Regime Change (17.508)/
The Rise and Fall of Democracy (17.914)
Updated, Spring 2001
Instructor: Chappell Lawson, Department of Political Science
Email: clawson@mit.edu
Tel.: 3-3524
Why you should take this course
Coups, civil wars, revolutions, and peaceful political transitions are the “real stuff” of political science. They show us why politics matters, and they highlight the consequences of political choices in times of institutional crisis. This course will help you understand why democracies emerge and why they die, from ancient times to the recent wave of democratization in Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and the developing world.
What this course is about
Please note that there are two numbers for this class, 17.508 and 17.914. Only the first of these, 17.508, is listed in the MIT course guide. Graduate students and undergraduate concentrators should register under 17.508. Undergraduates who need to fulfill distributional requirements should register under 17.914.
Readings
Readings are assigned for each week of class,including for the first week (February 12).
Weekly reading requirements are different for graduate students and undergraduates. Undergraduates are expected to read approximately 100 pages per week, which will focus on the central theoretical issues or case studies for that week. These readings should take you about three to four hours, depending on how fast you read.
Graduate students are expected to read an additional 100 pages that cover additional cases or expand on theoretically challenging issues raised by the principal case. For instance, undergraduate readings on the rise of fascism in Europe examine the collapse of the Weimar Republic in Germany. Additional graduate readings in that week examine the rise of fascism in Italy, as well as the case of Austria (where fascist and Nazi parties failed to take power). My expectation is that graduate students should be able to complete all the readings for a typical week in about ten hours.
All readings will be placed on reserve in Dewey library (Building E53), as will copies of the following books:
· Arturo Valenzuela, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).
· Mary Helen Spooner, Soldiers in a Narrow Land: The Pinochet Regime in Chile (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).
· Nathaniel Davis, The Last Two Years of Salvador Allende (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).
· Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).
· Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1991).
· Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971).
Graduate students should consider purchasing these books, if they do not already own them. All students should consider purchasing at least the first two, as we will read virtually all of them.
**Please note that there are readings due the first week of class.**
Written requirements
You have two options: (1) one long paper of approximately 20 pages OR (2) five short papers of approximately 4 pages each. There will be no final exam.
In analyzing your case, you should pay special attention to four questions. First, what happened in the case you are studying? The more narrow your focus, the more specific your paper should be – for instance, if you were analyzing the failure of the democracy movement in China, you should report details like which military units were deployed during the Tiananmen Square massacre, where, and when.
Second, what larger, structural factors played a role in the event you are analyzing? This portion of your paper should include a discussion of the effects of class structure, ethnic cleavages, political culture, and similar background conditions. For instance, if you were studying the Brazilian military coup of 1964, you would mention factors like extreme socio-economic inequality, low levels of education, a history of military participation in government, and similar issues.
Third, what were the short-term triggers for the event you chose to analyze? Common factors include the state of the economy, civil-military disagreements, incompetent or polarizing leadership, and similar variables. In the Brazilian coup, for example, you would presumably discuss the policies of President Goulart, leftist mobilization, falling living standards, and rising inflation.
Fourth, is the incident you analyzed better explained by structural or short-term factors? What realistic options did leaders have? Were specific mistakes made that fundamentally changed the course of events? Or was the event you describe basically destined to occur (though not necessarily exactly when it did)?
If you choose to write a long paper, you must come up with a list of potential topics by February 20. These topics should be in the form of testable propositions or hypotheses, rather than simply vague expressions of interest. By February 26, you must turn one of these topics into a proposal that includes a clear statement of the question you seek to address (including a clearly delineated time frame) and a list of sources to be consulted. By March 19, you must a two-page overview of your case that should reflect your overall conclusions. (In other words, it should reflect the fact that you have already done virtually all of the descriptive reading for your case, and a chunk of the theoretical reading.) By March 26, you must submit a 5-10 page description of the incident you have chosen to analyze – that is, what happened, when, etc. By April 16 (a week in which class will not meet), you must submit a second installment of 5-10 pages, summarizing the theoretical conclusions of your paper. By April 30, you must submit a complete draft of your paper. This version should be polished and free of grammatical or stylistic errors. I will return this draft to you by the following week, and you will then have an additional week before the end of the semester to revise your paper based on my comments. The final version is due on May 14 in class, during which you will be expected to make a 10 minute presentation of you findings. Please note that each of your submissions will be graded.
