Categorizing Contemporary Regimes Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Apply core concepts to contemporary examples of governing regimes. Discuss the nature and variety of authoritarian regimes. Discuss the nature and variety of representative regimes. Analyze the connections among legitimacy, authoritarian governments, and representative governments. Provide an overview of political history and contemporary political and legal developments. Regimes approach the acquisition, maintenance, and exercise of authority and legitimacy in many different ways. Though the range of regimes is staggering, there are a number of generalizations that characterize the rich diversity of the world’s governing regimes. Authoritarianism Authoritarian regimes authorize institutions, which in principle need not seek or secure the approval of the people, to use power. Authoritarian regimes can confer governmental power unchecked by popular elections in a wide variety of entities—including in the military, in religious leaders, in a monarchy, or in political parties espousing a particular political ideology. As a number of scholars have long noted, authoritarianism can take ether a hard or a soft form. This distinction has been drawn by scholars for several decades. Edwin A. Winckler, “Institutionalization and Participation on Taiwan: From Hard to Soft Authoritarianism?” The China Quarterly 99 (1984): 481–499. In hard authoritarianism , regimes act without consulting with the broad majority of citizens. International observers frequently cite these regimes as violators of their citizens’ human rights. In soft authoritarianism , on the other hand, regimes affirm their right to rule apart from consultation with or approval from the public, but nevertheless frequently seek the input of the people and frequently attempt to advance what the people desire. They may even have institutions with limited degrees of authorized power that are electorally accountable—and thus can be seen as a hybrid of authoritarianism and democracy—although in these cases the unaccountable element in the regime can usually override the actions democratically elected bodies undertake. Recent studies indicate that the number of these hybrid forms of authoritarianism grew in 2020. “Global Democracy Has a Very Bad Year,” The Economist, February 2, 2021, https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/02/02/global-democracy-has-a-very-bad-year. Although nondemocratic, these regimes sometimes prove to be relatively strong defenders of their citizens’ human rights—except, that is, for what many see as the basic human right to vote or otherwise shape in a formal, legal way the actions of one’s government. Authoritarianism and Legitimacy In some authoritarian regimes, there may be nothing to move the regime toward alignment with broadly held popular sentiments about what gives the regime the right to rule. In these regimes, the government may seek to engage, often in a systematic and pervasive manner, in the education of the populace, guiding the people to value the regime, its objectives, and its right to rule. This can take a variety of forms, including strict control over the education of the young, regulations on criticisms of the regime, and extensive government propaganda. These authoritarian regimes are often accused of “manufacturing consent.” In addition, authoritarian regimes may rely more heavily than representative governments on physical force to compel obedience to the regime. This fact raises the prospect that the regime will violate citizens’ human rights. Since authoritarian regimes may use substantial physical force to ensure compliance, they often develop large militaries and police networks. These enforcement agencies run the risk, over time, of coming to exert an unlawful level of control over the operations of the regime. Contemporary Thailand provides an example. Thailand is technically a constitutional monarchy, with the king subordinate to the parliament, prime minister, and the national court system. Recently, the state’s military has become the de facto governor of the regime. The 2020 election for parliament provided evidence of the military’s power, as most international observers detected that the military had systematically manipulated the vote to ensure the election to parliament of representatives favorable to the military and its political influence. “Demands for Democratic Reform Surge in Thailand,” NPR, August 17, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/08/17/903153495/demands-for-democratic-reform-surge-in-thailand. This development led to considerable protests against the regime. The legitimacy of the regime seems to be coming under question. Why Does Thailand Have So Many Coups? There have been more military coups in Thailand in modern history than in any other country in the world. Morocco: An Example of Soft Authoritarianism The Kingdom of Morocco constitutes a contemporary form of soft authoritarianism. The king of Morocco is the head of state —that is, the leader who represents the unity of the country. In many regimes, the head of state has little actual power. The Queen of England, for example, is the head of state of the United Kingdom, but she has very little control over government policies and actions. In Morocco, however, the king plays a much larger role in governing the nation. Morocco was under the control of the French Empire until 1956. In that year, Morocco secured independence and created a constitutional monarchy in which the king had great authority. He was both the head of state and the head of the government—that is, the leader of the executive branch—and he exercised control over most governmental affairs. A bicameral legislature was also created, but it had very limited lawmaking authority. Popular uprisings like the Arab Spring , a substantial movement across the Arab world between 2010 and 2013, sought to expand democracy. In response, the king of Morocco approved changes to the Moroccan constitution giving the legislature greater authority to pass laws on a wider range of issues. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Arab Spring,” https://www.britannica.com/event/Arab-Spring. Today, members of the parliament are elected in free, open elections in which up to 31 parties and coalitions vie for office. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Morocco,” https://www.britannica.com/place/Morocco; Tarik El Barakah, “Parties Campaign Ahead of Morocco’s Pivotal Elections,” AP News, September 7, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/africa-business-health-elections-europe-d775c3849447f662553e8ba3220e8292. The king is now the head of state, but he is no longer the official head of government. Unlike in the United Kingdom, however, although the king is called the head of state, he still exercises tremendous authority. Under the 2011 constitution, the king appoints the head of the government, who administers the executive branch on a day-to-day basis, and the king still remains the head of the military and has the authority to disband parliament, to veto laws passed through the legislature, and to issue legally binding decrees on his own without regard to parliament. Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Morocco”; Morocco’s Constitution of 2011, trans. Jefri J. Ruchti (Getzville, NY: William S. Hein & Co., 2012), https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011.pdf. The king of Morocco, therefore, still retains very substantial powers that enable him to override the will of the people as reflected in legislative elections. The Moroccan monarchy seeks to legitimize its rule largely on the basis of religion. The king is presented to the nation as the Amir al-Mu’minin , or the commander and defender of the Muslim faithful in his realm. The monarchy asserts that its lineage extends back to the prophet Muhammad, furthering its claims to legitimacy in this Muslim-majority nation. Anour Boukhars, Politics in Morocco: Executive Monarchy and Enlightened Authoritarianism (Abingdon, England: Routledge, 2011). In terms of human rights, Morocco has a history of repression in the Western Sahara region and an overall uneven record as judged by the norms of Western nations. However, in 2016 the United States embassy in Morocco noted “the positive steps that Morocco [has taken] to strengthen its respect for human rights,” although it also noted that more work is required to secure human rights in Morocco and in the region. “2017 Human Rights Report Communiqué,” US Embassy & Consulates in Morocco, March 3, 2017, https://ma.usembassy.gov/2017-human-rights-report-communique/. North Korea: An Example of Hard Authoritarianism One example of a hard authoritarian regime is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), often referred to as North Korea . North Korea is effectively a type of communist dictatorship. The most powerful person in the DPRK is currently Kim Jong-un , who took power by the decree of his father, who had taken power by the decree of his father, the founder of the DPRK, Kim Il-Sung, a hero in the resistance movement to Japan during World War II. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Kim Il-Sung,” https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kim-Il-Sung. Kim Jong-un possesses all effective political power and rules the society through his position as the general secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and as chair of the Central Military Commission. The DPRK constitution creates three branches of government. The executive branch is headed by the premier, a top-ranking member of the Workers’ Party, and Kim Jung-un also serves as the country’s president. Although the North Korean constitution does create a legislature, called the Supreme People’s Assembly, whose members are elected through a highly controlled process in which voters have no real choice of candidates, this legislature has no real power. Sung Chul Yang, The North and South Korean Political Systems: A Comparative Analysis (Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Taylor & Francis, 2019), 270. All members of the legislature must belong to an organization called the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, an ideological organization advocating North Korean nationalism. Korea North: Energy Policy, Laws and Regulations Handbook, Volume 1: Strategic Information and Developments (Alexandria, VA: International Business Publications, 2018), 71. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Korea_North_Energy_Policy_Laws_and_Regul/R_OxDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0; “Freedom in the World 2018: North Korea,” Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/country/north-korea/freedom-world/2018. The Workers’ Party is guaranteed up to 90 percent of the seats in the legislature. A judicial branch also exists, headed by the Supreme People’s Court. Because the legislature selects its members, they are not independent of the Workers’ Party and its ruler, Kim Jong-un. