005 were the closest two
elections in modern German history. In 2002, the ruling SPD-Greens
coalition government won a bare majority to retain power. In 2005,
the results were so close that no clear winner emerged. A "Grand
Coalition" of the leading parties, the CDU/CSU and the SPD, ruled
2005-2009. In 2009, the CDU/CSU finished clearly in first place, and was able to form a
new coalition with the FDP. The seats won by
political parties in 2002, 2005, and 2009 were as follows:
|
Party |
2002 Popular vote / seats in
Bundestag |
2005 Popular vote / seats in
Bundestag |
2009 Popular vote / seats in Bundestag |
|
SPD |
38.5% ... 251 seats |
34.3% ... 222 seats |
23%... 146 seats |
|
Greens |
8.6% ... 55 seats |
8.1% ... 51 seats |
10.7%... 68 seats |
|
CDU / CSU |
38.5% ... 248 seats |
35.2% ... 225 seats |
33.8%... 239 seats |
|
FDP |
7.4% ... 47 seats |
9.8% ... 61 seats |
14.6%... 93 seats |
|
PDS / "Left party" |
4.0% ... 2 seats |
8.7% ... 54 seats |
11.9%... 76 seats |
Articles about 2005 Election:
- Jane Kramer "The Rise of Angela Merkel,"
The New Yorker (Sept. 19, 2005): 48-55.
- Results of the September 18, 2005 German general
election can be found
direct from the German Government.
- Two sound analysts give their reading on the
meaning of the German elections:
- Interesting coverage
of the Fall 2005 German general election campaign revealed much about the German political system, German political culture, and
the continuing divisions that elude national unity there. Some
interesting articles that appeared during the campaign that may interest students
were:
- After the Sept. 18, 2005 German national
election, other interpretations worth reading included: "Germany's
Divided Political Landscape." It provides insight into the geographic,
historic, and gender variations that appeared in the 2005 election.
It is from Deutsche Welle, Sept. 21, 2005.
- Follow this link for a tour of how the
results of the
2005 election were treated in a range of German newspapers and other
media.
- Prof. Bowen's comments on the
German election, in his weblog entries of Sept. 16,
and Sept. 19, 2005. His published
editorial about Mrs. Merkel is available here.
Articles about 2002 Election:
Go
here for Excellent interpretation of the 2002 election, by: Victorino Matus,
"The Best of Times, The Wurst of Times," The Daily Standard
online version of the Weekly Standard (Sept. 25, 2002).
For complete details on the 2002 voting, go
here
to see a map showing the breakdown of the vote by geographic district (or Wahlkreis).
One half of the seats are awarded by district, one half to parties on the
basis of national percentage won.
For an excellent look at the situation in Germany three
months after the election, see this December 4, 2002 editorial by
Rosemary Righter, from the London
Times. (Registration is required to gain access.)
Oct. 25, 2012: Midterm Exam.
Bring a Blue Book / Green Book test-taking booklet to the test, with your name on its cover, only.
These are sold at the Bookstore.
Anonymity is needed for essays to be fairly graded: put your name on the cover, only, of your Blue Book/Green Book!
Unit Four: Russia
- Prof. Bowen recommends a resource for understanding how contemporary Russians understand their country and the world, "Russia Now," an insert that occasionally appears in the printed version of the Washington Post (but is authored from Russia by Rossiyskaya Gazeta), and its online companion, "Russia Behind the Headlines," which is accessible online.
Oct. 30, 2012: The Russian Political Heritage
to 1917: background to the 1917 Revolutions
Announcements: Class today: We first will go over the
midterm exam, then we will see a film and discuss it.
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
- Before Class:
- Read materials assigned in
course syllabus for today, e.g. Roskin, Chap. 19, pp.
294-301
and consider reading the supplemental Bowen essay
online:
the Russian
Revolutionary Tradition. (This is optional, not required).
- Reading over this overview of
the
Foundations
of Russia might help understand today's new content. This is a resource Prof. Bowen prepared to be directly parallel to the film
that is planned to be shown.
Questions that may help focus you:
- How did the nature of the Czarist state contribute
to its political problems?
- Why was a large standing army perceived
by the Czars to be necessary?
- What social and economic forces shaped the opposition that
confronted the Czars?
- How did opponents of the monarchy
practice politics under the Czars? Why were large-scale
revolts and conspiratorial plots so common?
- Prof. Bowen also recommends the photo collection exhibit at the Library of Congress website, "The Empire that was Russia," as a learning tool about pre-revolutionary Russia. Largely a set of early color photos taken 1905-12, the collection highlights both the ethnic diversity of the Russian Empire and the level of industrial development of the country. In a series of very high quality images only recently discovered, many in color (which was very rare at that time), the texture of life in the world's largest country is richly conveyed.
