Comparative Politics

Writing

Arizona State University

Question Description

Please see attached files for full information. I need a powerpoint too explaining the major points of the paper in 3 days from now. Please let me know if you have any question.


I want to talk about politics in Egypt and The Research question that I want to use is:

Why was there a revolution in Hussni's era but there was not in El Sisi's?


The hypotheses are:

1- Repression "fearing from the government" is keeping people from starting other revaluation.

2- People are satisfied with the government now and they do not see the need to start a revaluation.


You should find evidence that supports or not support these hypothese


Theories to use "I will attach them"

Ted Gurr theory

and you can find other political theories from any other place to explain the paper.


Please see the guidelines and follow them exactly.


For the powerpoint, I have attached 2 samples to follow

Unformatted Attachment Preview

LEVELS OF REBELLION: EGYPT AND TUNISIA RESEARCH QUESTION • Why does Egypt have a high occurrence of violence against the state but Tunisia does not? • DV: Rebellion • Measuring by: Terrorism and Counterterrorism HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES • Hypothesis 1: Moderate levels of repression will drive rebellion, not high or low levels. • Theorist: Gurr and Moore • Egypt: Moderate repression • Tunisia: Low repression HYPOTHESIS AND THEORIES (CONT.) • Hypothesis 2: If states that do not deal with citizen’s grievances, then there will be an increase in violence against the state. • Theorist: Gurr and Moore • Egypt: Grievances: no political participation, lack of jobs, rising prices of goods • Egypt: Reaction to Sinai Province of the Islamic State terrorist attacks and the removal and attempts to dismantle the Muslim Brotherhood • Tunisia: Reaction to Al-Qa`ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb terrorist attacks and the transition from authoritarian government to a democracy • Tunisia: Grievances: no political participation, lack of jobs, rising prices of goods SIMILARITIES • Both Egypt and Tunisia are Arab countries • Both countries are majority Muslim (Sunni) • Both were involved in Arab Springs • However, both countries were affected differently from these events MAP EGYPT - TERRORISM • 742 incidents; 2010-2014 • 2012 Casualties • Attacks by: Sinai Province of the Islamic State, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Fundamentalists, Youth of the Land of Egypt, Unknown • Targets: military, police, citizens and property • Form of attacks: assassinations, hostage / kidnappings, armed assault, bombing EGYPT – TERRORISM (CONT.) EGYPT – COUNTERTERRORISM • Dismantling and destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood • Between July 2013-July 2014 at least 22,000 arrests • February 2015; 183 people sentenced to death in a single case in Cairo • Between January – October 2015 at least 11,800 people arrested on suspicion of "terrorism“ • 164 enforced disappearances between April and June • January 25th Revolution • Crackdown on free speech and freedom of assembly TUNISIA – TERRORISM • 57 incidents; 2010 -2014 • 163 casualites • Attacks by: Al-Qa`ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Muslim Fundamentalists, Okba Ibn Nafaa Brigade, Ansar al-Sharia, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) • Targets: Government, military, police, citizens / property, and religious figures • Form of attacks: Armed assault, bombing, assassination, hostage and kidnapping TUNISIA – TERRORISM (CONT.) TUNISIA – COUNTERTERRORISM • Authorities prosecuted several people for alleged “insult” of state officials • Authorities also used counterterrorism legislation to prosecute journalists for publishing information or their opinions • Tunisian law; access to lawyers • November -December 2012; 300 people are hurt in clashes between police and protesters in Siliana • May 2013 at least one person was killed in clashes between police and Salafi Islamists of the Ansar al-Sharia group CONCLUSIONS • Egypt has more rebellion than Tunisia because of how they reacted to their citizens grievances. • The military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood when they were in power and has ever since continued to dismantle and destroy the Muslim Brotherhood. • Egypt has more rebellion than Tunisia because of the level of repression they forced on their people. QUESTIONS ? Psychological Factors in Civil Violence Author(s): Ted Gurr Source: World Politics, Vol. 20, No. 2, (Jan., 1968), pp. 245-278 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2009798 Accessed: 18/08/2008 09:45 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. http://www.jstor.org Paper Guide Nature of the research questions: Students must ask a causal question. They may not ask mainly predictive questions or offer normative essays. Prediction and