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “North Korea: Local Government,” https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Korea/Local-government. Through this system, the government maintains tight control over the economy and, in effect, over all property in the country. There are few if any civil rights, the state controls the media, and the government exercises control over who can enter and leave the country as well as who can live in and travel among the country’s various regions and cities (with permission to reside in the capital, Pyongyang, a coveted plum). The regime seeks to justify its rule though Juche , the North Korean regime’s ideology of national self-reliance. The government frequently seeks to stoke popular resentment, especially of the Japanese mistreatment of Koreans during World War II and of the United States’ air bombardment of North Korea during the Korean War (a war North Korea initiated when it invaded South Korea in 1950). The regime in turn presents itself as the defender of Korean independence, as the only means by which the entire Korean peninsula can be united, and as the only way by which North Korea’s interests can ever be served. As evidence of this, the government points to the substantial economic growth the country experienced in the mid-1950s, growth that eclipsed even that of South Korea, and claims that the country would once more enjoy this level of economic growth were it not for the sanctions imposed on it by foreign countries. To bolster these claims, the regime has developed an elaborate mythology, teaching that the ruling family is of divine or semidivine origin and that only through subordination to this family can the people themselves achieve genuine self-reliance. This subordination is not presented as degrading but as an act of familial love, since the Supreme Leader —the popular name for Kim Jung-un—is presented as a loving father and all North Koreans as his daughters and sons, on whom he dotes and whom he is rearing to grow into true self-sufficiency and deep devotion to their country. Heonik K. Kwon and Byung-Ho Chung, North Korea: Beyond Charismatic Politics (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2012). This focus on the noble character of Kim Jong-un and his father and grandfather suggests that the regime’s claims to legitimacy are based less on communist ideology or national self-sufficiency and more on the (alleged) personal virtues of the men who have ruled the DPRK since it was founded in 1948. Eleanor Albert, “North Korea’s Power Structure,” Council on Foreign Relations, June 17, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-koreas-power-structure; Kongdan Oh and Ralph Hassig, North Korea in a Nutshell: A Contemporary Overview (Lanhan, MD; Rowman and Littlefield, 2021). Corn dries along the sidewalk on a street in Pyongyang, North Korea, as part of a traditional socialist farming practice emphasizing mass resilience in the face of natural disasters like typhoons and flooding. (credit: “drying corn in the middle of Pyongyang on the Sidewalk” by Mario Micklisch/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) The Case of Iran Some regimes, like contemporary Iran , blend hard and soft authoritarianism. Contemporary Iran emerged in the wake of the successful revolution in 1979. The goal of the regime in Iran is to work to ensure that society is pleasing to Allah. The overwhelming majority of the population of Iran is made up of Twelver Shi‘a Muslims. Adherents of Twelver Shi‘a Islam follow the guidance of Shi‘a religious leaders. William L. Cleveland, A History of the Modern Middle East (Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Taylor & Francis, 2018), https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_History_of_the_Modern_Middle_East/CUhaDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=twelfth+imam+mahdi+twelver+shi%27a&pg=PT54&printsec=frontcover; “Pilgrimage to Karbala,” PBS, March 26, 2007, https://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/uncategorized/who-are-the-shia-hidden-imam/1731/; Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Twelver Shi‘ah,” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twelver-Shia. Grounded on these theological principles, the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran vests ultimate political authority in a Supreme Leader, who must be a Shi‘a cleric of the Twelver school respected among the leading clerics of Iran. A Guardian Council of Islamic scholars works under the Supreme Leader. Under this is a parliament, made up of 290 elected members. The voters also elect a president. The Iranian voters, however, have a very limited degree of influence over the Iranian government. All candidates for the parliament or the presidency must be vetted and approved by the Guardian Council, and the Guardian Council must approve all the laws the parliament passes. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Iran: Government and Society,” https://www.britannica.com/place/Iran/Government-and-society; “The Structure of Power in Iran,” Frontline, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/inside/govt.html; Karim Sadjadpour, “The Supreme Leader,” The Iran Primer, October 2, 2010, https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/supreme-leader. Nevertheless, the voters do have some say in the operations of the regime within these strict limits, and a variety of political parties vie to have their members elected to parliament. As such, the regime can be thought of as a sort of fusion of hard and soft authoritarianism. Martin, Creating the Islamic State; Abbas Milani calls the Iranian regime “paradoxical” due to its combination of institutions meant to ensure strict religious rule and more democratic branches of government. Abbas Milani, “The Authoritarian Resurgence: Iran’s Paradoxical Regime,” Journal of Democracy 26, no. 2 (2015): 52–60. In light of the regime’s ability to resist large-scale popular opposition such as the Green Movement of 2009, when substantial electoral challenges were made to the status quo, it can be argued that the regime tilts rather heavily in the direction of hard authoritarianism. Gunes Murat Tezcur, “Democratic Struggles and Authoritarian Responses in Iran in Contemporary Perspective” in Middle Eastern Authoritarianisms: Governance, Contestation, and Regime Resilience in Syria and Iran, eds. Steven Heydermann and Reinold Leenders (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013). Representative Democratic Governments Unlike authoritarian regimes, representative governments only authorize governmental entities that are legally obligated to respond to and to be judged by the citizenry, through periodic elections, to make and enforce laws. These regimes therefore place most power in the hands of those who represent at least the majority of the people’s political preferences. The exception to this rule is the power of judges, which can include the power of judicial review , or the power to strike down statutes or regulations that the court determines violate the constitutional laws of the regime. In some representative regimes, judges are elected (as they are in several US states), but in other regimes the branches of the government that are electorally accountable to the people make judicial selections. The judiciary can wield its power to strike down laws as unconstitutional in a potentially counter-majoritarian way—that is, in a manner at odds with the preferences of the majority of the citizenry. Since the 19th century, the number of representative regimes has grown considerably, partly as a result of the victory of representative governments against fascist regimes in World War II, partly as a result of the fall of the nonrepresentative communist government in the Soviet Union and of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, and partly as a result of the third wave of democratization that began in the 1970s, which saw democratically accountable structures of government emerge in Spain, Portugal, South Korea, and, somewhat later, in Latin American countries such as Chile. These representative regimes vary in structure, though all share a commitment to ensuring that most authorized power is responsive and accountable to the nation’s citizens. Representative regimes use periodic elections to select most officeholders. The key legitimizing claim at the heart of representative regimes is that only when the people choose officeholders to represent their interests does the government deserve the right to wield power. Unitary versus Federal Representative Regimes Representative regimes can be structured in a number of concrete ways. One point of differentiation among representative regimes is the distinction between unitary or federal. In a unitary system , all the major electorally accountable officials are accountable to the entire citizenry, and they make and enforce laws for the entire country (with the exception of minor local-level matters that are handled by local elected assemblies). Regimes embodying federalism authorize a national government to exercise some powers and governments whose laws cover only a small region, such as a state or province, to exercise other forms of power. One possible advantage of a federal regime is its ability to accommodate regional differences. Different areas often have different sets of values, cultural practices, and economic activities, and a federal system allows provincial or state governments to administer most regional issues, leaving issues of common concern to the central government. The government of Canada provides one example. Created in 1867 as a federal system, the provincial government of Quebec has been able to reflect the historical connection between Quebecois (residents of Quebec), Catholicism, and French language and culture, while allowing other provinces to reflect their more British culture and values. Likewise, more rural provinces such as Alberta are able to focus on certain economic activities, such as oil production, cattle ranching, and agriculture, whereas more urban provinces, such as Ontario, can focus on areas such as industrial production and high-tech industries. By allowing provincial governments a degree of autonomy, the Canadian federation has been able to knit together a diverse citizenry. Another potential advantage is the reduced possibility of widespread abuse of governmental power. Since the force of government is distributed among multiple governments, federalism minimizes the likelihood that one government will become corrupt or abusive. Consider the importance the Allied powers placed on ensuring that the government that replaced the conquered Nazi regime embodied federalism. After the surrender of the Nazi government in 1945, the allies governed western Germany through military governors who oversaw West Germany’s reconstruction. The military governors, the most influential of whom were from the United States, had to approve the new West German government. They insisted that the West German government be structured according to federalism, with strong powers reserved to each state and only limited powers conferred on the national government. They looked to this structure of government in the hopes of ensuring that the new regime would not develop a concentration of power in the national government that could ever again emerge as a threat to international peace. Wolfgang Renzsch, “German Federalism in Historical Perspective: Federalism as a Substitute for a National State,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 19, no. 4 (1989): 17–33. The Allies played an active role in leading—and shaping—the post–World War II recovery in Europe. The sign on the side of the building pictured here reads: “Berlin Emergency Program with Marshall Plan Help.” The Marshall Plan was a US-led piece of the recovery effort. (credit: “West Berlin, Germany. Marshall Plan aid to Germany totaled $1,390,600 and enabled that country to rise from the ashes of defeat, as symbolized by this worker in West Berlin. Even a year before the end of the Marshall Plan in 1951, Germany had surpassed her prewar industrial production level” by US International Development Cooperation Agency/National Archives, Public Domain) A third advantage of federalism is that it promotes more moderate policy outcomes. In a federal system, the central government retains some authority to make laws that impact the provinces, but it is not permitted to entirely override the provinces’ authorized scopes of authority. In federal systems, national and provincial governments often have differing views of the proper degree of overlap between their spheres of authority. Defenders of federalism see in this disagreement a productive tension that can lead to compromise and that often results in prudent policy outcomes. In contrast, proponents of a unitary system see clear lines of authority as a major advantage. In a federal system, the laws of the regime can become a patchwork of rules and regulations at the provincial level, topped by an uncertain allocation of authority to the national and provincial governments. This lack of clarity can lead to inefficiencies in the way the government operates and inefficiencies in the economy. Defenders of unitary governments usually add that a unitary system allows the people to focus their attention on the way the government exercises its power. In federalism, the people’s attention is split between the two levels of government, which can reduce the degree of focus on both. Defenders of unitary governments submit that representative government works best when all the people focus on the important work governments do on their behalf. They argue that the focus on one national source of lawmaking facilitates a stronger sense of national cohesion. Arthur B. Gunlicks, Comparing Liberal Democracies: The United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union (Bloomington, IN; iUniverse, 2011). Parliamentary Representative Democratic Government As discussed in Chapter 9: Legislatures and Chapter 10: Executives, Cabinets, and Bureaucracies , some representative regimes are structured as parliaments. Historically the parliamentary form of government emerged to provide a means for the quick resolution of pressing collective needs. In medieval England, where the parliamentary system first emerged, the king would call a parliament drawn from representatives of the commoners and of the nobility to agree on a course of action to meet a compelling threat or societal need, usually a threat or need requiring the king to tax the population to raise revenue. S. E. Finer, The History of Government from the Earliest Times, 3 vols. