Just like the title says.

Which government is likely to work?

If you look at the top 20 countries by gdp in the 1990s you would see the most influential countries

Now, we have 3 countries in top 20 that completely lack soft power despite having very large economies:

-China in 2nd: China has cultural exports literally equal to Sweden according to me despite having 1.4 billion people and medium standard of living but at least could be justified by the authoritarian regime, and American social media being banned

-India in 5th: except for some Bollywood movies, absolutely nothing globally except for cultural exports to Bangladesh and Pakistan, despite being open and integrated and having a big enough urban population. Even the Indians I hear about live in the UK and their number is like 6 million and somehow they are more influential than 1.4 billion people

Indonesia in 16th: I don’t even know what Indonesian culture is, I am not even joking. You would expect more from a country with 279 million people and a metropolitan city like Jakarta

Furthermore, there is countries in top 20 that have soft power but only partially as it is still not as strong as their economic influence:

These include: Germany, Brazil, Russia, Australia, Netherlands

I will not put the US and Western Europe in the comparison for the obvious differences in historical conditions, but it sometimes I think about how was Argentina was a relatively developed country 100 ago and Brazil is a 200 million country that is always labeled as a future power, yet China was able to recover from WW2 and eclipse both of them and now is the constant talks about being a genuine rival with the USA and India it seems to follow a path with a higher ceiling than both Argentina and Brazil.

Nevermind Russia, that even after the fall of the USSR and years of economic stagnation seems to have more eyes on them than any Latam country.

I'm a graduate student who is incredibly passionate about politics, especially international relations. However, as Christmas break is nearly here, I want to take a break from any and all academic reading. While I enjoy it, it is really, and I mean really, taxing mentally and I am looking for a relaxing and engaging palate cleanser to help me unwind before returning to school in January.

I'm not looking for novels that are simply political, since from what I know, many already are. Instead, I'm interested in anything that actively deals with common themes in international relations (e.g. the security dilemma, questions of war and peace, human nature, the dangers of unchecked idealism, the pitfalls of foreign intervention, etc.). I'm also a realist, if it helps narrow down any suggestions you may have.

Thanks in advance everyone!

Hi, I'm curious if studying political science has benefitted anyone personally. Since it's more of IR, governmental relations etc, I'd assume you can benefit the world around you but not yourself, which makes me wonder if anyone has learned something that helped you in your life. Similar to how learning anatomy can help others and yourself or how learning psychology can lead to deep personal reflection, how does studying political science help you or the others around you?

I'm in a dilemma where I'm equally interested in journalism and political science as a college major/career. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with political journalism or knows how lucrative the field is.

Hey my fellow PoliSci students! So I'm currently a first semester political science student in Germany. One of my introductory courses is political theory and to be honest, it's a lot of history and philosophy which is not something I really like. Nevermind, for the exam we will be given several questions of which we have to choose two to write an essay on. Now I'm kind of scared as I'm not sure how to really write a good essay on political theory. If some of you got any tips they'd be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

I don’t specifically mean Masters of Political Science degrees (though those answers are welcome as well). I just want to know what grad programs are out there that I might be interested in.

I was originally planning on law school, but after a 2-year gap after my undergrad, I want to keep other options open and I’m looking for other programs that might interest me. Any suggestions for programs out there that you have loved?

I’m open to just about anything that a PoliSci major could realistically transition into.

The definition of liberalism seems to encompass both those parties. Rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed etc…

I am looking for information/graphs that shows voter turnout for presidential elections by race, age, and preferably income/education, preferably info that dates back a few decades.

I'm curious if there is any literature on what a leader can do when their constituency is extremely fired up about something. For example, the tensions that ultimately overthrew the Shah: overthrowing the Shah did not bring what many of the revolutionaries wanted, e.g. liberal freedoms, but at the time they were convinced that bringing the ayatollahs to power was the right move. Or, the tensions that ultimately boiled over into the French revolution; was there any clever political machinations that could have potentially diffused things? E.g. redirect the anger to another group, appoint an officially legitimate way to air the grievances, etc. Of course opening fire Tiananmen-Square-style is always an option, but I'm curious about political avenues of calming tension.

Democracy gets lot of criticism for being slower and how autocratic form of government is ultimately much faster and effective.

Democracy requires debates, public feedbacks, fund discussions etc...

