Our semester long study of global political systems has enhanced our understanding and knowledge of what it means to compare two states.

We have examined the regimes, governments, societies and the economies of states all over the world. The basis of our studies involved the comparison of one factor as an indicator or driver of another phenomenon. The studies of these phenomena were then analyzed and conclusions were postulated that suggest whether or not the realities of a state was a direct event by an outside source.

“Comparative Politics itself seems fairly obvious at first glance. “We are comparing two countries”, says a naïve student the first day of class. What he hopefully would say today, having had a semester long survey of readings from a diverse group of political scientists and economists is that “Comparative Politics involves a mind-set and thought process much more than a straight evaluation of two different states. We have to identify what it is we are trying to explain and derive what exactly causes the socio-economic, geo-political or exclusively civil action that we seek to understand.”

Does a particular religion impede democratization? Do states with more a more liberal stance on family favor communism? How is the state’s economy affected by corruption and militarization of the government?

These are some of the questions we would answer. It takes an understanding of the state in its entirety, from the economy, to the politics to the general culture, in order to identify with the state. Once you appreciate that, a hypothesis can be created and conclusions can be formulated regarding the presence or absence of actions in two or more states.

The most surprising outcome of yestederday’s government formation experiment was that the FDP, the largest party in the ‘Bundestag’, was excluded from the winning coalition. It actually seems like the Green Party — tied for lowest representation in parliament — turned out to be the deciding factor. Had the FDP courted the Greens early, offering them, say, the Education and Environmental Ministries (and possibly even a third cabinet position), the FDP would have been able to form a coalition government, in which they could have held the other four (or three) ministries and the Chancellorship. The FDP would have had 6 of the 9 seats in this coalition and thus been able to act relatively freely once the government was approved. Instead, the Green Party sided with the CDU and the SDP, and helped them to form the winning coalition.

Recently, there have been a number of articles in the Indian news regarding government formation in the state legislature of Meghalaya, in northeast India. There are 60 seats in the Meghalaya state legislature, elected by proportional representation. Their government formation process seems fairly similar to Germany’s, as political parties debate cabinet posts and budget allocations until an agreement is reached. Over the last month, the elected MPs in Meghalaya have been trying to form a coalition government. Amidst heavy politicking, the largest represented party, Congress, was able to form the winning coalition, by giving cabinet posts to “fence-sitting” independent representatives. This and our example show that, in government formation, you cannot forget about the little guy.

http://inwww.rediff.com/newshound/mg.html (see “Swearing in of Meghalaya Cabinet Today”)

Civil unrest broke out in Chennai (formerly Madras) and other parts of the southeast Indian state of Tamil Nadu today. The disturbances were the latest developments in a month long controversy over the Hogenakkal Drinking Water Project. The multi-billion dollar proposal, announced by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in February, would use water from the Hogenakkal Falls on the Cauvery River on the border of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to provide safe drinking water for Tamils in the region.

The BJP government (a Hindu-nationalist party, see previous post) in Karnataka has openly opposed the proposal, arguing that the government in Chennai (the capital of Tamil Nadu) is neglecting a territorial dispute that is still before the Supreme Court. The political opposition in Karnataka has spilled over into civil unrest, as pro-Kannada (the primary linguistic/ethnic group in Karnataka) activists have attacked Tamil movie theaters and businesses in response to Tamil demonstrations in the region. The violence has continued, and as today’s episode shows, spread to Chennai and other parts of Tamil Nadu, as both Tamils and Kannadans react to earlier demonstrations and violence.

M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, has criticized the violence and has called on the the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, to stop what he considers a humanitarian crisis. Members of the Tamil film industry have also organized a hunger strike to protest the anti-Tamil demonstrations and aggression. The BJP in Tamil Nadu condemned the attacks which have occurred under the watch of their Kannadan counterpart.

