Tilly & Castaneda (2007) Contentious Politcs

Slides for Sociology W3480:

Revolutions, Social Movements, and Contentious Politics

Columbia College Spring 2007

Prepared by Charles Tilly andErnesto Castaeda

send questions to [email protected]

PrefaceThis turned out to be Professor Tillys last undergraduate course. Professor Tilly died of lymphoma on April 29, 2008. May he rest in peace. Well miss him greatly.For testimonials on his many human and scholarly contributions visit: http://www.ssrc.org/essays/tilly/I hope that these slides are a partial testimony to Tillys enduring analytical power.

Ernesto Castaeda. New York. October 6, 2008.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*

(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)

Copyright notes

Instructors and students can use this material for educational purposes as long as they cite the source as: Contentious Politics Class Slides and Notes. 2007. Prepared by Charles Tilly and Ernesto Castaeda. Columbia University. If you are seeing a .pdf version and want the power point version to see the animations or make edits for a new course e-mail: [email protected]

Copyright note: the diagrams, texts, and pictures are reproduced here under fair use terms for educational not-for-profit purposes. Many of them come directly from Tillys computer files often from manuscripts of books and articles prior to publication. If you feel you are the owner of copyrighted material used here and want it removed from these slides please e-mail: [email protected] (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


From Tillys SyllabusThis course should help undergraduates who already have a background in social science and/or modern history to think systematically about contentious politics processes in which people make conflicting collective claims on each other or on third parties as they participate in them, observe them, and/or learn about how they are happening elsewhere. We will spend little time reviewing theories of political contention or methods for gathering and analyzing evidence. We will spend most of our time examining how such forms of contention as social movements, revolutions, nationalist mobilization, and ethnic conflict have worked in different times and places, as well as thinking through parallels and differences among them. Most sessions will operate as lecture-discussions.For their own inquiries, students will choose some current site of contention, use a standard source (for example, a daily newspaper or online reports of human rights agencies) to catalog episodes of contention occurring in that site during the semester, and then write three memoranda as they go: brief summaries and interpretations of the patterns of contention they discover with connections to the required course readings. We will have short-answer midterm and final examinations. Examinations will draw on class sessions, required reading, and memoranda. Ambitious students may propose different inquiries, just so long as they are at least equally valuable and difficult; subject to the instructors prior approval, for example, students might a) interview social-movement activists, b) report participant observation in contentious politics, c) compare reporting of some particular stream of contention in two different media, or d) reconstruct the history of a significant contentious episode or a cluster of connected episodes.

(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Required readingsBeth Roy, Some Trouble with Cows. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

Charles Tilly, Social Movements, 1768-2004. Boulder: Paradigm Press, 2004. Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow, Contentious Politics. Boulder: Paradigm Press, 2006.



SPRING 2007: SCHEDULE OF SESSIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS

A. Claims, Politics, and ContentionRead Charles Tilly & Sidney Tarrow, Contentious Politics, chapters 1-3(Lectures by Charles Tilly except where noted)

17 JanuaryIntroduction to contentious politics and this course22 Januaryforms of government and of politics24 Januaryhow contention works and changesB. Who, How, and What?Read: Beth Roy, Some Trouble with Cows29 Januarynetworks, boundaries, and identities; Ernesto Castaeda lecture31 Januaryethnicity, race, religion, and nationality5 Februaryidentity politics; memorandum #1 due: brief report (maximum 1,000 words) on plan for collecting and analyzing contentious episodes; include a paragraph on likely strengths and weaknesses of your sources



C.Mobilization, Demobilization, and StruggleRead Tilly & Tarrow, Contentious Politics, chapters 4-6, plus Appendices A & B(Charles Tilly lectures)7 February opportunities, threats, and constraints12 Februarymobilization processes14 Februarycontentious repertoires19 Februaryhow forms of contention vary and changeD.Social Movements and Other Forms of ContentionRead Tilly, Social Movements, chapters 1-421 Februarysocial movements in history26 Februaryhow people get involved28 Februarysocial movements across the world5 Marchreview7 March midterm examination12-14 Marchspring holidays

*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)SPRING 2007: SCHEDULE 2


E.Contention and DemocratizationRead Tilly, Social Movements, chapters 5-619 Marchregimes and democracy; (class canceled Professor Tilly in the hospital)21 Marchwaves of democratization; (Ernesto Castaeda lectures)26 Marchstruggle and democratization; (class canceled)28 Marchdemocracy today and tomorrow; (class canceled)F.War and RevolutionRead Tilly & Tarrow, Contentious Politics, chapters 7 and 8 (All these lectures by Ernesto Castaeda)2 AprilReturning midterms and Democratization 4 AprilViolent specialists, civil wars, and interstate wars (memorandum #2 due: brief report on progress of contentious episodes project)9 AprilViolence, Terror, and Politics. Revolutions. 11 AprilCoda on mercenaries, terror, violent events and organized crime. Information on how to create an event catalogue.

*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)SPRING 2007: SCHEDULE 3


G.Contention Today and TomorrowRead Tilly, Social Movements, chapter 7 and Tilly & Tarrow, Contentious Politics, chapter 9 16 AprilNational, transnational, and international (Ernesto Castaeda lectures)18 AprilGlobalization and contention (Charles Tilly and Ernesto Castaeda lecture)23 AprilMore on globalization (Charles Tilly and Ernesto Castaeda lecture)25 AprilThe present and future of contentious politics (Charles Tilly lectures)30 AprilConclusions and challenges (Charles Tilly lectures) memorandum #3 due: report (maximum 3,000 words, not including appendices) on contentious episodes project 7 MayFINAL EXAMINATION.

(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*SPRING 2007: SCHEDULE 4


Components of Contentious Politics

contentioncollectiveactionpoliticsCONTENTIOUS POLITICS(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Contentious Politics on the Reuters and BBC Newswires, New Years Day 2007New Year brings 3,000th US death in Iraq; peace groups rally after 3,000th soldier killedSomali Islamists flee toward Kenya and to the hillsHispanics battle blacks in Major California prison riotForeigner, Palestinian gunmen abducted in GazaGunfire between Palestinian factionsIndian mob clashes with police over backyard bones; crowd protests at Delhi murdersNew Year bombs shake BangkokThai PM blames rivals for blastsTwo killed in Kashmir gun battle Kashmir protest against killingDR Congo troops clash with rebelsBurkina police and army in truceGoodyear deal set to end strike [in US]Fijians wary after military coupVoices from Bishkek [Kyrgyzstan] protest rallySaddams supporters vow revengePalestinian deaths rose in 2006Top Indian Maoist is shot deadPakistan police break up protest [in Rawalpindi]Police disperse Ershad supporters [in Rangpur, Bangladesh]French marchers say non to 2007Train strike [in UK] runs into second day (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


French Protestors Say No to New Year 2007!(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


The Simple Regime Model(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


POSSIBLE STUDENT PROJECTSMonitor one ongoing civil war (e.g. in Ivory Coast, Sri Lanka, Palestine, or Colombia). Prepare a background sketch of the conflict from a standard source such as the Annual Register, reports of Human Rights Watch, or the US State Departments regional reports; an online search will identify many possible sources. For at least two months of the conflict, scan a daily source such as a national newspaper or CNN online for reports of actions, declarations, and interventions. Prepare a timeline, analyze it for signs of change, and watch especially for signs that parties, alignments, patterns of conflict, and stakes of the struggle are shifting. (If your evidence is rich enough, you might concentrate on the conflicts geography.) Write a brief report of your conclusions, linking them to course materials. Make sure to include a summary of the central evidence youre interpreting such as a table, graph, chronology, map, and/or appendix.

Choose two countries and two years since 1999, when the Battle of Seattle occurred. Adopting plausible definitions of anti-globalization and protest, prepare catalogs of anti-globalization protests in the two countries over the two years. Examine what changes occur in claims participants make, what means they use to make those claims, how they identify themselves, and how observers identify them. Look for similarities, differences, and connections between the patterns you see in the two countries. Write a brief report of your conclusions, linking them to course materials. Make sure to include a summary of the central evidence youre interpreting such as a table, graph, chronology, map, and/or appendix.