2. During class: we will go over some issues about essay writing, then begin our next unit.
It is on Russia. As in the German case, we will start with background
historic material about its political traditions.
3. The film on Russia
will depict its political
evolution from its founding to the
beginning of the 20th century will be discussed. Any issues you did not
fully understand can be cleared up before we move on. In our next
class we will turn to
the social, economic, and political factors that contributed to the events
of 1917 (i.e., to the Russian Revolutions of 1917). The lives and ideas of Marx and
Lenin will be
addressed then.
Issues to consider regarding the film and
readings about Russia thus far:
- How did the nature of the Czarist state contribute
to its political problems?
- What forces shaped the opposition forces that
confronted the Czarist state?
- Several factors contributed to the 1917
Revolutions that ended the Czarist state; what were these?
- As we start our unit on Russia,
we should
recall that our theme in the course is to better understand the ways
of democracy, its social and institutional bases, and the impact
political shortcomings of various kinds can have on the
lives,
rights, and dignity of life of individual humans. As we have
moved through units on the U.K. and on Germany, emphasis has been
placed on the important choices individuals make in creating a solid
foundation for freedom, or in undermining it. In this light,
so should we also think about Russia.
- I therefore call to your
attention the
editorial
in Fall 2005 in the Washington Post by Natan Sharansky, the
former Soviet dissident and currently an Israeli citizen. It
casts a sharp and well informed light on the whole of the Russian
case.
- Students searching for a book to review for
extra credit in the course might find the 1986 biography of
Sharansky by (now Sir) Martin Gilbert especially interesting. It is on
your syllabus. His name was transliterated slightly
differently then, but it is about the same person.
- While not on the
syllabus'
list, this book by Sharansky also could be reviewed:
The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to
Overcome Tyranny and Terror (NY: Perseus /
Public Affairs Books, 2004).
- A graphic webpage to assist
in your study of the course has been created to illustrate
differences among political system types.
Both historic and contemporary examples are provided on it.
Nov. 1, 2012: Background to the
Russian Revolutions of 1917
Class
agenda projected onto the screen today will be made available
after class has met: follow this link.
That agenda includes a summary of the theory of revolution adapted by Prof. Bowen from a book by U.C. Berkeley sociologist Neil Smelser, Theory of Collective Behavior (1962). Thus, today's agenda/notes might prove of value in understanding current events unrelated to our course such as the wave of revolutions sweeping the Middle East, 2010-12.
Announcements:
- Let's go to the movies! Students may wish to view in advance a brief excerpt from the 1981 film "Reds," starring and directed by Warren Beatty. Beatty won the Academy Award for Best Director for this film, arguably his best picture... (though those seeking insight into the 1970s in America might argue that the 1975 film "Shampoo" better captures Beatty's real persona). Today or in our next class, we will also see another brief excerpt from a great Russian love story in a feature film, "Dr. Zhivago." I recommend both full movies, in fact, I recommend they both be seen in close sequence so to balance the euphoria of "Reds" with the realities depicted in "Dr. Zhivago."
- The PowerPoint presentation prepared for today includes some unusually high quality early color photography. Prof. Bowen provides here the link to te full collection of pre-1917 color photographs of the peoples of the Russian empire.
- An instructive editorial, "Russia's
Political Murders," that speaks to the whole of our Russia unit appeared
in the Washington Post (Oct. 29, 2009, p. A18). Read it online,
go here.
Before class be sure to read the
assigned pages in Roskin,
(see syllabus), and consider reading
the links above and/or any of these supplemental
(optional) Bowen essays related to
today's lesson:
In class, in a PowerPoint
presentation, Prof. Bowen will outline four major factors
that contributed to the collapse of the Russian political
system in 1917:
- rural lawlessness
- urban unrest
- losses in foreign wars
- rise in public support for
various revolutionary ideologies
Nov. 6, 2012: Marx and Lenin: setting the foundation for the Stalinist system of Soviet
Totalitarianism.
Class
agenda and notes projected on the screen today is available: follow this link. Within that agenda are links to many materials that closely parallel content presented via PowerPoint slides during our class meeting.
Announcement:
- As we begin studying the communist system in
Soviet Russia, 1917-1991, it is useful to explore how Russians today
regard that era. Below is a picture of a memorial commemorating the
victims of communist tyranny that was held on Oct. 29-30, 2009. It
was taken outside the Lubyanka, the former headquarters of the secret
police agencies that were known variously as the Cheka, the NKVD, the KGB,
and other names.
- In contemporary Russia, October 29-30 are the
official days of remembrance for the victims of repression during the
dark periods of the Soviet past. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
covered the event:
follow the link.
