Cursussyllabus

Class 1 (29 September): Democratic and authoritarian regimes

Democracy is a topic frequently in the news, yet it remains a term that many struggle to define. For some, democracy simply means the right to vote in periodic elections. For others, the essence of democracy is found in active, vibrant deliberation and public debate. Still, for others, democracy is viewed as a system that should effectively solve society's problems. In this opening class, we will discuss these varying definitions and perspectives by exploring the fundamental concepts of both democratic and authoritarian regimes. We will also examine how democracies develop over time, how they are categorized based on different political and institutional factors, and the methods used to measure the quality of democratic governance.

Mandatory readings:

-        Mair, P. (2014). Democracies. In: Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics. Oxford: OUP (pp. 79-95).

-        Brooker, P. (2014). Authoritarian regimes. In: Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics. Oxford: OUP (pp. 96-110).

-        Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

o   Ch. 2: The Westminster Model of Democracy (pp. 9-29)

o   Ch.3: The Consensus Model of Democracy (pp. 30-45)

-        Please also look at Freedom House (https://freedomhouse.org/) and V-DEM (https://www.v-dem.net/en/) and make an assessment of the level and quality of democracy in your home country.

Class 2 (6 October): Does Democracy Produce Better Outcomes?

Winston Churchill famously remarked, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others,” suggesting a somewhat cynical view of democracy’s imperfections. However, many scholars of democracy hold a more optimistic perspective, arguing that democracy inherently leads to better outcomes. For example, Arend Lijphart asserts that certain types of democracy can result in "kinder, gentler" policies. In this class, we will explore what Lijphart means by this and investigate whether democracy—and, more specifically, the type of democratic system—truly influences the quality of governance and policy outcomes. Does democracy inherently lead to better results, or do different types of democracy have a significantly different impact? These are the questions we will critically examine.

Mandatory readings:

-        Carbone, G. (2009). The Consequences of Democratization. Journal of Democracy 2: 123-137.

-        Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

o   Ch. 15: Effective Government and Policy-making: Does Consensus Democracy Make a Difference? (pp. 255-273)

o   Ch. 16: The Quality of Democracy and a “Kinder, Gentler” Democracy: Consensus Democracy Makes a Difference. (pp. 274-294)

Class 3 (13 October): Is Democracy Facing a Legitimacy Crisis?

It is often claimed that democracy is experiencing a so-called legitimacy crisis, characterized by a growing disconnect between citizens and their elected representatives. The argument suggests that this widening gap has led to increased disillusionment and disengagement from the political process. While the diagnosis of a "democratic deficit" is widely accepted, this course aims to critically examine whether democracy is indeed in crisis. Are citizens truly disaffected by politics, or are there other factors at play? Through in-depth analysis, we will explore the evidence for and against the claim of a legitimacy crisis in modern democracies, and assess whether this perceived crisis poses a real threat to democratic systems.

Mandatory readings:

-        Van Reybrouck, D. (2016). Against Elections. London: Random House (pp. 1-57).

-        Norris, P. (2011). Democratic Deficit. Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

o   Chapter 4: Trends in the United States and Western Europe (pp. 57-83)

-        Van Ham, C. & Thomassen, J. (2017). The Myth of Legitimacy Decline: An Empirical Evaluation of Trends in Political Support in Established Democracies. In: Van Ham, C., Thomassen, J., Aarts, K. & Andeweg, R. (eds.), Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 17-36).

Class 4 (20 October): Is Liberal Democracy Regressing?

The early 1990s marked the beginning of what is often called the "third wave of democratization," raising hopes for the global spread of liberal democracies. However, by the late 2010s, these hopes began to fade, as the world witnessed a growing sense of democratic disenchantment and an alarming trend of democratic backsliding. In this class, we will address key questions such as: To what extent are democracies regressing? What are the conditions and factors contributing to democratic backsliding? Through critical analysis, we will explore the political, economic, and social conditions that lead to the weakening of democratic institutions and values, while examining both historical and contemporary examples of regression.

Mandatory readings:

-        Diamond, L. (2015). Facing Up to the Democratic Recession. Journal of Democracy 26(1): 141-155.

-        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-CzjU2V7CY

-        Levitsky, S. & Way, L. (2015). The Myth of Democratic Recession. Journal of Democracy 26(1): 45-59.