Identify one major social movement mobilization from the past, for example civil rights activism in Mississippi 1964-1968, one of the student uprisings of 1968, or anti-abortion activity in one American state during the decade following the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. Using at least ten sources (scholarly works, newspaper accounts, films, oral histories, and/or interviews with participants), prepare a) a diagram of major groups participating and their relations to each other, b) a chronology of the mobilization. Using course materials as your guide, write an analysis of what effects that mobilization produced, and how it produced them. Make sure to include a summary of the central evidence youre interpreting such as a table, graph, chronology, map, and/or appendix.

Do the same for a current mobilization: for or against US policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, Brazilian responses to American security policy, responses to sexual abuse by priests, calls for reparations to victims of racial discrimination, South African AIDS policy, Chinese treatment of the Falun Gong, public discussions concerning the reconstruction of Ground Zero, or something else. Make sure to include a summary of the central evidence youre interpreting such as a table, graph, chronology, map, and/or appendix.

*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Shifts in Opportunity = changes in the environment of political actors (in this case, idealized single challenger) that signal shifts in likely consequences of different interactions with other actors

Category Increasing Threat Increasing Opportunityopenness of regime regime closing down regime increasingly opencoherence of elite increasing solidarity of elite increasing divisions within elitestability of political alignments increasing stability rising instabilityavailability of alliespotential allies disappear or losenew allies in regime available topowerchallengersrepression/facilitationdecreasing facilitation, risingincreasing facilitation, declining repressionrepression

This also applies cross-sectionally: if regime A is more open, its elites more divided, more generally unstable, richer in potential allies, and less repressive than regime B, similar challengers will contend more extensively and effectively in regime A (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*Political Opportunity, Political Threat, and Their Impacts on Contention


Variation in Regimes(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


1

Govern-

Mental

Capacity

0

0

1

Democracy

Zone of

Authoritarianism

Zone of

Citizenship

Zone of

Fragmented Tyranny

Crude Regime Types(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


1

HIGH CAPACITY

HIGH CAPACITY

UNDEMOCRATIC

DEMOCRATIC

Govern-

Mental

Capacity

LOW CAPACITY

LOW CAPACITY

UNDEMOCRATIC

DEMOCRATIC

0

0

1

Democracy

Rough Placement of Selected Regimes in 2007(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


1

CANADA

MOROCCO

INDIA

PERU

Govern-

Mental

Capacity

UGANDA

0

0

1

Democracy

Revolutions, Social Movements, and Contentious Politics Spring 2007Lecture January 29th, 2007Ernesto Castaeda Networks, Identities, and Boundaries

Networks(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Relational AccountADyadBTriadABCSocial TieTransaction,Conversation,Routine contact,RelationshipWeb of Social Affiliationsor Social NetworkProfessionalFamilyRomanceBusinessSome Types of TiesGeorg Simmels (1858-1918) Formal Analysis(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Triad Power Dynamics(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Social NetworksFlorentine alliances (Padgett 1993).*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


High school friendship: James Moody, Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America, American Journal of Sociology 107, 679-716 (2001).*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Identities*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Peasantry

Medieval ModelArmyChurchNobilityIndependent corporations with specific attributes, obligations, and rights (Simmel).FranciscansGuildBurgers and Bourgeoisie(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Identity is RelationalIn modern times, and especially in cities, identity depends on the context and the public: (home/work/leisure).(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Embedded and Detached Identities (Tilly)SocialsettingsSocial lifeDETACHED EMBEDDED One Many All Little RoommateACLU memberFamilyAAGrassroots organizationsDemocrat/RepublicanFriends(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Networks, Identities, and Boundaries



Some Trouble with Cows Beth Roy (1994)This trouble occurs in 1954 in Panipur which, after successive partitions belonged to India, then to Pakistan, and then to Bangladesh. At that time, Panipur belonged to Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim state with a substantial Hindu minority; only later would its region, East Pakistan, acquire independence as overwhelmingly Muslim Bangladesh. The village includes households labeled as Hindu or Muslim, but who live from day to day with a much finer and often cross-cutting set of distinctions of: caste, class, property, and gender.What happened in 1954? Golam Fakirs cow got loose, strayed across the limits of Golams property, and ate lentils in Kumar Tarkhanias field. Instead of settling their differences immediately, however, both farmers called in kinfolk, patrons, and allies. As a result, a minor dispute precipitated broader and broader alignments of bloc against bloc. Escalation continued. Supporters eventually took up available weapons.Police intervened and eventually fired on the crowd. Local and regional authorities sought pacification.With each step outward and upward, redefinition of the conflict proceeded; the farther and higher the incident went, the less it concerned complex, caste-and-class-mediated local relations among farmers and the more it became part of national level communal struggles between Hindus and Muslims.The collective memories of the event were shaped not by the embedded, complex identities but from the detached identities and larger categories.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


PanipurENGLANDIndiaPakistanHindusState OfficialsMussalmansA BENGALI SOCIETYKumar TarkhaniaGolam Fakir PoliceBangladeshis*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Boundaries, Ties, and Identities (Tilly)Xs Ys boundary relations across boundary relations within Xs relations within Ys Shared stories about history, social boundaries, and identity.*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


POWERPower depends on network location and not on intrinsic characteristics of the actors but on the social structure.Power is spread through society (see Foucault) since it depends on social relations, tacit consent and implicit and explicit laws.Power relations depend on embodied social knowledge and norms which allow for social reproduction of durable inequalities and power allocation (ideology, hegemony, habitus, etc.)Social movements are times where people take action to change relations of power and the existing social arrangements. The results are contingent.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Political Identities and Social MovementsIn social movements, political identities are at stake. Claim-makers are acting out answers to the question, "Who are you?In social movements a common identity is constructed and put forward. Members have to show "WUNC": worthy, united, numerous, and committed. Social movements link two complementary activities: assertions of identity and statements of demands.Social movements grew up in the nineteenth century as means by which people currently excluded from political power could band together and claim that power-holders should attend to their interests, or the interests they represented. Recognition of their claimed identities as wronged workers, dispossessed peasants, or persecuted religious minorities constituted them as political actors, but also drew them into bargaining collectively with existing holders of power. That stress on identity assertion persists in social movements, especially in their earlier stages, to the present day. Social movements continue to assert the right to respect and political voice of indigenous peoples, gays, conservative Christians, unborn children, etc. Adapted from: Contentious conversation. Charles Tilly.Social Research.New York: Fall 1998.Vol.65,3;pg.491,20pgs.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


ConclusionsViolent conflict stems from relations that may or may not be primarily violent. humans turn out to be interacting repeatedly with others, renegotiating who they are, adjusting the boundaries they occupy, modifying their actions in rapid response to other people's reactions, selecting among and altering available scripts, improvising new forms of joint action, speaking sentences no one has ever uttered before, yet responding predictably to their locations within webs of social relations they themselves cannot map in detail. They tell stories about themselves and others that facilitate their social interaction rather than laying out verifiable facts about individual lives. They actually live in deeply relational worlds. If social construction occurs, it happens socially, not in isolated recesses of individual minds (Tilly 1998).



BibliographyHanneman, Robert A. and Mark Riddle. Introduction to social network methods http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/index.html

Hogan, Richard. Charles Tilly Takes Three Giant Steps from Structure toward Process: Mechanisms for Deconstructing Political Process. Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 3. (May, 2004), pp. 273-277. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00943061%28200405%2933%3A3%3C273%3ACTTTGS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

Newman, Mark. Gallery of network images. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/networks/

Padgett, John F., Christopher K. Ansell. Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1259-1319, 1993

Pescosolido, Bernice A.; Beth A. Rubin. 2000. The Web of Group Affiliations Revisited: Social Life, Postmodernism, and Sociology. American Sociological Review, Vol. 65, No. 1

Roy, Beth. 1994. Some Trouble with Cows: Making sense of Social Conflict. University of California Press. Berkeley: CA.