- A news story on BBC focused on Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev's denunciation of those seeking to whitewash the past
which also appeared on October 30, 2009; it also is
linked here.
Before class:
- Before class be sure to read the assigned
pages in Roskin, (pp 303-310), and consider reading (optional) the Bowen
essays on Russian politics,
Marx, and Lenin.
- Use of the timeline on
Russian
and Soviet Leaders (follow this link for synopsis on all top leaders,
1917-present) may assist in keeping the personalities and policies sorted
out.
- Updates:
- This
December 2008
news item from BBC reports on an unscientific poll being conducted
in Russia to name the greatest of all the Russians in history. As
of the time of publication, Josef Stalin (who actually was of Georgian,
not Russian, ethnicity) was the 4th most popular, ahead even of V. I.
Lenin!
- Film on the Two Revolutions being addressed in this part
of the course:
- The Revolution that brought an end to the
Romanov Dynasty (February-March 1917). Use your google skills:
Copyright issues have in the past often led to links to educationally valuable
scenes becoming obsolete. Several excellent excerpts from
David Lean's 1965 film "Dr. Zhivago," exist and they capture the disintegration
of order that led to the overthrow of the Czar Nicholas in March 1917. Zhivago won five Academy Awards, but was edged out for Best Picture by
"The Sound of Music." Ironically, Zhivago's "Lara's Theme," helped
it to win the Oscar for best musical score that year. The film is
an adaptation of Boris Pasternak's Nobel Prize winning novel of the same
name. The very best scene, which Prof. Bowen often shows to our
class, focuses on the revolt within the
Russian Imperial Army, and the film's narrator uses these key words: "They
did what all the armies dreamed of doing."
It was still up online in early 2009, but has since gone missing at
YouTube. Another
excellent scene still available there captures unruly post-revolutionary communist supporters
ransacking Dr. Zhivago's apartment.
It is linked here.
- The Revolution that brought the Communists to
power (October-November 1917): Here is
an excerpt from the
1981 film "Reds," probably one of the few scenes in American cinema
to sympathetically (!) depict the Communists' seizure of power in October 1917, with Warren
Beatty playing John Reed, American sympathizer with Lenin's Bolsheviks.
Beatty, the film's director, won the Oscar for Best Director for his
work; the film, nominated for Best Picture, was edged out by the obscure
"Chariots of Fire." The film substantially draws on the
experiences of John Reed, an American communist from Oregon who witnessed these
events and who authored an account of them in the book Ten Days that Shook the
World.
- The rise in support for revolutionary
ideologies in pre-revolutionary Russia also will be detailed
today, with a
sharp focus trained on the founder of the Soviet Union, V.
I. Lenin, and on his chief intellectual influence,
the German economist and revolutionary thinker Karl
Marx. A PowerPoint presentation will sum up
their ideas and life experiences. But while their life experiences and
theories are of some interest, of greater concern to
our course on comparative politics is the impact on
individuals created by the
set of changes Lenin imposed onto the Russian
political system.
Nov. 8, 2012: The Early Communist Sytem under Lenin and Stalin
Class
agenda and notes projected on the screen today is available: follow this link.
Of value in grasping the enormity of the changes in Russia,1917-21, are these links
to
supplemental resources and other resources:
- More on V.I.
Lenin, his life, his philosophy, and the political party he created is found
in
this
essay by Prof. Bowen.
-
The
basics of Marxism-Leninism also may prove helpful; as may
- Tone gives important clues to a person, and a
government leader. Reflect on
the tone of the language used in some of Lenin's memoranda, e.g. his hanging
order of 1918; or his
anti-religious
letter. These each convey a brutal sense of what the new form of politics
would be like under the revolutionary government.
-
The Revolution itself was a two part process spanning 1917; follow that link to read Prof. Bowen's
synopsis. Or read a first hand account, Ten Days that Shook the World, by
an American visitor in Russia at the time, journalist John Reed.
- This
account by Reed later formed part of the 1981 Oscar winning film, "Reds,"
which both starred Warren Beatty as Reed and won the Oscar for Beatty's
direction of the film. The film also starred Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton, and is a moving, three hour account of the romance of
mostly well-to-do American
leftists with communism, and the brutalities of the Russian revolutionary era.
Some part of this lasting irony manages to make it through to the viewer, despite the
hagiographic slant of the film. (Link
to key scene)
- A
timeline summarizing the key events of 1917-18 is to be found by
following this link, courtesy of Prof. Bowen.
- To
keep things sorted out, pictures and capsule information
on all Soviet and Russian leaders, 1917-2004 are provided. Follow that link to
learn more on each of them from Prof. Bowen, or follow this link to learn still more
from a Yale University
exhibit.