-        Przybylski, W. (2018). Explaining Eastern Europe: Can Poland’s Backsliding Be Stopped? Journal of Democracy 29(3): 52-64.

-        Protect Democracy (2022). The Authoritarian Playbook. Washington, DC: Protect Democracy

-        Please also look at Freedom House (https://freedomhouse.org/) and V-DEM (https://www.v-dem.net/en/) and make an assessment of how the level and quality of democracy in your home country have evolved since 2000.

Class 5 (27 October): Democratic innovations

In response to the perceived legitimacy crisis, many democracies have begun experimenting with innovative decision-making mechanisms aimed at reinvigorating citizen engagement and enhancing democratic legitimacy. These new approaches to governance, ranging from citizen assemblies to participatory budgeting, are gaining popularity, and the expectations for their effectiveness are high. In this class, we will address key questions: What exactly is democratic innovation? What types of innovations have emerged? And, more importantly, can these innovations be considered an effective response to the alleged decline in citizen engagement and trust in democratic institutions? Through examining real-world examples, we will critically assess the potential and limitations of these democratic innovations.

Mandatory readings:

-         Van Reybrouck, D. (2016). Against Elections. London: Random House (pp. 106-162).

-        Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

o   Chapter 3: Mini-publics: assemblies by random selection (pp. 72-110)

-        Vandamme, P.-E. & Verret-Hamelin, A. (2017). A Randomly Selected Chamber: Promises and Challenges. Journal of Public Deliberation 13(1): 1-26

-        Caluwaerts, D. & Reuchamps, M. (2014). Strengthening democracy through bottom-up deliberation: An assessment of the internal legitimacy of the G1000 project. Acta Politica 50(2): 151-170.

-        Curato, N., Dryzek, J., Ercan, S., Hendriks. C.M. & Niemeyer S. (2017). Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 146 (3): 28-38.

Class 6 (3 November): Authoritarian innovations

Much like democracies have innovated to meet challenges of democratic crises and regression, so too have authoritarian regimes started to innovate, mainly to preserve their own power. In this class we will discuss how, why and to what effect authoritarian regimes have innovated their institutional structures.

Mandatory readings:

-        Morgenbesser, L. (2020). The menu of autocratic innovation. Democratization, online first. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2020.1746275.

-        Tan, N. (2020). Digital learning and extending electoral authoritarianism in Singapore. Democratization, online first. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2020.1770731.

-        He, B. & Warren, M.E. (2011). Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development. Perspectives on Politics 9 (2): 269-289.

Class 7 (17 November): Non-western democracy

In this class on Non-Western Democracy, we will explore how democratic systems and practices manifest in regions outside the Western world. We will examine how indigenous political traditions, colonial legacies, and socio-economic contexts have shaped these democracies, often leading to variations in governance models, political participation, and democratic values. We will critically analyze how democracy has been adapted to local contexts and how concepts like participatory governance, communal decision-making, and hybrid political systems challenge Western-centric models of democracy. Discussions will also focus on the role of culture, religion, and historical experiences in shaping these democratic forms, and how they contribute to broader understandings of what democracy can be in a global context.

Mandatory readings:

-        Youngs, R. (2015). Exploring" Non-Western Democracy". Journal of Democracy, 26(4), 140-154.

-        Oduor, R. M. (2019). Liberal democracy: an African critique. South African Journal of Philosophy= Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Wysbegeerte, 38(1), 108-122.

Class 8 (24 November): Democracy in polarized and divided societies

John Stuart Mill famously argued that “among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist” (Mill 1991, p. 428). According to Mill, the absence of a shared identity among the populace would prevent the successful establishment of a democracy. Contemporary democratic theory often echoes Mill's concerns, positing that polarization and deeply divided public opinion undermine democratic stability. It is widely held that conflict-ridden societies do not provide fertile ground for the development of strong democratic systems.

In this class, we critically explore the question: Is democracy possible in deeply divided societies, and what would that democracy look like? We will take a nuanced approach to the concept of polarization, examining whether there is indeed a growing trend toward division in modern democracies and what the implications of such polarization might be for democratic governance. Through a critical lens, we will assess whether polarization inherently threatens democracy, or whether deeply divided societies can, under certain conditions, still sustain democratic governance.

