Lesson Report:
Title
From State “Hardware� to Regime “Software�: Comparing Regime Types and Building a 10‑Point Diagnostic
This session pivoted from “the state� to “regimes,� using video contrasts of North Korea and the UK to surface how similar state institutions behave differently under different rule-sets. Students developed a two-axis regime map and a 10-point checklist to diagnose regimes, then applied the framework to a fictional country in a partner activity.
Attendance
– Absent: 2 students (Fariza, Almanbek)
Topics Covered
1) Opening and course logistics
– Acknowledgment: Instructor ill; voice/energy reduced.
– Reminders:
– Midterm at end of the month; details to come.
– Field Reflection Paper is upcoming; an example question will be provided in a few weeks.
– US Ambassador visit next Friday at AUCA. Students encouraged to attend, observe, and note the kinds of questions asked to prepare themselves for the reflection assignment.
2) Comparative video warm-up: North Korea vs. UK Parliament
– Activity setup:
– Watch two short clips: a North Korean parliamentary session and the UK House of Commons.
– Individual prompt 1 (notebook): Visually note differences in how the two parliaments operate.
– Individual prompt 2 (notebook): What do these visible differences suggest about the rules of each state?
– Discussion highlights (kept to observable features before interpretations):
– Visible behavior:
– UK: Loud, adversarial debate; interruptions; emotional exchanges; “chaosâ€� relative to formal order.
– North Korea: Uniformity; choreographed posture and responses; quiet, highly formal proceedings; deference.
– Student interpretive moves (parked to connect later): freedom of expression, democracy vs. fear/subordination, regime vs. mere institutional form.
– Transition question:
– Both countries have parliaments (hardware), but their behavior differs drastically. Why? This motivates the concept of the regime as the “softwareâ€� governing how power is obtained and used through the state.
3) Conceptual foundation: State as hardware, regime as software
– Analogy:
– Hardware = State institutions and infrastructures you can “touchâ€� (parliament, ministries, buses, public hospitals/schools, courts).
– Software = Regime rules for how power is gained, exercised, and constrained. You can “runâ€� very different software on similar hardware.
– Key idea:
– UK and North Korea share institutional labels (e.g., “parliamentâ€�), but regimes (software) produce different behavioral patterns inside those institutions.
4) Building a regime map: two-axis framework
– Axes definition:
– Horizontal axis: Who holds power? Many (more distributed) → Few (more concentrated).
– Vertical axis: How much control does the government have over society? No/low control → Total control.
– Placing ideal types (with student participation):
– Totalitarianism: Few + total control (top-right). Example concept: panopticon-like surveillance; state shapes belief, speech, behavior.
– Anarchy: Many (everyone equally) + no control (bottom-left). No rulers; absence of authority.
– Authoritarianism: Power concentrated in the few with substantial (but not total) social control (upper-right-middle region).
– Liberal democracy: Power more broadly held with limited government control of society (lower-left-middle region); acknowledges unequal influence in practice (e.g., money/power disparities).
– Takeaway:
– These are abstractions; real states must be located using concrete indicators.
5) The 10-point regime diagnostic checklist (sliders with endpoints and examples)
Students were introduced to ten diagnostic dimensions, each rated on a continuum (like a volume slider), to position a real state on the regime map.
1. Media independence
– Left: No government control; media choose content freely.
– Right: Total government control; all messaging flows from the state.
2. Political parties
– Left: Multiple parties; easy to form; real competition and possibility of winning.
– Right: One legal party; no genuine competition; new parties barred.
3. Elections
– Left: Free, fair, open; no coercion/corruption; real alternation possible.
– Right: No elections (or sham elections indistinguishable from none).
4. Distribution of power (separation of powers)
– Left: Balanced, independent branches (executive, legislative, judiciary) with checks and competition.
– Right: One branch dominates (typically executive); others are subordinated.
5. Ideological control
– Left: No state control of political belief/speech; pluralism tolerated.
– Right: Single official ideology; dissent punished.
6. Constitution: Whom it constrains
– Left: Constitution limits government action; binds rulers.
– Right: Constitution primarily limits citizens; empowers rulers over the ruled.
7. Civil liberties (defined via non-punishment standard)
– Freedom of speech/religion conceptualized as: government cannot punish for speech/belief/practice.
– Left: Total protection (no government interference/punishment for core liberties).
– Right: No protection (government can punish expression, belief, practice).
8. Interest groups (civil society autonomy)
– Left: Total independence; groups organize, advocate, and lobby freely (e.g., unions, feminist groups, professional associations).
– Right: Total state control; groups are party/government appendages (e.g., Soviet-era “trade unionsâ€� embedded in the party-state).
9. State control of the economy
– Left: No/low state control; market sets entry/prices; easy to start businesses.
– Right: Total state control; state sets production, prices, and market access.
10. Civil–military relations (who controls the military)
– Left: Limited, divided control; military as a separate professional institution under shared/checked civilian authority (e.g., legislature declares war; executive commands within bounds).
– Right: Total control by rulers/party; military folded into the regime (e.g., party-army fusion; top leader unbounded).
– Examples used:
– US: split military authority across branches, separate military legal structure.
– Nazi Germany: party-military fusion; leader’s unchallenged directive authority.
6) Application activity: Diagnostic reading on a fictional state
– Text: “Diagnostic Paragraphâ€� posted on eCourse about the Republic of Oritos (fictional).
– Popcorn reading in class; main features extracted by students:
– 18-year rule by President Thailand and the National Stability Party.
– Multiparty elections every 5 years; ruling party never loses due to control over state resources and media.
– Constitutional rights exist but are limited by “national security and public orderâ€� clauses.
– Small protests sometimes tolerated; large demonstrations repressed; organizers arrested.
– Major interest groups nominally independent but led by presidential loyalists.
– Mixed economy; commanding heights (oil, mining) controlled by firms owned by president’s family/allies; widespread corruption.
– Professional military; leadership intertwined with regime; retired generals in cabinet; strong “stability and progressâ€� messaging.
– Partner task (end-of-class deliverable):
– Place a dot for Oritos on each of the 10 sliders based on textual evidence.
– Instructor to share a photo of the 10 sliders in the group chat.
– Clarification provided: “State resourcesâ€� refers to natural resources (oil, gold, water, etc.).
Actionable Items
Urgent (before next class)
– Post a clean image of the two-axis regime map and the 10 diagnostic sliders to the course group chat/eCourse.
– Collect or check partner submissions for the Oritos diagnostic and prepare brief feedback (common placement rationales and misreads).
– Clarify any name discrepancies from roll (e.g., Ayana/Alsharaba) to keep the roster accurate.
Time-sensitive (before next Friday)
– Remind students of the US Ambassador visit next Friday; encourage question drafting and observation goals tied to the Field Reflection Paper.
– Share the promised example question structure for the Field Reflection Paper (if ready) or confirm release date.
Upcoming (this month)
– Publish midterm scope and format; provide study guidance aligned to concepts covered: state vs. regime; regime map; 10-point diagnostic; application to cases.
Enrichment/Follow-up
– Prepare a short case-discussion (e.g., “Is Haiti an anarchy?â€�) to practice applying the diagnostic framework to real-world states.
– Optional reading/clip for next class: brief primer on civil–military relations and interest group pluralism vs. corporatism to deepen understanding of sliders 8 and 10.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The only tasks mentioned were an in-class partner exercise on the “Diagnostic Paragraph� to be finished “until the end of class,� a general reminder to “prepare� for a later midterm, a field reflection paper to be discussed “in the coming weeks,� and a recommended (not required) ambassador talk next Friday.