PS/LAS/RUSS 246 1/27/14

Comparative Democratization

Course Handbook

Neill 213, Tuesdays & Thursdays 9:40-11:10 am, Spring 2014 Instructor: Paul Dosh Cell: 651-641-0416Email: dosh@macalester.edu Office: Carnegie 203H Office hours: Sign-up via GoogleDocCourse Resources: www.macalester.edu/academics/las/facultystaff/pauldosh/courseresources

Contents

COURSE OVERVIEW 1Study Cycles 2Expectations 3Required readings 3

ASSIGNMENTSGeneral Notes on Assignments 3Summary of Assignments and Due Dates 4Descriptions of Assignments 5

ASSESSMENTOverview of System of Assessment 14Assessment Criteria and Rubrics 14

SYLLABUS Course Introduction 17Study Cycle I: Chile 17Study Cycle II: South Africa 19Study Cycle III: Russia 21Study Cycle IV: Iran 22

Welcome to Comparative Democratization! Beginning with the liberalization of authoritarian rule in Portugal in 1974 and extending into the 1990s, dozens of countries around the world completed transitions to democracy. Scholars marveled at this “resurgence of democracy.” Some characterized it as an inexorable wave of democratization. But just as soon as these new democracies made their way through Southern Europe, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Russia, and East Asia, the consolidation of these regimes faltered. Upon closer examination, scholars found illiberal aspects to these new democracies. Some were threatened by the persistence of authoritarian interests who remained disloyal to the democratic order. Others were weakened by poorly organized civil societies, anemic political parties, and electoral rules that favored

1

personalist leadership at the cost of elite accountability to the electorate. Although these polities remained formally democratic -- they held periodic elections and maintained laws defining and defending civil rights -- in practice they continued to suffer from extrajudicial challenges to democratic procedures. What causes a democratic system to breakdown? Why do authoritarian regimes collapse or endure? What political institutions are most likely to result in democratic consolidation? Analyzing questions likes these is important for understanding the political issues of 2014. Given that democratic Chile has successfully alternated power from the Center-Left to the Right and now back to the Center-Left—all through democratic processes—can Chile be said to have better off for having spent 17 years under the Pinochet dictatorship? Was the late Nelson Mandela too generous to white elites in crafting an inclusive South African constitution? Does Vladimir Putin’s recentralization of power signal a return to the authoritarianism— or even totalitarianism—of Russia’s past? And do local-level democratic signs hold any promise in an Iran ruled by theocracy? These and other questions will challenge us to think, analyze, and write, with both creativity and rigor.

Study CyclesOur course is divided into several introductory class sessions followed by four study cycles. Each study cycle includes five class days that explore a set of issues through a specific country case. Each cycle includes historical background, theoretic approaches to political change, and analysis of contemporary politics. Each study cycle begins with an opening lecture and film or film excerpt. On the subsequent days of each study cycle, reading assignments typically include about 3 substantial readings per day. I will provide regular guidance on which sections of readings are most important. Our class will analyze, discuss, and present these readings in a variety of formats, often involving student leadership. There are typically no reading assignments for the last day of a study cycle, when we process what we have learned through a simulation or other exercise. The first simulation focuses on Chile’s attempt to remove the dictator Pinochet from power. The second simulation is a role-played debate about South Africa transition from apartheid to democracy. The third and fourth simulations (on Russia and Iran) will be created and directed by students, and may take a variety of formats. For each simulation, the class is split between Participants and Observers. Each participant will prepare for her or his role. Observers watch the exercise, possibly playing a small role (e.g., casting ballots or asking questions of the core participants) and then discuss it and provide feedback. You will be a participant in two or three of the four simulations. Participants are evaluated in writing, but are not graded, though your participation contributes to your Class Engagement grade. Only student co-directors (see below) are graded for their work on a simulation.

2

Expectations You can expect me to be tirelessly enthusiastic and to work hard for you, both this semester and in future semesters when you need advising and reference letters. I will make time for you and I will provide constructive and encouraging feedback. I expect you to arrive on time and prepared to engage. You are entitled to a day or two where you are dead tired and need to be left alone--just let me know. But the norm is for you to arrive a few minutes early, ready to engage. We will commit class time to identifying your expectations. Here are a few more of mine: •Respect for conflicting and difficult views. •Respect for personal experiences.•Reflections on positionality and openness to dialogue about privilege and power.•Willingness to learn from each other and teach each other. •Prioritizing this class most of the time, especially the first two weeks.•Volunteering input on how to improve the course, both when it is solicited and not. •Punctuality and communication. If you can’t make it to class, if you’ll be late, or if you will turn

in an assignment on an alternate date, I expect you to tell me in advance. This course requires a lot from you, but you receive a lot as well, from me and your classmates—I know most of the student in class and this is a strong group, so expect a lot from your peers. We are going to work hard this semester and I hope that the energy and enthusiasm we each contribute will make this class a great success.

Required readings Most readings can be found on Moodle. There is also one required book (at the Bookstore and on 2-hour reserve): •Habib, Adam. 2013. South Africa’s Suspended Revolution: Hopes and Prospects. Athens:

Ohio University Press.

ASSIGNMENTS

General Notes on Assignments

Language options for written assignments: English or Spanish Required citation/bibliography style: APSA Style Guide (download a compact version of this style guide from Course Resources page)

Courses Resources Web PageSample work available at www.macalester.edu/academics/las/facultystaff/pauldosh/courseresources.

