comparative politics

Christian Welzel and Ronald Ingelhart have a provocatively titled article in the newest edition of the Journal of Democracy called The Role of Ordinary People in Democratization. Breifly, they argue that an emphasis on human development plays a larger role in democratization when you construct “democratic” as more than simply having free and fair elections (electoral democracy). They find that that when you construct democracy as “effective,” which they define as: preserving human rights/civil liberties while being anti-corrupt in addition to free and fair elections, the role of “ordinary people” matters. Here’s a key quote from their article:

Thus, the HDI (human development index) explains fully 60 percent of the variation in effective democracy. In other words, the HDI explains almost twice as much of the variance in effective democracy as it does in electoral democracy.

The upshot of this finding is that we need to figure out how you move from encouraging formal democracy (open electoral processes) to helping build political cultures of engaged, active citizens that expect and demand an active role in decision-making.

Canada is set to vote in less than two weeks on October 14th.  It’s a parliamentary system, so voter choices at the representative level (MP=member of Parliament) in each district (riding) determine who the prime minister is.  The major parties are the Conservatives (far right & center-right), Liberals (center-left), New Democratic Party (left), Bloc Quebécois (regional), & the Greens.  The Bloc is a Quebéc-only party that has fallen out of favor this year.  The big issue this year is whether the Conservatives can get a majority government.  Currently, they have a minority government but with over 50% of the ridings (155 seats), they can get a majority, which means they would have much more power.

We’ve been talking about frames a lot, so let’s see how these play out in Canadian satire using kids to portray the party leaders.  Rick Mercer is in the same vein as Stewart/Colbert and a friend at Ipsos in Vancouver sent the following video around.  The players & some perceptions:

• Stephen Harper:  Conservative & leader of minority government (“W”-like, from the oil-rich west [Alberta], hoping for a majority, emphasizing the economy and “stay the course” mentality, leader of party doing well in the polls now, good at framing & evading)
• Stephane Dion: Liberal (embraced green issues & carbon taxes, nerdy/egghead reputation, has French accent and is linked to past separatist sentiments in Quebéc, leader of a party suffering from weakness now)
• Jack Layton: NDP (strength metaphor, charismatic, resurgence since Liberal party has faltered)
• Elizabeth May: Green (seen as splitting the vote on the left)

The latest polls show that the Conservatives will likely win, but fall short of a majority.  The NDP was hoping to be second, but they’re unlikely to overtake the Liberals.  The election will be decided by 45 “battleground ridings.”  I’ve been following this election since I spend summers in Toronto and figuring out Canadian politics.  I must admit that I find the US election cycle fatiguing… January 2007 – November 2008.  In contrast, this Canadian election season officially started on September 7, 2008 when Parliament was dissolved.

Bear with me with my French references.  First Bourdieu and now Ségolène Royal. Last spring, I followed the Royal/Sarcozy campaigns in the French Presidential elections, which was full of frames.  Ségolène wasn’t a folksy “hockey mom” type with (say) non-Parisian French and a homespun demeanor of  a country “girl” from Provence.  No, “Ségo” was a “hottie” Socialist, who was the daughter of a general and a disciple of François Mitterand in the 1980s.  She and her romantic male partner, François Hollande (also a Socialist politician) both won seats in 1988 and rose in the ranks of the party throughout the 1990s.  Despite having 4 children out of wedlock, Ségo navigated the French culture wars.  I’m sure it helped she was deemed as sexy and charming.  Her version of femininity resonated with many.  In early 2006, Salon.com, true to type when it comes to missing the point, had an article comparing Ségo Royal to Hillary Clinton.  The Salon.com similarities are superficial and incidental in my book, but the Salon piece did bring up two issues:  (1) the issue of credibility and (2) having an ideologically confused message/platform.  In a post mortem article on her loss, these issues would sink her, along with Sarcozy’s “on code” messages tapping into the concerns and worries of many French citizens.  While her specific “femininity” frame may have helped her, it may have also been a dual-edged sword.  What are the “rules” for a woman be sexy and credible with the masses?  In the end, Ségo’s credibility was hurt by her policies seeming improvised, as she was campaigning.  In addition, the socialist “code” wasn’t on track and failed to resonate with the fragmented left.

How can this relate to McCain/Palin?  I think that McCain was expecting to use Palin as a critical “selling proposition” to the ticket, in addition to having a “wow” factor.  I think Palin was expected to mobilize the conservative base while still having appeal to the moderate “everyperson,” i.e., hockey moms and Joe Six-pack.  If Palin is going to be front-and-center and in the campaign trenches, I’m afraid the “credibility” issue will always be an albatross.  She has been framed in a certain way and now she has to expend so much energy to dispel that perception.  Think Swift Boat veterans in 2004.  Was she framed this way due to her gender or her brand of femininity?  Even if she appears competent and knowledgeable, is the public primed to expect a gaffe from her and will this undermine the credibility of the entire ticket?