The
course of the actual Revolutions
of 1917 may be described (follow link to a timeline), as may be the immediate post-revolutionary events,
e.g.:
- The Communists' failure to win a popular majority in
the only fair election ever held in revolutionary Russia.
- The dictatorial essence of Lenin's rule, as
illustrated by the shutting down of the popularly elected Constituent
Assembly in January 1918.
- The unpopularity of the new regime, and the harsh
measures imposed by it during its first years in power, measures that
stimulated a Civil War.
The New Economic Policy, 1921-25, and the early policies of Josef Stalin also may be addressed. Film on the collectivization of agriculture in the USSR, 1929-32, sometimes is shown at this point.
Nov. 13, 2012:
Josef Stalin, and Stalinism, transform the Soviet Union
Class
agenda for today will be available after class meets: follow this link
Before class please read: the assigned pages in Roskin,
(see 306, 310-316) and
Bowen essay on
Stalinism.
- For an excellent recent journalistic look at the residue left by Stalinism, see (optional): Ian Frazier, "On the Prison Highway," The New Yorker (August 30, 2010), 28-. This is accessible only in hard copy at the Library, as it is available online only by subscription.
The slightly more moderate Lenin
policies during the New Economic Policy (N.E.P.), 1921-25 may first be
reviewed.
A segment from the
1990 PBS film "Stalin: Despot" then will be shown. Key foci in the
presentation and film substantially are supported
by the assigned Bowen essay on Stalinism, and the class'
attention is particularly directed to:
- the
terror
famine in Ukraine (and elsewhere, e.g. the North Caucasus region) in the early 1930s as part of the
large project of gaining control over rural areas by the ruling Communist
Party (see
Party memo on this);
- the Party's drive to industrial development of the
nation; the role of centralized planning in that project; and the
instrumental role of a vast system of labor camps, known as The Gulag, in
cowing the population into submission.
- the purges of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
during the 1930s, focusing on the trial and execution of "Old
Communists" such as
Nikolai Bukharin.
- the general deterioration of conditions in the
countryside throughout the decade after collectivization began (in 1930) and the rise of the penal camp system, the
Gulag.
- huge, useless projects such as the Belamore Canal,
created by hand with compelled Gulag-labor.
- the inefficiency of the massive bureaucratic system of
central planning, and the role terror, torture, and labor camps played in
chilling criticism and resistance to it.
- the role played by a culture of loyalty to the Party
over loyalty to one's family, as illustrated in
the tale of Pavlik
Morozov.
- the horror of the
Lubyanka
(NKVD headquarters in Moscow)
and related human rights problems such as those illustrated by the
excavations of the Kuropaty
Forest in the 1990s
- the naive praise of Stalin's USSR by Western
socialists such as the famous Irish-British author
George
Bernard Shaw, and the much more cogent understanding of what Stalin was
doing that was written up by his less famous, but wiser, peer
Malcolm Muggeridge.
- the 1934
murder
of Sergei Kirov and the use to which this was put in justifying a broad
repression of Kirov's followers and other innocents in Leningrad,
- the murder of Leon Trotsky in Mexico City in 1940, an event dramatized in the moving 2002 film
biography of Mexican female artist "Frida"
Kahlo, paramour of famous artist, and Mexican communist, Diego
Rivera.
- Other supplemental
readings that will enrich understanding of this period include: the brief illustration of the impact
of communism on family
life, the historic document
about Ukrainian starvation under collectivization, and Stalin's order
on the deportation
of the Crimean Tatars. Follow the links.
Making connections: Totalitarians' methods.
Observe closely in the film the use of language by a Stalin-era
prosecutor. In the prosecutor's
speech, reference is made to "shooting the vile dogs" who the
Party saw to be "counter - revolutionaries" during the 1930s; he also referred to
them as "vermin" (i.e., sub-humans unfit to live).
Elsewhere,
Prof. Bowen has argued that this use of language to deny the essential humanity of ones'
enemies often serves to condition a people to regard as acceptable the
actual mistreatment of individuals by totalitarian states. For
comparison purposes, recall the Nazis' similar use of language
referring to Jews as "vermin," which also served to minimize in
Germans' minds the abuse of and murder of humans that such
terminology served to conceal.
This tradition is not dead.
Please examine the use of subhuman caricatures in the discourse in the Middle East today (link is to a July 2009
report).
Nov. 15, 2012: Stalinism after Stalin: the system under his successor, Nikita Khrushchev (1955-1964)
Class
agenda projected for today is available: follow this link
Two helpful items about the state of basic freedoms in Russia, from the Washington Post in 2010:
Before class:
The Soviet system of government came to an end December
25, 1991. Why and how this occurred relates to the structural problems
of the system of communism, and the failure of reforms led by
the CPSU to address them. We will
examine these failures.