Mandatory readings:

-        Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public opinion quarterly, 76(3): 405-431.

-        Somer, M., & McCoy, J. (2018). Déjà vu? Polarization and endangered democracies in the 21st century. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1): 3-15.

-        Lijphart, A. (2004). Constitutional design for divided societies. Journal of Democratization 15 (2): 96-109.

-        Jarrett, H. (2016). Consociationalism and Identity in Ethnically Divided Societies: Northern Ireland and Malaysia. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 16 (3): 401-415.

For those wanting to know more:

-        Stavrakakis, Y. (2018). Paradoxes of polarization: Democracy’s inherent division and the (anti-) populist challenge. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 43-58.

-        Bettarelli, L., Reiljan, A., & Van Haute, E. (2022). A regional perspective to the study of affective polarization. European Journal of Political Research.

-        Caluwaerts, D. & Deschouwer, C. (2014). Building bridges across political divides: experiments on deliberative democracy in deeply divided Belgium. European Political Science Review 6(3): 427-450.

-        Stojanovic, N. (2009). Is democracy possible in a multilingual country?
The Swiss experience and the paradox of direct democracy. In: Sinardet, D. & Hooghe, M. (eds.), Is Democracy Viable Without a Unified Public Opinion? The Swiss experience and the Belgian Case. Brussel: Rethinking Belgium (pp. 10-19).

-        Caluwaerts, D. & Reuchamps, M. (2020). Still consociational? Belgian democracy, 50 years after “The Politics of Accommodation”. Forthcoming in Politics of the Low Countries.

Class 9 (1 December): Democratic myopia

Democracies are increasingly confronted with pressing long-term challenges, such as climate change, population aging, and environmental sustainability. However, democratic systems are often criticized for being ill-equipped to address these long-term issues effectively due to their focus on short-term political gains and electoral cycles. In this class, we will explore key questions: To what extent are democracies short-termist in their decision-making? How do democratic systems cope with complex, long-term policy challenges that require sustained attention and action over multiple political cycles? Through case studies and theoretical discussions, we will critically assess how democracies manage—or fail to manage—long-term issues, and consider potential reforms or innovations that might enable them to better address these enduring challenges.

Mandatory readings:

-        MacKenzie, M.K. (2016). Institutional design and sources of short-termism. In: González-Ricoy, I. & Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions For Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 24-46).

-        Stoker, G. (2014). The Myth of Democratic Myopia. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference 2014, Glasgow, 4-6 September.

-        Caney, S. (2016). Political Institutions for the Future. A Fivefold Package. In: González-Ricoy, I. & Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions For Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 135-155).

-        MacKenzie, M. K. & Caluwaerts, D. (2015) ‘Deliberation and Long-Term Thinking on Climate Change Policy.’ Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Class 10 (8 December): Democracy and technology

New technologies have been both celebrated as solutions to the democratic malaise and criticized as instruments of democratic oppression. On one hand, they open up new possibilities for civic engagement, such as crowd-funding for public projects and online platforms for participatory decision-making. On the other hand, they can exacerbate polarization through filter bubbles and be manipulated as tools of control and surveillance by those in power. In this class, we will address the central questions: To what extent are technologies driving democratization and expanding civic participation? Conversely, to what extent do these technologies become tools in the hands of the few, deepening inequality and limiting access to democratic processes for the many? We will critically examine both the promises and the dangers of technology in shaping the future of democracy.

Mandatory readings:

-        Levine, P. (2002). Can the Internet Rescue Democracy? Toward an On-line Commons. In: Hayduk, R. and Mattson, K. (eds.), Democracy’s Moment: Reforming the American: Political System for the 21st Century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield (pp. 121-137). (http://www.peterlevine.ws/Internetdemocracy.htm

-        Sunstein, C.R. (2017). #republic. Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press (Ch. 1 (pp. 1-8), Ch. 3, Ch. 9)

-        Jungherr, A. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Democracy: A Conceptual Framework. Social Media+ Society, 9(3).

Class 11 (15 December): Q&A

Knowing myself, I will probably need to some time to make up some time. In this last class, we will therefore wrap things up. Additionally, we will foresee time for questions about the exam.