Tilly, Charles. 2002. Stories, Identities, and Political Change. Rowman & Littlefield.

Tilly, Charles. 1998. Contentious conversation.Social Research.New York: Fall 1998.Vol.65,Iss.3;pg.491.

Simmel, Georg. 1955. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. Translated by K.H. Wolff and R. Bendix. New York. Free Press.



Political Identities and the Census*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Definitions from Appendix One of Contentious Politics (2006) Government: within a given territory, an organization controlling the principal concentrated means of coercion and exercising priority over all other organizations within the same territory in some regards. In England of 1785, the organization included a king, ministers, civil servants, Parliament, and a network of appointed agents throughout the country.

Political actors: recognizable sets of people who carry on collective action in which governments are directly or indirectly involved, making and/or receiving contentious claims. In Ukraine, supporters of outgoing president Kuchma, backers of presidential candidate Yushchenko, Interior Ministry troops, and external sponsors on both sides all figured as weighty political actors.

Political identities: as applied to political actors, organized answers to the questions Who are you? Who are they? and Who are we? In late eighteenth-century England, some of those answers included Abolitionists, slaveholders, and Parliament.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Contentious politics: interactions in which actors make claims that bear on someone elses interests, leading to coordinating efforts on behalf of shared interests or programs, in which governments are as targets, the objects of claims, or third parties.

Contentious performances: relatively familiar and standardized ways in which one set of political actors makes collective claims on some other set of political actors. Among other performances, participants in Ukraines Orange Revolution used mass demonstrations as visible, effective performances.

Contentious repertoires: arrays of contentious performances that are currently known and available within some set of political actors. Englands antislavery activists helped to invent the demonstration as a political performance, but they also drew on petitions, lobbying, press releases, public meetings, and a number of other performances.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*Definitions 2


Institutions: within any particular regime, established, organized, widely recognized routines, connections, and forms of organization employed repeatedly in producing collective action. Eighteenth-century antislavery activists could work with such available institutions as religious congregations, parliamentary hearings, and the press.

Social movements: sustained campaigns of claim making, using repeated performances that advertise that claim, based on organizations, networks, traditions, and solidarities that sustain these activities. We divide social movements into the following:Social movement campaigns: sustained challenges to power holders in the name of a population living under the jurisdiction of those power holders by means of public displays of that populations worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment [WUNC].Social movement bases: the social background, organizational resources, and cultural framework of contention and collective action.

(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*Definitions 3


Major Explanatory Concepts in Contentious Politics Sites of contention: human settings that serve as originators, objects, and/or arenas of contentious politics. Example: Armies often play all three parts in contention.

Conditions: characteristics of sites and relations among sites that shape the contention occurring in and across them. Initial conditions are those that prevail in affected sites at the start of some process or episode. Example: In Italy of 1966, an array of political organizations and the existing connections among them provided the background for the cycle of conflict that occurred over the next seven years.

Streams of contention: sequences of collective claim at or across those sites singled out for explanation. Example: a series of strikes by workers in a given industry against their firm(s).

Outcomes: changes in conditions at or across the sites that are plausibly related to the contention under study, including transformations of political actors or relations among them. Example: During or after a series of strikes, management fires workers, changes work rules, and/or raises wages.



Regimes: regular relations among governments, established political actors, challengers, and outside political actors including other governments; eighteenth-century England and twenty-first-century Ukraine obviously hosted very different regimes.

Political opportunity structure: features of regimes and institutions (e.g., splits in the ruling class) that facilitate or inhibit a political actors collective action; in the case of Ukraine 20042005, a divided international environment gave dissidents an opportunity to call on foreign backers in the name of democracy.

Mechanisms: events that produce the same immediate effects over a wide range of circumstances. Example: Diffusion of tactics from one site to another often occurs during major mobilizations, thus altering action at origin and destination as well as facilitating coordination among the affected sites.

Processes: combinations and sequences of mechanisms that produce some specified outcome. Example: Major mobilizations usually combine brokerage and diffusion with other mechanisms in sequences and combinations that strongly affect the collective action emerging from the mobilization.

(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*Major Explanatory Concepts 2


Episodes: bounded sequences of continuous interaction, usually produced by an investigators chopping up longer streams of contention into segments for purposes of systematic observation, comparison, and explanation. Example: We might compare successive petition drives of antislavery activists in Great Britain (each drive counting as a single episode) over the twenty years after 1785, thus not only seeing how participants in one drive learned from the previous drive but also documenting how the movement as a whole evolved.

(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*Major Explanatory Concepts 3


Mechanisms used in Contentious PoliticsAttribution of similarity: identification of another political actor as falling within the same category as your own.

Boundary activation/deactivation: increase (decrease) in the salience of the us-them distinction separating two political actors.

Boundary formation: creation of an us-them distinction between two political actors.

Boundary shift: change in the persons or identities on one side or the other of an existing boundary.

Brokerage: production of a new connection between previously unconnected or weakly connected sites.

Certification: an external authoritys signal of its readiness to recognize and support the existence and claims of a political actor. (Decertification: an external authoritys signal that it is withdrawing recognition and support from a political actor.)(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Mechanisms 2Co-optation: incorporation of a previously excluded political actor into some center of power.

Defection: exit of a political actor from a previously effective coalition and/or coordinated action.

Diffusion: spread of a contentious performance, issue, or interpretive frame from one site to another.

Emulation: deliberate repetition within a given setting of a performance observed in another setting.

Repression: action by authorities that increases the costactual or potential of an actors claim making.

For more explanations, examples, and processes see source: Tilly and Tarrow. 2006. Contentious Politics. Appendix A and B. Paradigm Publishers.



Shifts in Opportunity = changes in the environment of political actors (in this case, idealized single challenger) that signal shifts in likely consequences of different interactions with other actors

Category Increasing Threat Increasing Opportunityopenness of regime regime closing down regime increasingly opencoherence of elite increasing solidarity of elite increasing divisions within elitestability of political alignments increasing stability rising instabilityavailability of alliespotential allies disappear or losenew allies in regime available topowerchallengersrepression/facilitationdecreasing facilitation, risingincreasing facilitation, declining repressionrepression

This also applies cross-sectionally: if regime A is more open, its elites more divided, more generally unstable, richer in potential allies, and less repressive than regime B, similar challengers will contend more extensively and effectively in regime A (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*Political Opportunity, Political Threat, and Their Impacts on Contention


Aerial Graph of Contention in Russia (based on Bessinger 2001).(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Source: Data Supplied by Mark Beissinger

EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s

_1194689286.xls

Chart1

00

10

20

20

72

20

120

80

61

63

120

110

91

589

341

212

875

1126

651

473

5210

767

7830

2619

261

895

1041

947

15115

18356

18572

12318

14912

16631

12010

9113

15767

20012

12442

13524

15531

13345

20649

18648

18318

14722

13223

9721

17221

7824

19336

15034

10735

7417

2633

18131

17244

13340

14445

8575

13059

12862

17181

146100

10597

79141

2068

45101

5991

9382

5855

2558

Demonstrations

Violent Events

Year

Cumulative Number of Events

Figure 5.4: Demonstrations and Violent Events in the Soviet Union and Successor States, 1987-1992

Sheet1

DateNumber of demonstrationsNumber of participantsTotal mass violent eventsMass violent events raising ethno-nationalist issuesMass violent events not raising ethno-nationalist issues

