Introduction to Political Science Final

1) Why are political institutions difficult to be changed?

There is two types of institutions, the Economic Institutions and the Political Institutions.
The Economic Institutions are the bodies that govern and regulate the economy such as markets
or contracts. On the other hand, political institutions are the main factor of the way a government
functions. Political Institutions form up the governments, which are composed in different ways
such as voting systems or how the power is distributed in a society. Political Institutions can also
be defined by political systems such as democracies. The fact of changing completely a political
institution is very difficult as it isn’t simply switching from a democracy to a authoritarian regime
for example. Institutions are complex and are decided in two, extractive institutions and inclusive
institutions. Extractive are designed to extract incomes and wealth form one subset of society to
benefit a different subset. On the other hand, inclusive institutions are those that allow and
encourage participation by the great mass of people in economic activities that make best use of
their talents and skills. Political institutions are rarely changed as they are engraved in
governments. There are two phenomenon of change in political institutions, slow-moving or fast-
moving. Slow-moving institutions are defined by culture or social norms, that both take time to
change and develop. For example, culture can be defined by history, and in order to create history,
time is key. Therefore, a change in culture is slow as it needs time to develop. Moreover, political
institutions when in change, require to be based on a pre existing form of political institution.
Therefore, the change from one to another could both be rapid or slow, rapid as in overnight with
single handed decisions made my governments.

The difficulty of changing institutions can also be defined that if the approach to change is reduced
to a before/after comparison, comparing ideal types of institutional functioning, immediately
stabilized and unified by a freeze frame. A description of two situations is then produced feather
than an analysis of the proicesses or mechanisms of change. Conversely, our interest as researchers
focuses specifically on the passage, in other words the movement of the irruption, the mutation or
the shift, the clearing of a new institution.

Institutional change can also be dissolved into a theory of social change. This last trend is
undoubtedly less blocking for reflection because it provides hypotheses for thinking about
institutional change, as to its genesis or its effects. It makes it possible to glimpse connivances
between the specific change of an institution and other collateral or concomitants in other
institutions. Or to establish complex causal relationships with extra-institutional, demographic,
ecological and socio-economic data, for example, as Émile Durkheim (1893) had already exposed.

Moreover, institutional changes can derive from changes in the environment of public
institutions and come from “external forces” that push them to change and/or from the tensions
that can exist between several institutional sectors. Moreover, these external pressures can
proceed from a certain intentionality, or even from organized entrepreneurs of “reforms” or
changes within the State or the political field. On the other hand, it can be “uncontrolled”
processes that tend to impose themselves, without having an actor who is the “pilot” or the
“orchestra conductor”.

The fact of changing political institutions is therefore very complex and is defined by two
movements, both fast and slow moving. Institutional can therfore be changed but in a very
complex way such as using a previous type of institution as a base to change to a new one.

What is a democracy? Which view of democracy (as a process or as a result) do you think
is better and why?

Etymologically democracy comes from the Greek term “demos-kratos” which designates the
government of all, that is to say collective sovereignty, as opposed to the government of a few
(aristocracy) and the government of one (monocracy) . One can undoubtedly claim that an
etymological definition is not necessarily doomed to eternity, but one must all the same agree
that the constant and common use of the etymology of a term makes it possible to rigorously
determine the meaning. The political and legal use of the term has never deviated from this
primary meaning: democracy is the power of the people, that is to say, concretely, of all the
citizens ruling by a majority.

Democracy, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains in “Le Contrat social” : « The sovereign can, in
the first place, commit the deposit of the government to all the people or to the greater part of the
people, so that there are more citizen magistrates than simple private citizens. This form of
government is called Democracy. »

Furthermore, in 1975, Lively defines democracy in seven points. Firstly, that all should govern in
the sense that all should be involved in legislating, in deciding on general policy, in applying
laws, and in governmental administration. Secondly, that all should be personally involved in
crucial decision making. Thirdly, that rulers should be accountable to the ruled. Fourthly that
rulers should be accountable to the representatives of the ruled. Fifthly, that rulers should be
chosen by the ruled. Sixthly, that rulers should be chosen by the representatives of the ruled.
Seventhly, that rulers should act in the interests of the ruled.

According to Abraham Lincoln, democracy is « the government of the people, by the people, for
the people. » This illustrates therefore democracy in different ways.
In my opinion, the best form of democracy is the representative democracy, for example used in
France. The political system of the Fifth Republic recognizes the right of a restricted assembly to
represent the French people and to make decisions concerning them. Elected officials derive their
legitimacy from suffrage expressing the popular will. Representative democracy is defined by a
form of organisation where elected officials make decisions that affect more people than
themselves.