3

On-Time Work PolicySetting and meeting deadlines is an important professional skill. The syllabus provides “default” deadlines for assignments. I expect you to either meet these deadlines or set alternative deadlines with me in advance. College is an important time to develop a reputation as someone who gets things done and gets things done on time. If you cannot meet a deadline, it is your responsibility to communicate with me in advance about when the work will be complete.

Students with Special NeedsI am committed to providing assistance to help you be successful in this course. Students seeking accommodations based on disabilities should meet with Lisa Landreman, Associate Dean of Students. Call x6220 for an appointment. Students are encouraged to address any special needs or accommodations with me as soon as you become aware of your needs. More info at www.macalester.edu/studentaffairs/disabilityservices.

Summary of Assignments and Due Dates

Written Assignments Due Date Percent of Grade Single Point Paper #1 no later than Feb 20 part of Class EngagementSingle Point Paper #2 no later than Mar 11 part of Class EngagementSingle Point Paper #3 no later than Apr 8 part of Class EngagementAnalytic Paper #1 (Chile) Feb 26 15%Analytic Paper #2 (South Africa or Russia) Mar 14 or Apr 11 15%Research Paper Topic Mar 25 part of Class EngagementResearch Paper Rough Draft Apr 28 5%Research Paper May 9 30%

Other AssignmentsClass Engagement ongoing 20%Simulation Participation varies part of Class EngagementClassroom Leadership Role varies 15%

-option #1: Partisan Narrative-option #2: 9:59 Lecture-option #3: Co-Direct a Simulation

Presentation of Creative Work May 6 part of Class Engagement

4

Descriptions of Assignments

Single Point PaperSummary: A two-page reaction paper that supports a single argumentative claim with

evidence.Criteria for assessment: Argumentation, evidence, written communication (and visual

communication if you create a table or figure)Sample available on course resources web page?: YesCollaboration options: A three-page paper can be co-authored with a classmateOffice hours consultation: Always welcome

You will write three Single Point Papers (SPP)—a reaction paper (1-2 pages) that supports a single argumentative claim with evidence. SPPs may co-authored with a classmate. An SPP engages a reading or set of readings. As you read and take notes, think about what key ideas are emerging. Formulate one key assertion. The assertion may be substantive, analytic, methodological, theoretic, or any combination of these. Sample SPPs are posted on the Course Resources page.

Here are three examples of SPP arguments: 1) “In her analysis of Guatemala’s peace process, Jonas sets too high a standard for success and overlooks the important gains that were made”; 2) “O’Donnell’s concept of delegative democracy helps us understand the collapse of the party system and Venezuela”; and 3) “Chalmers breaks new ground with his approach to representation, but the evidence doesn’t support his theory.”

Don’t be afraid to be overly bold with your claim. The goal is to raise an interesting point; don’t feel you have to be able to definitively prove it. SPPs are due in class on the day we discuss the readings you analyze. They may not be turned in late.

5

Analytic PaperSummary: A 5-6 page paper that goes out of its way to “show off” your knowledge of specific

course themes, readings, lectures, and discussions.Criteria for assessment: Argumentation, evidence, written communication (and visual

communication if you create a table, figure, timeline, or other visual aid)Sample available on course resources web page?: YesCollaboration options: A 7-8 page paper can be co-authored with a classmateOffice hours consultation: Always welcome

You will write two Analytic Papers (5-6 pages each). The principal objective of each Analytic Paper is to creatively demonstrate mastery of course readings, discussions, lectures, student presentations, and films.

You are encouraged to build upon ideas developed in Single Point Papers and/or to experiment with ideas that may contribute to your Research Paper. A handout with possible topics will be distributed one week in advance, but your own topics are also welcome, so long as they follow the parameters described on the handout.

As with all papers you should use the APSA citation style. Your paper should include a bibliography.

Try and demonstrate your knowledge of the readings and lectures through thoughtful application of ideas, not via the number of times you mention an author’s name. In other words, there’s no need to excessively cite every sentence or paragraph, but give credit where it is due. I do not expect you to given equal attention to all readings. Let the argument of your paper drive your decision of which readings to make use of to what degree you use them.

6

Research Topic Statement, Rough Draft, and Research PaperSummary: A 15-20 page research paper that you build toward with a topic statement and a

peer-reviewed rough draft. Type of assessment: Written feedback with summary mark.Criteria for assessment: Argumentation, evidence, written communication, and visual

communication (all student should include some visual element, such as tables, figures, timeline, or photos)

Sample available on course resources web page?: YesCollaboration options: Two students may co-author a 25-30 page paper. One such

collaboration (by two sophomores in CDN) was published in Berkeley’s Politica journal. Analyzing two country cases, these two students each became an expert on one of the countries in order to write an especially strong paper.

Office hours consultation: Required

You will choose a case (usually a country or pair of countries), learn about it through research, and discuss it in light of one or more theories from the course. You have three formal due dates for this project:

1) a 1-2 page Research Paper Topic statement;2) a 15+ page Rough Draft;3) a 15-20 pages Research Paper

However, you are encouraged to seek additional guidance at each stage of this project through office hours visits, conversations about your project, or submitting outlines/sketches of your argument for feedback.

Research Paper TopicYour initial research topic statement is intended to help you get started. Begin with the research question that interests you. Try to make your question specific, enticing, feasible, and original. It can also be a set of related questions. Spend 1-2 pages describing the topic and how you plan to study it. Identify one or more bodies of literature that will likely frame your project (e.g., social movements, urban politics, democratization). Get started on a bibliography that will grow from week to week.