Short papers are due to my mailbox in the political science department (Building E53, fourth floor) by 4 p.m. the day before class. I’d like to practice blind grading, so please don’t include a title page or put your name in the footer. Also, at the risk of stifling self-expression and generally sounding like a pain, I ask that all essays and short papers be double-spaced and submitted in Times font. (Otherwise I learn people’s fonts after the first paper, which defeats the purpose of blind grading.)
Finally, if you choose to write short papers, you must space them out to some degree over the course of the semester. Unless you clear it with me ahead of time, you will be expected to write at least two papers in the first six weeks of the class and at least two in the last six weeks.
Oral requirements
Oral requirements consist of regular class participation and one or two class presentations (depending on enrollment).
1. Class participation: Students are expected to participate actively and intelligently in class discussions. As a rule of thumb, you should plan to spend about an hour or two going over your notes from the readings and preparing for class each week, after you have completed the readings.
After each class, I will review the discussion and assign all students a letter grade. Please notify me at the beginning of the class if, for whatever reason, you are unprepared to participate in class discussion that day. Also, if you must miss a class, please let me know in advance. More than one unexcused absence or “unprepared” will count against your class participation grade.
2. Presentation(s): Each class will begin with a brief (5-15 minute) presentation discussing and critiquing the readings. You should choose a week -- or, in the case of enrollment under twelve people, two weeks -- for your presentation. Bear in mind that the goal of your presentation is to refresh people’s memories about the readings, to highlight the key areas of disagreement, and to stimulate class discussion; you should not feel compelled to mechanically summarize every article. As a rule of thumb, you should plan to spend an extra hour preparing for class on the day of your presentation(s).
Other requirements
Students are expected to complete a handful of small assignments over the course of the semester. For the second week of the semester, for instance, students must register to vote. (Students who decline to register or who live abroad and thus cannot register may instead submit a 100-word statement on why politics interests them or is relevant to their life.) As part of the fifth week of the course (on the breakdown of British rule in the Massachussets Bay Colony), students are expected to walk the “Freedom Trail” in downtown Boston. In several weeks, readings are supplemented by popular films; in others, students are expected to find and read at least one newspaper article dealing with the current political situation in the countries under study (Chile, Korea, and Mexico). These assignments should take you approximately an hour or two for the weeks that they are due.
Overall workload
Combining the readings, class preparation, class presentation(s), small assignments, written work, and actual time in class, undergraduates should plan to devote approximately eight hours per week to the class on average, over a thirteen week semester. Graduate students should plan to devote approximately twelve hours per week.
Grading
Grading standards for written work are different for graduate students and undergraduates. A good undergraduate research paper, for instance, should present a solid description of a particular case and a compelling explanation for why things turned out the way they did. A good graduate research paper should do these same things, but it should also situate your case in the context of broader scholarly debates on regime change, and it should demonstrate why your case is theoretically relevant to those debates. In other words, undergraduate research papers should explain trend (that is, why things turned out the way they did); graduate research papers should explain variation (that is, why things turned out one way in certain countries and differently in others). Put differently, a good undergraduate paper should tell me something new; a good graduate paper should tell me something that is both new and theoretically interesting.
February 12: Readings will be discussed in class
February 20: Register to vote or write a 100-word statement on politics
Those writing a long paper must submit a one-paragraph summary
April 16 (no class): Those writing a long paper must submit a 5-10 page theoretical
discussion of their case.
April 24: Those writing short papers must have submitted at least 3 papers.
April 30: Those writing a long paper must submit completed draft of paper.
May 14: Those writing a long paper must submit final revised paper.
Readings
I Samuel, 8:1-8:22, in The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971): 1-16.
The Economist, “Pakistan’s New Rulers,” October 16, 1999.
The New York Times, “Dangerous Coup in Pakistan,” October 13, 1999, p. 24.
The Economist, “Oh, Pakistan,” October 16, 1999.