This civil unrest exhibits a number of important points about Indian society and democracy. First, Indian society is extremely stratified; socioeconomic, caste, linguistic, ethnic and religious barriers divide people at all levels of society. India’s relative ability to control and overcome such divisions is partly what makes the country’s democratic regime truly remarkable. However, as the disputes in Chennai show, the young south Asian democracy still has some kinks to work out. Sumit Ganguly, in Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino’s Assessing the Quality of Democracy, argues that rule of law in India began to unravel in the 70s, under the rule of Indira Gandhi. Since then, the Indian government has been plagued by corruption and has been unable to prevent outbursts of ethnic and religious violence and civil unrest.

The responses to the water project show that the Indian public is aware of governmental issues and involved in civic groups. Normal citizens have banded together, albeit violently at times, to oppose or support a government project that, to an outsider, seems rather mundane (I don’t want to say that it is unimportant — it very well may be a life or death issue for people in the water deprived regions– however, similar spending bills are passed daily, and peacefully, in democracies around the world). Also, the Tamil film guild’s hunger strike shows political consciousness and activism in Indian civil society.

http://www.newstodaynet.com/newsindex.php?id=6342%20&%20section=7

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/tamil-nadu-launches-new-drinking-water-project_10021543.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/karunanidhi-seeks-pms-intervention-slams-bangalore-violence_10033377.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/tension-over-tamil-nadu-drinking-water-project_10028059.html

The Republic of India was created in 1947 as a united, secular democracy. Over the last 60 years, Indian politics have been dominated by Congress, a left-wing, secular political party founded by Jawaharal Nehru. Despite the governments commitment to separation of church and state, religion has played a major role in Indian politics; politicians cater to their religiously diverse constituents and religious violence is not uncommon (in fact, Gandhi was assassinated by Hindu nationalists for “betraying” Hindutava by defending secularism). Congress finally was defeated in the 1998 national elections by the BJP, a Hindu nationalist party. In addition to ending 51 years of nearly uninterrupted dominance by Congress, this changing of the guards brought issues of religious toleration and secularism even further into the Indian political spotlight.

The New York Times published an article in February of 1998, just before the national elections, outlining some of the religious issues surrounding the vote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E4DE103FF933A15751C0A96E958260&st=cse&sq=BJP+wins+Indian+elections&scp=2

Indian Muslims, the world’s largest minority group, feared that their rights would be threatened, if not completely violated, by a BJP-led government. Muslim clerics across the country urged their congregations to vote for Congress and to protect themselves from the potential religious tyranny of the BJP. As we discussed in class today, the Muslim civic groups, united by common interest — in this case, religion and tolerance– actively participated in the political system and attempted to use the democratic process to protect their rights. In this case, associationalism could have possibly increased voter turnout (though I don’t have the exact figures). Although Congress anti-BJP propaganda likely exaggerates the party’s religious extremism, the concerns of Indian Muslims were likely warranted. The BJP’s website makes a number of religious and nationalist references, and the party’s platform includes a number of related issues. For example, the party wants to eliminate special laws governing Muslim marriages, divorces, and property rights, as well as build a Hindu temple on the site of a historic mosque.

http://bjp.org/

Nevertheless, the BJP has tried to shake its extremist reputation, and portray themselves as a more centrist, tolerant party to help spread its popularity, nationally.

Although Congress regained control of the national parliament in 2004, after 6 turbulent years of BJP rule, the Hindu-nationalist party still has influence (if not majorities) in some state legislatures. In December, Narendra Modi, a notoriously extreme member of the BJP, known for “his charismatic, often pugnacious, brand of Hindu supremacist politics”, was reelected as chief minister of Gujarat. Modi is infamous for his complacency towards, and possibly approval of, the religious riots which erupted in his state in 2002. During the violence, Hindu rioters killed over 1,000 Muslims. Critics, one of which called his reelection “the dark side of democracy”, fear that Muslims will be even further marginalized and oppressed by the Modi government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/23cnd-india.html?st=cse&sq=BJP+wins+Indian+elections&scp=1

These issues echo the current situation in Turkey that we discussed last week. Both India and Turkey were founded on secular ideals, however religion has continuously played an important role in politics in both countries. Although the BJP is a fully legitimate and legal political party, its policies and platforms seem to blur the divisions between church and state; as we have seen, secularists in Turkey have similar fears about the religiously-conservative ruling party there.