What are yr thoughts? I feel Democracy is better in this case. Country like Finland offer high standards of education and living. Belgium also happened to prove that democracy is also much better form of government in handling internal disputes and even community disputes are much handled better in democracy overall than in dictatorship

Just like the title says. Would an ideal dictatorship even be feasible in real life or is it more of a theoretical concept(?)

I can't think of a diverse country like India under a dictatorship because it's pretty much impossible for a dictator to administrate and safeguard rights of different communities.

I still think Democracy would be much better. I mean, if a democracy is corrupt...it's more in the fault in its execution and the institution, right?

Good morning and good evening everybody!

As I will graduate next summer in Pol Sci, there is the mandatory thesis looming on the horizon. I am currently taking a preparatory class that sets the path to said thesis in Spring 25.

However, I really have trouble finding a "gap" or "niche" (in other words: a variation still to be explained) Specifically, I have difficulties finding relevant data to my (at the moment) favourite scholarly papers/journal articles, or, vice-versa, relevant articles/papers when departing from interesting datasets.

So basically I am now wondering, if someone could shed some light on how she/he approaches a paper? And what the correct way would be to arrive at a point where one has data and corresponding theory? I am really lost in this "theory --> 'gap'/'niche' --> 'arguement' --> data" process.

Starting the final year of my politics degree, and I've been very interested in different varieties and expressions of democratic representation - especially in light of the renewed focus on House of Lords reform here in the UK. In the popular debate, this is basically a rather depressing competition between "the current system is undemocratic and corrupt," and "you can't solve dissatisfaction with democracy by electing more politicians."

There has been plenty of comparative research on different forms of electoral systems, but I've been wondering how one might empirically test the comparative representativeness of electoral and non-electoral systems in a way that contributes to the public debate on democratic reform.

Specifically, could a properly resourced, long-term study open up the debate by answering the question: if the UK's House of Lords* were replaced with a Citizens' Assembly or assemblies selected by sortition, perhaps along the lines suggested by John Gastil & Erik Olin Wright - would it achieve public legitimacy, especially in mandate competition with an elected chamber, and would the public be satisfied with their representation?

(* or any upper house in a bicameral system)

My initial thought is you could constitute a group or groups on a Citizens' Assembly model to 'shadow' the Lords on 6-8 major bills over a two-year period. They would debate the same legislation, with access to Parliament briefing papers (published online) and expert advice, then either 'pass' the bill, concurring with the actual Lords, or reject it and agree on an amendment.

Their amendments would then be professionally polled alongside the actual outcome of the vote to compare public approval of each option, e.g. "which of these decisions best represents your opinion?" There would also be a retrospective poll after two years' time to test public satisfaction with the concrete outcome.

I'm new to research design, so I'd be grateful for any thoughts on weaknesses or alternate approaches.

(Full disclosure: this is basically a thought experiment for now, but I do eventually have to suggest and evaluate research approaches as part of my course - I hope this doesn't break the 'no homework' rule!)

I've seen many posts recently about jobs and I feel the need to state the hard truth. I'm writing from the United States but I expect this is similar across the world.

If you're getting into Political Science with the expectation that you will graduate with a bachelors and immediately find a decent paying, secure job like the people in tech or the trades, you are signing up yourself up to be disappointed.

That is, unless you have a well-connected network in political organizations already - maybe your uncle knows a senator or your cousin is at a think tank. If you're like me, the humble son of an ER nurse and construction worker, good luck.

I graduated with my bachelors in 2019 and have been chasing rabbits ever since. The best I've gotten is extremely temporary or unstable b.s. startups or writing gigs that don't pay benefits and will lay you off with a moments notice.

I did not get into this for the paycheck, I got into this for the passion. Granted I did not think it would be THIS hard, but still, I wasn't expecting 6 figures out of my bachelors.

If you're not well connected here is what you can do, I'm going to list off my advice for people in different positions:

You already have a bachelors: Get a masters in poli sci or history, and become a high school teacher. This is what I've done. The pay is not great starting out, but it grows, you have a lot of time off, and depending on the state, a pension. It is also a fall back, its something you can always do, so if you're teaching and you get an offer for your dream job you can take it and if something happens with that dream job you can always go back to teaching. You can also adjunct at college on the side with a masters.

