Requirements:

There are two major writing requirements (one of which builds on the other), and smaller discussion-facilitating tasks.

Major writing requirements:

Policy Analysis Report. Due May 18, 9:00 a.m. (e-mail to Instructor and post at on-line conference. 

The purpose of this paper is to assess some specific problem or set of closely related problems concerning the functioning of democratic institutions or threats to democratic stability. The paper should attempt to diagnose the problem, but not to offer solutions—that is the purpose of the second paper. Approach this paper as if you are writing for a specific client, which could be the government itself, a political party or NGO, a foreign advisory team or government agency, or an international organization (UN, OAS, OSCE, etc.). Your first task on behalf of your client is to asses the problems of the country and needs of the client in trying to improve the situation. The problem you address may be some failure of democratic institutional design to cope with ethnic conflict or other opposition, or it may be written as a memo for an assessment or observer mission in the chosen country. The specific focus may be shaped by the student’s interest, but the topic must be approved no later than May 8 by your professor.

Strategy and Action Report.

This paper takes the same country and the diagnoses offered in the Policy Analysis Report (as rethought and revised subsequently) and proposes a series of steps that could be undertaken to improve democracy in the country. There should be specific recommendations that are feasible and desirable, and an analysis of why they would constitute an improvement. This paper builds on the Policy Analysis Report, and should incorporate the latter. See the on-line conference for deadlines. There will be no exam, but there will be a required session to continue discussion of the Strategy and Action Report.

Discussion-Facilitating Tasks:

All sessions of this course will proceed in a seminar-type format. There will be no formal lectures, and it is the duty of every student as well as the professor to facilitate discussion. Accordingly, students will be expected to come to class every day not only having done the reading, but also having prepared to answer and ask questions about it, and participate in exchanges with other students and the professor. Facilitation itself needs to be facilitated, and to this end, the following additional requirements are a part of your grade, but you should think of these as the minimum tasks that you should do to facilitate discussion:

Select two cases: one of which must not be the same as the country on which you are doing your major writing assignments. These cases will be discussed on the dates indicated as “case study sessions.” On each of the cases, do some extra reading for that day in order to facilitate a consideration of how problems and (attempted) solutions compare across different countries.

Serve as discussant/constructive critic on a colleague’s Strategy and Action Report /presentation

Weighting of each of these tasks in the final course grade:

Policy Analysis Report... 20%*

Strategy and Action Report... 25%

Case discussion no. 1... 15%

Case discussion no. 2... 15%

Discussant on colleague’s Strategy and Action Report... 10%

Overall discussion participation... 15%**

*These percentages should be treated as approximate, in that a student who performs exceptionally well on one component may have that component weighted slightly more heavily in the final grade. Such slight alterations in the weighting are within the professor’s discretion, and will not be guided by any formula or announced to the student.

**Assessment of participation is not strictly quantitative. That is, the frequency of volunteered remarks is not the basis for this portion of the grade, but it is a basis. In other words, students who generally remain quiet (otherwise known as free-riders) will gain very few of these fifteen points. Nonetheless, the most important bases of this component of the grade are insightfulness and playing a significant role in keeping discussion moving forward. This component is thus partially subjective and totally discretionary; nonetheless, experience reveals that it is never difficult to break a class down into three or more categories based on quality (and, less importantly, quantity) of contribution. Cold-calling is always possible, but will not necessarily be a regular aspect of classes, unless voluntary remarks are lagging or it is necessary to light a fire under a free-rider.

Contact Prof. Shugart.