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999). To this day, parliamentary systems are structured to allow for substantial degrees of legislative action in a short period of time. If a party holds a majority in the parliament, it selects the officers of the executive branch, and thus a majority party can gain control of most governmental positions. A majority in parliament, therefore, can enact sweeping changes. However, parliamentary regimes may be much more fragmented. The State of Israel is an example of a parliamentary representative regime, and its structure has granted substantial influence to parties that represent only a small fraction of the population. Israel has a unitary regime in which the national parliament, called the Knesset , has the authority to pass laws for every region in the nation and at all levels of governance, including municipalities. “The Knesset,” Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/state/democracy/pages/the%20knesset.aspx; Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Israel: Government of Israel,” https://www.britannica.com/place/Israel/Government. The Knesset is a unicameral parliament—that is, a legislative body with only one house. Candidates for the Knesset do not run for office in legislative districts. Instead, each party selects its own potential Knesset members, and each party is listed on a national ballot. All parties that receive over 3.25 percent of the vote receive the percentage of seats in the 120-member Knesset equal to their percentage of the national vote. The individuals selected by that party take the party’s seats in the Knesset. Only the parties, and not the individuals each party selects, are listed on the ballots. “Elections for the Knesset,” The Knesset, https://m.knesset.gov.il/en/mk/pages/elections.aspx; Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Knesset” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Knesset. As with other parliamentary systems, in Israel the executive branch is made up of a cabinet of ministers, each of whose position is derived ultimately from having the support of a majority of the members of parliament. If one party has a majority in the parliament, that party will create a list of ministers and send the list to the prime minister, whose job is largely ceremonial and who is expected to approve the list. In the event that no party receives a majority of the 120 votes, a coalition government is formed. Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Knesset.” A coalition government is an alliance of individual parties that by themselves do not have the support of the majority of the parliament but that, by agreeing to work together, can form a team of ministers that can acquire the support of the majority of the members in parliament. Once majority support for the list of ministers is secured, the list is sent to the prime minister for approval. “Israeli Democracy-How Does It Work,” Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/state/democracy/pages/israeli%20democracy%20-%20how%20does%20it%20work.aspx. Israeli Coalition Reaches Deal to Oust Netanyahu In June 2021, a coalition in the Israeli Knesset reached a deal to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One consequence of parliamentary governments such as Israel’s is that if the country is divided politically between major parties that each receive a great deal but not a majority of the vote and the two parties do not agree to work together, those two parties will vie to win the support of the small parties that hold the remaining parliamentary seats. If one of the large parties can form a coalition with enough small parties, it can reach the majority necessary to form the executive branch. However, small parties might not agree to give their support to larger parties without some assurance that their party members will hold a significant position in the executive branch. In this way, parties can come to exercise influence out of proportion with the strength of their support in the population as a whole. This has been common over the past four decades in Israel, as the conservative Likud Party and the more liberal Labour Party have each received about 40 percent of the vote “Israeli Elections: Electoral History,” Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-electoral-history; “Twentieth Knesset,” The Knesset, https://knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_res20.htm. and both have formed coalitions with smaller parties, including parties representing the relatively small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel. “Israel Election Results: Most Ultra-Orthodox Leaders Declare They Will Back Netanyahu for Prime Minister,” Haaertz, March 28, 2021, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/israel-election-results-lapid-gantz-to-meet-sunday-to-discuss-forming-coalition-1.9662066; “Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Community in Israel: Facts and Figures,” Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ultra-orthodox-jewish-community-in-israel-facts-and-figures. In 2021, a group of non-Likud parties formed a coalition government with a small Arab party. This has given an Arab party, for the first time, substantial influence in Israel in excess of its overall percentage of the vote. Guy Grossman and Devorah Manekin, “An Islamist Party Is Part of Israel’s New Coalition Government. How Did That Happen?” Washington Post, June 7, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/07/an-islamist-party-is-part-israels-new-coalition-government-how-did-that-happen/. Democratic Representative Systems with a Congress, President, and Independent Judiciary, and Blended Systems In a representative constitution with a congressional legislature, a presidential executive, and an independent judiciary, citizens, broken up into sections or districts, elect representatives to the legislature. The president is elected independently of the legislature, and usually these two independent branches must either agree for a law to be passed or one branch (usually the legislature) can override a veto of the other. After laws are passed, a judiciary, whose decisions are independent of the legislature and the executive branch, has the right to strike down any laws deemed to violate the constitution. The federal government under the United States Constitution may be the best-known example of such a system. The structure of the government of the United States serves the goals the United States government has historically set—to secure the natural rights of the people while also providing common defense and facilitating economic prosperity. As the preamble to the Constitution asserts, the structure of federal government is designed “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The United States was founded on the belief that these tasks require a government that can act with speed when necessary but not so hastily as to permit the government to violate personal liberties. To this effect, the Constitution invests the federal government with substantial political power while also restraining that power. As discussed in Chapter 4: Civil Liberties and Chapter 7: Civil Rights , the Constitution restrains that power by itemizing civil liberties the government cannot revoke, a list found in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution, and delineating civil rights the government must protect, a list found in the Bill of Rights —the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. For the same reason, the Constitution has been interpreted as authorizing the exercise of most acts of political power only when there is agreement among all three branches of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary—to reduce the possibility of governmental abuse. Thomas West, The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017). Separation of Powers This short video discusses the philosophy behind the separation of powers as it is included in the United States Constitution. The United States is not unique in adopting a regime that embodies a separation and balance of powers. The federal government of Mexico, for example, is also based on a separation of powers among a president, a national congress, and an independent judiciary. The structure of the Mexican federal legislature, however, is different than that of the United States. The Mexican legislature blends a proportional system of representation with a system based on representatives elected in distinct districts. The Mexican federal legislature is bicameral. The lower chamber, called the Chamber of Deputies, has 500 members, 300 of whom are elected by voters in single districts. The remaining 200 seats are selected using a system of proportional representation. The 200 seats are divided among five large regions, each containing a number of states. (Mexico, like the United States, is a federal system with state- and federal-level governments authorized to exercise distinct powers.) In each of these five regional elections, each party seeking office is listed on the ballot, and the 40 seats for that region are allocated on the basis of the proportion of the vote each party receives. The Chamber of Senators operates in a similarly blended way, but through the use of a nationwide proportional vote. The Chamber of Senators has 128 members, 96 of whom are elected in districts and 32 of whom are selected by a national ballot on which each party running for office is listed, with the 32 seats being distributed to the parties on the basis of their percentage of the national vote. Regime Types and Data Analysis This graph plots countries according to their political regime type and Human Rights Protection Score. Political regime types are plotted as 0 = “closed autocracy,” 1 = “electoral autocracy,” 2 = “electoral democracy,” and 3 = “liberal democracy.” (credit: “Political regime type vs. Human Rights Score, 2017 by Our World in Data, CC BY 4.0) As you read through this chapter, you may notice connections and contradictions among different types of regimes. Political scientists often look for what they can learn from the similarities and differences among regimes and how they can use that information to explain the behavior of states and other actors. This process involves collecting pieces of data about regimes and comparing that data through either quantitative or qualitative