You're currently getting your bachelors: Get a minor or a double major in something more marketable - computers/tech, engineering, environmental, education, marketing, etc OR plan to get a masters, preferably a masters that incorporates education into the curriculum like an MAT

You're not in college yet but want to pursue political science: Either delay this 5 years and get certification and training in a trade like HVAC, carpentry, plumbing, machinist, IT, etc. OR the above step. OR minor in political science and major in something more marketable. OR just lock in and prepare to do any of the above scenarios.

Hopefully this helps.

I don't often post anything, but I'm beyond the end of my rope. I have a bachelors in Poli Sci and International Studies. I graduated at the end of 2018 and haven't even landed an interview. Should I just give up? I'm tired of looking at this point.

I'm self-studying for the AP Comp. Gov't exam. My resources say it happened and contributed to the current regime's legitimacy, but just how free and fair was it?

N.B: this is not a hw question

I am looking for a political analyst, political scientist, or political expert who can validate our research instrument. I hope you can help me.

I was thinking today about Progressivism vs Conservatism in the more (small U) utilitarian since, trying to understand how they function in the minds of those who think in these terms. Vague starting terms...(Not left or right but merely P/C thought process outside of the "wings")

*Progressives tend to want the State to be an Ethical State and to steward society toward an ideal point which it has not yet arrived. *Conservatives tend to want the State to be more the NightWatchman, to utilize the cannon of ideals handed down through tradition and allow society to take it's courses with out much State intervention. Example P; ...ideal, healthcare needs... I surmise that Progressives begin with the goal and think iñ terms of arriving at said end point through State mandate so that the volatility of the market (or mutability) is minimized. Example C; I surmise that Conservatives begin with the pathway and think in terms of how said goal should be accomplished in order to achieve it with the least disruption to societal norms/markets.

Does this track? Any critique on my analysis (American cultural context) would be great, thanks.

Hi there. I'm sure many of you have noticed that the political landscape is something more akin to a hellscape. Literally everything is politicized and social media is flooded with people that no longer see anyone on the opposite side of the aisle as even human.

Rather, they view them as the "enemy" and that if they follow one idea, (ie climate change). Then that allows them to instantly assign to them an abundance of other identity politic positions. So like with climate change as the example, people automatically assume that the believer in everything that is left leaning, liberal or leftist. And of course the same is true if they don't believe in climate change. Instantly they are assigned a box. All nuance, individualism and ideas are lost. It's almost as if we have become programmed to instantly put people into one of two boxes. Friend or foe and never is it allowed that someone might very well exist in neither. Its incredibly frustrating and makes any political conversation emotionally, and intellectually exhausting because it creates a barrier that prevents an exchange of ideas. A well functioning society needs both viewpoints in order to advance.

I really feel we have lost the ability to have actually engaging and beneficial conversations with one another and I was wondering if a podcast where the host speaks with people of all political leanings would be useful. The host would speak to the person and ask which way they leaned. But rather than ask them about their political beliefs, the whole show would be about exploring the things we have in common. There is much more that unites us than divides us and I wonder if having a show that demonstrated this would help to turn down the collectively hot political landscape. It probably wouldn't be the most entertaining podcast in the world, but it maybe that isn't a bad thing. Maybe if enough people stopped seeing the other side as monsters, then maybe we could actually begin to have actual conversations rather than just useless arguments. Maybe even help to teach the general public how to develop critical thinking skills so that they stop falling for lying politicians and the groups that lobby them for their attention and power. What do you think? Or do you have any better ideas on how to collectively turn the temperature down? Because I fear that if we don't, that things are not going to end well for anyone. We need less fear in the world. I know many politicians love to use it as it's a great motivator but it doesn't actually make people anything but reactionary and if we are always reactionary then we really are in a state of constant panic and pretty much are achieving nothing of worth.

FFS we as a species could do so much more if we would only chill the f**k out and stop being so afraid all the damn time.

Gege

Finding resources to learn about the US point of view is nearly impossible to avoid. I like reading Foreign Affairs(which I feel has gone downhill for the last decade) , Foreign policy is the establishment. Current History and Wilson Quarterly gives a bit more.

Now I would like to find "Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Current History" like journals or other resources, that will present the points of view of other states that are not aligned with the US/EU. With their own words and perspectives. Now RT, China Daily, South China Morning Post can do a bit of it. I would like to go deeper.