Paula R. Newberg, “Pakistan: The Choice is not between Democracy and Chaos,” Los Angeles Times, October 17, 1999, p. M1.
The New York Times, Celia W. Dugger, “Fixing What Ails Pakistan: Can the Coup Leader Deliver on His Promises,” October 19, 1999. p. 12.
The Economist, “The Chavez enigma,” June 5, 1999.
The Economist, “Chavez stirs things up,” July 10, 1999.
The Economist, “Chavez cleans the slate,” July 31, 1999.
The Economist, “Caribbean Jacobinism,” August 14, 1999.
The Economist, “Chavez’s power grab,” August 28, 1999.
The Economist, “Chavez’s muddled new world,” November 20, 1999.
The New York Times, Editorial, “Ecuador’s Endangered Democracy,” January 25, 2000.
The New York Times, Larry Rohter, “Bitter Indians Let Ecuador Know Fight Isn’t Over,” January 27, 2000.
The New York Times, Larry Rohter, “Ecuador’s Coup Alerts Region to a Resurgent Military,” January 30, 2000.
Assignment
None.
February 20. The causes of democracy
In class: In class: The causes of democracy.
Readings
Reading lecture (on website)
Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1991): 3-5,13-26, 34-108.
Adam Przeworski, Michael Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi, “What Makes Democracies Endure?” in Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yu-han Chu, and Hung-mao Tien, eds., Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997): 295-311.
Additional Readings for graduate students:
Seymour Martin Lipset, “Economic Development and Democracy,” in Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981): 27-63.
Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens, Capitalist Development and Democracy: (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992): 1-31.
Robert Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989): 244-64.
Nicolò Machiavelli, The Discourses, Book 1, Chapters 1-4, in Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, eds., The Portable Machiavelli (New York: Penguin Books, 1979): 167, 171-85. [Originally published in 1531.]
Assignment
Register to vote OR write a 100-word statement on why politics is relevant to your life. Those writing a long paper must submit list of potential topics.
February 26. The future of democratization
In Class: Lecture: Predicting regime change. Class discussion: Prospects for democracy in
Pakistan, Venezuela, Ecuador, China, etc....
Readings
Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1991): 280-316.
Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999): 1-2, 24-63, 261-78.
Additional Readings for graduate students:
Journal of Democracy, Special issue on China, January 1998, 9 (1): 3‑64. (Contributions by Brzezinski, Chen, Harding, Matzger, Oksenberg, Scalapino, Waldron, Wang, Zhao, and Nathan.)
Assignment: class exercise
Review cross-national data on democracy (posted on web site). Using this data, a subset of it, or any other data you wish to gather, evaluate some of the hypotheses discussed in class and in the readings about the causes of democracy. You may wish to focus on a particular country, a region, or a larger group of countries, and on one hypothesis or on several. Come to class prepared to present your findings and to discuss those of your colleagues.
Those writing short papers must have submitted at least one paper. Those writing a long paper must submit a topic, one-paragraph description, and bibliography.
March 5. Is it how modern you are or how you modernize?
In class: Lecture: Modernization, social conflict, and authoritarianism
Readings
Barrington Moore, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966): xiv-xvii.
Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968): 1-11, 32-59, 72-92, 140-66.
Additional Readings for graduate students:
Barrington Moore, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966): 413-52.
Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, Manifesto of the
Communist Party: Part I, in Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader
(New York: W.W. Norton, 1978): 473-83.
Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971): 105-6.
David Collier, ed., The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, c1979), p. 19-32.
Hyug Baeg-Im, “The Rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in South Korea,” World Politics, January 1987, 39 (2): 231-257.
Assignment
See the movie, Z: A Political Tragedy in Greece.
March 12. Crisis, choice, and regime change
In class: Lecture: The Machiavellian moment and the politics of greatness.
Readings
Dankwart A. Rustow, “Transitions to Democracy,” Comparative Politics, 1970, 2 (3): 337-65.
Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), p. 3-5.
Nicolò Machiavelli, The Discourses, Book 1, Chapters 9-10, in Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, eds., The Portable Machiavelli (New York: Penguin Books, 1979): 200-207. [Originally published in 1531.]
Seymour Martin Lipset, “George Washington and the Founding of Democracy,” Journal of Democracy, October 1998, 9(4): 24-38.