Over the past two weeks, civil unrest in Tibet has led to demonstrations, riots and deadly police suppression. The deeply rooted tensions between the Chinese government and Tibet erupted when hundreds of Buddhist Monks marched in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, protesting educational restrictions on Tibetan religious schools. The demonstrators hoped to change the Chinese “patriotic” educational system, “in which monks are required to study government propaganda and write denunciations of the Dalai Lama” (Yardley, “Monk Protests in Tibet Draw Chinese Security”). Chinese security forces stopped the peaceful protesters, using tear gas.

In the days that followed, ordinary Tibetans protested in cities throughout the region, leading to even more violent crackdowns. The number of casualties varies based on sources. However, official Chinese news sources — in what are likely underestimates — have admitted that security forces used lethal force, leading to the deaths of 10 protesters. The Tibetan government, led by the Dalai Lama and operating in exile in neighboring India, claims that more than 80 demonstrators were killed by Chinese police. It is important to remember that the Chinese security forces are not exclusively culpable. Tibetan rioters attacked ethnic Han-Chinese and burned and looted Chinese businesses, forcing the security forces to respond. Information is limited, but it seems that both sides have contributed to the continuation of violence.

Nevertheless, the educational program, the suppression of the monks’ initial protest, and the restriction of foreign media in the area are evidence of authoritarianism in a country that is trying to balance open market policies with iron-fisted political and social control. Propaganda has historically been an important and powerful tool used by authoritarian regimes, such as China’s. In the eyes of Tibetans and many foreign observers, the educational restrictions in Tibet represent attempts by Beijing to “brainwash” students in the region and homogenize citizens throughout the country. The Dalai Lama, who defends cultural rather than political autonomy for Tibet, has called such policies “cultural genocide.” The violent crackdowns of the protests are the latest stains on China’s questionable human rights record. In addition to the imprisonment of political dissidents, such responses to political activism shows the lack of pluralism in China and of accountability of Chinese government. Political activists, however, are not the only ones to have been silenced by Beijing; the Chinese government has banned foreign news media from investigating the demonstrations and their violent aftermath. Clearly, these policies are geared toward retaining psychological, martial and informational control of the unstable region.

The violence in Tibet is a reminder that, despite China’s efforts to open its economy and improve its human rights reputation, the regime is still very much authoritarian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/world/asia/18exiles.html?scp=21&sq=&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/world/asia/16tibet.html?scp=27&sq=&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/world/asia/15tibet.html?scp=28&sq=&st=nyt

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ObCigAg-Tjk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GJP1c9CssZI&feature=related

Recently, intellectual property rights have become a major issue in international law. As technology increases and the movement of information is facilitated, businesses will need to protect their innovations. Some argue that this protection must be guaranteed by governments in order to encourage creativity and foster growth.

The 2008 Intellectual Property Rights Index was recently released, and VOANews.com wrote an article yesterday, analyzing the results. According to the survey of 115 countries, there is a correlation between property rights and development. This supports the argument of Hernando de Soto, which we discussed on Tuesday, that developing countries must protect property rights — both tangible and intangible — in order to grow economically. Finland, Norway and Denmark are the three highest ranked countries. The U.S. is nineteenth. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are the two lowest.

India is tied with South Korea for 36th and China is tied for 62nd. India, who’s economic growth is largely a product of technological innovation, has relatively effective intellectually property laws compared to other developing nations. Its score has increased by almost an entire point since last year (countries are rated on a scale of 1-10). China, however, trails a number of Latin American, Eastern European, and other Asian countries, and its score has dropped since 2007. According to the arguments of de Soto and the Intellectual Property Rights Index Committee, these two emerging economies will have to continue to strengthen their property rights if they hope to sustain growth. With this argument in mind, is India more poised to sustain economic growth than its Asian neighbor? Or, will China disprove de Soto’s theory?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-26-voa21.cfm

http://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/

http://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/UserFiles/File/Results.pdf

As we saw in class, the partition of India in 1947 caused an outbreak of religious and nationalist violence. Radical, violent Indian nationalists, Hindus and Muslims clashed in response to the announcement of partition. In the northwestern and eastern parts of the subcontinent, Hindus and Muslims clamored to be on the right side of the new, religious fault line. Today, ethnic, religious, and class tension still exist in India. As recently as 2002, violent riots between Muslims and Hindus broke out in Gujarat – ironically, Gandhi’s homeland.