Leonid Brezhnev emerged as the most powerful of the group of leaders who
removed Khrushchev from power in 1964; he served as First Secretary of the
CPSU until the early 1980s, making notable contributions in the area of
foreign
affairs.
Agricultural failures of the system of collective
farming continued, with the Soviet dependence on grain imports from
the West and the tiny capitalist sector in agriculture playing a large roll in
preventing malnutrition in the USSR. The experience of agricultural
reformer Ivan Khudenko shows the limit of
innovation under communism: a man who tied incentives to
production was punished for his successes.
In our next class, focus will turn to the elements that ultimately brought down Soviet Communism: first
the Human Rights movement, then the rot in the Soviet system that
Brezhnev compounded, and that the Gorbachev
Government (1985-1991) sought to reverse.
The
Human Rights Movement, and the National Minorities' drive for Self Rule
brought pressure onto the system from society, from the "bottom up." In this section of class today we make contact with the fallibility of totalitarianism,
which as late as 1979-80 seemed to thoughtful political scientist (and
Reagan era U.N. Ambassador) Jeane Kirkpatrick to be invincible. We will
learn about the human rights movement which, despite severe repression
used against it by the Communist government, nevertheless succeeded in
undermining the claims of legitimacy of those totalitarian rulers. The
leading role of nuclear physicist Andrei
Sakharov will be a focus. Thoughtful, thorough preparation for this
course meeting would take the student to essays on other "bottom up"
pressures on Soviet totalitarianism, including Jewish activists' roles
and the role of national self-determination movements of other
minority
nationalities.
Nov. 20, 2012: Leonid Brezhnev (1964-82) to Mikhail
Gorbachev (1985-91): preserving Soviet communism until its final collapse, August 1991
Class
agenda for today's class will be available after class meets: follow
this link.
After
reviewing the Brezhnev era (1964-81), we will look in a more extended
way at the Gorbachev Government, 1985-91, and its
demise through a series of pressures "from above" (or from the
Government itself). The "bottom-up" pressures from
society that began under Brezhnev continued into the Gorbachev-era Soviet
system. Gorbachev responded by attempting to reform the system, a
project that ultimately failed. Following that review, we will examine the
events leading to the overthrow of the last government of the USSR, the
Gorbachev Government (March 1985-August 1991), and the mixed record of his
successor, Boris Yeltsin, President of Russia (1991-1999).
Supporting documents
on related topics which might prove helpful would include:
- A
chart comparing the personalities involved in the revolutionary events of
1991 and 1993
- A timeline on the key events,
1989-91, within the U.S.S.R. and within the Soviet allied states,
summarizing the increasing disorder of the period
- the section of our
brief biographies of Russian
leaders that concern this period
- Restive East Europeans also demanded
change, some heroically. The memory of the example of heroic Eastern European activists, such
as the Czechoslovakian Jan Palach, who
burned himself alive in Prague in 1969 rather than live under communism,
rekindled in the late 1980s.
Without doubt, his martyrdom inspired other Czechs to challenge communism, and
the revolution begun in East Germany in 1989 ignited
similar rebellions in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere largely due to the the
illegitimacy of the systems these men so vividly had challenged. While
this course concerns only the USSR and Russia, the events that
shaped its collapse in 1991 greatly were accelerated by popular
movements to end communism in the Soviet satellite communist states
in the East Central European region.
Beyond just the uprisings in East Central Europe in 1989,
other international
factors beyond Soviet borders also rocked the system, 1989-91, and contributed
to its collapse.
Either today or in our next class, the events in the center of Russia will be
featured in film and lecture as the heart of the 1991 Revolution.
But, it is also true that the USSR was collapsing throughout the Soviet Union,
and not just at its center. One of the
strongest pressures on the system for change came from national republics on the
periphery of the Soviet Union. These matters are explored
in the linked Bowen essay about
minorities in the USSR.
- In Georgia in April 1989, things became
quite violent: In class, attention is often drawn
to the
linkages that existed between the human rights movement of the 1970s and 1980s
and the later movements for more fundamental changes in the USSR in
1988-91. Especially, the
national independence movement in Georgia grew out of the earlier "Helsinki Watch
Committee" of Georgia, and the common leader of both movements Zviad
Gamsakhurdia. Gamsakhurdia was elected in 1991 as the first president of independent Georgia as the USSR
dissolved, but he proved to be a bit of an authoritarian, and was
overthrown by a revolution the next year, an event that ultimately brought to
power Eduard Shevardnadze, president of Georgia, 1992-2003. (Shevardnadze
is additionally noteworthy in that he was a main advisor and Foreign Minister in
the Gorbachev Government, and that his
resignation from that office in December 1990 widely is credited as
signaling the end to the "reform" phase of the Gorbachev
Presidency.) In Fall 2003, the Shevardnadze Government
itself was the focus of demonstrations that led to yet another
revolution in Georgia. Follow this
link to see pictures of each of these men. In November 2007,
another round of protests threatened to remove the pro-U.S.
