1. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Module Specification
Title: Introduction to Comparative Government and Politics
Module Type: Core Academic Year: 2008-2009
Module Code: POL102 Teaching Period: Semester One
Module Credit: 15 Level: One
Co-ordinator: Katerina Tsoukala
Prerequisites: Introduction to Politics
Aims: The purpose of this course is to examine and compare the government and politics
in different democratic and non-democratic systems and their influence on political
outcomes and behaviour. It focuses on the nature of institutions in different political
settings, including party systems, interest groups, executive, judiciary, and legislative
institutions, bureaucracy, police and the military apparatus, and the interactions between
them. Key questions include: What different institutional forms exist in parliamentary
and presidential systems? To what extent do democratic systems different from
transitional and non-democratic forms of government? How does the judiciary system,
bureaucracy, or legislature interact with one another in affecting domestic politics? What
is the importance of these institutions relative to political culture, social systems, and
histories? Can institutions change over time or are they so deeply embedded in political
culture that they have taken on a life of their own? What role do international factors
have in shaping or reshaping government, institutions and people in different political
settings?
The course is organized around institution-specific topics that incorporate various country
cases representing different regimes of the modern world, including democracies,
transitional democracies, and authoritarian regimes. Comparative methods will be
introduced to help students discern similarities and differences in regime types and
political institutions.
Teaching Method: Directed teaching which consists of two, one-hour lecture and one,
one-hour lecture-seminar weekly. The course leader is available during office hours (to
be announced). All students are expected to do advanced reading to familiarise
themselves with the seminar topics and participate fully in seminar discussions.
Attendance at all class is compulsory.
Learning Outcomes: Upon completing the course student will have:
1

2. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
1. The ability to understand comparative methods in analyzing of governments and
institutions in different political settings.
2. A solid understanding of the broad features of government and institutions and
their effects on political order, development, and behaviour of populations.
3. A knowledge of specific case studies of various regime types - from communist
systems to dictatorship to liberal democracies – their institutional forms, origins,
and development trajectories
4. Improved levels of intellectual performance in synthesizing and analyzing
complex theoretical and empirical material and written presentations.
5. Increased awareness of political events and how different political regimes affect
and are affected by these events.
2

3. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Introduction to Comparative Government
PART I: THEORETICAL ISSUES AND COMPARATIVE METHOD
Week One Introduction and Overview of Course: Comparing
Mar. 1-5 Governments and Political systems
Week Two How to study different governments?
Mar. 8-12 Methodological Issues and Systems of Classification
Readings:
Axford, Barrie, et al. 2006. Politics: An Introduction. “The Machinery of Government’,
pp. 326-330
“The Importance of Comparison”, in Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods, pp. 1-9.
Questions for discussion: What is the comparative method and why is it used in studying
different governments and institutions? What do you think should be compared when
studying comparative politics and government? Upon what basis are governmental
systems compared? What is the classification of political systems and why is it necessary
in comparative analysis? How has the emergence of new countries since the end of
World War II affected the character of the study of comparative government?
PART II: STRUCTURES AND MACHINERY OF GOVERNANCE
Week Three Democratic and non-Democratic Political systems
Mar. 15-19
Readings:
Politics: An Introduction; Democracy and Democratisation, pp. 159-169.
Grigsby, Ellen. Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. “Comparative
Politics I: Governmental Systems, Democracy and Non-democracy”. 148-176
Questions for discussion: What institutional features, politics, and beliefs are a part of
democratic systems? How can you measure democracy in different countries? What
indicators would you use? Define and discuss democratic and non-democratic systems
and their components.
3

4. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Week Four Newroz Holiday
Mar. 22-26
Week Five Federalism and local forms of governance
Mar. 29 – Apr. 2
Readings:
“Local Governance: Politics Below the Nation-State”, in Politics: An Introduction, pp.
297-323
Bryce, James. 2005. “Federalism” and “The Merits of the Federal System”, in Woll,
Peter (ed.), American Government; Readings and Cases, pp. 50-52, 71-74.
Questions for discussion: How can distribution of power between the central government
and regional governments differ across space and time? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of federalism and decentralized rule? What are the requirements of
federalism? How does the issue of the devolution of power influence governance in Iraq
and the Kurdistan region? How can local government be categorized and compared?
What are some of the factors that affect center-local relations? Does the nature of the
political system – whether the system is a federal or unitary one – matter?
Week Six Political Executives, Legislatures, Constitutions and Courts
Apr. 5 - 9
Readings on Political Executives and Legislatures:
“The Machinery of Government”, in An Introduction to Politics. 2002.; 335-343; 346-
350.
“Executives” in European Politics, 237-254
Questions for discussion: What is the difference between a presidential and parliamentary
system? Has the power and influence of legislatures declined over time? What are the
pros and cons for increasing the length of a US president to one single six-year term? Is
the US and president too powerful? Do you think that a fusion of executive, legislature,
and judiciary – as in the case of Britain – has a positive outcome on democratic
governance?
4

5. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Readings on Constitutions and Courts:
“The Judiciary”, in An Introduction to Politics, pp. 344-346,
Conant, Lisa. 2007, “Courts”, in European Politics, pp. 256-268
Questions for discussion: Why are constitutions necessary components of political
systems? Do most constitutions have checks and balances? To what extent are
judiciaries ‘independent? Why do some democracies offer independent courts while
others do not? What explains the rise of courts as political institutions in Europe? How
does this compare to the American judicial system?
PART III. INSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS AND FORMS OF
PARTICIPATION
Week Seven Representation: Elections and Electoral Systems and Revision
Apr. 12-16
Readings:
“Functions and Types of Elections”, American Government, pp. 199-200
“Politics by Other Means” in American Government, 212-226
“Characteristics of American Elections”, American Government, Readings and Cases,
pp. 276-277.
Questions: What are the different electoral rules governing democratic elections and how
can they impact political outcomes? What is the difference between single-member
plurality, proportional representation, and single transferable votes? Why do
independents represent a significant force in US elections? Why is voter turnout lower in
the US than in other democracies?
Mid-Term Exam: Thursday 16th
April 2009, 10:00-12:00.
Seminar Groups A and B will sit the exam at S14
C D S15
E F S16
NO SEMINAR
Week Eight Political Parties and Party Systems
Apr. 19-23
5

6. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Readings:
“European Parties and Party Systems”, in European Politics, pp. 200-217.
“Party Government”, in American Government: Readings and Cases; 179-182
Questions: What are the different types of party systems and how can they impact
political processes and outcomes? What processes lead to the emergence of modern
political parties? What is the difference between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary
party organizations? Do parties need members? What different roles do political parties
serve in different political systems?
Week Nine: Political Participation, Interest Group Politics and Social Movements
Apr. 26 - 30
Readings on Political Participation:
“Political Participation”, in Politics: An Introduction, pp. 120-156.
Questions: What is political participation and what forms can it take in different political
systems? Why do some people participate in politics and others abstain? Are
democracies in a “crisis of political participation”? Are there possible reasons other than
institutional procedures that can structure political behaviour and levels of political
participation? Explain.
Readings on Interest Group Politics and Social Movements:
“Parties, Interest Groups and Public Opinion”, in An Introduction to Politics. 358-397.
Questions: What is an interest group and how does it differ from a social movement?
What is the relationship between social capital and political participation? How does it
differ across democratic systems? How are interest groups created and by what means do
they remain in existence? What are the theories of group formation and mobilization?
Which one (s) has greater explanatory value for you and why? Does interest group
mobilization differ across differ policy issues and have different impacts on regulating
conflict?
Week Ten: Greece and Turkey
May. 3-7
Greece: The ‘Cradle of Democracy’
6

7. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Foundethakis, Penelope (2003) 'The Hellenic Parliament: The new rules of the game',
The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9:2, pp. 85-88, 97-102
How is the government of Greece structured? How democratic is ‘representative
democracy’ compared to ‘direct democracy? Does Greece suffer from a ‘post-Ottoman
syndrome’ in its fight against corruption?
Turkey: Islam knocking on EU’s door
Hilal, Elver (2005)’Reluctant Partners: Turkey and the European Union’, Middle East
Report, No. 235, pp. 24 - 29
How is Turkey’s government structured? Why is there a 10% threshold for a political
party to gain access to the Parliament? What are the main obstacles in Turkey’s bid to be
acceded in the EU? What are the advantages of Turkey’s accession for the EU? Is an
Islamic democracy feasible?
Week Eleven: China and Nigeria
May 10-14
China: The Great Fire-Wall to Democracy
How is China’s government structured? Has there been democratic reform in China?
What are the prospects for democratic reform? What is the role of the media and civil
society in the democratisation of China?
Fewsmith, Joseph ‘The Government of China’ in Introduction to Comparative
Government
Nigeria: The Democratisation of Oil
How is Nigeria’s government structured? Does the federalist structure influence ethnic
and regional tensions? How is Nigeria’s oil revenue distributed? How does corruption
affect domestic politics? Does Nigeria have strong democratic institutions?
Wright, Stephen ‘The Government of Nigeria’ in Introduction to Comparative
Government
Week Twelve: Israel and Kurdistan
May 17-21
7

8. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Israel: Democracy and ethno-nationalism
Yaacobi, Gad (2005) 'The Government', Israel Affairs, 11:2,376 – 391
How is the government of Israel structured? How democratic is the disproportional
access to power by small political parties and the focus on coalition governments despite
the majority vote? Can a democratic and militarist culture co-exist?
Kurdistan Regional Government: A Quest for Statehood?
Natali, Denise (2007) 'The spoils of peace in Iraqi Kurdistan', Third World Quarterly,
28:6, pp. 1119 – 1126
How is the government of the KRG structured? Do you agree with the view that ‘the
continued presence of two powerful parties and traditional social structures prevents a
democratic system from flourishing in the Kurdistan Region’?
Week Thirteen: Revision
May 24-28
Suggested Readings:
Peters, B. Guy. 1998. Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods and Theory.
New York: New York University Press.
Stephan, Alfred and Skach, Cindy. 1993. “Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic
Consolidation: Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism”, World Politics 46, no.
1; 1-22.
Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Ronald. 2002. “Political Culture and Democracy”, in
Wiarda, Howard J. (ed). New Directions in Comparative Politics (third edition).
Cambridge: Westview Press; 141-164.
Eaton, Kent. 2000. “Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism in the Policy
Arena”, Comparative Politics 32, no. 3; 355-376.
Ramseyer, J. Mark. 1994. “The Puzzling (In) Dependence of Courts: A Comparative
Approach”, The Journal of Legal Studies 23, no. 2; 721-747.
Woll, Peter (ed.). 2005. American Government; Readings and Cases, Collection of
Federalist Papers, 53-70.
Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert. 2007. “The Philippines: Political Parties and Corruption”,
Southeast Asian Affairs, 277-294.
8

9. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of
Groups; 5-22.
“Interest Groups” (ch. 5) in Woll, Peter (ed.). American Government; Readings and
Cases, American Government, pp. 253-273.
Linz, Juan J. 1994. The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Vol 1. Comparative
Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Le Duc, Lawrence et al. 2000. eds. Comparing Democracies 2 : New Challenges
in the Study of Elections and Voting. London: SAGE.
Dalton, Russel J. and Wattenberg, Martin P. Eds. 2000. Parties Without
Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haggard, Stephan and McCubbins. 2001. Presidents, Parliaments and Policy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reeve, Andrew and Ware, Alan. 1992. Electoral Systems: A Comparative and
Theoretical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Grofman, Bernard and Lipjhart. Eds. 1986. Electoral Laws and their Political
Consequences. New York: Agathon Press.
Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Bonchek, Mark S. 1997. Analyzing Politics: Rationality,
Behaviour and Institutions. New York: W.W. Norton.
Norton, Philip. ed. 1990. Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s
Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and
Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Elgie, Robert. 1999. Semi-Presidentialism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
9

10. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
Assessment:
4 Critiques of Readings (500 words): 20% (5% each)
Seminar presentation: 10%
Presentation Essay (1500 words): 25%
Seminar Participation: 5%
Mid-Term Exam: 40%
Deadlines:
 Critique 1 (500 words) on Week 3 Readings of the Democratic and Non-
Democratic Political systems, due in on March 19th
at the beginning of the
seminar class. Lateness results to a mark of 0%.
 Critique 2 (500 words) on Week 5 Readings of Federalism and Local Forms of
Government, due in on Apr. 2nd
at the beginning of the seminar class. Lateness
results to a mark of 0%.
 Mid-Term Exam on Thursday 16th
April Week 7 based on seminar questions from
Week 2-6, Seminar Groups A and B sit the test at S14, C and D at S15 and E and
F at S16.
 Critique 3 (500 words) on Week 9 Readings, EITHER on Readings on Political
Participation OR Interest Group Politics submitted at the beginning of the seminar
class. Lateness results to a mark of 0%.
 Final Presentation Essay (1500 words) on Week 11, due in on May 14th
at Iran’s
office with an essay sheet signed and attached. Lateness results to a penalty of 5%
per day.
 Critique 4 (500 words) on Week 12 Readings, BOTH on Israel AND Kurdistan to
be submitted at the beginning of the seminar class. Lateness results to a mark of
0%.
Comparative Government (POL102)
Explanation of Assessment Tasks
Spring Semester 2009
a. Four 500-word Critiques or Reaction Papers. (20% - 5% each)
To test students’ understanding of the reading, as well as improve their
writing and critical analysis skills. Each essay should address the
following questions:
i. What question or questions is the author trying to answer and how
successful are they in doing so?
ii. What further questions are raised by this reading?
10

11. Spring/Summer 2009 Katerina Tsoukala
iii. What are your impressions of the reading? (Is the reading biased?
Does it omit important issues related to the topic? Is it well-
written and insightful? Etc)
These papers should be critical reviews of five readings for five different
weeks. They are NOT Summaries of the readings and should not be a
description of what the author has said.
b. Presentation (10%). To strengthen students’ critical thinking, reading, and
English-oratorical skills. The presentations should address one of the
subject areas examined in the class syllabus (Machinery of Government,
Political Participation, Case Studies). It should include 1) presentation of
the main issues and debates of the subject, 2) the questions and problems
raised by the readings and 3) alternative approaches or explanations of the
issue. This should include the students’ views or evidence of independent
insight and thought and should not be simply a reiteration of the reading.
The topics selected do not have to be exactly from the syllabus but should
incorporate or apply the main themes on the syllabus into the presentation.
For example, if the week’s reading is about the parliamentary-presidential
system debate, the student can address this debate, take a position, and use
a case study/studies to apply this position. Topics can be selected by the
student and should be approved by the seminar instructor beforehand.
c. Presentation Final Paper (25%) – This will be a written form of the
presentation. It tests the students writing skills. It should elaborate, in
proper paper format (with a bibliography) on the issues, concepts, and
arguments made in the seminar. A good paper would include those
comments and issues discussed during the seminar when the student made
his/her presentation.
d. Seminar participation (5%) – To strengthen the students’ English speaking
skills.
e. Mid-Term Exam (40%) – To test the understanding of the course readings
and lectures.
11