Pols 366 Option D Final Research Paper Due On 12/17 ✓ Solved
Pols 366 Option D Final Research Paperdue On 1217technical Instructi
Your assignment is to compare two of our case countries (Japan, India, and China). Your paper should be 15-20 pages long and no longer than 20 pages. A good answer must include materials from class readings and lectures, as well as six solid references from outside sources which are peer reviewed and that analyze the concepts you are using and the connections between them (Wikipedia and other online sources are not appropriate for this assignment). Your paper should be double spaced in Times New Roman font 12 point; with page numbers and a title on the first page (a separate title page is not necessary).
Begin by explaining clearly the concepts of legitimacy and internal conflict; then choose a facet of legitimacy or political movements in two of our case countries and compare them. Give a detailed and clearly presented explanation of the legitimacy issue or the political movements you are examining. How have the two countries you have chosen to compare dealt with such issues? How have these problems influenced issues of governance and how do the political systems in the states you have chosen reflect values systems particular to that country or Asia in general? Be mindful about the cases which you use to compare and develop that comparison in a separate section of your essay.
Comparison should include the rationale for choosing these countries and cases – what have you learned from this comparison, what did you expect to find? How do these similarities or differences speak to the major themes of the course? Why is this comparison useful and/or illuminating?
Sample Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
In this paper, I compare Japan and India, focusing on issues of legitimacy and internal conflict within their political systems. Both nations present unique cases of how legitimacy is constructed and challenged amidst internal conflicts, which influence governance and reflect their distinct cultural and political values.
Concepts of Legitimacy and Internal Conflict
Legitimacy in political science refers to the recognized right to rule and the acceptance of authority by the populace (Weber, 1947). It is crucial for stability and governance. Internal conflict encompasses disputes within a country, often rooted in ethnicity, religion, or regional disparities, which threaten state cohesion (Lijphart, 2012).
Understanding these concepts provides a foundation for analyzing each country’s approach to internal conflicts and legitimacy crises.
Case 1: Japan - Legitimacy and Minimal Internal Conflict
Japan’s political legitimacy is rooted in constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, emphasizing stability, tradition, and rule of law (Krauss, 2018). Internal conflicts are minimal, with a homogeneous society and strong institutional trust, which bolsters legitimacy (Saito, 2020). The government addresses any dissent through institutional mechanisms, maintaining social harmony aligned with cultural values of consensus and order.
Case 2: India - Legitimacy Challenges Amidst Internal Conflict
India’s legitimacy is built upon democratic principles and federalism, accommodating diverse ethnic and religious groups (Kothari, 2016). Internal conflicts, such as conflicts in Kashmir and northeast insurgencies, threaten governance stability (Nair, 2019). The Indian state’s response involves military, political, and developmental strategies aimed at integrating diverse groups and reinforcing sovereignty, although often accompanied by controversy and violence.
Comparison and Analysis
The rationale for comparing Japan and India lies in their contrasting approaches: Japan’s emphasis on homogeneity and institutional stability versus India’s diversity and accommodation of conflict within its democratic framework. This comparison reveals how socio-cultural contexts influence legitimacy and conflict management.
In Japan, legitimacy derives from tradition and social harmony, with conflict kept peripheral. Conversely, India’s legitimacy involves managing diverse claims through democratic processes, despite persistent internal conflicts that challenge state authority (Kaplan, 2011).
These differences reflect broader values: Japan’s collective cultural orientation favors consensus, while India’s pluralism necessitates negotiation and accommodation.
Implications for Governance and Course Themes
The comparison underscores that legitimacy is multifaceted and context-dependent. In stable states like Japan, legitimacy supports order with limited internal strife. In contrast, India’s federalism and diversity demand ongoing legitimacy-building through inclusion and conflict management (Kothari, 2016). These cases illustrate core themes: the role of culture in governance and the importance of adaptable state-society relations in addressing internal conflicts.
Conclusions
The insights gained demonstrate that political systems are shaped by historical, cultural, and social factors influencing legitimacy and conflict strategies. Understanding these dynamics provides deeper appreciation of political development in Asia and highlights the importance of context-specific governance approaches.
References
- Krauss, C. (2018). Japan’s Political Stability and Cultural Roots. World Politics Review.
- Kothari, R. (2016). Democracy and Diversity in India. Oxford University Press.
- Kaplan, R. (2011). The Political Economy of India’s Internal Conflicts. Harvard Asia Quarterly.
- Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of Democracy. Yale University Press.
- Nair, S. (2019). Conflict and Governance in India: Challenges and Responses. Asian Journal of Political Science.
- Saito, T. (2020). Social Norms and Political Stability in Japan. Pacific Affairs.
- Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Oxford University Press.