normative thoughts may be minor aspects of the project and contained in the conclusions but may not be the main focus of the paper. Page length: The paper must be between 15 and 20 pages long. Paper Style: • • • • • • The paper must use footnote citations. Citations must follow the Chicago Manual of Style format. The font for the paper should be Calibri 11 point. The paper must be double-spaced and must have page numbers. Obviously, the paper must be typed. Un-typed papers will not be accepted. Paper must be handed in as a hard copy. Each research project must focus on the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. What is the dependent variable? Why is this an important dependent variable? Why study these case(s)? Is it a most similar systems or most different systems study (for comparative politics)? What are the hypotheses? Which theories support the hypotheses? Does the empirical evidence found support or refute the hypotheses? Does the set of findings weaken or strengthen a particular line of thinking in comparative politics or international relations theory? 9. What modifications could be made to the theory that would strengthen it? 10. What other research questions are raised by the study? IMPORTANT: How to think about starting your paper! When starting the process of thinking about your paper, think in broad theoretical terms. Do not start by thinking about the specifics of the country or case that are exploring but think the dependent variable as an abstract category. For example, the case below is about why Pakistan has military coups and India does not. So, the first thing you should think about is the general question: Why do countries have military coups? Look then to the theoretical literature that 1 generally deals with the issue of why countries have coups. This literature and your own logic will be able to help you develop hypotheses about why countries have coups or do not have coups. Your hypotheses should be general then and not historical or very country-specific. So, the case of Pakistan and India some hypotheses could be: H1: Countries that have militaries that are most powerful institution in the country are more likely to have coups that countries where the military is weaker than other institutions. H2: Countries where the civilian authorities have governed so badly that have de-legitimized themselves in the eyes of the public are more likely to have military coups that in countries where the civilian authorities have not de-legitimized themselves. H3: Countries where there is very deep sense of an internal or external security threat are more likely to have military coups than in countries where that sense of threat is not present. Each one of these hypotheses has to be based on a theoretical logic! What would be the theoretical logic behind each one of these hypotheses? Think about this yourself as practice for doing it in your paper. In most cases, the literature on the general topic you are exploring will have theory you can use for you hypotheses. But in some cases, you will have to develop the theory and hypotheses yourself. That is fine! Outline for the Paper I. Introduction: The Research Question • • • General statement of the research question. It must be a causal question! Example: Why has Pakistan had several military coups since 1947 but India has not had one? Dependent variable: incidence of coups. Why are you picking the case or cases that you are? Example: India and Pakistan were created out of the same country in 1947 so it is an interesting case of how two parts of the same country have diverged quite significantly. It is a very good example of a most similar systems analysis. Also, these two countries have a great deal of geostrategic significance so understanding their politics is very important. Importance of the problem: Why is it interesting? Why is it significant? Example: Military coups are a fairly common phenomenon around the world and challenge democratic governance and norms. Understanding why they happen may help to prevent them. 2 II. Background Section (for those who need to describe the dependent variable in depth) • • • Some of you will need to give background in order to make the reader aware of what your dependent variable looks like. Example: What have the coups in Pakistan looked like over the years? When have they happened, were they violent, not violent, etc? What does the military look like in Pakistan as opposed to India? Are the similarly structured, financed, have the same civilian command authority? Are they defined differently by the constitution? This is NOT a section to answer your research question! This is meant to help your reader understand what your dependent variable looks like and what the context of the situation your dependent variable occurs in looks like. For quantitative papers, this is a place for graphs to show the variation in your dependent variable. III. Hypotheses