1987 Jan000001987

1987 Feb1500000

1987 Mar2550000

1987 Apr23100000

1987 May711217220

1987 Jun25500000

1987 Jul1211195000

1987 Aug812650000

1987 Sep63700110

1987 Oct67783330

1987 Nov1218400000

1987 Dec114100000

1988 Jan997601101988

1988 Feb583367232990

1988 Mar34738145110

1988 Apr21572067202

1988 May871811033550

1988 Jun1122798438660

1988 Jul654534233110

1988 Aug471177717303

1988 Sep5256875661091

1988 Oct762820550734

1988 Nov78766515030291

1988 Dec2639275019163

1989 Jan26860001101989

1989 Feb891566925514

1989 Mar1041036792110

1989 Apr942149299752

1989 May151363529515132

1989 Jun183308478056551

1989 Jul185182727572711

1989 Aug123415387518162

1989 Sep149464685712120

1989 Oct166319467631283

1989 Nov120280244510100

1989 Dec91177639713130

1990 Jan1573864709676521990

1990 Feb200217631712111

1990 Mar124267656742411

1990 Apr135238320724195

1990 May155145340831265

1990 Jun133137190845414

1990 Jul20677769149445

1990 Aug186992285483513

1990 Sep183114085018162

1990 Oct14758680022220

1990 Nov13244976723230

1990 Dec9737930621183

1991 Jan1722266491212011991

1991 Feb78114028324177

1991 Mar193176756936342

1991 Apr150135160834313

1991 May107132305235332

1991 Jun7429725017161

1991 Jul264710033321

1991 Aug181261168031256

1991 Sep172200831644368

1991 Oct133114262040346

1991 Nov144181910045378

1991 Dec85242500756312

1992 Jan1303600345938211992

1992 Feb12889604162593

1992 Mar17153743481747

1992 Apr1461684050100919

1992 May1051454932978710

1992 Jun7944917814111625

1992 Jul2011402568644

1992 Aug45881501018813

1992 Sep59134850916823

1992 Oct93192566826913

1992 Nov5822220055469

1992 Dec2552700584612

Sheet2

Sheet3



Chronology of the Beijing Student Movement, 1989

4/16At death of Hu Yaobang, former secretary general of Chinese Communist Party, students post wreaths and elegiac couplets in Tiananmen Square and many Beijing colleges.

4/17Students march to Tiananmen to memorialize Hu Yaobang.

4/20Skirmishes between police and students at Xinhua Gate; some students begin class boycott.

4/22Hus funeral in Great Hall of the People; about 50 thousand students march to Tiananmen to participate; numerous student actions include kneeling on the Great Halls steps to deliver a petition and request a meeting with premier Li Peng.

4/23Students form Beijing Student Autonomous Union Provisional Committee.

4/26Peoples Daily editorial calls student mobilization planned conspiracy and turmoil.

4/27About 100 thousand students march to Tiananmen and protest the editorial. State Council announces willingness to meet with students.

4/29Senior government officials meet with 45 selected students from 16 Beijing universities, but other students challenge both the dialogue and the student representatives.

5/4Students march in commemoration of the May 4th Movement (of 1919).

5/5Students form Beijing Student Dialogue Delegation. Most students end class boycott.

5/13300 students start a hunger strike at Tiananmen, with numbers eventually rising to about 3 thousand, plus thousands more as spectators and supporters.

5/14High-level state delegation meets student activists, chaotic discussion ensues because of student divisions, students withdraw from the talks.

5/15Mikhail Gorbachev arrives for a state visit; because of Tiananmens occupation, government holds its official reception at the Beijing airport.

5/17More than a million Beijing residents march in support of students and hunger strikers.

5/19Government declares martial law, but residents and students block the troops. Students from outside Beijing continue to arrive in the city.

6/3Military repression begins, with hundreds of people killed by government troops.

6/4Troops encircle remaining 4 thousand students at Tiananmen; students leave the square.

Source: adapted from Zhao 2001: xxv-xxvi



Major Chinese Peasant Protests, May-August 1997

MayHenan: in Yiyang and Changde prefectures, a total of about 200 thousand peasants assemble in 80 locations, often demonstrating and submitting petitions, and sometimes burning vehicles or attacking county governments, with 3 deaths and 54 reported injuries

MayHubei: an estimated 120 thousand peasants staged at least 70 demonstrations opposing peasant exploitation and official expropriation; in Tianmen county, 3 thousand villagers attacked party-government buildings, with 90 injuries

May-JuneAnhui: some 70 thousand peasants in 40 townships engage in 60 separate challenges to authorities, variously attacking official buildings, seizing guns and ammunition, blocking a cargo train, seizing goods, and confronting the railroads security officers, with 40 injuries and 11 deaths, including 5 police

May-JuneJiangxi: peasants in 70 townships, totaling around 100 thousand, mounted a hundred challenges to authorities, occupying party and government buildings, attacking supply and marketing cooperatives, looting fertilizer and cement; in Yifeng County, 800 people attacked the Public Security bureau; elsewhere crowds surrounded important officials, whom the military rescued

July-AugHubei: across 75 townships, perhaps 200 thousand peasants demonstrated, petitioned, and protested against improper payments for crops, high-priced inputs, and illegal taxes; authorities called 8 of the episodes riots or rebellions; in one bloody fight, 40 peasants were killed or wounded

July-AugJiangxi: on the order of 200 thousand peasants in 78 townships protested against payment in IOUs, high-priced inputs, low prices for grain, and increased taxes; participants variously attacked (or even burned) party-government buildings, for a total of 200 peasants and 50 security officers wounded; in Yongfeng, security officers fired on the crowd, causing 70 casualties

Source: Bernstein & L 2002: Table 5.1

Contentious ConversationSubject Verb Object (of claims)E.g. Union demands that the government __. (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Contrasting Principles of 18th and 19th Century Repertoires in Western Europe

Eighteenth Century

Local object

Parochial

Particular

Bifurcated

Nineteenth Century

Abstract object

Cosmopolitan

Modular

Autonomous





Contrasting Principles of 18th and 19th Century Repertoires in Western Europe

Eighteenth Century

Frequent employment of authorities normal means of action, either as caricature or as a deliberate, if temporary, assumption of authorities prerogatives in the name of a local community

Convergence on residences of wrongdoers and sites of wrongdoing, as opposed to seats and symbols of public power

Extensive use of authorized public celebrations and assemblies for presentation of grievances and demands

Common appearance of participants as members or representatives of constituted corporate groups and communities rather than of special interests

Tendency to act directly against local enemies but to appeal to powerful patrons for redress of wrongs beyond the reach of the local community and, especially, for representation vis vis outside authorities

Repeated adoption of rich, irreverent symbolism in the form of effigies, dumb show, and ritual objects to state grievances and demands

Shaping of action to particular circumstances and localities

Summary:

parochial, particular, and bifurcated

Nineteenth Century

Use of relatively autonomous means of action, of kinds rarely or never employed by authorities

Preference for previously planned action in visible public places

Deliberate organization of assemblies for the articulation of claims

Participation as members or representatives of special interests, constituted public bodies, and named associations

Direct challenges to rivals or authorities, especially national authorities and their representatives

Display of programs, slogans, and symbols of common membership such as flags, colors, and lettered banners

Preference for forms of action easily transferred from one circumstance or locality to another

Summary:

cosmopolitan, modular, and autonomous

PAGE

Building a Social Movement

WUNCDisplays

Repertoires

Campaigns

Campaign

Repertoire

WUNCDisplay(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


1.We have looked at old and new repertoires of contention in Western Europe. Name three characteristics of claim-making performances in each repertoire and give two examples of performances that fit the descriptions.

Sample Exam Questions:(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*

CHARACTERISTICSOLDNEW1)2)3)EXAMPLES1)2)


Sample Exam QuestionsCircle one of these episodes: nationalist mobilization in the USSR 1987-1992, student claim making in Beijing 1989, antislavery activism in 19th century US and Britain, American resistance to British rule during the 1760s. In a sentence, describe one performance that participants employed in that episode.In a sentence, say whether that performance comes closer to the old or new repertoire, and give one reason for your answer.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Waves of Democratization Wednesday March 21st, 2007Ernesto Castaneda

Waves of Democracy (Tilly vs. Huntington)Democracy and ContentionDemocracy and Social MovementsSwitzerlandMexico



Waves of Democracy (Huntington)First wave, long 1828-1926 (29)

First reverse wave 1922-1942 (12)

Second, short 1943-1962 (32) Second reverse wave 1958-1975 (30) Third wave 1974-1991 (60)

Huntington writes. "Economic development makes democracy possible; political leadership makes it real." [Top down perspective]

Samuel P. Huntington. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in theLate Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.



