Lesson Report:
Title
Regimes vs. States: From Totalitarianism to Liberal Democracy, and a 10-Domain Regime Diagnostic
Synopsis: This session introduced “regime� as the software of government (rules for who gets power and how it is used), contrasted with the “state� as hardware (institutions). Students analyzed two parliaments (North Korea and the UK) to surface regime differences, learned a two-axis regime map (who holds power vs. degree of control over society), distinguished totalitarian, authoritarian, and liberal democratic regimes, and built a 10-dimension checklist to diagnose regimes. The class closed with a partner activity applying the checklist to a fictional case (the Republic of Oreos).
Attendance
– Students mentioned absent: 3 (Arslanbek, Tumara, Samira)
Topics Covered (chronological, with activity/topic labels)
1) Announcements and course logistics
– Midterm reminder: scheduled after fall break (introduced Tuesday; reiterated today).
– Field Reflection assignment: previously briefed Tuesday; reminder to keep progressing.
– Campus event: U.S. Ambassador visit next Friday (not tomorrow). Instructor “highly recommendsâ€� attending, even if just to observe; consider what questions one might ask in the future.
2) Bridge from “state� to “regime� (framing the day)
– Recap: Last week established “stateâ€� as the set of institutions that exercise authority and vary in capacity/strength.
– Today’s goal: Explain why equally “effectiveâ€� states can look and behave very differently—enter the concept of “regimes,â€� i.e., rules for acquiring and exercising political power.
3) Warm-up analysis: Two parliaments, two rule-sets (video comparison and notebook reflection)
– Materials: Short clips of a North Korean parliamentary session and UK House of Commons proceedings.
– Prompt: Identify how each state “does state thingsâ€� differently; what does that reveal about how power is organized and used?
– Student takeaways captured and synthesized:
– Debate norms: Britain shows adversarial debate, interruptions, and public contestation; North Korea shows unanimous assent, scripted formality, and visible discipline.
– Speech and dissent: UK exhibits open disagreement and visible free speech; North Korea shows absence of open opposition and uniformity.
– Power location: North Korea—centralized leadership dominance; UK—parliamentary power sharing and party competition.
– Power transfer: North Korea described as hereditary/monarchical-like succession norms; UK tied to elections and party leadership transitions.
– Audience/communication: UK practices political theater aimed at a public audience; North Korea signals internal discipline and loyalty.
4) Core concept: State vs. regime via hardware/software analogy
– Analogy:
– State = hardware (institutions: executive, legislature, judiciary; bureaucracy; military).
– Regime = software (the rulebook that governs who gets power and how it’s used through those institutions).
– Practical implication: Same hardware can run different software; different regimes produce different behaviors using similar institutions.
5) Regime mapping tool: Two-axis grid
– Axes defined:
– X-axis: Who holds power? Many (inclusive) → Few/One (exclusive).
– Y-axis: How much control does government have over society? Limited → Total.
– Placement exercises:
– Totalitarianism: Few/one hold power + near-total societal control (upper-right extreme of concentrated power and total control).
– Liberal democracy: More inclusive power + limited government control over society (upper-left quadrant). Caveat: Real-world democracies vary; anarchy would lie further toward “many + limitedâ€� than liberal democracy.
– Authoritarianism: Sits between extremes—power held by few with significant, but typically less than totalitarian, societal control. Often selective rather than comprehensive control.
6) Distinguishing authoritarian vs. totalitarian regimes (guided discussion)
– Totalitarian: Ideology-driven, pervasive control, single mass party or leader, suppression of independent social life, seeks to reshape society.
– Authoritarian: Power concentrated among few; political pluralism limited; control often selective and negotiated; social/economic spheres may retain some autonomy; ideology less central or instrumental.
7) Building a 10-dimension regime diagnostic (sliders)
Instructor introduced ten characteristics with left–right sliders and defined operational indicators for each. Students should place a country’s “dot� on each slider based on evidence.
– Media
– Left: Totally free/independent media (no prior restraint; robust independence).
– Right: Total government control (content direction, censorship, licensing as control).
– Key question: How free is media from government control?
– Political parties/competition
– Left: High party competition; easy party formation; real alternation possible.
– Right: Zero competition; de facto or de jure single-party dominance.
– Elections
– Left: Common, free, and fair; broad suffrage; meaningful contestation; minimal fraud.