Chinese nationalists, like their Indian counterparts, hope to reunite all of the former Chinese lands, including Taiwan. So far, they have been relatively successful, regaining Hong Kong and Macau. However, Taipei still is a chronic headache for the Chinese government and nationalists.

In last month’s Taiwanese parliamentary elections, the nationalist party, known as the Kuomintang (KMT), won a landslide victory, securing three-fourths of the seats. Surprisingly, given its name, the KMT hopes to ‘bridge’ the Taiwanese straight. Although they do not support reunification, the party hopes to improve economic and diplomatic relations with the mainland. The election outcomes greatly hurt the ruling Democratic People’s Party and their leader, Chen Shui-bian, who have pushed for greater economic and even titular separation from the People’s Republic. Taiwanese presidential elections are scheduled for next month, and it is likely that Ma Ying-jeou of the KMT will win.  Chen removed himself from the presidential race following his parties defeat in the parliamentary elections.

As David Lague, of the New York Times, argues, the election results show that most Taiwanese prefer the pragmatic platform of the KMT to the aggressive approach of the Chen’s party. This argument supports the idea from last week’s readings that nationalism is based or feeds on economic interests. With the rise of the Chinese economy and its overall influence in East Asia, the Taiwanese voters seem to realize that it is better to cooperate with, rather than antagonize, the People’s Republic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/world/asia/14taiwan.html?st=cse&sq=taiwan&scp=2

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/world/asia/12taiwan.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx5YgbOUa7A

In our semester long analysis of the economic development of both China and India, our recent discussions of rational choice theory help facilitate an analysis of the economies in these two emerging markets.

Rational Choice Theory states that behavioral patterns which exist in societies are the product of choices made by individuals of the state in order to maximize profits and minimize costs.

An analysis of the Chinese economy proves this. China has the fourth largest GDP globally and has sustained an economic growth rate of 10% per year for the last 25 years. Prior to the late 1970’s China had a Soviet-influenced economy that did not promote trade and international commerce. The Chinese government began to reform the economy and since those revisions China has enjoyed above-average growth. It is in these revisions that we see how the Chinese people have been able to become successful domestically, but it is China’s role in the global economy that is so impressive.

China sees newly founded entrepreneurial endeavors occurring at record rates. The Chinese citizen understands the opportunities made available since government reform of the economy. We now see widespread enthusiasm and interest in creating personal wealth in China. Chinese Citizens are working hard and through the individual progress, the state now has adopted a new economic profile on an international scale. The society appreciates the efficiency of markets and China has many more years of economic prosperity ahead.

India’s economic history has followed very closely to that of China. For the majority of it’s history, India has operated under a Socialist-inspired economy. Since the 1990’s India has opened it’s closed economy and has become an international presence just like China. India is now widely known for the strength and intelligence of it’s work force. Thousands of U.S. firms outsource work to China every year. More recently India has become a global investment powerhouse, much like the United States. We are seeing burgeoning investment into India. On the other end India is pledging funds and capital to foreign economies and governments.

Since the economic reforms of the 1990’s, India finds itself in a time of rapid economic progress. The same values and dreams of achieving success and personal wealth exist in India. Indian citizens are now involved in a capitalist system in which profits are maximized. The once socialist driven economic ideology is in the past, and citizens find themselves pursuing profits through international trade and commerce

China and India are two of the world’s fastest growing economies. We plan to compare and contrast the growth of these Asian, economic super-powers, and to determine what historical, cultural, and governmental factors have caused the similarities and differences in their development.

In 2006, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf became the President of Liberia, and the first female president on the continent. It is interesting to consider why Liberia reached this landmark before other more stable, developed, and seemingly progressive states, such as the United States. Also, what social and political factors helped or allowed a women to take power in Liberia before any in Benin, South Africa, or Kenya?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10865705/