Georgian government by revolution.
- Adjacent to Georgia, in
Trans-Caucasus SSR
Republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan were additional
settings for widespread violence between Azeri and Armenian
communities, contributing the sense of national decline of
order during the later years of the Gorbachev Government.
While not widely covered on national television, video
cassettes mailed to other regions helped concerned citizens,
and relatives of people in these areas, stay informed.
This underlined that the censorship system that once had
existed, and which had contained the spread of news that
might ignite hysteria, had collapsed.
- The movement to follow the lead set
in Eastern Europe and to seek full separation from the
U.S.S.R. was championed best with non-violent resistance in
two of the Baltic
SSRs, Lithuania and Latvia. In
1988-91 each were also centers of strong national
movements seeking to redefine their relations with the
central communist authorities.
- Additionally, in Uzbekistan and
parts of the other
Central
Asian SSRs of the USSR, inter-communal violence during
the Gorbachev era demonstrated that the fabric of unity in
the USSR was fraying.
Nov. 22, 2012: No Class / Thanksgiving Break
Nov. 27, 2012:
Revolution in Russia: 1991-1993
Class
agenda for today will be available after class meets: follow this
link.
Before class be sure to read the assigned pages
in the course syllabus.
Announcements:
Useful resources for
studying contemporary Russian politics, society,
economy, etc:
-
Synopsis: After review of the sources of
collapse created by Gorbachev's administration, a brief film on the 1991 revolution
will be shown today. In it we will
meet Boris Yeltsin, President of Russia from 1991-1999,
and the one person most responsible for the end of
Soviet communism. We then will learn more about why
democracy had such a difficult birth in
the Yeltsin years. Beginning
at the start of January 1992, Yeltsin instituted "shock therapy" economic policies
intended to rapidly convert the
centrally planned socialist economy into
a capitalistic system. Not only
did this contribute to human suffering,
it produced political resistance that
led to the unsuccessful armed
uprising against Yeltsin in Fall 1993. This insurrection was
championed by no less a figure than Yeltsin's own Vice
President. Film on these events is likely to be shown in our class today. The suppression of this uprising marked an end to
the revolutionary period, 1991-93. We then will examine the
results of the 1993 election, and the odd decision then
by the voters to empower Pres. Yeltsin with a new
Constitution while at the same time awarding greatest
influence in the elected Parliament to his adversaries,
nationalist/racist "Liberal Democratic Party" leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the Communist Party
of the Russian Federation. We will conclude with a description of
the political factors that produced the unlikely re-election of Yeltsin as Russian President in 1996.
-
Echoes of the past: the story of the "suitcase nuclear bombs." The story of 1996 re-election of Pres. Boris Yeltsin
often vexes students. How could so unpopular, and
so unsuccessful a president have been re-elected, they
ask? Part of the explanation lies in the
manipulation of patriotism made possible by the Yeltsin
Government, substantially assisted by some of his
advisors in that campaign. The Russian election
of 1996 was a multi-candidate affair, with two rounds of
balloting. In the first round, Yeltsin and
communist leader Zyuganov finished in the top two spots,
and therefore qualified for the second round of voting
from which all other candidates were removed from the
ballot. Gen. Alexander Lebed, a popular Cossack
and former commander of the Russian Armed Forces, was
one of these candidates, as he finished third in the
first 1996 balloting. Between the two rounds
of voting, Lebed made a deal with Yeltsin, who appointed
Lebed to the influential national Security Council, and
assigned him to be the negotiator on behalf of the
Russian Government to meet with Chechen rebels then (and
now) in armed opposition to the Russian state.
Lebed's support of Yeltsin in the second round of voting
helped to
insure that Yeltsin would win re-election; and the
briefly honored peace agreement he negotiated with
rebellious Chechens increased his popularity with the
public at large. Sensing a rival, Yeltsin promptly
fired him, but Lebed did not entirely go away: he was
elected governor of the Krasnojarsk region in 1998. Lebed also was
the source of a sensational claim that portable "suitcase nuclear
bombs" once were part of the Soviet arsenal, and that
(Lebed claimed) some of these dangerous weapons have turned
up missing since the breakup of the USSR. (A story
about this is linked here , and a 1998
PBS inquiry into the charges is linked here.)