– Right: Uncommon or nonexistent; if present, unfree/unfair/show elections.
– Concentration of power (horizontal distribution among branches)
– Left: Power widely distributed and separated (executive–legislative–judicial checks; genuine inter-branch contestation).
– Right: Power concentrated in one branch or person (fusion around leader/executive).
– Ideology control
– Left: No government control over political beliefs; pluralism in ideas.
– Right: State imposes official ideology; deviation punished.
– Constitution’s function
– Left: Limits government (higher-law constraints; hard to change; rights- and procedure-protective).
– Right: Limits people; empowers government; easy to amend or circumvent.
– Civil liberties
– Left: Full protection of freedoms (speech, assembly, religion, etc.); emphasis on lack of punitive consequences for expression.
– Right: Repression of liberties; punishment for dissent and proscribed expression.
– Interest groups (independence)
– Left: Independent interest groups (e.g., unions, sectoral associations, ethnic/cause-based lobbies) influence policy without state capture; generally do not field candidates.
– Right: State-controlled or co-opted groups; genuine independent associations restricted or banned.
– Economy (state role)
– Left: Market-led, minimal state ownership/intervention.
– Right: State-planned/control; strategic sectors nationalized; price/entry set by state.
– Military subordination/independence from political leadership
– Left: Limited political control; institutional autonomy; split civilian authorities (e.g., legislature and executive) provide checks; professional norms buffer partisan use.
– Right: Complete control by ruling leader/party; military folded into regime; used as partisan instrument.
– Clarifications covered: Distinction from conscription; US example of separated powers vs. Nazi Germany as total control; contemporary complexities (e.g., paramilitaries/private military companies) place cases in the “middleâ€� rather than at extremes.
8) Applied practice: Diagnosing a fictional case (“Republic of Oreos�)
– Materials: Google Doc case narrative; in-class popcorn reading.
– Case highlights students were to code into sliders with evidence:
– 18-year incumbent president (Kalen) and ruling National Stability Party; multi-party elections exist but ruling party never loses; leverages state resources and media coverage.
– Constitution guarantees rights on paper; in practice, civil liberties constrained; private media self-censor; organizers of large protests face “fakeâ€� arrests.
– Interest groups “officially independentâ€� but led by loyalists.
– Mixed economy; profitable sectors (e.g., oil) owned by president’s family/allies; widespread corruption.
– Military professional but increasingly fused with regime (retired generals in cabinet).
– Regime narrative: “national stability and progress.â€�
– Activity flow:
– Students paired up; re-read the case.
– Task: Place Oreos on all 10 sliders with justifications tied to explicit text.
– Instructor shared photo of the slider board and provided the Google Doc link; pairs prepared to defend placements.
Actionable Items
Immediate (before next Friday)
– Ambassador visit
– Post time/location details to LMS and class chat; encourage attendance and model 2–3 respectful, substantive question prompts.
– Optionally offer extra credit for attendance and a short reflection.
Next class prep
– Bring printed or digital packets of 2–3 real-country cases for small-group regime diagnostics using the 10 sliders.
– Prepare a simple scoring/visual template (e.g., radar chart or grid) so groups can visualize their slider placements and compare.
– Plan short debrief: Aggregate “Oreosâ€� slider placements to a consensus profile; map it onto the two-axis regime grid.
Clarifications and follow-ups
– Civil liberties vs. human rights: Provide a concise distinction and examples next session (promised in class).
– Post the 10-dimension checklist (with definitions/examples) to LMS for study and reference.
– Confirm due dates and submission details for the Field Reflection assignment; post rubric if not already.
– Publish midterm format, scope, and a brief study guide; specify which regime concepts, definitions, and tools will be tested.
Assessment and participation
– Collect or spot-check pairs’ Oreos slider justifications next class to give quick formative feedback.
– Note absences (Arslanbek, Tumara, Samira) and share key materials/announcements to ensure they are caught up.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The only assignments referenced were previously discussed (“On Tuesday, we went over the two major assignments…â€�), today’s work was conducted in class (“find a partner… our last activity… put the Republic of Oreos somewhere on each of these slidersâ€�), and the ambassador event was a recommendation, not a requirement (“I would highly recommend… come to that eventâ€�), with no out-of-class tasks or due dates assigned.