Sample Past Research Paper Topics“Nationalism as an Impediment to Democratic Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Iranian and Russian

Nationalisms”“A Culture of Favors?: An Analysis of Political Corruption in the Face of Democratic Consolidation in

Paraguay” “Constructing the Bedrock of Democracy from Divided Societies: Successes, Failures and Shortfalls of

Zimbabwe and South Africa”“Decentralization in Brazil: How the States Won the Constitution” “Church Responses to Military Dictatorship: The Influence of Progressive Forces in Brazil and Argentina” “Leaders, Civil Society, and Law: Transitions in South Africa and Zimbabwe”“Success vs. Failure: The Importance of Institutional Infrastructure in Russian and Argentina Privatization”“The Future of the Titans: Capitalism and Democracy in China and India”“The Relationship Between Ideology and Institutions: Oppression of Iranian and Chinese Women

7

Explained”“Press Restrictions in Russia and Egypt: An Added Obstacle on the Road to Democracy”“Of Buttresses and Bedrock: The Need for Mass Support in the Founding of Foco Revolutions in

Guatemala and Bolivia”

Evaluation of Rough DraftsYour Rough Draft should at meet at least three criteria: 1) Quantity of writing (do you have 15 pages written?); 2) Presence of an argument (do you have a clear argument and do you state in clearly in your introduction?); and 3) Evidence of research (do you have a bibliography with a variety of sources?). Your rough draft may be full of errors, arrows, reminders to yourself and may be a bit chaotic. The point is to get it all out on the page.

We will also coordinate peer review of rough drafts. I will read over your rough draft, but such a reading will necessarily be cursory and intended primarily to head off major errors. I will not be able to line-edit your draft. Having one of your classmates read your rough draft will help you clarify your ideas and provide you with useful feedback that you can choose to incorporate into your final draft.

Research and Writing of Final PaperThis 15-20 page paper is an opportunity to apply a set of theoretical assumptions to an empirical case (or cases), and thus gain a better understanding of one or more political science issues with respect to that case. This, in turn, will position you to make an assessment of how well that theory or set of theories explains causal processes particular to your case. You may find that a theory does a great job or a poor job explaining the events that interest you. In either case, you should use this case study both to understand your case and to make some comment about how your study sheds light on the utility of the theory in question.

Your paper be argument-driven. Thus, it should be more than a story about what is happening in a particular country, it should analyze why events are happening or happened in a certain way. This is crucial, so please talk to me if this is unclear. This argument should be mentioned in your introduction, steadily developed throughout the body of your paper, and stated clearly in your conclusion. This is important both for communicating to the reader and because forcing yourself to state your argument will help clarify your thinking about the objective of your paper.

Citations and bibliography must use the APSA style. Paper must include an abstract. It must also have a visual element, such as figures, tables, timeline, photos, and/or graphs.

8

Creative Writing/Art AssignmentSummary: An open invitation to share your creative talents via an artistic rendering of an

aspect of Comparative Democratization. Creative projects are presented during our final meeting.

Criteria for assessment: NoneSample available on course resources web page?: NoCollaboration options: Collaboration is welcome and has been successful in the past.Office hours consultation: Always welcome

You will complete some creative work that engages a theme, organization, country, or individual from the course. Examples of past student work include a short story, a set of short poems or one longer poem, a song, a dance performance, a drawing, a painting, a collaborative skit, a collage, and a photo essay, but other possibilities exist. Our final meeting will be devoted to ungraded and celebratory presentations of student work.

9

Partisan NarrativeSummary: A 5-10 minute first-person narrative told in the persona of an important political

figure, followed by 5-15 minutes of Q&A, during which you answer questions while staying in character.

Criteria for assessment: Oral communication, evidence, and visual communication. Sample available on course resources web page?: NoCollaboration options: May choose a pair of antagonists to be portrayed in dialogue by you

and another student.Office hours consultation: Full start-to-finish rehearsal required. Should occur at least two

days prior to your scheduled presentation in case a second rehearsal is required.

Partisan Narratives are concise 5-10 minute speeches delivered in the role of important political and historical figures. Narrators then answer questions while maintaining their role. Your narrative will both convey biographical information about this figure and will teach about her or his political era--but from a biased and partisan perspective. Hence you have a two-fold task to both 1) teach us about your character; and 2) make some argumentative claim. One preliminary step that can help you focus in on an argument is to decide who your audience is and when your character is speaking.

Here are two examples:•A student gave a Daniel Ortega narrative in which President Ortega was addressing his Sandinista supporters in 1989, on the eve of Nicaragua’s presidential election. In his speech, Ortega argued that listeners should vote for him and he supported this claim with heartwarming tales of his life as well as policy arguments.•A student gave an Otto Reich narrative, in which this Bush appointee addressed a class of Macalester students in 2005. In his speech, Reich argued for a coup d’etat against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and used anecdotes from his own career to explain why Mac students should abandon their bleeding heart values and support what is best for the United States.

•Tip: Anticipate likely questions and prepare rough answers to them in advance.

Preparation and delivery of a Partisan Narrative typically involves:1) Checking in with the instructor at the beginning of your preparation. At this time you should also make an appointment to rehearse your presentation with me in my office.2) Writing and revising your presentation, which typically involves a small amount of outside research.3) Rehearsing your completed presentation from start to finish with a peer, who can time you.4) Your final rehearsal is with the instructor, typically 1-2 days before your presentation date. You should come to this presentation with a complete and rehearsed presentation ready to go.5) Your class presentation, which typically includes up to 10 minutes of prepared remarks followed by 5-15 minutes of Q&A.