analysis. When you learn to draw conclusions from this type of data analysis, you better understand different types of regimes while developing a marketable skill. The ability to understand and analyze empirical and quantitative data is useful in a wide range of contexts. For example, retailers often want to understand and compare preferences across multiple different groups. Knowing how to analyze and interpret data can help you understand the similarities and differences between regimes or between consumer groups. At the end of the day, you use the same skill set. The federal executive branch in Mexico is directly elected by popular vote. The judicial branch is capped by the Mexican Supreme Court, which has the power of judicial review. The president nominates three candidates for each open position on the Supreme Court, and a nominee requires the approval of two-thirds of the senate to join the Supreme Court. Each Supreme Court justice serves for a 15-year term and can only be removed through impeachment by a majority vote in the Chamber of Deputies, followed by a trial and conviction in the senate, a process that requires two-thirds of the senate to agree to remove the justice. “The Mexican Electoral System,” Instituto Nacional Electoral, https://portalanterior.ine.mx/archivos3/portal/historico/contenido/The_Mexican_Electoral_System/; Matthew C. Ingram and Diane Kapiszewki, Beyond High Courts: The Justice Complex in Latin America (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2019), https://www.google.com/books/edition/Beyond_High_Courts/wphWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mexico+mexican+Supreme+Court+justice++impeachment+by+a+majority+vote+%22Chamber+of+Deputies%22&pg=PT193&printsec=frontcover. The government of Mexico has sought to legitimize its rule in large part through declaring, in explicit detail, the rights it recognizes and by dedicating itself to concrete measures of social, economic, and cultural improvement. The Mexican Constitution pledges itself to defend and promote a wide array of rights—far wider than the list of rights found in the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights and its 13th Amendment (banning slavery), 14th Amendment (providing equal protection under the law), and 15th and 19th Amendments (guaranteeing voting rights to all adult men and women). The Mexican Constitution includes all of these rights and many additional rights such as “the right to have a decent and socially useful job” (Article 123); the right to be free from “any form of discrimination . . . which violates the human dignity” (Article 1); the right to an “education provided by the State [that] shall develop harmoniously all human abilities and will stimulate in pupils the love for the country, respect for human rights and the principles of international solidarity, independence and justice” (Article 3); the right to “quality nourishment” provided by the state (Article 4); the right “to enjoy a decent and respectable house” (Article 4); and the right to “practice sports” (Article 4). Mexico’s Constitution of 1917 with Amendments through 2015, trans. M. Fernanda Gomez Aban (Comparative Constitutions Project, 2021), https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015.pdf?lang=en. In addition, the Mexican Constitution makes extensive reference to the rights of Indigenous groups. As evidence of its responsiveness to the people’s needs and desires, the government points to the fact that the constitution has been amended over 200 times since its adoption in 1917. Mauro Arturo Rivera León, “Understanding Constitutional Amendments in Mexico: Perpetuum Mobile Constitution,” Mexican Law Review 9, no. 2 (2017): 3–27, DOI:10.22201/iij.24485306e.2017.18.10774. In all, the vast ambition to advance the social justice these constitutional rights represent continues to supply the foundation for the claims of legitimacy of the federal government in Mexico. In the last several decades, however, a number of political scientists have documented a decline in governmental legitimacy in Mexico, due in part to the people’s concern over the power of drug cartels to corrupt governmental officials and to run shadow governments and in part to the rise of violent crime associated with the cultivation and distribution of drugs. Benjamin J. Mackey, “A State of Illegitimacy: The Dynamics of Criminal and State Legitimacy in Mexico,” Inquiries Journal 10, no. 10 (2008), http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1742/a-state-of-illegitimacy-the-dynamics-of-criminal-and-state-legitimacy-in-mexico. Increasingly, many Mexicans fault the government for its inability to effectively address these problems. Since so much of the crime and corruption causing the decline in Mexican governmental legitimacy involves illegal drugs supplied by violent cartels, the Mexican government has recently begun to explore alternatives to policies of criminalizing and imprisoning drug dealers. In 2021, the Mexican federal government took a step toward putting this new way of thinking into practice when it legalized the recreational use of marijuana . Whether this policy or similar policies will help the government to reign in organized criminal violence and to therefore enhance government legitimacy remains to be seen. Regimes represent a wide variety of institutional forms. In authoritarian regimes, political power is consolidated in a group that is not accountable to the people through elections. Authoritarianism can be divided into soft and hard versions based largely on the degree to which the government consults with the people and aspires to uphold the people’s genuine interests and rights. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, known as North Korea, is an example of hard authoritarianism, and the Kingdom of Morocco can be seen as an example of soft authoritarianism. A regime can also blend elements of soft and hard authoritarianism, which is arguably the case in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Representative democratic government constitutes an additional kind of regime. Representative governments take a variety of forms. Some are federalist, where power is divided between national and regional governments, and others are unitary systems, where governmental power is held almost exclusively at the national level. Further, representative democracies can have a parliament, where the executive branch is selected by the legislative branch. Some parliamentary systems, such as in the State of Israel, confer seats in the legislature based on a party’s proportion of the popular vote rather than having elections among candidates in a set number of electoral districts. Systems that have a separation of power and a congressional system of government have an independently elected executive branch and usually elect legislators from set electoral districts, although some representative governments, such as the government of Mexico, blend selection of legislators by district elections and by proportional representation determined by the percentage of the vote parties in large sections of the country receive. Regimes across the world seek to legitimize their rule in a variety of ways, including by reference to tradition or the religious status and charisma of the leadership, or by claims to be protecting the rights of the citizens and/or advancing ambitious goals for establishing social justice. coalition government an alliance of individual parties that by themselves do not have the support of the majority of a parliament but that, by agreeing to work together, can form a team of ministers that can acquire the support of the majority of parliament federalism a regime type that authorizes a national government to exercise some powers and governments whose laws cover only a small region, such as a state or province, to exercise other powers hard authoritarianism the condition where a regime acts without any consultation with the broad majority of citizens head of state a political leader who represents the unity of the country Juche the North Korean regime’s ideology of national self-reliance Knesset the unitary national parliament of the State of Israel soft authoritarianism a condition where a regime affirms its right to rule apart from consultation with or approval from the public but nevertheless frequently seeks the input of the people and frequently attempts to advance what the people desire Supreme Leader in Iran, an office vested with ultimate political authority that must be held by a Shi‘a cleric of the Twelver school who is respected among the leading clerics of Iran; in North Korea, the popular name used for the nation’s most powerful leader third wave of democratization a movement that began in the 1970s that saw democratically accountable structures of government emerge in Spain, Portugal, South Korea, and, somewhat later, in Latin American countries such as Chile unicameral a legislative body that has only one house or chamber unitary system a system of government in which all major electorally accountable officials are responsive to the entire citizenry and make and enforce laws for the entire country (often with the exception of minor local-level matters that are handled by locally elected assemblies)

Social Sciences


Recent Trends: Illiberal Representative Regimes Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain the connection between contemporary liberalism and political regimes. Examine the diversity of objectives and priorities set by governing regimes. Discuss political history and contemporary political and legal developments. Having analyzed core concepts and surveyed a range of governing regimes, this chapter closes by reflecting on some recent global trends. Contemporary liberal ideology affirms the importance of citizens having political freedom —that is, the freedom to participate in a meaningful way in democratic elections that can shape the actions of one’s government. However, contemporary liberalism also affirms a wider set of freedoms, including both economic freedoms and such freedoms as freedom of speech, a free press, religious freedom, and the freedom to define one’s own sense of personal identity and to be treated equally by the government regardless of one’s personal beliefs, practices, or sexual orientation. Although representative governments aspire toward liberal ideology in the sense of allowing political freedom, do they tend to respect these other freedoms? The answer is mixed. Among contemporary regimes, a number of representative regimes that are not fully in accord with this liberal ideology have emerged and persist. Hungary Since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, Hungary has had a representative parliamentary system. Although Hungary has a representative regime, one party—the Fidesz , an ideologically conservative, nationalist party that currently enjoys popular support—has used its majority position in the Hungarian parliament to enact laws curbing a number of freedoms. The government has created a National Media and Communications Authority that can impose heavy fines for coverage that it considers “unbalanced or offensive to human dignity or common morals.” Judy Dempsey, “Hungary Waves off Criticism over Media Law,” The New York Times, December 25, 2010, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/world/europe/26hungary.html. It has curbed religious freedom by requiring religious institutions to register with the state in order to receive the guarantee of religious liberty and by designating only 14 religious communities as entitled to religious freedom; Paul Krugman, “Hungary’s Constitutional Revolution,” The New York Times, December 19, 2011, https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/. it has failed to condemn certain outbursts of anti-Semitism in the country; Bernard Rorke, “Hungary’s Fidesz and Its ‘Jewish Question,’” Open Democracy, September 22, 2014, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/hungarys-fidesz-and-its-jewish-question/. and it has banned same-sex marriage and adoption by LGBTQ persons, gender reassignment surgery, and the “promotion” of homosexuality to individuals under 18, as well as any “portrayal” of homosexuality directed at those under 18. “EU Votes for Action over Hungary’s Anti-LGBT Laws,” BBC News, July 8, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57761216. European Elections: Exit Polls Show Victory for Orban’s Fidesz Party in Hungary in 2019 The resounding victory of Victor Orban’s Fidesz Party in Hungary’s 2019 election represented a major success for nationalist politics in Europe. Some criticize certain acts of the Fidesz Party, such as the way it has used its power in parliament to draw electoral districts to advantage its candidates (what is called gerrymandering in the United States), for undermining Hungary’s representative system of government. Some further criticize how the Hungarian constitution allocates representation in the parliament in a way that favors certain regions of the country. Nicholas Kulish, “Foes of Hungary’s Government Fear ‘Demolition of Democracy,’” The New York Times, 21 December 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/world/europe/foes-of-hungarys-government-fear-demolition-of-democracy.html. Despite these criticisms, the Fidesz Party remains popular and has adopted its illiberal policies without contravening the basic structure of Hungary’s governing regime. India India , another parliamentary representative regime, recently has experienced a similar development. In 2014, a majority of the members of the Indian parliament elected Narendra Modi , and since then he has served as India’s prime minister. Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) , has also won parliamentary majorities in a large number of India’s state-level parliaments. The BJP espouses an ideology of Hindu nationalism , seeing India as an inherently Hindu country. Pursuant to this ideology, as of 2021 eight state parliaments—each with a BJP parliamentary majority—have passed laws regulating religious conversion. Most observers view these measures as evidence of a fear that people will convert from Hinduism to other faiths. Prabhash K Dutta, “‘Love Jihad’ Undefined, Yet States Rushing with Anti-Conversion Laws,” India Today, November 18, 2020, https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/love-jihad-anti-conversion-laws-madhya-pradesh-uttar-pradesh-haryana-karnataka-1741872-2020-11-18; Ghazala Jamil, “India’s ‘Love Jihad’ Anti-Conversion Laws Aim to Further Oppress Minorities, and It’s Working,” The Conversation, September 3, 2021, https://theconversation.com/indias-love-jihad-anti-conversion-laws-aim-to-further-oppress-minorities-and-its-working-166746. According to these conversion laws, to change their religion, individuals must first have their conversion investigated by state officials who must be convinced that the conversion is free and fully informed. Otherwise, the conversion is illegal. Dutta, “‘Love Jihad’ Undefined.” Human rights groups have argued that these laws inherently violate religious liberty by allowing the state to judge one’s religious beliefs (to determine if they are “sincere,” “freely adopted,” and “fully informed”). Moreover, human rights groups have documented how these laws are sometimes unfairly enforced so as to curb religious conversion, further undermining the principle of individual religious liberty. William Stark and Matias Perttula, India’s Anti-Conversion Laws and Their Effects on the Christian Community (Silver Spring, MD: International Christian Concern, 2021), https://www.persecution.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-07-12-India-Report.pdf. These laws—if not the ways they are alleged to be unfairly enforced—have been adopted by a process that aligns with India’s parliamentary system. Pakistan In Pakistan —a country that, like India, has a representative government at both the national and regional levels—threats to religious freedom have also become pronounced. When the Indian subcontinent (a territory that included the modern-day states of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) achieved independence from British rule in 1947, Pakistan was partitioned from the rest of the subcontinent to allow for the creation of a government that would rule a majority-Muslim population in accordance with Islamic values. Those who defend the legitimacy of the 1956 constitution of the Pakistan Islamic Republic do so in large measure on the basis that it affords Muslims from the subcontinent a place in which to safely practice their Islamic faith in a social and community context reinforced by the social norms of a Muslim society. Since the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are Muslim, their elected representatives are as well. Working within the parliamentary system, in the 1980s Pakistani parliaments passed laws that expanded the earlier laws against blasphemy , insulting speech or publications about a religion or its tenets, that were in effect since Pakistan’s founding. Until the 1980s, these laws were general, mentioning no religion or religious text specifically and thus equally protecting all religions against blasphemy. In the 1980s, however, national and regional parliaments in Pakistan added to the blasphemy laws specific prohibitions on insulting Islam , the Prophet Muhammad, and the Koran. The source of these laws appears to many observers to be a desire to shield Islam in particular from blasphemous speech. “What are Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws?” BBC News, May 8, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48204815. Moreover, these laws define blasphemy broadly and require only a low level of proof to secure conviction in a Pakistani court. Human rights organizations have criticized these laws as being overly broad and unjustly enforced, and thus infringements on the freedom of speech and religion. Harrison Atkins, Policy Update: Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law (Washington, DC: United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2019), https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2019%20Pakistan%20Blasphemy.pdf. These laws, however, appear to be popular, and nothing in the Pakistani Constitution prohibits the government from banning blasphemous speech. “Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws,” BBC. Not all representative systems will tend to advance what Western political regimes increasingly see as the cornerstone of their own political legitimacy—the preservation of a broad range of personal rights and freedoms. Whether these regimes will move or be moved to do so in the future remains an open question. One important global trend among political regimes is the popularity of illiberal representative governments. In Hungary, the people have democratically elected to the largest number of political offices a political party that espouses nationalism and values that stand in opposition to global human rights standards. In India, the people have elected Hindu nationalists who have advanced laws supporting Hinduism that many human rights organizations criticize. Representative regimes, therefore, do not always embrace the conceptions of individual rights and human equality that are increasingly central in many representative governments. Suggested Readings Frantz, Erica. Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018. Gilley, Bruce. The Right to Rule: How States Win and Lose Legitimacy . New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. Mommsen, Wolfgang. The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber . Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1989. Arab Spring a movement across the Arab world in the early 2010s seeking to expand democracy blasphemy insulting speech or publications about a religion or its tenets Fidesz an ideologically conservative, nationalist party that enjoys popular support in Hungary Hindu nationalism a political movement that sees India as an inherently Hindu country political freedom the freedom to participate in a meaningful way in democratic elections that can shape the actions of one’s government

Social Sciences


Introduction In an attempt to expand its presence in the South China Sea, China is beginning to construct artificial islands, which are being used as a base for Chinese military operations. Their proximity to US allies such as the Philippines creates some concern about the role China wishes to play in asserting its control over what goes on in Southeast Asia. (credit: “One of the militarized islands by China off the coast of Philippines” by Tony Peters/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) The study of international relations is a subfield of political science that focuses on the ways that different states interact with one another. The main goal of all relationships among states is to work toward making the international system one of peace—friendly, nonviolent relations among states—and balance—an equal distribution of the chance for any country to take the lead in setting the course for the international system. As with all things related to politics, who has the means to exert their power to guide the action of members of the political community determines who gets to set the terms of “peace” and be in charge of what “balance” looks like. Power can best be defined as the ability to establish and enforce the rules to which all other actors in a system must adhere. This chapter looks at the different players in the international system and how they interact. It examines the principles that guide the establishment of the political, social, and economic environment in which these interactions take place. international relations a subfield of political science that focuses on the ways different states interact with one another

Social Sciences


What Is Power, and How Do We Measure It? Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Define power as it applies to international relations. Describe the different types of power political actors may possess. Simply defined, in international relations, power is the ability of a state to prompt its preferred outcome in a given situation. States aim to protect their sovereignty —their authority to govern themselves—and guard against attacks from other countries. Growing and projecting their strength is the means through which they achieve this goal. The way a state sees its place within the larger system based on the worldview its policy makers adhere to serves as the foundation for the state’s power. The theories discussed in this chapter will help illuminate the role power plays in international interactions. They describe the different methods states use to exert their power and how the application of the levers of state power can lead to an increase in a state’s ability to chart its own course and to induce other states to support its attainment of its preferred outcomes. At the same time, the theories describe how other states characterize the state’s actions and determine their responses to those actions. A state’s power includes its military, political, economic, and soft power . The more states attend to and invest in the development of each of these elements of the power they wield, the greater their potential to have an impact on the international stage. Military Power States that function with a general sense of self-preservation and a broad mistrust of other members of the international community see the military as the most important means for the projection of their power. The application of military power can be active, in the form of an outright attack or an invasion, or it can be passive, as when a state illustrates its ability to prevail in a military confrontation without actually engaging in one. Traditionally, states have launched military offensives against selected targets to secure state power. A more passive way states can exert their power is through deterrence , the buildup of military might to such a level that an adversary state or states reconsider the use of their own military against the primary state. If state A thinks it has a military advantage over state B, state A may be motivated to attack state B, especially if an important resource or other key objective is at stake. Should state B begin to expand its military power, state A might be motivated to reconsider its course of action. Deterrence in Foreign Policy In this clip, Council on Foreign Relations Adjunct Senior Fellow for National Security Studies Richard Betts and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Defense Policy Stephen Biddle describe how states use deterrence to avoid war. North Korea is an example of a modern state that leans on deterrence through military means. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un chooses to divert a substantial portion L. Yoon, “North Korea’s Share of Military Expenditure in GDP 2018–2020,” Statista, Accessed February 4, 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/747387/north-korea-share-of-military-spending-in-budget/. of the country’s relatively meager GDP toward the military to throw off any plans that any other country might have of attacking it. He does this even at the expense of much-needed domestic spending on things like food and social services. As this propaganda poster photographed in Pyongyang in 2011 shows, in North Korea the military is the first priority. (credit: “Propaganda” by Michael Day/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) A state can also obtain military protection by entering into a security pact , an agreement among multiple states to support each other in case of a military attack, such as NATO or the Warsaw Pact . (For more on NATO, see the discussion of collective security in 14.5: The Realist Worldview and Chapter 15: International Law and International Organizations .) Economic Power A state can have both internal economic power, with a strong domestic economy marked by increasing gross domestic product (GDP) and/or a currency that allows the state to purchase goods and services at a relatively low cost, and external economic power, with leverage in international economic relationships. Externally, a state can project its economic power to the rest of the world in its international trade relationships and its participation in international economic organizations, such as the World Trade Organization , the International Monetary Fund , and the World Bank . States can also increase their economic power relative to other states by controlling more of the basic factors of production . There are four basic factors of production, that is, four levels of economic development: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. The primary level of economic development focuses on agriculture, the secondary focuses on manufacturing, the tertiary focuses on the service industry, and the quaternary focuses on research and development. When one state controls more of the basic factors of production and can create a particular good or service in a more cost-effective manner than a second state, the first state is said to have a comparative advantage in the production of that good or service. Comparative advantage allows a country to strategically invest in the factors of production—land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship—within its borders in order to develop goods or services that make it a preferred resource for consumers versus other countries. Consider one classic example of comparative advantage. If England needs the same amount of resources to create five yards of cloth as it does for the country to produce one barrel of wine, and with the same resources Portugal can create five barrels of wine but only one yard of cloth, then we can say that Portugal has a comparative advantage over England in making wine and England has a comparative advantage over Portugal in making cloth. Therefore, it would be better for England to focus on cloth production and for Portugal to focus on wine production, with each country trading for the goods it needs that the other country can produce more efficiently. Draw Me The Economy: What Is Comparative Advantage? This animated video clip explains, in simple terms, how comparative advantage works in a free market. China provides a contemporary example of a state that uses its place in the international economic system to extend its power. The Chinese government has taken care to ensure its position as the preeminent global resource for manufacturing. Darrell M. West and Christian Lansang, “Global Manufacturing Scorecard: How the US Compares to 18 Other Nations,” Brookings, July 10, 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations/. With a large, educated labor force and a government that has a tight control over businesses and their functions, China has the ability to turn out large amounts of goods at a relatively low cost to consumers. Guorui Fan and Jiaxin Zou, “Refreshing China’s Labor Education in the New Era: Policy Review on Education through Physical Labor,” ECNU Review of Education 3, no. 1 (2020): 169–78. doi:10.1177/2096531120903878. In manufacturing, it has a comparative advantage over other states. Internally, a state can use the levers of monetary policy to alter the value of its currency to encourage domestic consumer spending and make its exports relatively more attractive. By creating economic linkages between states through trade, countries are able to expand the reach of their goods and their money, increasing their country’s economic strength relative to other countries. A state can use its economic power to build a relative economic advantage, creating an environment in which other states seek to join the state in mutually beneficial trade relationships. As a state creates more economic relationships with other states, it solidifies its position as an economic power and is able to use access to other states’ factors of production or comparative advantage to further cement its own place in the larger system. Political Power States can try to manipulate the political institutions of other countries to enlarge their sphere of influence and to pressure other states to implement their preferred policy outcomes. A state can use both overt and subversive means to influence another state or a non-state actor in order to gain more power for itself. For example, a state can influence the outcome of an election, supporting the candidacy of a leader who is friendly to the state’s preferences. In 1911 and 1912, the United States did not hide its efforts to influence elections in Nicaragua. “U.S. Intervention in Nicaragua, 1911/1912,” US Department of State, https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ip/108629.htm. In 1953 the United States played a role in the coup in Iran that removed that country’s prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who, in nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, had threatened Britain’s longstanding control over oil in the region. After the ouster of Mossadegh, the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi , with whom the United States believed it had a beneficial relationship, returned to power. Suzanne Maloney, “1979: Iran and America,” Brookings, January 24, 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1979-iran-and-america/. Some states have denied prominent accusations of interfering in other country’s elections, as Russia has in response to accusations that it interfered in the 2016 election in the United States. Gary Pruitt, “Putin Says Russia Didn’t Meddle in US Vote, despite Evidence,” AP News , April 20, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/vladimir-putin-donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-st-petersburg-1f12eaf734014da6bcd0995ae89c6636. When states have a sense of power, within the system or within a region, they will do what they can to create an environment that safeguards and even expands that power. How Did the United States Intervene in Iran in 1953? In this clip, Professor Jo-Anne Hart of Lesley University and the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University discusses the US overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh . The next section discusses in greater depth how and why it is important to a state that other states recognize its state sovereignty . Using its power of recognition, a state can welcome into the international system and its institutions another state that it believes will support its desired goals, thereby increasing the likelihood that the norms of the international system will align with its preferences. By the same token, a state can withhold its recognition of another state in order to maintain better relations with other members of the international community. In the case of Taiwan, the United States walks a fine line in terms of recognition and interstate relations. “U.S. Relations with Taiwan.” US Department of State, August 31, 2018, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/. China views Taiwan as an extension of China and expects all other countries to treat Taiwan as such. “Support of Taiwan Independence Could Spark U.S. Military Conflict with China—Chinese Ambassador,” Reuters , January 28, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/support-taiwan-independence-could-spark-us-military-conflict-with-china-chinese-2022-01-28/. This puts the United States in a tricky position; the United States, for economic, military, and diplomatic reasons, seeks to maintain a positive relationship with China, but its broader goal is to support countries as they attempt to democratize. Taiwan, in recent years, has taken many steps to assert its autonomy in relation to China and to implement a more democratic system. China sees these moves as a direct threat to its own position of power and does everything it can to maintain firm control over the Taiwanese governmental system in Taiwan. China views any US actions that may be supportive of Taiwanese independence or even of its increased autonomy from China in a negative light. The United States must tread carefully, supporting a state that is trying to move toward democracy without angering a key economic and diplomatic ally. Above all else, states must act to protect their sovereignty. In all things, states find themselves most reliant on their own strength and abilities. In an environment in which there is no central governing body to set and enforce rules, countries must strategize to protect themselves at all costs. Soft Power Whereas hard power involves coercion, soft power involves more friendly interactions that seek to win over a state or states rather than force them to comply with the wishes of one or more other states. Diplomacy, in either a bilateral (engagement between two countries) or multilateral (engagement between more than two countries) setting, allows states to create mutually beneficial agreements to protect themselves and the international system at large. The idea that all recognized countries find themselves on equal relational footing and should be treated as such in any sort of engagement, a concept referred to as reciprocity , is the foundational element of any diplomatic relationship. An example of a reciprocal arrangement would be that of states exchanging ambassadors. When a diplomatic relationship exists, the leaders of states pay official visits to one another and are entertained in a manner that shows deference to their status and prestige in the international system. Allowing for state visits is one way that a state might use the guise of entertainment as a means of persuading a state to take steps that meet its preferences. The principle of reciprocity allows for states to enter into any negotiation on a level playing field; it intones a mutual level of respect between the states. The cultural identity of a state is still another way that a state can expand its sphere of influence. Globalization has allowed for the spread of goods that are clearly identifiable as part of the culture of a specific country. As cultural