Senior Seminar: Designing Democratic Governments POLS 196 Spring 2014 Heather Stoll hstoll@polsci.ucsb.edu Class Meeting Time: W 2:00 4:50 p.m. Office: 3715 Ellison Hall Office Hours: T 2:00-4:00 p.m. or by appointment 1 Course Objectives What kind of democratic government should a country have? In this seminar, we will examine the process by which democratic governments are designed; the major choices faced by constitutional designers (for example, a presidential versus a parliamentary regime and a proportional representation versus a majoritarian electoral system); and the arguments for and against particular choices. Throughout, the theoretical issues will be illuminated by discussions of both historic and current examples of institutional choice, with a particular focus upon (but not limited to) the United States and other advanced industrial democracies. Besides familiarizing students with the academic literature on political institutions and constitutional design, the goal of the seminar is to provide you with a flavor of graduate-level instruction and hence with a more interactive learning experience than can usually be obtained from even upper division lecture courses. 2 Course Requirements First and perhaps most obviously, because this class is a seminar, it will fail without adequate student participation. Students should therefore come to class prepared to discuss the readings, which means having read the readings both carefully and critically. To encourage this, a large portion of your grade will be based upon your class participation. Note that the quantity of participation does not necessarily equal the quality, and I will weigh both when assigning you a participation grade. Class will, with the exception of our final class meeting in Week 10, be loosely organized into two sessions. In the first section, we will discuss the normative, theoretical, and empirical issues raised by the general readings. In the second, we will discuss a case study, where we will apply what we have learned to a contemporary example of institutional choice, debating the pros and cons of different institutional arrangements for a particular country. Second, students are required to serve as a moderator for one theoretical set of readings, as well as for one case study. (To be clear: this means that you will be in the hot seat for two weeks between Weeks 3 and 10.) The moderator s main job is to come to class prepared enough to keep everyone else (including the instructor!) on their toes. Moreover, for the theoretical readings, the moderator will write a short (circa 2 page) critical review 1
of the readings containing some questions for discussion. Note that this short paper should not summarize the readings (e.g., Jones says X ). Instead, it should be critical, identifying (in your opinion) issues for discussion such as the key debates, points of controversy, any perceived theoretical or empirical (methodological) problems, and/or open questions. For the case studies, the moderator will write a short (circa 2 page) memo identifying the key issues and arguing either for or against the proposed institutional changes. A brief explanation for the position, including taking on the opposing argument, should be included. The purpose of both of these short assignments is to help spur discussion in class. To ensure that we are all on the same page about what makes for good critical reviews and memos, everyone will write either a critical review or a memo for Week 2 (our first real meeting), an exercise that will count towards your participation grade. We will spend some time that week talking about what people found to be the most useful approaches to each. Critical reviews and memos should be posted on the course Gaucho Space website by 12:00 p.m. on the Tuesday before the relevant class meeting so as to allow everyone time to reflect upon them prior to class. Please send me your top three choices of topics from Weeks 3 through 10 for serving as moderator (ranked from first to third, for both the theoretical readings and the case study) by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday the 3rd. I will then assign students to topics, doing my best to take everyone s preferences into account. Please also let me know by this time if you would prefer to write a critical review or a memo for Week 2; if the distribution is very unbalanced, I will ask some randomly-chosen students to switch. Third and finally, students will write an approximately fifteen page (the acceptable range being from ten to twenty pages) term paper, which will take the form of a policy memo, as their final project. There are no exams in this course, so this final project doubles as both a final exam and a more conventional research paper. The memo is due by noon on Friday, 13 June, although you may of course turn it in earlier if doing so better fits your schedule. You may begin working on the memo at any time after the third week of class, when I will hand out a detailed prompt. You will need to do some additional reading beyond the syllabus for your paper, although the exact amount will depend upon the paper s argument and content. 3 Grading Grades for the course will be calculated as follows. Class participation, including writing a critical review or memo for Week 3. (30%) Service as moderator, including critical review and memo. Each week s service will, except in special circumstances, be weighed equally. (20%) Final project. (50%) 4 Required Reading Materials Readings for the course are available in several ways. First, I have asked the university bookstore to stock copies of our two core texts, Dahl s On Democracy and Lijphart s Patterns of Democracy, which I recommend purchasing if your budget allows it. Both can be 2