Waves of Democracy (Tilly)1789-18001830-1848After WWIAfter WWII1989-(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


What is the relationship between democracy and social movements?DemocracySocial mobilization?(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Democracy and Social MovementsBackground causes. Historical Context.Social MovementsDemocratizationDe-democratizationPossible causal pathways(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


A Chronology of Contentious Politics in Switzerland, 1830-1848*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Switzerland 2(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Fluctuations in Swiss National Regimes, 1790-1848*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Mexican Democratizationminimal timeline(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*

1876-1911Porfirio Diazs Dictatorship 1910-1920Mexican Revolution1917Federal Constitution1929PNR (PRI) is founded 1934-1940Lzaro Cardenas (land reform, oil expropriation and party consolidation)1968Tlatelolco Massacre / Olympic Games1982Peso crash1983-presentNeo-liberal reform1985Earthquake, millions die in Mexico City1988Competitive but unfair election between Carlos Salinas and Cuauhtmoc Cardenas1989 PAN wins Baja Californias governorship


Mexican Democratization 2*

January 1st, 1994NAFTA takes effect. EZLN rebellion in Chiapas begins.1994Luis Donaldo Colosio is assassinated as well as Ruiz Massieu.December 1994Ernesto Zedillo becomes president. Pesos crashes again economic crisis.July 1997Cuauhtmoc Cardenas is elected the First Mayor of Mexico City.July 2000Vicente Fox of the PAN is elected2000-2005Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) of the PRD becomes mayor of Mexico City

Summer 2006Revolts in Oaxaca.July 2006Election between AMLO and Felipe Calderon (PAN). Election results are contested but IFE gives victory to Calderon.2006AMLO does not recognize the election results and carries out a series of contentious events.

Class Goal To correctly match

Episodes Concepts Analytic Devices (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Concept: Standing ClaimsStanding claims, say that the actor or group belongs and represents an established certified category within the regime and therefore deserves the rights and respect that members of that category should receive (see Tilly and Tarrow 2005:82).

E.g. EZLN posing as representatives of Chiapas indigenous people(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Contention Events in VenezuelaMonday April 2nd, 2007

Ernesto Castaeda(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*



1947-48President Romulo Gallegos, Venezuela's first democratically elected leader, overthrown within 18 months in military coup led by Marcos Perez Jimenez, who forms government with backing from the armed forces and the US.1958Admiral Wolfgang Larrazabal ousts Marcos Perez Jimenez; leftist Romulo Betancourt of the Democratic Action Party (AD) wins democratic presidential election (1959-1964).1964Venezuela's first presidential handover from one civilian to another. Dr Raul Leoni (AD) is elected president.1973Venezuela benefits from global oil boom. Oil and steel industries nationalized.

1982-84In 1982 On the so-called Black Friday the Venezuelan currency suffers an important devaluation. Fall in world oil prices generates unrest and cuts in welfare spending. Dr Jaime Lusinchi (AD) elected president signs pact involving government, trade unions and business.1989 Carlos Andrs Prez (AD) elected president against a background of economic depression. President imposes austerity measures and takes an IMF loan. Social and political upheaval includes riots. Violent riots erupt in the streets of Caracas, "El Caracazo, at least 300 people die. Martial law and a general strike follow.1992Some 120 people are killed in two attempted coups, the first led by junior military officer Colonel Hugo Chavez, and the second carried out by his supporters. Chavez is jailed for two years before being pardoned. 1993-1996President Carlos Andrs Prez impeached on corruption charges.Ramon Jose Velasquez becomes interim president. Rafael Caldera elected president. Carlos Andres Perez is later convicted and imprison for corruption.December 1998A military engineer and the son of schoolteachers, Hugo Chavez Frias is elected the 38th president of Venezuela with 59 percent of the vote. His political party, the Movement of the Fifth Republic (MVR), ended three decades of democratic rule by two parties, Democratic Action (AD) and the Social Christian Party of Venezuela (COPEI).


Venezuela 2*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)

August 1999131 elected officials of the National Constituent Assembly convene to draft a new Constitution. Ratified with 70 percent approval among voters, the 1999 constitution defines Venezuela's current system. Among other things the new Constitution calls for the construction of neighborhood groups to promote the "Bolivarian Revolution" with estimates of more than 70,000.1999Chavez prohibits U.S. aircrafts from flying over Venezuela to patrol drug trade in neighboring Colombia. 2000

Foreign Minister Jose Vicente Rangel discloses plot to kill Chavez. Chavez wins another six years in office and a mandate to pursue political reforms. 2001First head of state to visit Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War.November 2001

President Chavez appears on TV to hail 49 decrees, including land and oil industry reforms. With this Chavez ends many traces of neo-liberal policies. The opposition starts to get radicalized and tries to bring Chavez down by any means. February 2002 Government scraps exchange rate controls. National currency, the Bolivar, plummets 25% against the US dollar. February 25, 2002Chavez appoints new board of directors to state oil monopoly Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) in move opposed by executives of the state company.April 9, 2002 Trade unions and the Fedecamaras business association declare general strike to support Petroleos de Venezuela dissidents (supported with $US877,000 by US government NYT April 26 2002)


Venezuela 3*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)

April 11 2002Some 150,000 people rally in support of strike and oil protest. National Guard and pro-Chavez gunmen clash with protesters - more than 10 are killed and 110 injured. Military high command rebels and demands that Chavez resign.April 12 2002 Armed forces head announces Chavez has resigned, a claim later denied by Chavez. Chavez is taken into military custody in a Island in the Caribbean. CIA airplane involved.Military names Pedro Carmona, one of the strike organizers, as head of transitional government. The coup arises from a national strike called by Fedecmaras, La Confederacin de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) and the so-called Coordinadora Democrtica. April 14 2002 Chavez returns to office after the collapse of the interim government. December 2002 Opposition strike cripples the oil industry. Organizers demand that Chavez resign. The nine-week stoppage leads to fuel shortages. May 2003- 2004Opposition delivers petition with more than three million signatures demanding referendum on Chavez's rule. Government and opposition sign deal brokered by Organization of American States (OAS) which sets out framework for referendum on Hugo Chavez's rule. Referendum on August 2003. Carter and other international observers validate Chavez popular victory in the referendum.March 2004 The opposition calls for a general strike. During the recent general strike, independent media stations broadcast an estimated 700 pro-strike (and anti-Chavez) advertisements a day, according to government reports. During the same two-month period, President Chavez used 40 hours of airtime, in addition to his weekly television and radio program Hello President. Clashes between opponents and supporters of President Chavez, several people are killed and many are injured.


Venezuela 4(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*

January 2005 President Chavez signs decree on land reform which aims to eliminate Venezuela's large estates. President says land redistribution will bring justice to rural poor; ranchers say move is an attack on private property.

December 2005 Parties loyal to President Chavez make big gains in parliamentary elections. Opposition parties boycott the poll, leaving parliament entirely made up of supporters of the president.

December 2006Hugo Chavez wins a third term in presidential elections with 63% of the vote. January 2007Chavez announces that key energy and telecommunications companies will be nationalized. National Assembly grants President Chavez sweeping powers to rule by decree for the next eighteen months (this is stipulated in the present and previous constitution and has been granted to many previous presidents).Chavez announces the formation of the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela which aims to unite all the forces from the left under his command including groups that have called for Chavismo without Chavez.


Taken From: Tilly and Tarrow (2007:65)*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Analytic DevisesForms of struggle change in time and in relation to the POS and regime type.