identifiers spread throughout the world on the back of global commerce, so do the values that typify the originating country’s political and social systems. For example, the global spread of clearly identified American brands such as Levi’s, McDonalds, and Coca-Cola serves to spread American values of choice and product competition. Douglas Holt, John Quelch, and Earl L. Taylor, “How Global Brands Compete,” Harvard Business Review , September 1, 2004, https://hbr.org/2004/09/how-global-brands-compete. In addition to increasing the amount of revenue American companies see from the sale of their products, the spread of American brands spreads American ideals. Salman Ahmed and Alexander Bick, Trump’s National Security Strategy: A New Brand of Mercantilism? (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2017), https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep13065. This McDonald’s in New Delhi, India, is an example of the reach of America’s soft power. (credit: “New Delhi McDonald’s” by Ryan/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) Reciprocal diplomatic relationships that involve entertaining foreign officials and the spreading of cultural values to exert dominance are examples of the exercise of soft power—that is, using attraction and persuasion rather than coercion to achieve goals. States and other institutions use their military, economic, and political power to try to influence the structure of the international environment so that it aligns with their preferences. Political actors may use each of these levers of power in an aggressive fashion, as when one state sends troops to invade another state or when one state interferes in another state’s elections, or they can employ soft power in friendlier interactions involving diplomacy, recognition, and cultural exchange. The level of success with which these actors are able to achieve their preferred ends communicates their power relative to the other members of the international system. comparative advantage when one state can create a particular good or service in a more cost-effective manner than a second state deterrence the buildup of military might to such a level that an adversary state or states reconsider the use of their own military against the primary state factors of production the land and physical resources, the labor force, and the capital needed for investment in the facilities and processes of an economy, and the entrepreneurship and creativity that drives economic growth and diversification power the ability of a state to prompt its preferred outcome in a given situation reciprocity the idea that all countries that have diplomatic relationships with a state accept, in equal measure, what that state accepts security pact an agreement among multiple states to support each other in case of a military attack soft power friendly interactions that seek to win over rather than force a state or states to comply with the wishes of one or more other states sovereignty the ability of a state to run its institutions without fear of interference from other states or entities and to respond to threats as they emerge

Social Sciences


Understanding the Different Types of Actors in the International System Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Describe the major actors in the contemporary international system. Discuss the four characteristics of a state. Differentiate a state and a nation. Discuss the relationship between international organizations and powerful states. Identify the capabilities of a nongovernmental organization. A variety of different actors, each with its own characteristics, preferences, and methods of working, populate the international system. These actors are distinct in what they want, what motivates them, how much and what kinds of power they can wield, and how they interact with each other. Achieving the goals of the international system requires the concerted effort of all of these members. States The term state is used interchangeably with the word country . All states have four characteristics: René Grotenhuis, Nation-Building as Necessary Effort in Fragile States (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016), https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1gr7d8r. Land with boundaries A government or a system of rule A population that willingly gives its allegiance to that government Recognition as an equal partner among states New Transitional Government of National Unity Formed in South Sudan In February 2020, a peace agreement ending the South Sudanese Civil War established ten states, two administrative areas, and one area with special administrative status under a national unity government. This last piece is perhaps the most important and can be the hardest to achieve. Recognition as a state within the international system of states is an essential norm —a generally accepted rule, institution, or behavior—that forms the foundation of international relations. Recognition ensures that a state has a seat at the table; it confers both legitimacy and equality in the eyes of the international community. Changes in political power in a state, such as the election of new heads of government or a change in the majority party in the legislative branch, do not usually affect state recognition, but in cases where there are complete changes to leadership or institutions in a government, concerns arise about whether recognition will continue. With the recent changes to governmental leadership in Afghanistan, for example, the reinstalled Taliban regime will need to take steps to make sure that they are seen as the legitimate source of power in the territory. This recognition is important to the ability of the Taliban to negotiate with other members of the international community for the things the country needs. The international community, for its part, can use the promise of recognition to extract concessions from the Taliban. To be recognized as a member of the international community means being held to the same standards of behavior to which other countries are held. States are a vital part of the international system and serve as leaders in charting the path of the system as a whole. Of all the different parts of the international system, recognition might not seem adequate to give a state all the rights and privileges that come with statehood, but it is a necessary element of membership in the international system. Taliban fighters ride a captured Humvee after the fall of Kabul. (credit: “Taliban Humvee in Kabul, August 2021 (cropped)” by Voice of America News/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain) There is a subtle difference between the term state and the idea of a nation. A nation is an identity gleaned from a common culture or ethnicity; a state is an institutional infrastructure that allows a society to function. In terms of an ethnic identity, a nation can span states, or a state can be a nation-state, as is the case in Japan, where the government of the state takes extra care to protect the shared national identity of the people who make up the state. Martin Gelin, “Japan Radically Increased Immigration—and No One Protested,” Foreign Policy , Accessed February 4, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/japan-immigration-policy-xenophobia-migration/. There is a broader conversation Adeed Dawisha, “Nation and Nationalism: Historical Antecedents to Contemporary Debates,” International Studies Review 4, no. 1 (2002): 3–22. around what a nation, a state, and a nation-state are and how to think about these distinctions in the modern world. Some scholars argue that the concept of the nation-state is no longer viable because of the state boundary lines created by the colonial powers. As European countries expanded their reach and control to areas far from their shores, they entered areas populated by people for whom the idea of the state, in the European sense, was incompatible with their historical identity, as seen in Iraq, Sudan, and Nigeria. The placement of arbitrarily drawn borders, to the economic benefit of the European colonial powers and with a clear disregard for the traditional geographic locations of the people, form the basis for the current conversation about whether the idea of a nation-state has a place in the modern international system. Roha Yousaf, “Colonialism in Asia,” Abstract, 2021, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20353.38246. Nations can also be considered stateless. In some cases, the historical home of a nation is absorbed into a recognized state, leaving the people of the nation with the choice to either accept the citizenship of the recognized state or remain stateless. Stateless nations find themselves at an intense disadvantage because they typically have limited involvement in international organizations, which prevents them from having a seat at the table on par with other states and nations of the world. Nations such as the Kurds, Bretons, Catalans, and Basques are limited in their ability to govern their people with any sense of autonomy and have been consistently sidelined and subjected to violence for their wish to have their unique national identity be celebrated and validated. Intergovernmental Organizations Institutions made up of multiple state actors who work within a specific set of rules to enact solutions to problems common among multiple states are known as intergovernmental organizations . Intergovernmental organizations Thomas J. Volgy, Elizabeth Fausett, Keith A. Grant, and Stuart Rodgers, “Identifying Formal Intergovernmental Organizations,” Journal of Peace Research 45, no. 6 (2008): 837–50. are the best way to understand the reach and impact of a state’s power to structure the environment in which it functions. States with more hard power —that is, with larger economies or militaries—are able to leverage their position among other states to put in place institutional norms that more closely align with their preferences; in short, intergovernmental institutions are a great way for powerful states to become even more powerful. Under the best of circumstances, as in the case of the United Nations , intergovernmental organizations can create a unified sense of pressure to prompt a state to make positive changes or to band states together to support a state that is under attack. In the worst case, international organizations can strong-arm weaker states to agree to the preferences of one state to the detriment of other states or of the system at large. The Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (credit: “The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. (April 19, 1999)” by International Monetary Fund, Public Domain) For example, the major world economies have partnered to form the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an intergovernmental organization known as a lender of last resort , Warren Coats, “The Future of the International Monetary Fund,” Economic and Political Weekly 43, no. 35 (2008): 72–73. where a country turns only after it has exhausted all of its options for funding, “What Is a Lender of Last Resort?” European Central Bank, August 26, 2019, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/educational/explainers/tell-me-more/html/what-is-a-lender-of-last-resort.en.html. that can be counted on to support countries in the direst of economic circumstances. The member states that make up the Board of Governors of the IMF base their offer of support on the role that the struggling country plays in the larger economic system. Other members of the international community have criticized IMF loan decisions for attaching terms to IMF loans that limit the ability of borrower countries to move toward economic stability. As with most intergovernmental organizations, the IMF has been characterized as an extension of the policy preferences of its governing members. This means that the decisions the IMF makes are sometimes seen as a tool powerful states use to set the rules of international borrowing to support countries they