10

9:59 LectureSummary: A class lecture that occupies 20-25 minutes of class time, but your initial formal

remarks last 9 minutes and 59 seconds or less, leaving you 10-15 minutes to share the rest of your knowledge in dialogue with your audience.

Criteria for assessment: Oral communication, argumentation, evidence, and visual communication.

Sample available on course resources web page?: YesCollaboration options: Collaborative proposals welcomeOffice hours consultation: Full start-to-finish rehearsal required. Should occur at least two

days prior to your scheduled presentation in case a second rehearsal is required.

9:59 Lectures are tight, well-prepared 10-minute lectures on assigned and student-created topics. As with a written paper, your lecture should have an engaging introduction that grabs the audience’s attention and communicates your central claim, as well as some information about how the presentation will proceed. The lecture’s organization should be driven by the argument and should not be only a chronological retelling of key historical events. Your conclusion should be crafted in order to provoke a lively Q&A session.

•Tip: Anticipate likely questions and prepare rough answers to them in advance.

Preparation and delivery of a 9:59 Lecture typically involves:1) Checking in with the instructor at the beginning of your preparation. At this time you should

also make an appointment to rehearse your presentation with me in my office.2) Writing and revising your presentation, which typically involves a small amount of outside

research.3) Rehearsing your completed presentation from start to finish with a peer, who can time you.4) Your final rehearsal is with the instructor, typically 1-2 days before your presentation date.

You should come to this presentation with a complete and rehearsed presentation ready to go.

5) Your class presentation, which typically includes up to 10 minutes of prepared remarks followed by 5-15 minutes of Q&A.

11

Co-Directing a SimulationSummary: A team of three students co-design and co-direct an original role-played simulation.Criteria for assessment: Facilitation, written communication, visual communication, and

evidence.Sample available on course resources web page?: YesCollaboration options: Collaboration with team of two other students required.Office hours consultation: Required (usually includes an initial consultation to discuss ideas

and a second consultation once preparation of simulation is underway).

Our third and fourth simulations will each be designed and facilitated by a team of three students. Many students find this option to be the most work and the most rewarding. The student co-directors work with each other and with the instructor, so you do not need prior debate or Model UN experience to choose this option.

Steps in Process1) Well in advance, decide if you will use our regular classroom or reserve an alternate space

(e.g., Weyerhaeuser Boardroom, 4th Old Main lounge, Harmon Room, 2nd CC rooms), in which case you should reserve it as soon as possible.

2) Early in the Russia or Iran study cycle, the three student co-directors meet to brainstorm.3) Student co-directors meet with the instructor well in advance of simulation date. Additional

consultations encouraged throughout process.4) Design simulation and cast of characters. When assigning roles, consider: who you can

count on to successfully play pivotal roles; who seems ready for a role that is at their limit of ability such that they will be challenged and have to step up to a higher level; who has already played key roles in previous simulations and thus, perhaps, should be given a smaller role.

5) All preparatory materials (general handout; individual character dossiers) fully drafted one day before class preceding simulation, allowing time for the instructor to email final comments before handouts are distributed in class preceding simulation day. Once these handouts are distributed, simulation co-directors can continue to prepare all other aspects of simulation, up until day of simulation; thus, the handouts for participants should be your initial priority, so you can get these to participants early enough for them to have time to prepare.

6) Arrive early on day of simulation to prepare the environment. Don’t let people into the room until you are ready for them. Consider what elements of physical environment will be conducive to a successful simulation, such as table/chair arrangement, name placards (almost always needed), nametags (only needed if participants will be mingling away from their seats), visuals to be projected during simulation (can be completed in advance, ready to show; or can be drafted in advance, but with some elements left subject to change, so that visuals reflect action in simulation).

12

Class EngagementSummary: The ongoing expectation that you energetically engage your classmates and the

course materials. Criteria for assessment: Non-standardSample available on course resources web page?: NoCollaboration options: NoneOffice hours consultation: You are encouraged to consult with Paul to solicit feedback on

your class engagement. I will also informally share feedback with you when you come to office hours.

To get the most out of our diverse class, we will need to be respectful of the views others have to offer, and of the fact that each of us has something to teach the rest of the class. Everyone’s full engagement is needed to get the most out of the course.

In your assessment GoogleDoc (which I’ll explain in class), you’ll receive Class Engagement feedback on your investment of time in course readings, your participation in discussion, listening to peers and connecting your comments to theirs, communication about being late/absent, completing assignments on time, use of office hours, sharing relevant news articles with the group, and the following ungraded assignments: three Single Point Papers, Research Paper Topic, Presentation of Creative Work, and participation in Simulations..

As you’ll see, our course is designed to appeal to students with different learning styles. Some are listeners, some are more visual, some need to speak or write things down to understand them. I are always open to suggestions as to how we can make our seminar a better environment for you to learn and teach.

13

ASSESSMENT

Assessment OverviewMajor assignments are assessed with written feedback as well as a summary mark/letter grade. For example, an Exploratory Paper might receive written comments and a mark of “Very good/B+.” In addition, major assignments are assessed with respect to various criteria, such as “Argumentation: Fairly good” or “Evidence: Excellent,” with accompanying written comments and suggestions for further improvement. Minor assignments are assessed with written feedback, but are not given a summary mark/letter grade.