II. We observe a rise in the intensity of claim making along with changes in the regime and other contentious events. The waves observable in Venezuela 1983-1999 are comparable to Beissinger USSR 1987-1992, and Tarrows Italy 1966-1973. Take home point:Venezuelan forms of collective claim making change with the struggles over the character of the regime. So as regime transition occur, with Chavez in 1999, there is a peaking on the number and intensity of struggles because both losers and winners are stepping up their claims. (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Contention in VenezuelaLopez Maya et al. (2002)*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Chart1

14787

15511721

2064115

51163

361532

701716

758553

395430

83631

135664

526458

496573

646263

5312298

814450

776722

4323972

Conventional

Confrontational

Violent

Year


Figure 3.1: Protest Events in Venezuela, 1983-1999

Sheet1

YearPeriodConventionalConfrontationalViolentTotal

1983198314787162

198415511721293

19852064115262

19865116370

198736153283

19881988701716103

1989758553213

1990395430123

19918363175

1992135664133

19931993526458174

1994496573187

1995646263189

19965312298273

1997814450175

19981998776722166

19994323972354

Sheet2

Sheet3

SourcesEvent catalogue compiled by Ernesto Castaeda from:Lpez Maya, Margarita cited in Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow. 2005.Contentious Politics. Boulder: CO. Paradigm Press. And Chapter III in Tilly and Tarrow 2005.Lpez Maya, Margarita Venezuela en la encrucijadahttp://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/a1670.htmlPBS online http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/venezuela/facts.htmlBBC Online http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1229348.stm(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Tilly (2007)*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Tillys Definition of RegimeRegime, set of relations between states and citizens, and major political actors, including groups such as parties, corporations, labor unions, organized ethnic groups, patron-client networks, warlords, etc. (adapted from Tilly 2007:12). (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


The Simple Regime Model(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Capacity and ConsultationState capacity and its relation with state-society consultation; institutionalized relations among governments and political actors, especially at state level.Governmental capacity: extent of control by state agents over people, activities, and resources within the government's claimed jurisdiction; e.g. compare China with Rwanda.Extent of protected consultation: collective control by subjects over governmental personnel, resources, and action; at high end, democracy.Regimes and Democracy (make up for March 19th lecture)(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Democratization and De-Democratization (make up for lecture on March 26th)

Democratization occurs when a regime moves toward these conditions:regular and categorical, rather than intermittent and individualized, relations between the government and its subjects: citizenshipthose relations include most or all subjects: breadththose relations are equal across subjects and categories of subjects: equalitygovernmental personnel, resources, and performances change in response to binding collective consultation of subjects: binding consultationsubjects, especially members of minorities, receive protection from arbitrary action by governmental agents: protectionMoves away from these conditions qualify as de- democratization



These processes generally promote democratization:

increases in the sheer number of people available for participation in public politics and/or in connections among those peopleequalization of resources and connections among those peopleinsulation of public politics from existing social inequalitiesintegration of interpersonal trust networks into public politicsreversals of these processes promote de-democratization

Major forms of struggle that have often activated these processes:

revolutionconquestconfrontationcolonization and de-colonization



Freedom House Checklist for Political Rights and Civil Liberties

Political Rights

Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections?Are the legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?Are there fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair polling, and honest tabulations of ballots?Are the voters able to endow their freely elected representatives with real power?Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system open to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?Is there a significant opposition vote, de facto opposition power, and a realistic possibility for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?Are the people free from domination by the military, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies, or any other powerful group?Do cultural, ethnic, religious, and other minority groups have reasonable self-determination, self-government, autonomy, or participation through informal consensus in the decision-making process?(Discretionary) For traditional monarchies that have no parties or electoral process, does the system provide for consultation with the people, encourage discussion of policy, and allow the right to petition the ruler?(Discretionary) Is the government or occupying power deliberately changing the ethnic composition of a country or territory so as to destroy a culture or tip the political balance in favor of another group?(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Freedom House Checklist for Political Rights and Civil Liberties

Civil Liberties

Is there freedom of assembly, demonstration, and open public discussion?Is there freedom of political or quasi-political organization, including political parties, civic organizations, ad hoc issue groups, etc.?Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations?Is there an independent judiciary?Does the rule of law prevail in civil and criminal matters? Is the population treated equally under the law? Are police under direct civilian control?Is there protection from political terror, unjustified imprisonment, exile, or torture, whether by groups that support or oppose the system? Is there freedom from war and insurgencies?Is there freedom from extreme government indifference and corruption?Is there open and free private discussion?Is there personal autonomy? Does the state control travel, choice of residence, or choice of employment? Is there freedom from indoctrination and excessive dependency on the state?Are property rights secure? Do citizens have the right to establish private businesses? Is private business activity unduly influenced by government officials, the security forces, or organized crime?Are there personal social freedoms, including gender equality, choice of marriage partners, and size of family?Is there equality of opportunity, including freedom from exploitation by or dependency on landlords, employers, union leaders, bureaucrats, or other types of obstacles to a share of legitimate economic gains?

Adapted by Tilly from Karatnycky 2000: 584-585.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Measuring Democratization

Freedom House monitoring defines democracy as civilian government competitively elected by general adult suffrage, with parties having significant public access to voters [weak criterion].

Freedom House also makes more refined ratings of political rights and civil liberties, based on with scores from 1 (high) to 7 (low) on each item.Free means that ratings for political rights and civil liberties averaged 3 or less; Not Free meant average greater than 5.5.

By that standard 1900: 0 of 55 independent national regimes;1950: 22 of 80;2003: 117 of 192;

Democracy Today and Tomorrow(make up for March 28th) (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Freedom House Ratings of European Countries on Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 2001Source: Compiled from Freedom House 2000*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Trajectories of Four Post-Socialist Regimes, 1991-2001*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


note low point of 1994, with some recovery since then (India back in free as of 1999), with about half the worlds unfree population in China by these measures and 41 percent of world population lives in free countries.

*

Chart1

1613970.91911.9

1665.4918.82000.2

1671.41117.42007

1842.51171.51949.9

1992.81027.92107.3

2034.41143.72055.9

2088.21485.71748.7

1359.32306.61708.2

1352.22403.31690.4

1046.22224.42234.6

1119.72243.42243.9

1114.52365.82221.2

1250.32260.12260.6

12662281.92284.6

23541570.61984.1

2324.915292122.4

Free

Partly Free

Not Free

Year

Millions of People

Figure 8.1: Freedom House Ratings of Regimes, by Population, 1981-2002

Chart2

1613970.91911.9

1665.4918.82000.2

1671.41117.42007

1842.51171.51949.9

1992.81027.92107.3

2034.41143.72055.9

2088.21485.71748.7

1359.32306.61708.2

1352.22403.31690.4

1046.22224.42234.6

1119.72243.42243.9

1114.52365.82221.2

1250.32260.12260.6

12662281.92284.6

23541570.61984.1

2324.915292122.4

2465.21435.82157.5

2538.21425.42167.1

Free

Partly Free

Not Free

Millions of People

Freedom House Ratings for All Countries by Total Population, 1981-2002

Sheet1

YearFreePartly FreeNot Free

19811613970.91911.9

1665.4918.82000.2

19851671.41117.42007

1842.51171.51949.9

19891992.81027.92107.3

2034.41143.72055.9

19912088.21485.71748.7

1359.32306.61708.2

19931352.22403.31690.4

1046.22224.42234.6

19951119.72243.42243.9

1114.52365.82221.2

19971250.32260.12260.6

12662281.92284.6

199923541570.61984.1

2324.915292122.4

20012465.21435.82157.5

2538.21425.42167.1

Sheet2

Sheet3

Violent Specialists Intra & Interstate Wars Castaeda April 4th, 2007

Official specialists in coercion: police, military, guards, etc.Institutionalized coercive systems: paramilitaries, guerrillas, posses, vigilantes, drug lords, mercenaries, organized crime, mafiosi, etc. Non-institutionalized violence: street robbers, sporadic crime, personal vendettas, etc.There is a continuum from state agents to thugs (legitimacy determined by third party support for coercive action from these groups).



