THE BAD (AUTHORITARIANS) THE UGLY (TOTALITARIANS) THE GOOD (DEMOCRATS) THE BAD (AUTHORITARIANS) THE UGLY (TOTALITARIANS) This screen has the big picture questions that students should be able to answer later on so don’t answer here. Because of syllabus review, I only got through the first two slides.

WHAT BIG QUESTIONS DO WE NEED TO ANSWER? What are the distinguishing characteristics of these different regime types? What major differences are there with respect to how these types of leaders gain and maintain power? What main differences are there with respect to how they behave? How might these regimes put in place leaders that differ with respect to key motivations, cognitive ability and disposition, core beliefs and behavior? For GW Bush example, first put Bush  Gulf War on the board. Did just having GW Bush in power mean that we for sure were going to war? Probably not.. His presence alone was not sufficient because Congress had to approve. It was, however, almost surely necessary because Gore probably wouldn’t have invade.

WHAT IS A DEMOCRACY AND WHAT TYPES OF LEADERSHIP & FOLLOWERSHIP BEHAVIORS DOES DEMOCRACY FOSTER? Democracies require open and ongoing competition among potential political leaders where competing ideas are the currency rather than force Democracies have elections where the people—either directly or indirectly—decide which political leaders they agree with. Political leaders involved with such elections allow almost anyone to participate as both candidates and voters Democracies assume that the people have a legitimate role in holding elites accountable through elections or inst. checks. Democracies have rules—even if they are not all written down—that are absolutely binding on political leaders In democracies, political leadership is at least theoretically a temporary position that is completely contingent on being competent, being committed to the rules, and being approved For GW Bush example, first put Bush  Gulf War on the board. Did just having GW Bush in power mean that we for sure were going to war? Probably not.. His presence alone was not sufficient because Congress had to approve. It was, however, almost surely necessary because Gore probably wouldn’t have invade.

WHAT IS A DEMOCRACY AND WHAT TYPES OF BEHAVIORS DOES IT INSTILL? Democrats behave according to the principle that citizens have similar degrees of political equality and citizenship; in practice they serve broad selectorates (ultimately the people, but in the US, parties, donors and elites are a more observant and sometimes more important selectorate) In democracies, information should be free and protest seen as legitimate. Democracies teach and protect both basic human and civil liberties and rights which causes followers to see themselves as entitled so that they will exercise power In democracies, all actors accept the process outcome as legitimate, understanding that they will be able to oppose and compete again Democracy often is not majority rule, direct (vs. representative) rule, divided government, federalism, capitalism, checks and balances, presidentialism… but all of these differences among democracies are important factors in their leaders’ behaviors. What kind of motives and reasoning are necessary for top political leaders to thrive in this kind of political system? For GW Bush example, first put Bush  Gulf War on the board. Did just having GW Bush in power mean that we for sure were going to war? Probably not.. His presence alone was not sufficient because Congress had to approve. It was, however, almost surely necessary because Gore probably wouldn’t have invade.

TOTALITARIANISM VS. AUTHORITARIANISM What are the key differences with respect to: How long have these systems of leadership been around? Why has most of human history been about governance within authoritarian systems? Like democracy, totalitarianism is a relatively new phenomenon. Why? How do political leaders come to power in toto and autho settings? Totalitarians usually rise from revolutions; authoritarians usually from coups Power transitions in totalitarian systems are highly problematic and succession problems frequently lead to authoritarian systems replacing them How do undemocratic leaders institutionalize their power? Authoritarians control the political sphere by controlling key resources prohibiting most types of mass political behavior; they use corruption, patronage, and (usually) selective force to deal with their enemies. Totalitarians use indoctrination (propaganda, but also institutionalized indoctrination) and forced politicization of the masses as well as widespread violence and purges to remake the political, economic, social, and private sphere. For GW Bush example, first put Bush  Gulf War on the board. Did just having GW Bush in power mean that we for sure were going to war? Probably not.. His presence alone was not sufficient because Congress had to approve. It was, however, almost surely necessary because Gore probably wouldn’t have invade.

TOTALITARIANISM VS. AUTHORITARIANISM What different role does ideology and mass mobilization play? Authoritarians emphasize order and progress, while minimizing mobilization except when totally controlled; totalitarians emphasize scapegoats, a coherent historical myth , and constant, mass mobilization How do totalitarians see themselves? As singularly unique and serving of their masses. They are super-humans with messianic visions who have been given a central role in determining the course of human events. The expect to transform their societies completely and usually believe that they will have a global impact in doing so How do authoritarians see themselves? Some are completely self serving, while others are guided by development, political modernization, or nationalist goals. Most authoritarian governments are systems of closed oligarchy: monarchies, juntas, and single party system- For GW Bush example, first put Bush  Gulf War on the board. Did just having GW Bush in power mean that we for sure were going to war? Probably not.. His presence alone was not sufficient because Congress had to approve. It was, however, almost surely necessary because Gore probably wouldn’t have invade.