Lebed's allegations clearly are of interest to Americans
seeking safety from terrorists inclined to do damage to
the U.S. But the general himself is no longer
available for comment: he died in a suspicious
helicopter crash, in 2002.
The difficulties faced by the Yeltsin
Government in the first post-communist decade will be depicted, through
lecture and film.
Supporting documents
on related topics which might prove helpful would include:
About our film on the Revolution
in Russia. The segment of
video addressing Yeltsin's mobilization of the public to resist
the hard-line Communists' coup of August 1991, and his decisions to abruptly end the system of central economic
planning (January 1992), a period extending to the violent revolt against
Yeltsin (Fall 1993) will be shown to PolS 111. The full 90 minute film also has sections on Yeltsin's career in the CPSU, from
schooldays in Sverdlovsk, through his elevation to Moscow Party chief (1985),
his confrontation with Gorbachev and party conservatives (1987), his election to
the Congress of the Peoples' Deputies with over 90% of the vote in his district
(1988), his alliance there with human rights reformer Andrei Sakharov (1988-89),
his resignation from the Communist Party (1990); and it also covers nearly all
major events that occurred after the suppression of the 1993
revolt. Since time does not
permit viewing the entire film, some of these matters
are detailed further in this biography
prepared by Prof. Bowen.
Institutions created
in the Yeltsin years, and aspects
of his administration, which extended from 1991 to December 31, 1999, may be addressed. The following web pages support the content to be
presented or summarized in class.
Overall, this segment of our course
highlights the collapse of the authority of the communist party, the corresponding collapse of the Russia economy, and the steps taken by Yeltsin to recompose political order and economic recovery. Many of the
features of Russia's post-Soviet political system emerge in the 1990's as well: the emphasis on executive power, the ritual of elections even as they are drained of real decision making power in the hands of the public, the endless war against Muslim separatists and extremists first in Chechnya and later throughout the Caucasus region, etc.. One enduring feature has been the sharp deterioration in social services received by the people, as will be revealed through film on the public health crisis in Russia,
which is likely to be shown in our next class. Some linked information updates what the film will present (e.g.,
contemporary figures about AIDS / HIV in Russia). Additional
sources on contemporary conditions in Russia can be read by
following this link.
Nov. 29, 2012: Creeping Authoritarianism under the V. Putin Administrations
Class
agenda for today will be available after class meets: follow this
link.
Before class be sure to read the assigned pages
in the course syllabus. These include Roskin, Chapters 21 and 23, and:
Other useful readings:
- A
Foreign Policy magazine recap of the March 2010
legislative elections in Russia and an analysis of
what they mean to the political fortunes of Prime
Minister Putin's political party, United Russia.
- Mikhail Khodorkovsky's speech to the court, Nov. 2, 2010: http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/mikhail-khodorkovsky/mikhail-khodorkovsky-final-trial-speech
- Kathy Lally, “For Russian Journalists, one beating too many,” Washington Post online (Nov. 8, 2010): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110803788.html ; in print edition as “Attack on writer sets off protests,” Washington Post (Nov. 9, 2010): A6.
- Two news
items from the Washington Post ("Russia
Pursues Crackdown, Nov. 25, 2007; and "Obituary: Vladimir Kryuchkov:
KGB Chief Led Coup against Gorbachev," Nov. 26, 2007) underline the sharp and worrisome turn toward
authoritarianism in Russian politics. What this all means also was
the concern of an editorial by the editors of the Post ( "The
Net Tightens"); and the implications of Putin's dangerous
mischief are serious.
Features of the
political system of Russia under Presidents Yeltsin and
Putin will be compared today as a review lesson linking the
failures of the 1990's to the challenges of the present
decade.
Topics on the Putin era
today include: the importance of civil society in a democratic political system; and
steps taken by the Putin Government to create methods to
control national politics, legal institutions, political
parties, elections, and civil society sectors such as the
press.
-
The performance of the Putin Administration, 2000-2008, in terms of our definition of democracy next will be analyzed and discussed. Putin's uses of the electoral and legal systems of Russia, and limitations on democracy
through formal changes in constitution/law and through policies of his
administration will receive greatest attention.
- Earlier news items from the Washington Post
also pertain directly to our concerns. As students will recall, throughout the course
Prof. Bowen has emphasized the importance of civil
society as a non-state component of healthy democratic political
systems. The concept was introduced in a reading "What Democracy Is...
and is Not," by Philippe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl (i.e.,
from January).
The Editors of the Post as early as November 2005 took sharp aim at Pres. Putin's efforts to regulate Russian
civil society. Both are worth reading:
- A news item, "Russian
Bill Seen as Threat to NGOs," reviews new legislation that has barred
foreign support for civil society groups such as the Russian chapter of
Human Rights Watch. This legislation became law in 2006.