Mafias and MercenariesMafiosi are first and foremost entrepreneurs in one particular commodityprotection . . . (see Diego Gambetta 1993).Mafiosi are sellers of protection; hence privatizers of public goods. When, then, should we expect mafias to proliferate? We observe a near disappearance of Sicilian mafia under fascism, and reappearance with liberation. Revival in the U.S. meant a later revival in Italy.Likewise, mercenaries sell protection but at a larger scale.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


History of Western Wars

ToRise of consolidated statesConcentrated coercionRise of interstate violenceMilitarization of deathsNational armiesMass conscription

From Militias Feudal leviesMercenariesPirates Bandits(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Further resources:Tilly, Charles. War Making and State Making as Organized Crime in Bringing the State Back In edited by Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985 pp. 169191.Barkey, Karen. 1994. Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization. Cornell University Press.



Source: Mary Kaldor. 2006 [1991]. New Wars Old Wars. Blackwell. Figure 2.1*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


World death rate for large-scale war


TimeRough amount of deaths per million of population.18th century90/million19th century150/million20th century430/million


Increases in civilian deaths(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*

TimePercent of civilian casualtiesWorld War I5 percent World War II50 percentWars of the 1990s90 percent




Chart1

3

5

8

9

9

10

10

10

11

10

10

12

12

11

13

14

11

11

14

14

15

15

18

19

21

20

21

20

21

20

21

27

28

21

21

16

14

11

11

12

Number of Civil Wars

Number of Civil Wars per Year, 1960-1999

Sheet1

196019603

19615

19628

19639

19649

1965196510

196610

196710

196811

196910

1970197010

197112

197212

197311

197413

1975197514

197611

197711

197814

197914

1980198015

198115

198218

198319

198421

1985198520

198621

198720

198821

198920

1990199021

199127

199228

199321

199421

1995199516

199614

199711

199811

199912

Sheet2

Sheet3



Chart1

3

5

8

9

9

10

10

10

11

10

10

12

12

11

13

14

11

11

14

14

15

15

18

19

21

20

21

20

21

20

21

27

28

21

21

16

14

11

11

12

Number of Civil Wars

Figure 3-1: Number of Civil Wars per Year, 1960-1999

Chart2

499

489

487

498

565

635

612

666

605

375

437

565

363

431

322

440

206

304

274

392

423

355

205

208

N Attacks

Years

Number of Attacks

Total International Terrorist Attacks, 1980-2003(source: U.S. State Department, Patterns of Global Terrorism, Selected Years)

Sheet1

196019603

19615

19628

19639

19649

1965196510

196610

196710

196811

196910

1970197010

197112

197212

197311

197413

1975197514

197611

197711

197814

197914

19801980154991980

198115489

198218487

198319498

1984215651984

1985198520635

198621612

198720666

1988216051988

198920375

1990199021437

199127565

1992283631992

199321431

199421322

1995199516440

1996142061996

199711304

199811274

199912392

200020004232000

2001355

2002205

2003208

20042004

Sheet2

Sheet3

Source: Mary Kaldor. 2006 [1991]. New Wars Old Wars. Figure 5.1*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


New and Old WarsLogistical/organizational differences old wars: vertically organized, territorially contiguous governments with built-in military support systems, taxation, conscription.new wars: relative weakening of states, cross-cutting organizations, international networks, segmentary recruitment, related to flows of precious commodities, including oil, diamonds, and human labor.



Tillys Conclusions1) During the monopolization of force by great states that occurred in the West from the 17th to 20th centuries domestic violence decreased dramatically, independent military forces lost ground enormously, but states engaged in increasingly destructive international warfare, 2) During the 20th century however, civilians increasingly became victims through bombing and other changes in military tactics, 3) After World War II warfare shifted for a while to anti-colonial struggles, but interstate wars then declined remarkably in overall frequency and intensity despite Afghanistan and Iraq! 4) Within newly independent states, military internal struggles for control -- civil wars -- multiplied into the 1990s,5) Once most such struggles got settled in post-socialist states, civil wars began to decline in frequency, although they didn't disappear as Congo, Sri Lanka, and Colombia indicate, by U.S. official figures terror attacks generally declined along with civil wars, despite 9/11. [It certainly doesn't seem like it from the news, which necessarily emphasizes violent conflict, but on the whole intrastate and interstate violence are declining. That is partly a result of the slow, partial advance of semi-democratic regimes].(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Terror and PoliticsApril 9th, 2007What is terror? Asymmetrical use of violence and threats of violence against political enemies.Terror as strategy: Signals that the target is vulnerable, that the perpetrators exist, that the perpetrators have the capacity to strike again.Signals typically reach three different audiences: the targets themselves, potential allies of the perpetrators, and third parties that might cooperate with one or the other.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Terrorism as a political toola recurrent strategy of intimidation occurs widely in contentious politics, and corresponds approximately to what many people mean by terrora wide variety of individuals, groups, and networks sometimes employ that strategy.the strategy relates systematically to other forms of political struggle proceeding in the same settings and populations specialists in coercion ranging from government employees to bandits sometimes deploy terror under certain political circumstances, usually with far more devastating effects than the terror operations of non-specialistsexamples: Basque country, Rwanda, anti-abortion activism in the U.S.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Typology of Terror-Wielding Groups and Networks(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Definitions of Terrorism Used in State Department Reports No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we* have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656(d). That statute contains the following definitions:The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.The term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens of the territory of more than one country.The term terrorist group means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on US interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism (State 2004: xii).* i.e. State Department reporters(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Significant Terrorist Incidents, January 2003, According to U.S. State Department DateIncident

1/5India: In Kulgam, Kashmir, a hand grenade exploded at a bus station injuring 40 persons: 36 private citizens and four security personnel, according to press reports. No one claimed responsibility.

1/5Pakistan: In Peshawar, armed terrorists fired on the residence of an Afghan diplomat, injuring a guard, according to press reports. The diplomat was not in his residence at the time of the incident. No one claimed responsibility.

1/5Israel: In Tel Aviv, two suicide bombers attacked simultaneously, killing 23 persons including: 15 Israelis, two Romanians, one Ghanaian, one Bulgarian, three Chinese, and one Ukrainian and wounding 107 others nationalities not specified according to press reports. The attack took place in the vicinity of the old central bus station where foreign national workers live. The detonations took place within seconds of each other and were approximately 600 feet apart, in a pedestrian mall and in front of a bus stop. The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade was responsible.

1/12Pakistan: In Hyderabad, authorities safely defused a bomb placed in a toilet of a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, according to press reports. Two bomb explosions in Hyderabad in recent months have killed a total of four persons and injured 33 others, all Pakistanis. No one has claimed responsibility.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


1/21Kuwait: In Kuwait City, a gunman ambushed a vehicle at the intersection of al-Judayliyat and Adu Dhabi, killing one US citizen and wounding another US citizen. The victims were civilian contractors working for the US military. The incident took place close to Camp Doha, an installation housing approximately 17,000 US troops. On 23-24 January, a 20-year-old Kuwaiti civil servant, Sami al-Mutayri, was apprehended attempting to cross the border from Kuwait to Saudi Arabia. Al-Mutayri confessed to the attack and stated that he embraces al-Qaida ideology and implements Usama Bin Ladins instructions although there is no evidence of an organizational link. The assailant acted alone but had assistance in planning the ambush. No group has claimed responsibility.

1/22Colombia: In Arauquita, military officials reported either the National Liberation Army (ELN) or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorists bombed a section of the Cano Limon-Covenas oil pipeline, causing an unknown amount of damage. The pipeline is owned by US and Colombian oil companies.

1/24Colombia: In Tame, rebels kidnapped two journalists working for the Los Angeles Times. One was a British reporter and the other a US photographer. The ELN is responsible. The two journalists were released unharmed on 1 February 2003.

1/27Afghanistan: In Nangarhar, two security officers escorting several United Nations vehicles were killed when armed terrorists attacked their convoy, according to press reports. No one claimed responsibility.

1/31India: In Srinigar, Kashmir, armed terrorists killed a local journalist when they entered his office, according to press reports. No one claimed responsibility.