Summary Marks and GradesNot yet passing (less than a C-)*Passing (C-)Satisfactory (C)Fair (C+)Fairly good (B-)Good (B)Very good (B+)Excellent (A-)Outstanding (A)**

* Work that is not yet passing does not yet meet minimum standards. Consultation with instructor is typically required, sometimes followed by a re-write and sometimes followed by a whole new assignment.** Outstanding work is excellent with respect to all relevant criteria and also exhibits a superlative quality that distinguishes it as outstanding. For an introductory course, “outstanding” signals that an assignment could be posted on the course resources web page as a model for future students. For an intermediate course, “outstanding” denotes work that could be assigned in a course at Macalester. For an advanced course, “outstanding” indicates work of publishable quality.

Assessment Criteria and RubricsEach assignment is assessed in terms of one or more of six criteria (see your individual Assessment GoogleDoc). The six criteria are described here, and a rubric is provided for each.

Criteria descriptors are cumulative, so each successive descriptor also assumes the elements of those listed above it. Rubrics are illustrative and provide a guide to the skills you should focus on developing. They are not rigid assessment tools, since a given paper or presentation might include more advanced elements while omitting more basic elements and/or might fulfill the expected elements with varying degrees of quality.

Argumentation (papers and presentations)

Passing. Paper or presentation advances an argument in order to answer a specific question. Argument is organized logically with a clear introduction, a “roadmap” or other set of cues to guide the reader/audience, and a conclusion.

Fair. Analysis of evidence supports the argument. Fairly good. Paper or presentation acknowledges evidence that runs counter to the argument in order to

boost author’s credibility by showing that she is aware of other perspectives. Good. Contrary evidence is not only acknowledged, but is also either refuted or framed in such a way

that such evidence bolsters argument, rather than undermining it. The entire paper or presentation revolves around the central argument.

Very good. The argument is shown to be relevant to broader scholarly, theoretical, conceptual, and/or civic debates, with reference to specific authors or theoretical perspectives.

14

Excellent. The paper or presentation makes an original contribution to one or more of those debates. Evidence (papers, presentations, and simulations)

Passing. Paper or presentation makes ample use of specific readings and authors. Papers correctly cite sources. Analytic Papers and Research Papers include a properly formatted bibliography.

Fair. Use of evidence identifies key ideas and interesting details and demonstrates a deeper reading of sources.

Fairly good. Specific concepts and theories are not only identified but are presented in a way to concisely inform the reader/audience of their important elements. For Analytic Papers and Research Papers, bibliography reflects a diverse array of sources.

Good. Evidence is organized around the key components of the argument. For example, an argument-driven organization is often (but not always) more effective than a strictly chronological organization of evidence. For simulations, preparatory handouts reflects good knowledge of issues

Very good. Skillful weeding out of evidence that is perhaps interesting, but unnecessary and/or not relevant to argument. For presentations, in-depth reading and preparation permits concise answers to questions

Excellent. For research papers, bibliography reflects an extensive effort to gather sources of data. For presentations, great familiarity with the material enhances ability to connect with the whole audience. For simulations, preparatory handouts reflect sufficient knowledge of issues and characters to anticipate and engineer interesting conflicts among participants that will provide opportunities for learning.

Written Communication (papers and simulations)

Passing. A lack of obvious erors makes it klear that the the final hard copy version was carerefully proof-read before it being turned it in.

Fair. Clear structure allows reader to know what paper is saying and when. Each topic sentence reflects the content of its corresponding paragraph.

Fairly good. Paragraph breaks are effective. Manuscript vernacular evades obstruse obfuscation.Good. Section headings say a lot with few words. If no section headings are used, clear and effective

transitions guide reader from one section to the next. The paper is the correct length given what you have to say.

Very good. Paper has good flow from one section to the next. Some topic sentences are imaginative and memorable. Excessive repetition of the same word(s) is avoided.

Excellent. Without sacrificing rigor, the text overcomes the rigidity that often characterizes academic writing, making the paper a pleasure to read. The reader is able to focus entirely on the ideas of your paper, without ever being distracted by problems with the writing. Final presentation is tight and polished. If this “book is judged by its cover,” it will be judged “perfect.”

Oral Communication (presentations)

Passing. The orderliness of your notes and your respect for the time limit makes it obvious that you have done a start-to-finish rehearsal of your talk.

Fair. You always face the audience when you speak (and not the board). For Partisan Narratives, presenters stay in character during entire narrative and during Q&A.

Fairly good. You like, totally, avoid, um, verbal crutches, or whatever, y’know? During the first minute of your presentation, you make an effort to connect with your audience.

Good. Very well rehearsed. Notes are effectively prepared for minimal disruption. Strong beginning and strong finish. Pace of delivery allows you to cover a lot of ground without losing audience. You enunciate clearly.

Very good. Tightly rehearsed. Minimal use of notes. Engaging style of delivery. Dynamic variation in tone and volume of delivery. Q&A is at least as strong as your initial remarks.

Excellent. Presentation is so well rehearsed that parts of it are practically memorized, even if you still

15

have notes in your hand. Superlative preparation permits you to focus almost entirely on the audience as you hardly need to think about your talk.

Visual Communication (presentations, simulations, and some papers)

Passing. Professional appearance communicates to audience that presentation is a significant opportunity for them to learn.

Fair. Any visuals you show your audience (e.g. slides or a handout) are projected at a speed or distributed in a way that allows people an appropriate amount of time to absorb the visual information without losing track of what you are saying.

Fairly good. Slides and/or handouts are crisp and not cluttered with too much text or too many images. Good. You make eye contact with your audience and you do not stare at a single individual or section of

the room. Use of handouts or the board helps students engage the material. Graphs, charts, and tables are generally re-drawn by you so as to include only the visual information that is essential to your presentation or paper, leaving out other data or elements. Any slides that are projected enhance and supplement the presentation without “stealing the show” from you, the presenter.