- An editorial by the editors of the Post, "Mr.
Putin's Counterrevolution," critiques Putin's moves in this area, and
draws implications for U.S. policy toward Russia.
- The crushing of financial support for civil
society has been another feature of the Putin era. Factual material on the Yukos Oil /
Khodorkovsky case is provided on a web page by Prof. Bowen "Putin
and the Oligarchs."
Some focus may also be
given to the rebellious province of Chechnya, and
what Russia's handling of it reveals. In light of the continuing impact
that Islamist terrorism has had on both the West and
Russia, students should examine background to the problems in the region of the Russian Federation known as
Chechnya, reflect on modern Russian
policies there, and make comparisons to Western approaches
to domestic and international terrorism. Re: Russia:
- The acrimony
between the Muslim Chechens and the Orthodox Christian Russians is not
new.
E.g., an eyewitness account of Russian-Chechen violence
150 years ago, was written by the famous French author Alexandre Dumas.
It was penned in 1858 by Alexandre Dumas, "Single Combat in the
Caucasus, 1858," in John Carey, editor, Eyewitness to History
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987): 347-351.
- Chechen attempts to use democratic processes to
legitimize their claim to possess a right to secede from the Russian
Federation figure at the heart of the conflict. Elsewhere in the
course we already have learned of:
- The impact of the Chechnya war on the 1996
Russian Presidential Election.
- The role played by independent news about the
Chechnya War in informing the Russian public during the 1990s, and how
such independent journalism has been ended by the Putin
Government.
- The story of Radio Liberty reporter
Andrei Babitsky and his abduction by Russian troops while covering
the war in Chechnya. (Second
news item on Babitsky case linked here).
- Additionally, we might appreciate
better:
- The relationship between dramatic terrorist acts
(e.g., the September 2004 seizure of a school in Beslan, North Ossetia)
about which the Western media usually learn, and the daily carnage in
the Chechnya war which the Western media largely ignore.
- Several years ago, the
results of the Sunday Nov. 27, 2005 parliamentary election in Chechnya appeared in the Nov. 29, 2005 Washington Post, page 17. Pro-Putin
Chechens associated with his party (i.e., United Russia) were reported there to
have won more than 60 percent of the vote; separatists who favored
independence were not permitted on the ballot. But even this outcome
has been disputed by some observers (e.g., the Russian human rights group Memorial)
who claim that official reports of high turnout lack credibility, given the
empty streets and polling places they observed. The big winner in the
election was reported to be Deputy Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov, son of the
assassinated pro-Russian president of the region and the leader of a
pro-Moscow armed militia. His prospects for his own election as
Chechnya's president were improved by this election.
- This
March 2009 Human Rights Watch report on
conditions in Chechnya, where insurgency
continues to simmer, will open eyes.
The current (pro-Russian) president of
Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, is portrayed in it
in an especially disturbing light.
- In this light, Russian policies in Chechnya should be evaluated.
Dec. 4, 2012: Extra Credit oral reports. More on the Medvedev-Putin era (time permitting)
Re: oral reports today. Only students who
have written a book review essay on an approved book or one from the list in
the syllabus, and who have turned it in on time today, are eligible to
deliver extra credit oral reports.
All book review essays for
books on which oral reports are given are due at the start of class on the day
the report is delivered.
All other written book review extra credit essays
also are due at the start of class
today.
Dec. 6, 2012: Course Review
Do all required assignments in
the course syllabus. These include Roskin, Chapter 23 and:
Also consider reading some of these supplemental materials on the Medvedev years:
- Kathy Lally, “For Russian Journalists, one beating too many,” Washington Post online (Nov. 8, 2010): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110803788.html ; in print edition as “Attack on writer sets off protests,” Washington Post (Nov. 9, 2010): A6.
- Two news
items from the Washington Post ("Russia
Pursues Crackdown," Nov. 25, 2007; and "Obituary: Vladimir Kryuchkov:
KGB Chief Led Coup against Gorbachev," Nov. 26, 2007) underline the sharp and worrisome turn toward
authoritarianism in Russian politics. What this all means also was
the concern of an editorial by the editors of the Post ( "The
Net Tightens"); and the implications of Putin's dangerous
mischief are serious.
Dec. 10-14 , 2012 : As specified on the course syllabus, the Final Exam may be taken during any test period
between these dates.
Please write all essay answers inside a Blue Book test-taking booklet,
placing your name on its cover, only.
This page last updated/last modified on
May 24, 2012.
return to top
of this page
return to
first
page of PolS 111
Return to Prof. Bowen's Main
Home Page