Jeffrey Herbst, “Prospects for Elite-Driven Democracy in South Africa,” Political Science Quarterly, Winter 1998, 112 (4): 595-615.
Additional Readings for graduate students:
Michael Burton and John Higley, “Political Crises and Elite Settlements,” in Mattei Dogan and John Higley, eds., Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998): 3-26, 47-68.
Hennie J. Kotzé, “South Africa: From Apartheid to Democracy,” in Mattei Dogan and John Higley, eds., Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998): 213-236.
Adam Przeworski, “Some Problems in the Study of the Transition to Democracy,” in Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991): 47-63.
Barry Weingast, “The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law,” American Political Science Review June 97 (91): 245-63.
Assignment
None.
March 19. The collapse of Weimar and the rise of the Third Reich
In class: Lecture: From the breakdown of Weimar to the consolidation of Nazi rule
Readings
Seymour Martin Lipset, “‘Fascism’ – Left, Right, and Center,” in Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981): 127-152.
Ursula Hoffmann-Lange, “Germany: Twentieth Century Turning Points,” in Mattei Dogan and John Higley, eds., Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998): 170-74.
M. Ranier Lepsius, “From Fragmented Party Democracy to Government by Emergency Decree and National Socialist Takeover: Germany,” in Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978): 34-79.
Henry Ashby Turner, Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power: January 1933 (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1996): 1-2, 163-183.
Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (New York, Harper & Row, 1962), p. 61-64, in John L. Snell, ed., The Nazi Revolution: Germany’s Guilt or Germany’s Fate? (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company): 1-3.
Alan Bullock, “The Dictator,” inNathaniel Greene, ed., Fascism: An Anthology (Arlington Heights, IL: AHM Publishing Company, 1968): 207-216.
Additional readings for Graduate students:
Seymour Martin Lipset, “‘Fascism’ – Left, Right, and Center,” in Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981): 152-79.
John Weiss, The Fascist Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, 1967): 1-7, 31-64.
Walter B. Simon, “Democracy in the Shadow of Imposed Sovereignty: The First Republic of Austria, in Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978): 80-121.
Paolo Farneti, “Social Conflict, Parliamentary Fragmentation, Institutional Shift, and the Rise of Fascism: Italy,” in Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978): 3-32.
Assignment
Those writing short papers must have submitted at least two papers. Those writing a long paper must have submitted a 5-10 page description of the event they are analyzing.
April 2. Democratic breakdown in Chile
In class: Lecture: Class conflict, polarization, and the demise of democracy in Chile.
Readings for undergraduates
Arturo Valenzuela, “Chile: Origins, Consolidation, and Breakdown of a Democratic Regime,” in Larry Diamond, Juan Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1989): 158-187.
Arturo Valenzuela, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. xi-xiii, 3-110.
Additional readings for graduate Students
Nathaniel Davis, The Last Two Years of Salvador Allende (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985): 16-20, 41-61, 79-93, 114-23, 137-205, 402-07.
Assignment
See the movie The House of the Spirits, based on Isabel Allende’s novel La casa de los espíritus.
April 9. The consolidation of military rule in Chile
In class: Lecture: How to consolidate a personalistic dictatorship. Film: The Battle for Chile by
Patricio Guzman.
Readings for undergraduates
Arturo Valenzuela, “Chile: Origins, Consolidation, and Breakdown of a Democratic Regime,” in Larry Diamond, Juan Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1989): 187-206.
Mary Helen Spooner, Soldiers in a Narrow Land: The Pinochet Regime in Chile (Berkeley: University of California press, 1994): 1-5, 56-77, 83-104, 113-159.
Additional readings for graduate Students
Nathaniel Davis, The Last Two Years of Salvador Allende (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985): 227-29, 467-74.
Stephan Haggard and Robert R. Kaufman, “Surviving Crisis: Pinochet’s Chile,” in Stephan Haggard and Robert R. Kaufman, The Political Economy of Democratic Transition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995): 76-83, 93-4.
Assignment
See the movie, The Kiss of the Spider Woman based on Manuel Puig’s novel, El beso de la mujer araña.