Very good. Body language enhances presentation and movement is purposeful and not due to nervousness (though it’s okay to be nervous!). For simulations, all elements of physical classroom environment (e.g. chair and table set-up, nametags and/or name placards, removal of excess furniture from room, info on board, distribution of handouts carefully planned) are thoughtfully prepared and/or arranged to reinforce the exercise. For papers, visuals relate directly to the argument.

Excellent. Partisan narrators create lasting and memorable impressions, perhaps accenting their personas with props or a costume. For papers, an original figure or table captures the core argument and helps communicate its substance to the reader.

Facilitation (simulations)

Passing. Facilitation of class period provides a useful forum for the class to process the major themes of the course.

Fair. Simulation directors work well as a team. Fairly good. Knowledge of subject matter allows facilitators to keep the simulation moving at all times. Good. Exercise engages all the participants and manages to cover multiple topics in a way that is

organized but not forced. Knowledge of subject matter allows directors to keep things moving and keep all participants included.

Very good. Strong preparation and careful study of texts allows facilitators to focus entirely on the needs of the class. Facilitators know when to intervene and when to “stay out.” When things go wrong, facilitators are able to react quickly and smoothly to either keep the simulation on track or to guide it in an expected, but productive new direction; participants do not realize that something went “wrong.”

Excellent. Participants will remember this exercise after they graduate! Excellent preparation of all materials and careful study of all texts allows directors to focus entirely on the needs of the class. The different parts of the class period engage all participants and engage key concepts or theories from course materials.

16

SYLLABUS

—Tuesday, January 28—Course IntroductionAssignment: Read the syllabus!

—Thursday, January 30—

Small Group Work on Capitalism and DemocracyGroup Presentations: Causal Claims about Capitalism and Democracy•Almond, Gabriel. 1991. “Capitalism and Democracy.” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol.

24, No. 3 (September): 467-474.•Schmitter, Philippe, and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. “What Democracy Is… and Is Not.” Journal of

Democracy, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Summer): 75-88.•Fallows, James. 2014. “The Iran Vote: This Really Matters, and You Should Let Your Senator

Know.” The Atlantic (January 14). Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-iran-vote-this-really-matters-and-you-should-let-your-senators-know/283070.•Remnick, David. 2011. “The Civil Archipelago: How Far Can the Resistance to Vladimir Putin

Go?” The New Yorker (December 19). Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/12/19/111219fa_fact_remnick.

—Tuesday, February 4—Identifying Key Elements of Linz & Stepan’s Framework•Linz, Juan, and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, pp. 38-83 (Chapters 3-5).

STUDY CYCLE I:

Democratic Breakdown and Transition in Chile(co-facilitated by Paul Dosh, Daga Franczak, Maru Meléndez, and Rachel Ozer-Bearson)

—Thursday, February 6—

Film: “A Force More Powerful—Chile: Defeat of a Dictator” (25 minutes)Partisan Narratives: Augusto Pinochet vs. Salvador Allende (by Paul)Opening Lecture: Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in ChileFilm Excerpt: “The Trials of Henry Kissinger”•Timerman, Jacobo, Chile: Death in the South (New York: Vintage, 1988) (Chs. 4-5: pp. 27-52).•Hitchens, Christopher, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (New York: Verso, 2002), pp. 55-76. •Kornbluh, Peter, “Opening Up the Files: Chile Declassified,” NACLA Report on the Americas,

Vol. 37, No. 1 (2003), pp. 25-31.•Sigmund, Paul. 2014. “Chile: Alternative Approaches to Development.” Latin American

Politics and Development, eds. Howard Wiarda and Harvey Kline. Boulder: Westview (Ch. 8: pp. 127-154, esp. 138-143).

—Sunday, February 9, 6:45-9:30 pm—Concert by Ladysmith Black Mambazo, at the Ordway Theatre•Bus leaves Weyerhaeuser at 6:45 pm. Show begins at 7:30 pm.

17

—Tuesday, February 11—Theoretical Framework Activity: Analyzing Chile’s TransitionIdentifying Key Elements of Linz & Stepan’s Framework•Linz, Juan, and Alfred Stepan. 1996. “Incomplete Transition/Near Consolidation? Chile.”

Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, pp. 205-218.

•Barrett, Patrick. 1999. “The Limits of Democracy: Socio-Political Compromise and Regime Change in Post-Pinochet Chile.” Studies in International Comparative Development, Vol. 34, No. 3: 3-36.

•Ravdin, Graham. 2004. “Making the Vote Count: Limiting Reserve Domains in Pacted Transitions.” Macalester College.

—Thursday, February 13—Political Institutions in Post-1990 Chile9:59 Lecture: “The Legacy of Chile’s 1980 Constitution” (by Student)Film: “NO” (directed by Pablo Larraín; 2013) (first 30 minutes)•Siavelis, Peter. 2005. “Electoral System, Coalitional Disintegration, and the Future of Chile’s

Concertación.” Latin American Research Review, Vol. 40, No. 1 (February): 56-81.

—Tuesday, February 18—•Paul absent (at Colby College, Feb. 16-18). Film: “NO” (directed by Pablo Larraín; 2013) (remaining 90 minutes)

—Thursday, February 20—*Last day to turn in SPP #1*Chile 40 Years Later: The Politics of Memory and the Memory of Politics•Volk, Steven. 2013. “The Politics of Memory and the Memory of Politics.” NACLA Report on

the Americas, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall): 18-22. •de la Barra, Ximena. 2013. “Chile: A Schizophrenic Country.” NACLA Report on the

Americas, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall): 23-27. •Frens-String, Joshua. 2013. “A New Politics for a New Chile.” NACLA Report on the

Americas, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall): 28-33. •d’Amato, Peter. 2013. “Today’s Student Movement and the Popular Unity.” NACLA Report on

the Americas, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall): 32-33. •Richards, Patricia. 2013. “The Mapuche Movement, the Popular Unity, and the Contemporary

Left.” NACLA Report on the Americas, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall): 34-38.

