InstructionsMany countries have gone through various ways of governing-by one, by a group, or by the people. Pick one developing country. Examine this country's political history and current barriers

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY

The British parliamentary model features a fusion of powers, indefinite terms of office, disciplined parties, and a dual executive. This model of constitutional democracy has been imitated more widely (except in Latin America) than the U.S. model. It is especially influential in Europe, where it has inspired most of the constitutional democracies in existence.

France is a hybrid form of constitutional democracy, combining features of both the U.S. and the British systems. Germany features a parliamentary system but differs from both France and Great Britain in that it is federal (comprising states called Länder), rather than unitary. The EU is a supranational organization of 28 sovereign states with a legal framework enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty (2007); all member-states are representative democracies by design – authoritarian states need not apply. Japan is a parliamentary democracy with a Japanese twist. Politically, it differs from Europe in its political culture rather than its political structure. Japan has incorporated a consensus-based society with informal, highly personal networks of political power based on patron–client relations into a set of political institutions that, on the surface, appear to be made in Europe. (Actually, they were made in America during the U.S. occupation after World War II.)

India and Israel are two unlikely candidates for republican rule, yet they have both survived as parliamentary democracies for more than half a century. Their examples suggest the parliamentary model is highly adaptable and has wide application, even in places that appear too troubled or turbulent for elections to occur or stable governments to endure.

The U.S. and British systems invite comparisons and offer provocative contrasts in the legislative, executive, and judicial areas. It is difficult to say which system is better in the abstract; the answer exists only within the specific context and circumstances of each nation.

CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY

With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, Communist rule ended nearly everywhere in the world. Nonetheless, a few exceptions remain, including China, Cuba, and North Korea. The collapse of Communism brought the problems of transition in the former Soviet-bloc states to the fore. Other countries launched major political and economic reforms in the 1990s, including South Korea and Taiwan in Asia and Argentina, Brazil, and Chile in Latin America.

The Soviet political system was an outgrowth of the Stalinist totalitarian model. In trying to reform and restructure this system, Mikhail Gorbachev followed in the footsteps of an earlier Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev. In the Soviet system, the Communist Party ruled, and a person’s ranking in the party was the best indication of that individual’s political power. When Gorbachev rose to the top post in the Communist Party in 1985, he faced both acute economic problems and associated social problems, each related to the failure of central planning.

Gorbachev’s reforms proved inadequate to save the former Soviet Union. His successor, Boris Yeltsin, failed to guide Russia through a smooth transition. Then his successor, Vladimir Putin, inherited a mess—economic dislocations, ethnic fragmentation, and poorly established state institutions. Putin turned out to be a decisive leader who was twice elected by large majorities but has ruled as a traditional strong Russian boss.

China instituted major free-market reforms and downplayed much of its communist ideology after Mao’s death, but remains a country headed by a single party that tolerates no political or religious dissent. As China modernizes its armed forces and attempts to become a world power, it faces increasing social problems as well as economic and border tensions among its provinces.

India, South Korea, and Taiwan are three other examples of Asian societies in transition. All three countries made the transition to market-based (though semi-protectionist) economies first, but have more recently instituted meaningful political reforms.

The transition process in Latin America is the reverse of the pattern found in Asia. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are four key countries in the region. In three of the four, political reforms came before economic reforms (Chile is the exception). In Venezuela and Bolivia, market reforms have taken a back seat to social reforms—a reversal of what has happened elsewhere in the region and the world. The extremely unequal distribution of wealth and official corruption remain obstacles to progress.

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 9

The least developed countries (LDCs) are so named because they are poor and lack basic feature of modern postindustrial states. Although generalizations and clichés are common (for example, rural poverty and urban crowding), these nations are highly diverse. The enduring legacy of European colonialism is a political map that makes little sense: borders that do not reflect indigenous ethnic, religious, and tribal patterns. The upshot in many cases is chronic instability: social unrest, rebellions, civil wars, and even genocide.

State building requires leaders that effectively unify the population (nation building), political institutions that respond to people’s needs and encourage citizen participation, and an honest government that can transfer power smoothly.

Democracy correlates with the existence of certain identifiable economic, political, social, and attitudinal variables. In most LDCs, the failure of democracy and development have gone hand in hand.

Development is an arduous task and often fails. Socially, populations are often fragmented. Psychologically, individuals are heavily dependent on tradition and frequently oppose change. Economically, problems range from unfavorable terms of trade and high foreign debt to rapid population growth, a low level of technology, entrenched land tenure problems, and environmental difficulties.

States and societies frequently disintegrate rather than develop. The Soviet Union provides the most stunning example in recent decades. Other examples include Iraq, Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia, Sudan, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and Afghanistan.

Overdevelopment (the opposite of “underdevelopment”) is a problem afflicting many Western societies today. Contemporary ideas about development tend to assume its desirability despite such postindustrial problems as pollution, congestion, and drug addiction, as well as overpopulation, climate change, and pandemic diseases.