alternatively obtained from many online vendors nowadays, often used (and hence inexpensively). For example, the 1999 edition of the Lijphart text is a fine substitute for the recently-released 2012 edition, and it is available used. These books have also been placed on reserve at the library for those who do not wish to purchase a copy. Second, for copyright reasons, other books from which we will be reading more than three chapters are available on reserve from the library. You are of course also welcome to purchase copies of these books, which are readily available online in both used and new formats. All of the readings available from the library course reserve system are labeled [LIB] in the schedule below. Third, readings that are available online are labeled in the schedule. Note, however, that to access some of these readings, you will either need to be on a university computer or to have your home computer configured for off campus access. I have provided links to these readings on the course Gaucho Space website. Fourth and finally, the remaining readings (such as shorter book excerpts) are available as PDF files from the course Gaucho Space website. These are labeled [GS] in the schedule. 5 Syllabus Week 1: Organizational Session Week 2: Democracy and Institutions: What Does It Mean to Design a Democratic Government? Robert Dahl, 1998, On Democracy, Chapters 1-4, 8-9. [LIB] Arend Lijphart, 2012, Patterns of Democracy, Chapter 1; Chapters 2 3 recommended [LIB] The Economist, 2014, What s Gone Wrong with Democracy?, 1 March (http: //www.economist.com/node/21597917) G. Bingham Powell, 2000, Elections as Instruments of Democracy, Chapter 1. [GS] Case Study: Deliberative Democracy in the United States? Room for Debate: Out of Officials Hands and Onto the Ballot, 2013, New York Times, 18 June (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/ 18/ballot-initiatives-at-the-local-level) James Fishkin, 2013, Deliberation by the people themselves: Entry points for the public voice, Election Law Journal 12 (4) [GS] Week 3: Constitutions Robert Dahl, 1998, On Democracy, Chapter 10 [LIB] Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, Chapter 12 [LIB] Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and James Melton, 2009, The Endurance of National Constitutions, Chapters 1, 3, and 5 [LIB] Giovanni Sartori, 1997, Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes, 2nd ed., Chapter 13 [GS] 3
Case Study: A Constitution for Israel? Aluf Benn, 2010, A Danger Called Constitution, Haaretz, 16 June (http: //www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/a-danger-called-constitution- 1.296458) Mordechai Kremnitzer and Amir Fuchs, 2011, Now s the Time for a Constitution (http://en.idi.org.il/analysis/articles/nows-the-timefor-a-constitution) Meir Shamgar, Introduction, and Arye Carmon, Introduction, Constitution by Consensus, Israel Democracy Institute (http://en.idi.org.il/ projects/constitution-and-democratic-principles/constitution-byconsensus) Gregory Mahler, 2011, Politics and Government in Israel, Chapter 4, p. 97-114 [GS] Week 4: Executive-Legislative Relations: Presidentialism vs. Parliamentarism Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, Chapter 7 [LIB] Jose Antonio Cheibub, 2007, Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy, Chapters 1 and 7 [GS] David Samuels and Matthew Shugart, 2010, Presidents, Parties and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior, Chapters 1, 8, and 9 [GS] Case Study: A Presidential System for Turkey? Sinan Ciddi, 2013, Turkey s Dark Clouds for Election Year 2014, The World Post, 8 August (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sinan-ciddi/ turkeys-dark-clouds-for-e_b_3719613.html) Ergun Ozbudun, 2013, Presidentialism vs. Parliamentarism in Turkey, in Senem Aydin Duzgit, ed., Global Turkey in Europe: Political, Economic, and Policy Dimensions of Turkey s Evolving Relationship with the EU, IAI Research Papers, vol. 9 (http://books.google.com/books?id=kpamm3j_ UwsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=global+turkey+in+europe&hl=en&sa=X&ei= BLkPU9CKKcv1oATH94GYCQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=global\%20turkey\ %20in\%20europe&f=false) Week 5: Vertical Relations: Centralization vs. vs. Unitarianism Decentralization, Federalism Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, Chapter 10 [LIB] Erik Wibbels, 2006, Madison in Baghdad? Decentralization and Federalism in Comparative Politics, Annual Review of Political Science 9: 165-188 [GS] Daniel Treisman, 2007, The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization, Chapters 1, 2 (p. 21-27 only), 10-12 [LIB] Case Study: A United Kingdom? Devolution and Scottish independence 4
Stephen Castle and Stanley Reed, 2014, Scottish Oil and Gas an Issue in Vote on Independence, New York Times, 24 February (http://www. nytimes.com/2014/02/25/world/europe/scot-oil-and-gas-an-issue-invote-on-independence.html?hpw&rref=business) Juliet Berger, 2000, Bye-bye Britain? Devolution and the United Kingdom, SAIS Review, 20 (2) [GS] Week 6: Electoral Systems: The Big Picture Robert Dahl, On Democracy, Chapter 11 [LIB] Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, Chapter 8 [LIB] Excerpts from the 2013 Report of the Task Force on Electoral Rules and Democratic Governance, American Political Science Association: Chapter 1 (p. 1-13), Mala Htun and G. Bingham Powell, Between Science and Engineering: Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance ; and Chapter 7 (p. 62-73), John Carey, Simon Hix, Shaheen Mozaffar, Andrew Reynolds, Report from the Field: Two Surveys of Political Scientists (http: //www.apsanet.org/electoralrules/) Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly, 1997, The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design, p. 1-2, 7-14, 121-131 [GS] Robert Moser and Ethan Scheiner, 2012, Electoral Systems and Political Context: How the Effects of Rules Vary Across New and Established Democracies, Introduction and Chapter 1 [GS] Case Study: Electoral Reform in South Africa? Hendrik Hertzberg, 2013, Mandela s Electoral Legacy, The New Yorker, 6 December (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/ 2013/12/mandelas-electoral-legacy.html#entry-more) City Press, 2013, DA Moves to Change Electoral System, 4 March (http: //www.citypress.co.za/politics/da-moves-to-change-electoral-system/ ) Judith February, 2009, The Electoral System and Electoral Administration, in Roger Southall and John Daniel, eds., Zunami! The 2009 South African Elections (only skim p. 58-63) (http://books.google.com/books? id=qna4wtl5pjkc&lpg=pa1&dq=zunami!\%20\%20the\%202009\%20south\ %20African\%20elections&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=Zunami!\%20\%20The\%202009\ %20South\%20African\%20elections&f=false) Week 7: Electoral Systems: The Devil Is in the Details Excerpts from the 2013 Report of the Task Force on Electoral Rules and Democratic Governance, American Political Science Association: Chapter 3 (p. 31-37), Mona Lena Krook and Robert G. Moser, Electoral Rules and Political Inclusion, and Chapter 4 (p. 38-45), Matthew Shugart, Why ballot structure matters (http://www.apsanet.org/electoralrules/) 5
Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly, 1997, The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design, p. 115-119 [GS] Lisa Handley and Bernard Grofman,eds., Redistricting in Comparative Perspective, Chapters Introduction and 18 [GS] R. Michael Alvarez, Betsy Sinclair and Richard Hasen, 2006, How Much is Enough? The Ballot Order Effect and the Use of Social Science Research in Election Law Disputes, Election Law Journal 5 (1) [GS] Mark Jones, 2009, Gender Quotas, Electoral Laws, and the Election of Women: Evidence from the Latin American Vanguard, Comparative Political Studies 42 (1) [GS] Gideon Rahat, Reuven Hazan and Richard Katz, 2008, Democracy and Political Parties: On the Uneasy Relationship between Participation, Competition, and Representation, Party Politics 14 (6) [GS] Case Study: Electoral Reform in California Adam Nagourney, 2013, California Sees Gridlock Ease in Governing, New York Times, 18 October (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/us/californiaupends-its-image-of-legislative-dysfunction.html) Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm, 2012, Test-driving California s Election Reforms, Public Policy Institute of California (http://www.ppic.org/ main/publication_quick.asp?i=1032) Week 8: In the Trenches: Electoral Administration and Governance Pippa Norris, 2014, Why Electoral Integrity Matters, Chapters 1 and 10 [GS] J. Elklit and A. Reynolds, 2002, The Impact of Election Administration on the Legitimacy of Emerging Democracies: A New Comparative Politics Research Agenda, Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 40 (2) [GS] Susan Hyde, 2010, Experimenting in Democracy Promotion: International Observers and the 2004 Presidential Election in Indonesia, Perspectives on Politics 8 (2) [GS] Michael Callen, James Long and Mohammad Isaqzadeh, 2011, Point and Shoot Elections, Foreign Policy, The South Asia Channel, 15 December (http:// southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/15/point_and_shoot_elections) Case Study: Election Administration in the United States Excerpts from the Commission on Federal Election Reform, 2005, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, Letter from the Co-Chairs (p. ii), Executive Summary (p. iv), Section 1, Goals and Challenges of Election Reform (p. 1-7), Summary of Recommendations (p. 79-87) (http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/) Henry Brady, Michael Herron, Walter Mebane Jr., Jasjeet Sekhon, Kenneth Shotts, and Jonathan Wand, 2001, Law and Data: The Butterfly Ballot Episode, PS 34 (1) [GS] 6
Week 9: Legislatures Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, Chapters 6 and 11 [LIB] George Tsebelis and Jeanette Money, 1997, Bicameralism, Chapters Introduction, 1, 2, 9, p. 209-223, and Conclusion [LIB] G. Bingham Powell, 2000, Elections as Instruments of Democracy, Chapter 2, p. 20-22 and 31-43 [GS] Case Study: Reforming the House of Lords in the United Kingdom The Economist, 2012, The Coalition s Millstone: Reforming the House of Lords, 14 July (http://www.economist.com/node/21558582), and Constitutional Reform: Lording It (http://www.economist.com/node/21558574) Alan Renwick, 2011, House of Lords Reform: A Briefing Paper, Political Studies Association, p. 3-15 and 85-88 [GS] Week 10: The Process of Constitutional Engineering and Its Limits Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and James Melton, 2009, The Endurance of National Constitutions, Chapter 2 [LIB] Justin Blount, Zachary Elkins, and Tom Ginsburg, 2012, Does the Process of Constitution-Making Matter? in Tom Ginsburg, ed., Comparative Constitutional Design [GS] Donald Horowitz, 2001, Constitutional Design: Proposals versus Processes, in Andrew Reynolds, ed., The Architecture of Democracy [GS] Philippe Schmitter, 2001, Contrasting Approaches to Political Engineering: Constitutionalization & Democratization, in M. Becker, H-J. Lauth, and G. Pickel, eds., Rechtsstaat und Demokratie [GS] Rein Taagepera, 2001, Designing Electoral Rules and Waiting for an Electoral System to Evolve, in Andrew Reynolds, ed., The Architecture of Democracy [GS] Adam Przeworski, 2004, Institutions Matter? Government and Opposition 39 (4): 527-540 [GS] 7