—Thursday, February 20, 4:45 pm, Kagin Ballroom—Recommended: Mitau lecture by Alfie Kohn, “Many Children Left Behind: ‘School Reform’ and

Corporate-Style Education Policy”

—Tuesday, February 25—Pacts and Plebiscite—A Simulation of Chile’s Transition (written and directed by Paul)

18

—Wednesday, February 26, 3:00 pm—*DUE: Chile Analytic Papers* (due in the Political Science office)

STUDY CYCLE II:From Apartheid to Democracy in South Africa

—Thursday, February 27—

Opening Lecture: The Apartheid State in South AfricaFilm: “A Force More Powerful—South Africa: Freedom in our Lifetime” (25 minutes)•Mandela, Nelson. 1990. One Nation, One Country. New York: Phelps-Stokes, pp. 7-15.•Kryzanek, Michael. 2004. “Republic of South Africa.” Comparative Politics: A Policy

Approach. Boulder: Westview, pp. 377-390.•Price, Robert. 1991. “Backdrop: The Securing of White Supremacy.” The Apartheid State in

Crisis: Political Transformation in South Africa, 1975-1990. New York: Oxford, pp. 13-26.

•Seekings, Jeremy. 2000. The UDF: A History of the United Democratic Front in South Africa 1983-1991. Cape Town: David Philip, pp. 1-28, 228-259, and photos.

—Tuesday, March 4—Transition in South Africa9:59 Lecture: Nelson Mandela Didn’t Go Far Enough? (by Student)•Herbst, Jeffrey. 1997-98. “Prospects for Elite-Driven Democracy in South Africa.” Political

Science Quarterly, Vol. 112, No. 4 (Winter): 595-615.•Habib, Adam. 2013. South Africa’s Suspended Revolution: Hopes and Prospects. Athens:

Ohio University Press (Chs. 1-2).

—Thursday, March 6—South Africa’s Suspended RevolutionPartisan Narrative: Robert Mugabe (by Student)•Habib (Chs. 3-5).

—Tuesday, March 11—*Last day to turn in SPP #2*South Africa TodayTheoretical Framework Activity: Comparing Chile and South Africa•Sign-up in class for country chapter readings for March 25. Partisan Narrative: Thabo Mbeki (by Student)9:59 Lecture: Does ANC Dominance Spell the End of South African Democracy? (by Student)•Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. 2005. “International Linkage and Democratization.” Journal

of Democracy (July): 20-34. •Habib (Chs. 6-8).

—Thursday, March 13, Hall of Fame Room—On the Brink of Democracy: Debating South Africa’s Transition (simulation written/directed

19

by Paul)•Lijphart, Arend. 2004. “Constitutional Design for Divided Societies.” Journal of Democracy,

Vol. 15, No. 2 (April): 96-107.

—Friday, March 14, 3:00 pm—*DUE: South Africa Analytic Papers* (due in the Political Science office)

—SPRING BREAK—

—Tuesday, March 25—*DUE: Research Paper Topic*Film: “A Force More Powerful—Poland: ‘We’ve Caught God by the Arm’” (25 minutes)Comparing Democratization Across Many Cases: Spain, Portugal, Greece, Uruguay,

Brazil, Argentina, Poland, and Romania•On March 11, each student will sign up to read two country cases from Linz and Stepan in

preparation for today’s class. •Linz, Juan, and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Chapters to choose from: “The Paradigmatic Case of Reforma Pactada—Ruptura Pactada: Spain” (pp. 87-115). “From Interim Government to Simultaneous Transition and Consolidation: Portugal”

(pp. 116-129). “Crisis of a Nonhierarchical Military Regime: Greece” (pp. 130-138). “A Risk-Prone Consolidated Democracy: Uruguay” (pp. 151-165). “Crises of Efficacy, Legitimacy, and Democratic State ‘Presence’: Brazil” (pp. 166-

189). “From an Impossible to a Possible Democratic Game: Argentina” (pp. 190-204). “Authoritarian Communism, Ethical Civil Society, and Ambivalent Political Society:

Poland” (pp. 255-292). “The Effects of Totalitarianism-cum-Sultanism on Democratic Transition: Romania”

(pp. 344-365).

STUDY CYCLE III:What Happened to that Democratic Russia?

—Thursday, March 27—

Opening Lecture: From the Russian Revolution to Soviet CollapsePartisan Narrative: Joseph Stalin (by Student)Film Excerpt: “Stalin: The Red God”Film Excerpt: “Gorbachev and the Fall of the Soviet Union”•Pussy Riot! A Punk Prayer for Freedom: Letters from Prison, Songs, Poems, and Courtroom

Statements plus Tributes to the Punk Band That Shook the World. 2013. New York: The Feminist Press (excerpts).

•Roberston, Graeme. 2013. “Russia.” Case Studies in Comparative Politics, ed. David Samuels. Boston: Pearson, pp. 277-319.

•Haerpfer, Christian. 2009. “Post-Communist Europe and Post-Soviet Russia.” Democratization, eds. Christian Haerpfer et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Ch. 20:

20

pp. 309-320). •Foglesong, David, and Gordon Hahn. 2002. “Ten Myths About Russia: Understanding and

Dealing with Russia’s Complexity and Ambiguity.” Problems of Post-Communism (Nov/Dec).

