Lesson Report:
Title
From Huntington to Eridos: Building Causal Chains to Explain Democratization
This session used Samuel P. Huntington’s arguments on democratization to practice analytic skills: translating theory into observable indicators, distinguishing causes from indicators, and building stepwise causal chains. Students applied these skills to a fictional country (Eridos) to trace how low international legitimacy, elite-business fractures, and rising costs of rule can push an authoritarian regime toward greater democracy.
Attendance
– Students mentioned absent: 0
– Guests: 1–2 visitors from NGA were present
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Opening and announcements
– Framed class goals: not mastery of democratization theory per se, but strengthening analysis (defining concepts, operationalizing indicators, assembling causal chains).
– Announced extra credit: Instructions posted on eCourse; students can complete extra credit only after receiving grade and feedback, during office hours.
2) Re-engaging Huntington: What is democratization and how does it start?
– Pair activity prompt: Using the assigned Huntington excerpts, partners explain:
– What constitutes an authoritarian (non-democratic) state (diagnostic features).
– Why pro-democracy actors emerge in non-democracies (motivations/opportunities).
– How transitions occur (sequence/process).
– Quick share-out: Students offer “one reasonâ€� (in their own words) that a country shifts from less to more democratic, to surface causal mechanisms before formal modeling.
3) Operationalizing “international legitimacy� (indicators vs. causes)
– Instructor emphasis: Separate indicators of low international legitimacy from the reasons legitimacy is low.
– Brainstormed indicators and evidence sources:
– Exclusion/non-participation in key international meetings/summits (evidence: news coverage; compare regional peers’ invitations vs. target state’s absence).
– International condemnation (e.g., UN speeches/resolutions publicly criticizing regime behavior).
– Sanctions regimes (economic/financial/travel), with observable impacts and public documentation.
– Persistent negative international press framing government as corrupt/repressive or economy as failing.
– Clarified non-indicators: Being “totalitarianâ€� may explain low legitimacy but is not, itself, an indicator; low trade volumes are ambiguous without causal context.
– Case example: Russia sanctions
– Types discussed: export/import restrictions (e.g., aircraft parts), oil and gas purchase bans, financial/account freezes, and travel bans.
– Mechanisms of enforcement: leverage by powerful economies; visibility of sanctions via official announcements and news reporting.
4) Case construction: Eridos pathway from low legitimacy to democratization
– Recap of prior work: Students previously designed a democratic ballot for Eridos, which had transitioned from authoritarianism. Today, they “rewind the tapeâ€� to explain how it got there.
– Established external shocks:
– UN condemnation speech publicly labeling Eridos’s government corrupt and abusive.
– EU decree freezing EU-based accounts of Eridos’s 10 richest regime-aligned businessmen (oligarchs).
– Pair activity: Fill the causal “black boxâ€� between (a) condemnation/sanctions and (b) more democracy.
– Instructor-guided causal chain (key steps and mechanisms):
1. Preexisting patronage structure: President granted monopolistic control of strategic sectors (oil, gas, electricity, etc.) to loyalists; in exchange, elites provided money/political support.
2. Sanctions shock: Oligarchs lose access to foreign-held wealth due to EU freezes; the profit calculus changes.
3. Elite defection: Relationship between president and business elites weakens; elites reassess the president as a liability given mounting international costs.
4. Resource reallocation to opposition: Defecting elites fund opposition actors and civil society (campaigns, media, organization); in more extreme scenarios, fund coercive capacity (violent contention).
5. Mass mobilization: Increased resources and messaging enable protests and broader participation.
6. Regime response: Increased cost of repression or negotiated concessions.
7. Outcome: Openings for more democratic competition (discussed below).
5) What “more democracy� looks like (concrete indicators)
– Political separation: Greater independence between executive and top business elites (weaker patronage).
– Civil liberties: Fewer people jailed for political speech; ability to criticize leaders without incarceration.
– Elections:
– More viable candidates on ballots; genuine competition (plurality of credible contenders).
– Safer voting environment (no visible intimidation by regime-linked enforcers; reduced coercion).
– Voters believe their choice is meaningful (outcomes not predetermined).
6) The “rising cost of staying in power� mechanism
– Framing: Another pathway to democratization is that ruling becomes costlier for the incumbent.
– Indicators the cost is rising:
– Concessions/reforms: Regime initiates reforms to placate publics/elites (signal that it must “payâ€� to hold power).
– Heightened repression: More police/military deployments, arrests, and violence to contain protests (costly in resources, legitimacy, and risk of backlash).
– Pathways to openings:
– Reform path: Concessions cumulate; institutional liberalization creates a “crack in the dam,â€� enabling further pluralism.
– Crackdown path: Repression triggers larger, angrier mobilization; escalatory spiral can culminate in elite splinters and regime change.
– Synthesis of factors to date:
– Low international legitimacy (condemnation + targeted sanctions).
– Elite defection and resource flows to opposition.
– Rising costs of rule (reform or repression).
– Note: Socioeconomic change/education was also referenced as a factor increasing democratic demand (clarify distinctions next session).
7) Metacognitive objective reinforced
– Students practiced:
– Distinguishing indicators from causes.
– Tracing multi-step causal chains with intervening actors.
– Identifying observable evidence for each step.
– Next class preview: Apply the same tools to political violence (why and when movements choose violent vs. nonviolent tactics).
Actionable Items
Urgent (before next class)
– Clarify next session’s readings on political violence; post guiding questions on eCourse.
– Post a concise handout summarizing: indicators vs. causes, the Eridos causal chain, and examples of evidence sources (UN docs, sanctions lists, reputable news).
– Correct/clarify the brief confusion between “economic growthâ€� and “price increasesâ€� raised at the end; distinguish how growth, inflation, and education each plausibly affect democratization.
High priority (this week)
– Grade and return current assignments promptly so students can act on the extra credit policy (requires grade + feedback).
– Publish a brief list of credible news databases/feeds for students to find indicators of legitimacy and sanctions evidence.
– Provide an “Eridos templateâ€� worksheet for building causal chains (slots for actors, incentives, shocks, indicators, and evidence).
Medium priority
– Invite feedback from NGA guests; consider any suggestions for strengthening the analytic components or real-world applications.
– Prepare short case vignettes (beyond Russia) illustrating sanctions/condemnation effects (e.g., Myanmar, Iran, Venezuela) to diversify evidence.
Longer-term
– Plan a mini-lesson on measuring elite defection (financial flows, media statements, legislative behavior) to deepen operationalization.
– Develop a rubric for evaluating students’ causal-chain analyses (clarity of indicators, plausibility of mechanisms, evidence quality).
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The transcript only mentions “extra credit instructions have been posted on eCourse” and contains in-class partner activities, then concludes with “that’s what we’re going to do next week” and “we’re done, enjoy your weekend guys,” with no explicit homework assigned.