consider allies and to punish countries that they see as opposition. Nongovernmental Organizations Non-state actors focused on solving problems or filling policy gaps states can’t or won’t handle themselves are known as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) . Traditionally speaking, a nongovernmental organization is a nonaligned, third-party group that does not have the same motivations that a state might have. Nongovernmental organizations are part of a system that works to benefit people rather than states. NGOs can propose solutions to a state or fill a need that a state might have, usually without being seen as attempting to attack the sovereignty of that state. For example, most states accept medical aid from NGOs like the Red Cross or the Red Crescent . A state is a political entity with geographic boundaries and a system of government that is recognized as legitimate by the people it governs and by the international system as a whole. States can come together in international organizations to solve common problems. More powerful states tend to wield greater influence in international organizations. When states cannot or will not solve common international problems, nongovernmental organizations may intervene to try to do so. intergovernmental organizations institutions made up of multiple state actors that work within a specific set of rules to enact solutions to problems common among multiple states lender of last resort a financial institution, such as the IMF, that a country turns to only after it has exhausted all of its other funding options nation a shared group identity gleaned from a common culture or ethnicity nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) non-state actors focused on solving problems or filling policy gaps states can’t or won’t handle themselves state one of the foundational institutions in the international system; an institutional infrastructure that allows a society to function

Social Sciences


Sovereignty and Anarchy Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain why sovereignty is an essential element of states in the international system. Define anarchy in the context of the international system. Explain the relationship between sovereignty and anarchy. Statehood is of vital importance to a nation because it confers sovereignty . Sovereignty is the ability of a state to run its institutions without fear of interference from other states or entities. Sovereignty allows states to enforce their own laws, for better or for worse, allowing a state to exert its power within its own borders and in situations where the state must work to protect its interests. While states’ claims to sovereignty allow them to protect their cultural identity, beliefs, norms, and institutions, they can also prevent other states from stepping in to protect the innocent when a state acts in a manner that is counter to the basic norms of human rights and human dignity enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights . “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, 1948, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. The actions a state takes to intervene on behalf of people subjected to violence at the hands of their own government could be seen as acts of aggression. In this case, the state that is perpetrating the violence would be within their rights to take action against the intervening state. In cases of crimes against humanity, such as the genocide in the Balkans “Top International Official in Bosnia Bans Denial of Genocide,” AP News, July 23, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/europe-government-and-politics-genocides-6821e5d3a71bf86db830fda1e81a6123. and the civil war in Rwanda, “Rwanda: Justice After Genocide—20 Years On,” Human Rights Watch, March 28, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/28/rwanda-justice-after-genocide-20-years. both in the 1990s, sovereignty allows a state to function as it sees fit, even when it means some citizens of that country will die. States have used the cover of sovereignty to prevent nongovernmental organizations from providing aid. For example, the Assad regime in Syria has diverted humanitarian aid intended for civilians caught in the middle of the violence in that country’s ongoing civil war, using the aid to fund its own atrocities. “Rigging the System: Government Policies Co-Opt Aid and Reconstruction Funding in Syria,” Human Rights Watch, June 28, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/06/28/rigging-system/government-policies-co-opt-aid-and-reconstruction-funding-syria#; Natasha Hall, “How the Assad Regime Systematically Diverts Tens of Millions in Aid,” Center for Strategic & International Studies, October 2021, https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-assad-regime-systematically-diverts-tens-millions-aid. At times, states have used the cover of sovereignty to block NGOs from gathering information on atrocities happening within the country or to decline to participate in negotiations when other states tried to broker peace. International Anarchy Anarchy has a particular meaning in international relations that likely differs from the meaning you might be familiar with. This video clip clarifies the concept of anarchy in this context, contrasting it with the concept of hierarchy. A system made up of actors focused on protecting their own interests naturally results in anarchy , Silviya Lechner, “Anarchy in International Relations,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017), https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.79. where there is no overarching governing authority. In the case of the international system, anarchy refers to a lack of a general sense of order in the international system. Anarchy in the international system is directly linked to this lack of enforcement mechanisms as well as a lack of a broad global government. Sovereignty is the most important part of a state’s identity. The willingness of states to make sure that their sovereignty is protected for as long as possible ensures that the system will remain anarchic. While each state has the right to govern itself, there is still a need for a means through which different states can gather—some ordered structure in the system that allows states to work through common issues. Intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations, provide the forums through which states can attempt to exert pressure on one another to cause one or more states to change a behavior, to provide options other than violence for conflict resolution, or to adhere to already established norms that provide some semblance of order in the otherwise anarchic system. However, there are no true enforcement bodies that have the authority and the capability to impose comprehensive consequences on a state that violates an international agreement or takes actions that fly in the face of generally accepted norms. Intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations provide useful avenues for states to solve problems that impact them at a systemic level, but it is still impossible to say with 100 percent confidence that a state can be made to behave in a certain way. Foreign aid and sanctions are options available to members of the international community to help move a state into alignment with generally accepted expectations for behavior. Like all types of international actions, the ability of these options to be effective requires the participation of as many members of the international community as possible and the willingness of those states and organizations to close any loopholes so that the target state feels the consequences in a meaningful way. There is no mechanism to force a state to behave a certain way. Foreign aid and sanctions, along with treaties and the actions of international organizations, provide options international actors can use to help order the environment in which a state makes its choices about how it relates to other countries. States can work cooperatively through institutions to enact strategies aimed at coercing a state to change its behavior; however, there is no surefire way to guarantee a state will do so or that it will continue to uphold that change. For example, the United States led a series of negotiations beginning in 2015 to work to curb Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, more commonly referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal , was an agreement signed between Iran and the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, under the leadership of the United States. Negotiated by the Obama administration, the agreement allowed Iran to re-engage in trade, particularly of their oil, to take some of the pressure off their own economy, and in return, Iran would work to dismantle the nuclear facilities that presented security concerns to the world. Because of the domestic political situation in the United States, the US never recognized the Iran Nuclear Deal as a ratified treaty, opting instead to enter into an “executive agreement.” Andrew Rudalevige, “If the Iran Deal Had Been a Senate-Confirmed Treaty, Would Trump Have Been Forced to Stay In? Nope,” Washington Post , May 9, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/09/if-the-iran-deal-had-been-a-senate-confirmed-treaty-would-trump-have-been-forced-to-stay-in-nope/; “Iran Nuclear Deal: What It All Means,” BBC News , November 23, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655; Kali Robinson, “What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal?” Council on Foreign Relations, Updated August 18, 2021, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal. The terms of the treaty would have been binding, but without a formal treaty, the enforcement mechanisms included in the agreement did not ever become reality. When President Obama left office in 2016, the newly elected President Donald Trump began to pull back from the agreement. Trump chose to work separately from the parties to the agreement, reinstating sanctions on Iran, including penalties for entities that continued to trade with Iran. When one key party to an agreement pulls back, other members of the negotiating body are effectively unable to uphold their side of the agreement, and that agreement is weakened. BBC, “Iran Nuclear Deal”; “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” US Department of State, 2015, https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/jcpoa/index.htm. In July 2015, representatives of China, France, Germany, the EU, Iran, the UK, and the United States posed for a photo during the meetings in Vienna that resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. (credit: “Iran Talks” by Bundesministeriums für europäische und internationale Angelegenheiten/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) It may seem counterintuitive to think about anarchy and order going hand in hand when talking about the international system, but the modern system relies on the assumption that states within the system want to maintain control over everything within their own borders and work for their own benefit while at the same time being unwilling to submit to an established order in the environment around them. The tension created in the fight between order and anarchy that exists in all states, no matter how powerful they are, is what underscores and motivates international relations. In international relations, sovereignty is the ability of a state to chart its own path through the international system. In a system of sovereign states in which there is no overarching governing authority—no formal hierarchy—a condition of anarchy exists wherein each state seeks its own goals, which may be at odds with the goals of other sovereign states. This intrinsic push and pull for power and supremacy is at the heart of a system in which states push back on any organization or institution that seems to undermine its sovereignty. anarchy a lack of a general sense of order in the international system

Social Sciences