Course:Poli332/2010/T1

Use this page to write your research questions - and below it you can write your thesis statement

Caroline Jankech: I will discuss why Peronism, with some intriguing attributes, has recently re-emerged in Argentina.

What is the link between Peronism and democracy? What's the role of clientelism? And the role of charismatic leaders?

Max: This is an interesting and important question, no doubt about it. I think it is worth asking why Peronism has re-emerged as such a powerful force in Argentina after the crisis of 2001. But I think you may be planning on shifting your topic to another one? That is fine.

Jeanie Puro: In what ways were Pancho Villa's contributions and ideology unique to the Mexican Revolution? Thesis: Pancho Villa's revolutionary aims are still being fought today's Mexico, particaularly in respects to economic independence and lower class empowerment.

Max: It would be best to start with a relatively clear observable outcome. For example, ask why the Mexican revolution occurred and then analyze the role played by Villa within that process.

Nick Harper: Noting the "Leftward-Leap" in some Latin American countries, why has Colombia and Mexico reaffirmed right wing governments in their most recent elections?

Max: A great topic. While many people are focusing on left turns (yours truly included), you can ask about the countries that have not made this shift. Mexico and Colombia are important cases, but one might also consider Peru and Chile in the last election. What do these countries share in common? In what ways are they different? One thing I might suggest you consider is the role of domestic revolutionary organizations. Is there something about the presence of a threat from below that reinforces conservatism, especially among the middle classes?

Nick Harper Thesis: In countries with a recent history of authoritarian one-party / elite consensus rule (PRI and Frente Nacionale), where insurgent and criminal groups are undermining the institutions of sovereignty and rule of law (Drug Cartels, Zapatistas + Drug Cartels, Paramilitaries, FARC/ELN), and where the military is subservient to civilian rule but relatively autonomous in its own affairs (free to conduct counterinsurgency and drug enforcement), and have close military and economic ties to the USA (NAFTA and Plan Colombia) a political culture will exist that favours right-wing politics while impeding th development of left-wing politics (PRD+UP). [Hadn't considered Chile and Peru until I read your comment tonight, but perhaps I should narrow my analysis to fewer explanatory variables and widen the number of cases I discuss?]

Mahmoud Rahim: Due to their left-leaning stances, and their mass followings in the economically deprived areas of their respective countries, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva and Hugo Chavez are often compared with one another. Politically speaking, what are the differences between Lula and Chavez? Why are Lula and Chavez different? Do either of their policy-making decisions exhibit features of populism or clientelism?

Max: A great topic. Look at John French's essay on Lula and Chavez in Third World Quarterly last year. I would suggest you think about ways in which each leader reflects the working class culture in their society. In that sense, they are very different, in style if not substance. They have similar goals, nonetheless; or, at least, some (like French) would argue that.

Mahmoud Rahim: This paper will demonstrate that although Lula and Chavez tend to be grouped together under the leftist political umbrella, there are fundamental differences in their respective leadership styles, policy initiatives, and political stances. These differences can be attributed to their national political party systems, the power and organization of their upper classes, and the nature and the degree of diversification in their national economies respectively.

Max: I like this. Leadership styles are certainly different. Tell us a bit more about the policy and political differences. I agree there are important ones, though, as I note above, some would stress similarities. I like the explanatory factors: - party systems (collapse in Venezuela, remains fragmented but relatively institutionalized in Brazil) - power of elites (absolutely: Venezuela has a weak entrepreneurial elite, Brazil a powerful one) - diversification (Venezuela heavily reliant on oil, Brazil much more diverse -- see the essay by Fernando Henrique Cardoso on this in Studies in Comparative International Development, I believe, last year or the year before).

These are great hypotheses. Now...how will you test them?

Adam James: What effect has the drug trade had on the public agenda in Mexico in recent years?

Max: Nice topic, but it is always good to have an outcome in mind. So flip it around, answer your own question (ie state what has happened to the public agenda that you think needs explaining) and then as "why?" You can then use the drug trade as a possible explanatory factor. Does that make sense?

Diego de Leon: Why did the theology of liberation movement ended? If it has not ended, how is it still active?

Max: If it has it ended, how would we know? There is no question that there has strong effort to undermine liberation theology within the Catholic Church during the period of the last two popes. Perhaps you could try to explain why liberation theology emerged in the first place, then look at the backlash and try and determine what its legacy has been. A big topic, but worth it.

Veronica Reiss: Why have violence levels in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua stayed high, or even risen, despite peace agreements signed in the early 1990s and the end of civil wars in these countries?

Max: When one is speaking of a relatively concrete outcome like this it is often helpful to start with some basic facts. Could you indeed confirm for me that violence has remained high in all three cases? I was under the impression that the level of violence is higher in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador than in Nicaragua. That alone is an interesting puzzle, if true: why those three countries? Certainly, an important topic.