—Tuesday, April 1—Labor and Neoliberalism in RussiaTheoretical Framework Activity: Analyzing Russia’s TransitionPartisan Narrative: Garry Kasparov (by Student)•Linz, Juan, and Alfred Stepan. 1996. “The Problem of ‘Stateness’ and Transitions: The USSR

and Russia.” Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, pp. 366-400.

•Cook, Linda. 1997. Labor and Liberalization: Trade Unions in the New Russia. New York: 20th Century Fund, pp. 11-32.

•Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. 2002. “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy Vol. 13, No. 2, (April): 51-65.

—Thursday, April 3—Guest lecture by Ruxi Zhang, “Civic Nationalism in Democratic Transitions in Russia,

Ukraine, and Armenia”9:59 Lecture: Politics and Russia’s Muslim Minority (by Student) •Shevtsova, Lilia. 2004. “Russian Democracy in Eclipse: The Limits of Bureaucratic

Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 15, No. 3 (July): 67-77. •Makarychev, Andrey. 2008. “Politics, the State, and De-Politicization: Putin’s Project

Reassessed.” Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 55, No. 5 (Sept/Oct): 62-71.

—Tuesday, April 8—*Last day to turn in SPP #3*Russia Under Putin: Democracy in EclipsePartisan Narrative: Vladimir Putin (by Student)9:59 Lecture: Who Provoked Whom? Georgia vs. Russia in 2008 (by Student)•Shevtsova, Lilia. 2012. “Implosion, Atrophy, or Revolution?” (Putinism Under Siege). Journal

of Democracy, Vol. 23, No. 3 (July): 19-32.•Krastev, Ivan, and Stephen Holmes. 2012. “An Autopsy of Managed Democracy” (Putinism

Under Siege). Journal of Democracy, Vol. 23, No. 3 (July): 33-45.•Popescu, Nicu. 2012. “The Strange Alliance of Democrats and Nationalists” (Putinism Under

Siege). Journal of Democracy, Vol. 23, No. 3 (July): 46-54.•Lanskoy, Miriam, and Elspeth Suthers. 2013. “Outlawing the Opposition” (Putin versus Civil

Society). Journal of Democracy, Vol. 24, No. 3 (July): 75-87.

—Thursday, April 10—Simulation (sample topics): “Evaluating Economic Liberalization in Russia” or “Presidential

Power in Post-Cold War Russia” (co-directed by 3 Students)

—Friday, April 11, 3:00 pm—

*DUE: Russia Analytic Papers* (due in the Political Science office)

21

STUDY CYCLE IV:Hope for Democracy in Iran?

—Sunday, April 13, 5:00-6:45 pm, Carnegie 304—

Film Screening with Dinner•“The Circle” (directed by Jafar Panahi, 2000) (90 minutes). This film tells the harrowing tale of

several women in Iran.

—Tuesday, April 15—Opening Lecture: Sultanism and the Pahlavi Regime in IranPartisan Narrative: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (by Student)•Ignatieff, Michael. 2005. “Iranian Lessons.” New York Times Magazine (July 17): 46-51.•Osanloo, Arzoo. 2013. “Iran.” Case Studies in Comparative Politics, ed. David Samuels.

Boston: Pearson, pp. 407-447. •Katouzian, Homa. 1998. “The Pahlavi Regime in Iran.” Sultanistic Regimes, eds. H.E.

Chelabi and Juan Linz. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, pp. 182-205.

—Thursday, April 17—

Women’s Rights in IranPartisan Narrative: Shahla Lahiji, Iranian women’s rights activist (by Student)9:59 Lecture: Is the Status of Iranian Women Improving? (by Student)•Kia, Mana. 2005. “Negotiating Women’s Rights: Activism, Class, and Modernization in Pahlavi

Iran.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, Vol. 25, No. 1: 227-244.

•Kian, Azadeh. 1997. “Women and Politics in Post-Islamist Iran: The Gender Conscious Drive to Change.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1: 75-96.

—Tuesday, April 22—Is Iran Democratizing?•Stegner, Grant, and Cory Turner. 2006. “Nationalism as an Impediment to Democratic

Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Iranian and Russian Nationalism.” Politica, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Spring): 66-89.

•Bakhash, Shaul. 1998. “Iran’s Remarkable Election.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 9, No. 1 (January): 80-94.

—Thursday, April 24—Iran’s Resilient Civil Society9:59 Lecture: Obama, Iran, and the Literature on Democratic Transitions (by Student)•Boroumand, Ladan. 2007. “The Untold Story of the Fight for Human Rights.” Journal of

Democracy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (October): 64-79. •Afshari, Ali, and H. Graham Underwood. 2007. “The Student Movement’s Struggle.” Journal

22

of Democracy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (October): 80-94.

—Monday, April 28, 3:00 pm—

*DUE: Research Paper Rough Draft* (email to Paul and your peer review partner)

—Tuesday, April 29—Simulation (sample topics): “Iran’s Quest for Nuclear Power” or “Women’s Rights in Iran” (co-

directed by 3 Students)

— Thursday, May 1—

Chile, South Africa, Russia, and Iraq in Comparative PerspectiveWorkshop Rough Drafts in Peer Review Pairs

—Tuesday, May 6—

Presentations of Creative WorkCourse Evaluations

—Friday, May 9, 3:00 pm—*DUE: Final Paper* (due in the Political Science office; hard copy required)

23