In my opinion, representative democracy is the best as in a democracy exclusively

representative, citizens are only asked to elect representatives. It does not take time to elect them
and they can use their time for something other than thinking about collective life. They can also
consider themselves not responsible for what happens, especially the negative, insofar as they do
not take part directly in the decisions. Therefore representative democracy can be considered as a
gain of time for citizens and a way to déresponsabilise possible bad political orientations taken.
Finally, citizens can sometimes be satisfied not to re-elect someone who would have
disappointed them. This is the only power they really have over elected officials in a
representative democracy. Furthermore, in representative democracy, both local and national
elected representatives have much more power:only they can pass laws; only they can initiate
laws, only they can really take part very often and when they want to in discussions leading to
decision-making for everyone. They are also the ones who decide on their remuneration, the way
in which they are accountable or the constraints that are exerted on them. Representative
democracy therefore increases the likelihood that they will have privileges over ordinary
citizens.

Finally, democracy is a type of government that lets the society control more or less their politics
which lets the citizens be free to have their own rights such as the freedom of speech. I believe
that representative democracy is the best as each leaders represent their ideas and party, and
being able to vote for one party that you prefer seems more interesting.

Do you think that political science can be a science ? Why ?

The social sciences do not have the same legitimacy, in the eyes of the general public, as the hard
sciences. Their researchers don't wear white coats, they don't handle test tubes, they don't cure
cancer, they don't send rockets to Mars. Yet they are sciences, with their theories, their methods,
their specific modes of validation. And they have their uses. If, etymologically, politics refers to
the idea of "city" by the Greek word "polis", it is already difficult to glimpse the content of such a
science when we think of the word "man".

Observation of the political sphere poses difficulties when trying to identify a form of objectivity.
First, the phenomenon of the state is composed of a multiplicity of elements, functions and forces
that interact without manifesting the necessary causal links between them. The economy, which is
a main branch of the state, operates separately from cultural tradition, and yet exceptions to this
rule are not uncommon, therefore, politics cannot establish objective determinism
Observation of the political sphere poses difficulties when trying to identify a form of objectivity.
First, the phenomenon of the state is composed of a multiplicity of elements, functions and forces
that interact without manifesting the necessary causal links between them. The economy, which is
a main branch of the state, operates separately from cultural tradition, and yet exceptions to this
rule are not uncommon, therefore political thories can’t be verified objectively.

Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes are often referred to as the founding fathers of modern political
thought. What gives the character of modernity to their philosophy is the effort of objectivity in
the analysis of the games of a power founded in the hands of men, and no longer of divine origin.
This refers to the concept of the institutionalization of power of purely human origin. The challenge
of this perspective is to consider that man is not a being with absolutely contingent behaviors, man
is moved by desires, reasons, feelings therefore, politics is an analysis of human behavior to better
manage it.
But that's not all, because politics is also a matter of ideology. It will be noted that the strength of
a science lies in its technical applications, but politics is also a science of embodied ideas, and
therefore practical, as the history of great civilizations shows. An ideology is a system of values
formulated in principles, the objective of which is a certain social order and also concerns the
methods of achieving it. In politics, the ideological objective is to seek the best form of
government. Max Weber clearly explains his point of view on this subject: "The contemporary
state must be conceived as a human community which, within the limits of a determined territory,
successfully claims for its own account the monopoly of legitimate physical violence" .

Political Science can therefore be compared to a science, precisely a human state science and not
a science such as physics as both serve a purpose, one is to dig in social and political
abstractiveness and the other is to solve hypothesis.

Discuss the following statement: "It does not matter whether a country is rich or poor. The
most important factor to explain whether a country will be a stable democracy is its political
culture"

The goal of every president and country is to have a good economy, a stable society, be
globalized and connected as well as being well developed. Richness or poorness affects this final
goal but political culture does too. I believe that the following statement, « It does not matter
whether a country is rich or poor. The most important factor to explain whether a country will be
a stable democracy is its political culture » is incorrect as I believe that whether a country is rich
or poor matters equally as political culture.
Having a strong economy is with no doubt very important and powerful in order to develop a
country as it asserts a country to succeed. With solely having a strong economy and a bad
political culture, a country and a society can’t work. Both work together in order for a country to
strive, because a political culture, defined by the American Political Scientist is « the set of
attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments, which give order and meaning to a political process and which
provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political system ».
Therefore, having a strong economy but a bad attitude towards international politics can only be
bad for a country as both are necessities.

Solely democratically, a country’s wealth matters but not as much as political culture as in a
democracy, the government is the base. Where as being strong economically doesn’t matter as
much because how a leader acts and its decisions internally and internationally matters most in
order to develop the country. Moreover, economy still matters as in a democracy, sing political
culture, orders or choices made leaders involve economic growth. Therefore, political culture
matters as the way leaders act is important.

Finally, this statement can be debated, both point of view function. In my opinion, if the topic is
solely democracy, political culture matters most as the way a leader governs is important. In a
global scale, both political culture and economy are very important and they both work together
because if a country is very bad economically, certainly, political culture matters in order to have
a economic growth.