I am so terrible at applying International Relations approaches, I feel like neoclassical realism is always the best fit, because it builds on neorealism but also incorporates domestic factors - which essentially is the best of both worlds. However, I feel like for the war on terror, there was a huge ideological factor since the threat itself (to American security) was not necessarily from Iraq but the U.S. decided to portray it that way to justify intervention.
If I had to choose from neorealism, liberalism, neoclassical realism or constructivism, how would it go?

i'm a current junior in undergrad. i've changed my major a few times and this has thrown me off track on graduating on time but i'm fairly certain in what i'd like to do, and it's data science specifically in politics. essentially the science heavy part of political science

as i mentioned, i'm trying to graduate on time, and my best bet in doing so is a political science major with a minor in statistics and a certificate in data science. i've taken and will continue to take many python and R based courses, along with up to calc 2, linear algebra, and a few statistics and probability courses to go along with my minor and certificate. if i wanted to apply to a masters in data science or statistics program, would this be enough background for me to succeed in what i'd like to do? or should i do a masters in political science? i was originally planning on doing a double major in statistics and political science, but as i mentioned it would throw me off from graduating on time. i've seen that people break into data science from the humanities often and was wondering if anyone has experience or advice!

German political science student here, I've closely been following US politics for a while now, given the circumstances and my particular interest in fascism, populism and the likes, it made sense to watch more closely.

I know how populists and fascists gain power and I know they often do without violence, through legal, democratic means and are often backed by about a third of their population in the beginning.

Trump is exhibiting every sign of having authoritarian, fascist ambitions, is openly populist, racist and has tried to overthrow the government with violence before, has said and continues to say anti-constitutional things and has shown himself to be able and willing to break the law whenever it suits him.

History has shown that liberal democracies often fall without a fight, they hold out hope that saner heads will prevail until its too late and it can't be stopped anymore, so I fear the US will do the same.

But should it decide not to, what can it do, what can be done?

Trump is very obviously an enemy of the state, he does not harbor any good intentions and will destroy the US's reputation, trust amongst its allies and its economy.

Biden has taken an oath to protect the US from enemies foregin and domestic, what is a racist, fascist and violent movement like MAGA and a man like Trump if not an enemy within?

Eventhough likely nothing will be done in hopes of saner heads prevailing or the fear of starting an open civil war, what could, theoretically be done?

i’m a second year political science student and i have a lot of anxiety about not knowing what i wanna do with my degree. i’m thinking about getting my masters in either poli sci or public policy because it’s been recommended by a lot of people but i’m not sure. i’m most interested in political consulting and political think tanks but i know it can be hard to find jobs in these fields and i wanna stay realistic. i’ve always been told political science is such a broad degree where you can branch out and do tons of different things so i just wanted to ask, besides law school, what did everyone do with their degree career wise?

https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Instructing-Animosity_11.13.24.pdf

Participants exposed to the DEI content were markedly more likely to endorse Hitler’s demonization statements, agreeing that Brahmins are ‘parasites’ (+35.4%), ‘viruses’ (+33.8%), and ‘the devil personified’ (+27.1%),” the study reads. “These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism.

In the experiment focused on race, the researchers randomly assigned 423 Rutgers University undergraduates into two groups: one control group exposed to a neutral essay about U.S. corn production, and the other exposed to an essay that combined material from Ibram X. Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility...The results showed that participants primed with Kendi and DiAngelo materials perceived more discrimination from the admissions officer, despite the absence of any racial identification and evidence of discrimination. Those participants also believed that the admissions officer was more unfair to the applicant, had caused more harm to the applicant, and had committed more “microaggressions.”

In the experiment on anti-Islamophobia trainings, the researchers presented over 2,000 participants with either the essay about corn or content drawn from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding organization that addresses Islamophobia. The participants were then presented with a scenario involving two hypothetical individuals, Ahmed Akhtar and George Green, who were both convicted of identical terrorism charges for bombing a local government building. said researchers purposely built some ambiguity into the scenarios. The participants exposed to the corn essay perceived Akhtar and Green’s trials as equally fair and did not indicate any perception of Islamophobia. However, those exposed to anti-Islamophobia training materials rated Akhtar’s trial significantly less fair.