April 23. Re-democratization in Chile
In class: The breakdown of the old regime and constrained transition to democracy.
Readings for undergraduates
Mary Helen Spooner, Soldiers in a Narrow Land: The Pinochet Regime in Chile (Berkeley: University of California press, 1994): 163-267.
Additional readings for graduate students
Manuel Antonio Garretón, “The Political Evolution of the Chilean Military Regime and Problems in the Transition to Democracy,” in Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986): 95-122.
Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems in Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), p. 151-218 (Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile).
Assignment
See the movie Chile: Obstinate Memory by Patricio Guzman. Those writing short paper must have submitted at least three papers.
April 30. Democratic consolidation in South Korea
In class: Lecture: Values, legitimacy, and consolidation.
Readings for undergraduates
Sung-Joo Han, “South Korea: Politics in Transition,” in Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, eds., Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy(Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 1990): 313-46.
Larry Diamond and Doh Chull Shin, “Introduction: Institutional Reform and Democratic Consolidation in Korea,” in Larry Diamond and Doh Chull, eds., Institutional Reform and Democratic Consolidation in Korea (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 2000): 1-42.
The Economist, “The Civilian Emperor: South Korea’s remarkable transition to democracy has some way to go,” June 3, 1995: S8-S10.
Young Jo Lee, “The Rise and Fall of Kim Young Sam’s Embedded Reformism,” in Larry Diamond and Doh Chull, eds., Institutional Reform and Democratic Consolidation in Korea (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 2000): 97-126.
Sunyuk Kim, “Civic Mobilization for Democratic Reform,” in Larry Diamond and Doh Chull, eds., Institutional Reform and Democratic Consolidation in Korea (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 2000): 279-304.
Additional readings for graduate Students
S. Hoon Lee, “Transitional Politics of Korea, 1987-92: Activation of Civil Society,” Asian Survey, January 1996, 36 (1): 53-60.
D. C. Shin, M. Chey, and K. W. Kim, “Cultural Origins of Public Support for Democracy in Korea,” Comparative Political Studies, July 1989, 22 (2): 217-38.
Doh Chull Shin, “The Evolution of Popular Support for Democracy during the Kim Young Sam Government,” in Doh Chull Shin and Larry Diamond, eds., Institutional Reform and Democratic Consolidation in Korea (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 2000): 233-256.
Francis Fukuyama, “Asian Values, Korean Values and Democratic Consolidation,” in Larry Diamond and Doh Chull, eds., Institutional Reform and Democratic Consolidation in Korea (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 2000): 305-334.
Those writing a long paper must submit a complete draft of their paper.
May 7. Ambiguous political transition in Mexico
In Class: Lecture: Partial regimes, subnational political change, and the future of
democratization.
Readings
Chappell Lawson, "Mexico's Unfinished Transition: Democratization and Authoritarian Enclaves in Mexico," Estudios Mexicanos/Mexican Studies, Summer 2000.
Enrique Krauze, Mexico: Biography of Power: A History of Modern Mexico, 1810‑1996 (New York: HarperPerennial, 1997): 549‑557.
Juan Molinar Horcasitas, “Changing the Balance of Power in a Hegemonic Party System: The Case of Mexico,” in Arend Lijphart and Carlos H. Waisman, eds., Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America (Boulder, CO.: Westview, 1996): 137-59.
Denise Dresser, “Mexico: The Decline of Dominant Party Rule,” in Jorge I. Dominguez and Abraham F. Lowenthal, eds., Constructing Democratic Governance: Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean in the 1990s (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996): 159-84.
Additional readings for Graduate students:
Kathleen Bruhn, Taking on Goliath: The Emergence of a New Left Party and the Struggle for Democracy in Mexico (University Park, PA: Penn State Press, 1997): 39-44, 55-66.
Kevin Middlebrook, “Political Liberalization in an Authoritarian Regime,” in Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Latin America (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986): 123-45.
Wayne Cornelius, Todd Eisenstadt, and Jane Hinley, eds., Subnational Politics and Democratization in Mexico (La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, UCSD, 1999): 3-16.
May 14. Conclusion
In Class: Lecture: The future of regime change. Class presentations and discussion of
individual research.
Readings