I've Been Thinking...the value of normative bias

In comparative government and especially in international relations, there are normative biases that seep into studies. For some reason, we cannot be neutral. Liberals in the international system may give some lip service to cultural relatvitiy and to the importance of being sensitive to ethnic histories, but even the most Liberal of Liberals cannot deny that they are positing an idea of what is inherently right or wrong. It seems ironic. It seems to be hypocracy at its height. Still, there is no other way.


The international system favors Democratic governments in which citizens participate in their own governance in meaningful ways and at regular intervals. Anything less than that is undesirable. When charts or graphs are drawn, authoritarianism is placed in at the left or on the bottom of axises. While many Liberals can recognize the efficiency and security advantages of authoritarian regimes, they inherently rank those things far below freedom of belief and expression. A chaotic democracy seems more desirable than a safe autocratic regime.


International organizations have compiled lists of rights deemed invaluable to all people. When the United Nations was founded, for example, it published and its members states ratified a document called the Universal Declaration of Rights. Penned mostly by Eleanor Roosevelt, the first few rights look eerily similar to the Bill of Rights in the United States constitution. Those rights are, of course, built from the foundation of the Rights of Englishmen. The Universal Declaration includes economic rights not often defended in the United States, but it very neatly reflects the philosophical beliefs of the Western world. Broad agreement on the content of the Universal Declaration has done little to deepen agreement on the meaning of its provisions, and the unenforceable nature of the document makes it little more than a statement of Liberal values to which all countries should aspire, whether or not they have a cultural foundation that aligns with them and whether or not they can economically afford them. To say there should be no Liberal bias would be to say that countries should not be held to Liberal standards of human rights.

Even the way in which people discuss relative health of countries' political and economic systems is inherently biased toward Liberal post-industrial standards. Any country that has not achieved a consolidated, transparent, participatory democracy and a free economy is labeled developing. Industrtial and post-industrial systems get the label of developed. Simply the choice of those words assumes that there is an end game. Every country should want to be in the developed category. Those countries are complete. "Developing" implies that the country is in some adolescent stage and still has some work to do. Theere is even an implication that the country is moving in some appropriate direction. To think that these terms are somehow more politically correct than ranking countries into first, second, and third worlds is to deny the inherent Liberal bias.

I will not be the one to say that non-democratic countries are just as desireable as democratic ones. I will not be the one to say that coutnries should not be held to a minimal standard of human rights. I will not be one to say that command and control economies reach the levels of efficiency and economic growth that are most beneficial to people.

Cultural sensitivity should not mean that people shrink from recognizing universal truths of humanity. Cultural sensitivity to actions that deny the diginity and rights of every human being end up throwing bias in the opposite direction. Some people believe that people who come from certain places or who are raised in certain cultures should not enjoy the basic protections of their rights and liberty, because their cultures do not recognize those rights. I will not be the one to say that.

There are some universal truths. Star Wars will always be inherently superior to Star Trek. Marvel comics are inherently more valuable than DC. Parliamentary procedure is comical. The best possible Magic deck is a black/red, even if it makes you feel like a jerk. British comedy will never be funny with the exception of Monty Python and the Vicar of Dibley. Twitter is stupid. Newark High School is superior to Glasgow High School, and Wilmington charter cheats somehow, but the rest of us can't figure out how, because they are smarter than we are. Glee is the most incredible television show since Lost and the West Wing. Ronald Reagan was an awesome president.

Okay, so the last paragraph was meant to be funny, even if it is mostly true. I just like to pick fights amongst you guys. The floor is open...GO!

Story from the New York times about Interest Aggregation (Life Mirrors Class!)

Read the New York Times story today!

The Concept of Statehood in a Changing World

Just because we can measure states doesn't mean that we should. The Comparative Government curriculum is focused on comparing governments around the world on a fixed set of well-defined concepts. This allows scientists to make distinctions between cases and to clarify similarities and differences in order to further refine the concepts themselves. In an actively changing political environment, however, it may be useful to develop new concepts that better capture reality. When real cases cease to match our distinct definitions, they need to be generalized or perhaps new categories need to be defined as separate and distinct. Giovanni Sartori explains this using the ladder of abstraction found here: http://poli.haifa.ac.il/~levi/conceptm.html#c. (Intension is the depth of the concept and extension is its breadth.)

This has become a particularly important issue with the concept of the state. As political scientist have defined it, a state is a territory with defined borders, a population, a government, and sovereignty. The state is the international standard for participation in world politics, and the nation-state, in which the population of a state shares common language, culture, religious values, ethnicity, and history, is the pinnacle of state development. While we don't often thin k of definitions really affecting world politics, this one definitely has.

First of all, even though the definition of state is relatively broad, there are plenty of areas in the world that just don't quite fit. Borders are ill-defined and contested. Sovereignty is fragile, especially in developing states that invite aide from foreign countries and in states that desire the approval of the international community. The emphasis on nation-states has caused a massive proliferation of states in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Ethnic groups weary of trying to live in peace under the same political structures as their traditional competitors have broken off into new states, hungry for world recognition. Pseudo-states that fall short of the definition struggle to maintain their fragile hold on independence.

The case of Palestine (See the following stories for a mix of points of view: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39685&Cr=Palestin&Cr1=, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/09/201192212910587149.html, http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/palestinian-statehood-bid-one-more-problem-for-harried-europeans, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/21/palestinian-statehood-bid-explained/) is particularly problematic. The somewhat complicated history of the Palestinian Authority and the geographic realities of settlement of the Palestinian people have left the members of the United Nations in a particularly difficult position. Palestine lacks defined, defensible, and contiguous borders. The existence of a Palestinian government belies the political reality that that do not have sovereignty. Even asking for UN recognition and membership does not guarantee that statehood, or the internationally acknowledged concept of statehood. Some even argue that the pseudo-statehood provided by UN membership would do little to fulfill the Palestinian desire for real, by-the-book, statehood. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0922/Palestinian-statehood-bid-at-UN-drives-hopes-for-a-real-state-farther-away

Why should the Palestinians want statehood anyway? Obviously it is a great ticket to involvement in international participation and negotiation, but why is the rest of the world so wed to the concept as to force different social forms to shoehorn themselves into nation-states? Most violence in the modern era is undertaken by non-state actors. Civil Wars and terrorism make of the bulk of global conflict. Increasingly, non-state actors like multinational corporations, bank, and charities organize the global economy. Global human rights organizations defy state sovereignty to attempt to protect the rights of individuals regardless of state boundaries. Environmental concerns require the cooperation of state and non-state actors alike.

Is the concept of state dying? If so, what will take its place? Should the Palestinians proceed in their call for statehood? Should they receive some kind of formal statehood without the necessary requirments of state? How useful is the concept of state in comparing government structures?

(Please respond to whatever you'd like. If some part of the reading made you think or spurred more questions, post your thoughts below. You may also respons to your classmates' reponses.)