Understand the concepts:
As a special opportunity in 2016 we will focus on regimes and regime change in Turkey: Kemalism, Gulenism, and Erdogan.
We will begin this week with a review of the mnemonic device introduced in chapter 8, illustrating the relationship between security, governance, economy, and society.
Particularly important are the concepts of bridging and bonding social capital, and their connection to functioning economies. But equally critical is the concept that market economies driven by liberal ideology can break down the social relations that protect people’s livelihoods, and this can result in counter-movements as people struggle for survival in a hostile market economy. Market enthusiasts call this “creative destruction” while market skeptics may call it by other names, and Marxists speak of “revolutionary conditions.”
We will also explore the link between civil society and democracy, and between society and a functioning market. There are three fundamental contradictions that beset modern society, and generate a great deal of the political tension and violence with which states inevitably contend.
The first is the contradiction inherent in liberal democracy – individual freedoms and majority rule. One consequence is the tension surrounding minority “market dominant elites” like Chinese diaspora communities in South East Asia (Chua)
The second is the contradiction between a self-regulating market and the “fictitious commodities” (Polanyi) of land (nature), labour (people), and capital (money). The third is the contradiction between self-government and living with an increasingly pervasive market economy that constrains decisions of self-government. These three contradictions are interrelated.
Responses to the three contradictions are often driven by ideology, particularly the ideology of market liberalism, or the counter-ideologies of fascism and communism, which generated the Second World War and the Cold War.
We’ll put this puzzle in the context of theories about the state, by continuing our discussion from week 7 about the future of the state, and particularly the varieties of “market state” envisioned by Bobbitt and his colleagues from the Clinton administration as the contemplated changing balances of state and corporate power at the end of the Cold War. The role of corporations and markets, collective negotiations and management of land, labor and capital as fictitious commodities.
Political economy and alternative regimes
Rothkopf, Power, Inc.
Chua, World on Fire
How democracy eroded in North Carolina (NYT, 2016)
Turkey Case Study
Cook (2007) Ruling without governing
Hendrick (2013) Gulen and Market Islam
Middle East Forum, Turkey’s Slide into Authoritarianism
We will do a quick check to ensure that assignment 2 is on track.
The critical task this week is to make sense of the concept of regimes, and prepare notes on the changing nature of the state based on characteristics of civil society, democracy, autocracy, and the rising power of corporations. You may find the mnemonic from week 8 to be a useful starting point, but you will have to develop your own way to see transitions and the interaction of corporations with the state.
This week’s seminar will concentrate on defining the key terms listed in the learning objectives, and then exploring the self-assessment questions, with priority to question 5.
Weekly activities can be adjusted by class coordinators in consultation with the professor
Week 5 checklist of material
 Introduction from class coordinator – time allocation
 Current events of political significance (domestic, international) [60s]
 Review/amend focus of learning objectives [5D]
 Key terms [5D, GLI]
 Mapping the Political Landscape [5D, GLI]
 External resources [class coordinator]
 Exam questions [5D, GLI]
 Looking ahead: next week’s class coordinator introduces (last 15 minutes)