As I have mentioned in my self-introduction my regional interests in Political Science and IR are South Asia and Southeast Asia. Due to the groupings of the regions between those two regional blocs, I have decided to write my first paper on the South Asia regional bloc. In the past few months I have observed a few governance, corruption and rule of law indicators for India and Sri Lanka in regards to my thesis research. I have also taken a 300 level political science class focusing on the post-independence regimes of Pakistan and India which gives me a general idea of what to expect from the data generated on these countries in terms of degrees of democracy. I also think the regional report on this specific region will provide interesting data findings due to the religious diversity, ethnic diversity and degrees of modernization experienced in the 6 countries.

When measuring democracy and choosing indicators is using a minimal or broad definition going to produce more accurate and reliable results? Alvarez, Cheibub, Limongi and Przeworski pursued a minimalist approach in which they chose to exclude indicators such as accountability, representation, responsiveness and freedoms/rights. Can we still get a reliable, accurate and holistic coverage of democracy in a country without accounting for the aforementioned indicators? Is focusing on constraints, autonomy and competition sufficient to prove or disprove whether a country is in turn democratic?

The alternative is the Political Regime Change (PRC) data set that moves away from a dichotomous classification that limits the indicators coverage of level of democracy within a country. The PRC data set includes political and civil rights/liberties as well as intermediate groups between democracy and dictatorship. With more labels and more indicators as well as a more expansive definition of democracy, can the PRC system in comparison to the previous system provide a more reliable and accurate measure of democracy?

In my attempt to re-live Beyonce’s stunning half-time performance at the Superbowl last night I stumbled upon a website that ranked some of the top half-time performances. As my favorite part of the Superbowl (aside from the commercials that us Canadians are deprived of) is the half-time… unfortunately not the game itself. After looking at several websites U2’s 2002 performance and tribute to the survivors and victims of 9/11 ranked highest as the best half-time performance.
Then comes a skewed definition of best–talent or as in most memorable– cause Justin Timberlake’s and Janet Jackson’s 2004 half-time performance is in many sites’ top 3 as producing a very memorable (yet scandalous) performance where Ms. Jackson experienced a wardrobe malfunction.
Lastly, my parents generation must be the top voters of half-time show performances or most avid watchers of the Superbowl as most of the top bands and singers became popular in the 1980’s/90’s. Bruce Springsteen, Prince, Michael Jackson and the Rolling Stones are top 10 favorites for half-time Superbowl performances. There must be an underlying attraction between classic rock and American football.

Cuba may have quote-on-quote free and fair elections but the country is still far from relinquishing some of its communist antics. The BBC reports that Fidel Castro was spotted for the first time in months participating in the country’s recent parliamentary elections. Despite everyone’s right to participate in elections, these elections fail to meet Schumpeter’s minimal definition of democracy. No opposition parties are allowed in Cuban elections therefore inhibiting competition in elections. Also the leaders running in the elections have been chosen and pre-approved by the ruling Communist Party. It is a small step in the right direction, but it is not enough for Cuba to join the ranks of other democratic states. Maybe one day we will witness the democratization of Cuba–one of the last countries that still has a communist regime.

There are numerous measurements and indicators for which to measure success by. Many pertain to the area in which we want to measure success in. In regards to business many people measure success by wealth, power, or customer value.  http://advancedlifeskills.com/blog/how-do-you-measure-success/.

Is a successful business or business person (CEO) better measured in terms of wealth accumulated, power over shareholders or other businesses with which they work with, or their customers/clienteles satisfaction with their workplace. Personally I believe that customer/clientele satisfaction is not a significant measurement of success as it is subject to personal biases laden with the workforce and therefore not fully representative. Power is a measurement that is hard to find an accurate indicator for. We could use percentage of stocks, number of shareholders, or even ability to intimidate workers into carrying out tasks and duties. But again I believe that this measurement doesn’t fully caputre success. That leaves us with wealth; another controversial measurement of success. I believe that wealth is the better of the three possible measures because it can be reliably and accurately measured by indicators. By measuring annual income or net profits in comparison to other fiscal year reports we get a hard figure not subject to personal or subjective biases.

In order to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and one of literature’s most iconic men, Mr. Darcy, I decided to dedicate by blog post to it. From costume parties, to book clubs, screenplay adaptations, parodies, Oscar nominations and corresponding sequels/prequels Pride and Prejudice has seemed to grow ever more popular over time. Some blame it on the popularized Victorian time period, the simplicity of Bennet and Darcy’s romance, or that Ms. Bennet was one of the first female characters to defy gendered stereotypes about women. No matter the reason, Pride and Prejudice has withstood the test of time and in doing so managed to cross transnational boundaries, generations, and educational discourses.