and Theory • • • • • This is a critical element of your paper. Make sure you define all relevant variables (independent/dependent). Example: The dependent variable in the hypothetical example is the incidence of coups. A hypothesis is a causal statement. Variable A causes Variable B. Example: Very weak civilian government legitimacy raises the probability of military coups. Theory is the explanation of causation. It is based on your own logic or from the literature of a mixture of both. Theory is logical and general and based on deductive and not inductive reasoning and not patterns of findings from the empirical word. Theory has to explain why an independent variable would cause a variation (coup or no coup) in the dependent variable. It is not “we have found that when A happens, B tends to happen too.” That is not an explanation of causation. Example: Militaries may displace delegitimized civilian governments in order to keep order in the country and prevent the outbreak of violence. As militaries are charged with maintaining the national security of a country, they may believe that civilian government breakdown is a threat to national security and they are compelled to step in. Each hypothesis must be backed by theory. There is no “golden rule” on the number of hypotheses you should have. If there is only one plausible hypothesis, then the question is not worthy of study. So, there should be at least two. Make sure you only create hypotheses that can have theoretical explanations and not be easily dismissed because they are logically impossible. 3 • IV. Each hypothesis should have its own sub-section with its relevant theory in that section and the “tests” that you will use to determine whether the hypothesis is supported or refuted by the evidence. Example: For the “delegitimized civilian government hypothesis,” you would say that you would look for evidence that indicates that the army believes that the government is delegitimized in the eyes of the public, and has expressed concern about the internal instability that may result from that. If there is ample evidence that the army has expressed that it is seen the delegitimization of the civilian government and is concerned about it, this would be support for the hypothesis. This could take the form of public statements by important army figures, documents they have produced, etc. If there is no indication that the military perceives the situation that way, than that would evidence to say that the hypothesis is not supported. Evidence     II. Identify what events, institutions, or people you plan to investigate. Does the empirical evidence refute or support each of your hypotheses? Be explicit and thorough about that for each of the hypotheses. Structure your evidence sub-sections the same way you have structured your hypotheses/theory sections. Make sure that at the end of each section, you make an analytical judgement about what the evidence has told you. Does the weight of the evidence support or refute the hypothesis? Be very clear why you say that. Conclusion • • • • • What was your aim in the research? This should be a paragraph-length summary. What were the major arguments (hypotheses and theories) you explored? This should be a paragraph or two summary. What were your major findings? If you have more than one hypothesis that is supported by the evidence, which is the most powerful predictor of the dependent variable? Why is that the case? This may be a paragraph or two summary. What are implications of your research? For policy? For political science? Does your research raise any other research questions for others to explore? 4 Indian Women’s Perception of Justified Beatings April 27, 2016 Why do some Indian women think it is justifiable for husbands to beat their wives and others do not? Most similar systems method D. Variable: Perception of the justifiability of husbands beating wives Data: World Values Survey (2010-2012 Wave) -> With 2,158 respondents Background Information Challenges of being a women in India - 300,000-600,000 female abortions - Upbringing - Financial Liability - Marriage before the age of 18 - Gender inequality (UNDP 0.721) Loss to potential human development - Rape Hypothesis 1: Ind. Variable: Education The less educated an Indian woman is, the more likely it is that she will believe wife beating is justifiable U. Niaz 2003 WVS. What is the highest education level that you have attained? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. No formal education In. Primary C. Primary In. Secondary Tech/Vocational C. Secondary Tech/ Vocational In. Secondary University C. Secondary University Some University, without degree University with degree 32% 12% 14% 12% 13% 3% 6% 2% 6% Hypothesis 2: Ind. Variable: Religious Values Muslim Indian women are more likely to believe that wife beating is justifiable than non-Muslim women. Zaller 1992 WVS. Do you belong to a religious denomination? No: do not belong to a denomination 0% Yes: 12% 79% 9% Muslim Hindu Other Hypothesis 3: Ind. Variable: Religiosity The more religiously observant an Indian woman is, the more likely she is to believe that wife beating is justifiable. Schwartz and Huismans 1995 WVS. How often do you pray? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Several times a day Once a day Several times each week Only when attending religious services Only on special holy days Once a year Less often Never, practically never 26% 33% 9% 11% 9% 3% 5% 4% Hypothesis 4: Ind. Variable: Social Class The lower the self-perceived social class of a woman, the more likely she is to believe that wife beating is justifiable Bandura 1971; Gelles 1985 WVS. Which class would you describe yourself as belonging to? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Upper class Upper middle Lower middle Working Lower 7% 18 36 26 13 Hypothesis 1: Education The less educated an Indian woman is, the more likely it is that she will believe wife beating is justifiable. Hypothesis 2: Religious Values Muslim Indian women are more likely to believe that wife beating is justifiable . Hypothesis 3: Religiosity The more religiously observant an Indian woman is, the more likely she is to believe that wife beating is justifiable. Hypothesis 4: Social Class The lower the self-perceived social class of a woman, the more likely she is to believe that wife beating is justifiable . Questions? 424287 1424287SoltPolitical Research Quarterly PRQ65410.1177/106591291 The Social Origins of Authoritarianism Political Research Quarterly 65(4) 703­–713 © 2012 University of Utah Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1065912911424287 http://prq.sagepub.com Frederick Solt1 Abstract Despite much attention to the problematic consequences of authoritarianism, little research focuses on the causes of such unquestioning respect for “proper” authority. Elaborating on the social learning approach to authoritarianism, this article argues that economic inequality within countries shapes individuals’ feelings toward authority. As differences in condition increase, so does the relative power of the wealthy. As a result, regardless of their incomes, individuals’ experiences are more likely to lead them to view hierarchical relations as natural and, in turn, to hold greater respect for authority. Multilevel models of authoritarianism in countries around the world over three decades support this relative power theory. Keywords authoritarianism, social learning, economic inequality, relative power Why do some people so often just do as they are told? In their unhesitating obedience to orthodox authorities—and indeed, their demands that their fellow citizens similarly obey—such authoritarian individuals are thought to have provided a crucial base of mass support for some of the worst political disasters of the past century, from aggressive war to genocide. The extent to which a country’s citizens prefer simply to conform to the pronouncements of “proper” authority or instead are inclined to think for themselves is therefore a matter of great importance. The many undesirable consequences of greater deference to such authority have been well established empirically over more than a half-century of study. A few examples will suffice. Individuals who are more authoritarian have been repeatedly demonstrated to be more intolerant of ethnic, religious, sexual, and political minorities (e.g., Adorno et al. 1950; Altemeyer 1988; Stenner 2005; Mockabee 2007). Greater respect for authority yields ready support for the aggressive use of military force (e.g., Herzon, Kincaid, and Dalton 1978; Kam and Kinder 2007; Barker, Hurwitz, and Nelson 2008; Hetherington and Weiler 2009). And higher levels of authoritarianism make individuals much more likely to condone and even endorse illegal and blatantly undemocratic government behavior (e.g., Altemeyer 1981; Geddes and Zaller 1989; Canetti-Nisim 2004). In contrast, the origins of respect for authority are far from certain. This article elaborates on the social learning approach to explaining authoritarianism by arguing that contexts of greater economic inequality shape experiences with authority in ways that should be expected to increase authoritarianism. Multilevel models that bring together data on authoritarianism from the five waves of the World Values Survey (WVS), conducted over more than two decades in dozens of countries around the world, with inequality data from the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID) provide impressive support for this hypothesis. These findings constitute important contributions to our understanding of both the origins of authoritarianism and the political effects of economic inequality. Economic Inequality and Authoritarianism To date, studies of the causes of author ...
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Questions
Related Tags