Mark Gilbert

This course is part of the MAGR program

This course uses case studies to examine the causes of political change in consolidated democracies. The cases it looks at in detail are: Great Britain, 1964–1979 and Italy, 1979–1994. Why these two cases? Britain was a by-word for political stability in the 1950s. Yet by the mid–1970s it was regarded as the 'sick man of Europe.' The Heath government fought the 1974 elections on the theme of 'who governs Britain' (the voters decided it was not the government); Britain was forced to have recourse to the IMF in 1976; Mrs. Thatcher was elected to office in May 1979 with a specific mandate to stop the decline. The country, in short, had gone from being a paragon of stability to a pioneer of radical political change in the space of a decade, or little more. Italy, by contrast, was reputed to be the most unstable West European country. In fact, in the 1980s, political commentators noted that it was a very stable instability. The country's much-maligned democracy had, in fact, delivered the economic goods and turned Italy into a highly successful economy and society. The country naturally proceeded to collapse. Between 1989 and 1994 Italy experienced, IV Republic France apart, the worst crisis of any post-war European democracy.

The thesis of this course is that by looking at these two empirical cases one can develop a tentative method for the political analysis of advanced democracies. We are going to ask 'why did Britain (Italy) become politically unstable?' This question cannot be reduced to a few simple variables in a rigid formula. It can only be answered by reconstructing (simulating) the events and trying to figure out what was important and what was not. Our point is, however, that it is possible to generalize from these experiences to other cases. Analysts should look at the constitutional frameworks, the expected and unexpected consequences of legislation, the moods of public opinion, the solidity of the public finances, the perception of social justice, the personal qualities of political leaders, the ambitions and self-image of the political class, the changing character of the population and so on. We should, in short, multiply variables, not reduce them, if we want to understand the direction that particular societies are taking. If we want to gauge political risk — and gauge is a much better word than calculate since it implies using or judgment rather than some mechanical formula — there is no alternative to simulating complexity.

Analyzes in historical context some of the major ethical questions posed by modern warfare. In addition to discussing what peace means and clarifying the just war tradition in political philosophy, the course addresses in detail such issues as the right to self-defense, pacifism, war guilt, humanitarian intervention, the bombing of civilians, and proportionate response. The course is a seminar and will be taught primarily through the structured discussion of the set texts. (Cross listed Strategic Studies/International Relations) (CM and T&H)