Source: State 2004: 95-96. (Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*Significant Terrorist Incidents 2


Connection Between Large Inequalities and Social UnrestIndia's NaxalitesOther terrorists attack the Indian state at its strong pointsits secularism, its inclusiveness, its democracy. Naxalism attacks where it is weakest: in delivering basic government services to those who need them most. The Naxalites do not threaten the government in Delhi, but they do have the power to deter investment and development in some of India's poorest regions, which also happen to be among the richest in some vital resourcesnotably iron and coal. So their movement itself has the effect of sharpening inequity, which many see as the biggest danger facing India in the next few years, and which is the Naxalites' recruiting sergeant.The Economist August 17th, 2006. cited in Neha Nimmaguddas student memohttp://economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7799247(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


ConsiderationsTerrorism paradox, when there is relative peace, terrorism becomes very visible in the medias, it appears as big concern for governments, and is therefore more effective in causing terror among the civilian population.In high and medium capacity states terrorist and security threats can provide grounds for growing authoritarianism to appear.In low capacity democratizing states, terrorism and organized crime pose a great threat to democratization and to a consolidation of state capacity.



Revolutions(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


RevolutionsRevolution = forcible transfer of power over a state in the course of which at least two distinct blocs of contenders make incompatible claims to control the state, and some significant portion of the population subject to the states jurisdiction acquiesces in the claims of each bloc.

A full revolution combines a revolutionary situation with a revolutionary outcome.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Revolutionary Situations

contenders or coalitions of contenders advancing exclusive competing claims to control of the state or some segment of it: mobilization process. 2) commitment to those claims by a significant segmentof the citizenry: mobilization plus diffusion3) incapacity or unwillingness of rulers to suppress thealternative coalition and/or commitment to its claims: ruler-subject interaction



Revolutionary Outcomesdefections of regime membersacquisition of armed force by revolutionary coalitionsneutralization or defection of the regimes armed forcecontrol of the state apparatus by members of revolutionary coalitiontransfer of state power to new ruling coalition.(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


CONFLICT, REVOLT, AND REVOLUTION *(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


How to Analyze Contentious Event Catalogues

Adapted from Tillys How to Detect and Describe Performances and RepertoiresChapter 2 of upcoming book Contentious PerformancesApril 11th, 2007(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Aerial Graph of Contention in Russia (based on Bessinger 2001).(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Source: Data Supplied by Mark Beissinger

EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s

_1194689286.xls

Chart1

00

10

20

20

72

20

120

80

61

63

120

110

91

589

341

212

875

1126

651

473

5210

767

7830

2619

261

895

1041

947

15115

18356

18572

12318

14912

16631

12010

9113

15767

20012

12442

13524

15531

13345

20649

18648

18318

14722

13223

9721

17221

7824

19336

15034

10735

7417

2633

18131

17244

13340

14445

8575

13059

12862

17181

146100

10597

79141

2068

45101

5991

9382

5855

2558

Demonstrations

Violent Events

Year


Figure 5.4: Demonstrations and Violent Events in the Soviet Union and Successor States, 1987-1992

Sheet1

DateNumber of demonstrationsNumber of participantsTotal mass violent eventsMass violent events raising ethno-nationalist issuesMass violent events not raising ethno-nationalist issues

1987 Jan000001987

1987 Feb1500000

1987 Mar2550000

1987 Apr23100000

1987 May711217220

1987 Jun25500000

1987 Jul1211195000

1987 Aug812650000

1987 Sep63700110

1987 Oct67783330

1987 Nov1218400000

1987 Dec114100000

1988 Jan997601101988

1988 Feb583367232990

1988 Mar34738145110

1988 Apr21572067202

1988 May871811033550

1988 Jun1122798438660

1988 Jul654534233110

1988 Aug471177717303

1988 Sep5256875661091

1988 Oct762820550734

1988 Nov78766515030291

1988 Dec2639275019163

1989 Jan26860001101989

1989 Feb891566925514

1989 Mar1041036792110

1989 Apr942149299752

1989 May151363529515132

1989 Jun183308478056551

1989 Jul185182727572711

1989 Aug123415387518162

1989 Sep149464685712120

1989 Oct166319467631283

1989 Nov120280244510100

1989 Dec91177639713130

1990 Jan1573864709676521990

1990 Feb200217631712111

1990 Mar124267656742411

1990 Apr135238320724195

1990 May155145340831265

1990 Jun133137190845414

1990 Jul20677769149445

1990 Aug186992285483513

1990 Sep183114085018162

1990 Oct14758680022220

1990 Nov13244976723230

1990 Dec9737930621183

1991 Jan1722266491212011991

1991 Feb78114028324177

1991 Mar193176756936342

1991 Apr150135160834313

1991 May107132305235332

1991 Jun7429725017161

1991 Jul264710033321

1991 Aug181261168031256

1991 Sep172200831644368

1991 Oct133114262040346

1991 Nov144181910045378

1991 Dec85242500756312

1992 Jan1303600345938211992

1992 Feb12889604162593

1992 Mar17153743481747

1992 Apr1461684050100919

1992 May1051454932978710

1992 Jun7944917814111625

1992 Jul2011402568644

1992 Aug45881501018813

1992 Sep59134850916823

1992 Oct93192566826913

1992 Nov5822220055469

1992 Dec2552700584612

Sheet2

Sheet3

Event AnalysisThe fundamental unit of analysis in this study is the contentious event. Event analysis is widely recognized as a tool for studying waves of mobilization.It is essentially a way of tracking over time the rise and fall of particular types of events and the features associated with them (Beissinger 2002: 42).(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Different Soviet nationalities staged protest demonstrations month by month from 1987 through 1991 (Beissinger 2002: 84). For the most active, these were the peak months:ArmeniansMay 1988EstoniansNovember 1988MoldaviansFebruary 1989RussiansJanuary 1990Crimean TatarsApril 1990UkrainiansNovember 1990LatviansDecember 1990LithuaniansDecember 1990AzerbaijanisDecember 1990GeorgiansSeptember 1991(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Results In all, I have been able to identify thirty-two major waves of nationalist violence in the former USSR during the 1987-92 period, part of sixteen larger ethnonationalist conflicts involving violence during these years. Only in four of these conflicts (the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict, the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, and the Moldovan-Transdniestr conflict) did violence become a self-sustaining strategy of contesting state boundaries, with relatively short waves of violence growing increasingly protracted over time. In all other cases, violent mobilization remained short-lived. What distinguished conflicts in which mass violence grew sustained from those in which violence ceased to proliferate was the relationship of state institutions to the production of violence (Beissinger 2002: 309).(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)*


Graficas de violenciaSource:

Samuel Gonzlez Ruiz

Mexican specialist in comparative legal systems, in relation to the fight and prosecution of organized crime.

Increase of Violence in Mexico due to Organized Crime*(Tilly & Castaeda 2007)


Niveles de Violencia en Mxico

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

9

Violencia mortal Terrorista

X

X

8

Violencia mortal intimidatoria Generalizada

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

Utilizacin de armas de destruccin media.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

6

Violencia contra polticos y de primer nivel

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

5

Violencia mortal contra funcionarios y periodistas

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

4

Violencia mortal contra Terceros

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

3

Violencia mortal contra Rivales

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

x

2

Violencia fsica

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

x

1

Violencia Moral

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

x

Violencia Moral o intimidacin (amenazas o dao en propiedad ajena para amedrentar a las

Preparacin de atentado contra el General Rebollo. Contrato contra Francisco Molina.

CIUDAD VICTORIA.- Francisco Morales Hernndez, comandante de la Polica Judicial en Tampico, fue asesinado ayer por Hilario Gmez Herrera, comandante de la misma corporacin en Ciudad Madero, quien adems hiri a dos policas preventivos.

Eduardo Rodrguez Masso, director de la PJE, inform que los hechos ocurrieron la noche del sbado en Ciudad Madero.

Explic que el enfrentamiento entre los dos comandantes se debi a que Gmez Herrera haba deten

Tilly & Castaneda (2007) Contentious Politcs

Documents

Transcript of Tilly & Castaneda (2007) Contentious Politcs