Kathleen Reid: Many academics, international relation experts and government officials state that Latin America is democratic but Latin America’s definition of democracy differs. Do the cultural events of the past still impede upon Latin America’s progress to becoming a traditional democracy?

Max: It is fair to say that democracy has made progress in the region, and for the most part elections are held that are free and fair. Yet we have become painfully conscious of how the existence of elections does not guarantee other institutions and practices that might be associated with democracy in other places (especially Europe and North America). This has led to discussion of the diversity of democratic regimes, with new subtypes like delegative democracy. Perhaps you could look at this concept and ask whether it is rooted in the colonial past? Then take a particular case where colonial legacies are strong and show how they play out.

Paria Saremi: Why has Chavez been able to remain in power in Venezuela for more than 10 years?

Max: Great question. I look forward to your answer!

Elena Metz: Why are the drug gangs/violence in Brazil a threat to the government? How do they influence politicians/politics?

Max: Again, a concrete outcome helps. How about asking why gangs have proliferated? Alternatively, consider something more directly related to politics and that is police violence. What are some of the policies used to deal with gang violence? I would suggest you read as much as you can on this topic and then try to come up with a "why?" question.

Dan Thorpe: Why has Costa Rica been successful in avoiding large scale conflict in the latter half of the 20th century, while other countries in Central America have been plagued by armed violence?

Max: I would suggest that the answer to this is too obvious. The 1949 civil war led to the abolition of the military. What might make this question more compelling would be to compare Costa Rica in the 1940s with Guatemala and look at why in one case the outcome was propitious to democracy and peace, while in the other the outcome led to decades of violence. Again, the answer is somewhat obvious (having to do with US interests and the CIA-backed invasion), but the lessons that can be drawn from this for reformism are very interesting. Look at Deborah Yashar's book Demanding Democracy.

Dan Thorpe Thesis:Counterrevolutions in Guatemala and Costa Rica acted as catalysts setting in motion a return to authoritarianism in Guatemala and the strengthening of democratic practices in Costa Rica. These events exposed conditions favourable to democracy in Costa Rica that were not present in Guatemala: small landholdings, the creation of multiclass political coalitions and a significant degree of support for democratic governments in rural areas.

Mauro Cristofani: Why did the Argentine working class of the first 20th century choose anarchy as its leading ideology?

Max: Great question. Needs a bit of context, but very interesting.

Natalie Reichenbacher: Why hasn't the Brazilian government been able to implement and enforce environmental laws that they've put in place to preserve the Amazon and their vast coast line? I've been a lot of historical documentation of the different forestry and fishing laws that have been put into place, but basically they just need to keep putting in policies to trump the old ones that weren't working too well. A lot of the deforestation goes unrecorded and isn't discovered until years later, but now due to international pressures and satellite imaging it has been monitored better. I'm thinking of generalizing my topic more to include overfishing in Peru, Chile and Mexico as well, and I've been reading some interesting papers that discuss neo-liberalism as the culprit for overfishing and deforestation.

Max: Like the topic. Can you tell us more about what has not been done and why it is surprising?

Julia Malmo: Why, in recent years, has there been a revival of populism in Argentina?

Max: Yes, good topic. Maybe sharpen: why a left-wing populist version of Peronism?

Teena Schneider: How has the introduction of GMO crops, particularly corn, in Mexico affected diet and agriculture and why or why not is this significant?

Max: Excellent topic. Again, work toward trying to define the outcome to be explained. First, consider how GMO crops have been introduced (through trade) and how they have spread (through contamination). I might flip this question around a bit and try and provide a political economy explanation for why GMO crops have replaced traditional crops and then ask what the implications of this might be.

Emelie Peacock- I am intrigued by the topic of transitions from bureaucratic authoritarian to democratic regimes, specifically the process of transition via "reforma", i.e. pacted transitions. Looking at pacted transitions in two states, Argentina (pending that the transition can be seen as "pacted", despite the Peronist election loss 1983) and Chile, I will examine how this process affects the new democratic regime. Research question: How does the process of pacted transitions affect the strength and stability of the new democratic regime? Given that pacted transitions are "inherently undemocratic", how will this affect the legitimacy of the new regime?

Max: We seem to be witnessing the breakdown of pacts formed during the transitions. Older pacts like the Punto Fijo Pact in Venezuela and the National Front in Colombia have certainly come to an end, and elements of the pacts that enabled the transitions in Chile and Argentina (a slightly more complicated case, because the transition occurred in the context of military defeat, so the constrained on investigations of wrong doing came later -- but nonetheless have been undone more recently) have been altered in important respects. So one way to approach this question would be to look at the rise of "new left" governments (Evo in Bolivia, Kirchners in Argentina, Chavez in Venezuela) and ask how they are challenging the constraints imposed by pacted transitions?

Jean S. Pourcelot: What lead to the 1968 military coup in Panama?

Max: Ok, what interests you about this particular coup?