Despite country’s prominent and glaring differences that lead to scarred trade relations, war and ethnic conflict, how is it that something so simple as a novel can transcend those differences and create a common ground between people? The BBC interviewed women from Britain, America and India this morning about Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice anniversary and all women despite their economic, racial, ethnic and geographic differences reported similar views about the book. It left me wondering if there was more Jane Austen in the world would there be more commonalities in the world? Would we be more willing to look past blaring racial and economic differences and confide in someone due to fictional preferences? Is the simplicity of the Jane Austen era something we should strive for in this day and age? What would politics be like if political leaders were forced to read Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, and Mansfield Park per se? Maybe all this world needs is a dose of Bennet and Darcy.

In light of Egypt’s President Morsi declaring a State of Emergency in Egypt I thought this would be a good time to discuss the undemocratic nature of this act. Under a State of Emergency the President/Prime Minister has the ability to limit constitutional rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens in a democracy. Many cities in Egypt– such as Port Said, Ismalia and Suez– are all under a curfew, and the Egyptian Cabinet wrote a draft law to allow the army to participate in policing and arresting of defiant civilians. Amnesty International condemned this ‘excessive use of force’ as unconstitutional.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21240604 

With this temporary suspension of civilian rights, and fast-tracked legislature can a country in a State of Emergency maintain its democratic composure and characteristics? Or is Egypt still a democracy because President Morsi is calling for a national dialogue involving all political parties and would be willing to step down upon the calling of elections? Under a minimal or an adjective definition can we still describe Egypt at this time period as democratic?

So I am a huge fan of Suits and I am hoping some of you in 423C will share my love for the TV show. As this past Thursday was the mid-season premiere I wanted to get a discussion going about what you think will happen in the remaining episodes of the season.

Louis. He finally made senior partner a few episodes back, but since he had a bit of falling out with Jessica and could have potentially exposed Mike Ross as a fraud; he is restricted from exploiting his senior partner privileges. Will Louis ever attain equality against Harvey Spector? We just saw Harvey hire a new junior associate when Louis was denied the right too. To tie it into the democracy theme of the course: is this fair and just workforce practices? Though Louis is part of the majority that voted out Hardman is it fair for Jessica and Harvey to act like a ‘tyranny of the majority’ and subordinate him?

Mike Ross. WILL HE AND RACHEL EVER END UP TOGETHER??? Is the closing of season two finally the time that Mike and Rachel can be together? Or will another girl swoop into the picture and distract Mike?

The phrase “oligarchic democracy” is the adjective being employed to define the political democratic system in the Ukraine. Oligarchic democracy describes the big business and political group interaction. Democracy becomes subjected to the big business forces in the country. http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-studies/2012-10-16/oligarchic-democracy-influence-business-groups-ukrainian-politics. Oligarchic democracy would place lower on Sartori’s ladder of generality in Collier and Levitsky’s article as by adding the subtype ‘oligarchic’ to democracy; we can stretch the conceptual meaning of democracy to cover political systems subjected to big business forces.

The article http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/social-democracy-across-sea “Social Democracy across the Sea” is the adjective used to describe Egypt’s system by the Egyptian Social Democratic Party in Egypt. Past and present Egyptian social democratic parties include egalitarianism, secularism and peace in the defining characteristics of a social democracy.

Both of these articles address conceptual innovation. How to make a concept– democracy– more precise by adding defining attributes such as adjectives like ‘social’ and ‘oligarchic’. The trade-off in these articles is that we have a more complete and well-rounded perspective of democracy in Ukraine and Egypt by adding these adjectives onto the democratic noun root.

Today was the start of the fast-track process for the trial of six men accused of gang raping a 23 year old Indian women. Due to the global public outrage that persisted from the death of the young women the trial was fast-tracked to the Delhi courts to begin immediately. The six men — minus the one who is 17 and being tried as a juvenile— could face a punishment as severe as the death penalty. Is the death penalty a democratic — fair and just punishment—  for citizens charged with the death of another human being? Not many democracies to date still use the death sentence penalty.

In response to the global public outrage on the case more fast-track courts have been erected to give women justice more swiftly. The hope among women in India and internationally is that stronger sexual assault laws will be legislated to protect women.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-21115351 

The article raises questions about the level of democracy in India. Is increasing the legislation to protect women a sign on democracy? Is having the death penalty a fair and just penalty under democracy? Thoughts or comments?