Next week is my midterm, which I don’t know if I should be nervous for. I think I’ll be alright. Anyway, my sixth class was on Tuesday, and like with writing this post I was also a few minutes late. I didn’t really miss anything which is good but I’ve still go some knowledge to share.

This week was focused on the role of political parties and special interest groups. Obviously both are very connected.

I don’t believe I’ll have to go into the basics of what political parties are/what they do, so I’ll skip to the more interesting bits, especially when it comes to my professor’s and fellow students’ comments made throughout class.

So when it comes to classifying what type of party one is we looked at two terms: Missionary parties (also known as ideological parties) and Broker parties (also known as Pragmatic parties). The former having a commitment to a specific ideology with the want to convert people, kinda like Jehovah’s Witnesses hence the “missionary” title (his example not mine). The latter group being less about ideology and more about changing their party positions to maximize votes (they are also called Catch-all parties). I’m sure most of you are already familiar with these but I didn’t know that specific classifications existed.

Next we learned about party systems; one party, two party, you get the gist. So what was interesting here was when we were talking about one party systems, my professor brought up Cuba, North Korea, and China as examples. While I know outside of the classroom setting this isn’t a negative, but he was very negative about one party systems in general and didn’t go into the nuances of how the systems works in Cuba, North Korea (which is a bit difficult considering everything), and how china does have multiple parties, just one is more dominant. Which is what a one party system is, top heavy, again this was his definition.

When China was brought up as an example there was a strange debate on whether China is an aristocracy or oligarchy because most decisions are made by Xi Jinping and a few others. he claimed that Xi Jinping has massive influence on the population. He proceeded to ask the class if they believed the Chinese Communist Party (his words) governs in their own interests or the people’s. Most students said own while I quietly said the people’s…

The terms “de facto” and “de jure” were discussed next. De facto meaning one party is dominant while de jure is only one party being allowed. He used Cuba and North Korea as de jure examples. Again, I know Cuba and North Korea are fine but the way he relayed this information was very biased to the typical Liberal Democracy system and acting like Cuba and North Korea are under some totalitarian dictatorship.

A girl in my class is from Türkiye and she talked about how the current President is in a coalition of sorts with the fascist part of Türkiye. My professor sort of sputtered at her terminology and stated he hates to use the fascist since it’s very heavy, but the girl was insistent on the fact they were fascist and therefore the current president of Türkiye is way more far right than our professor was making him out to be. Germany was brought up because I think they also have a coalition going on, and proceeded they are a fairly left wing government (Green Party). I don’t know much about current day German political parties so I won’t say if I believe it’s true but considering how they’re handling the was I’d say that their principles are a bit all over the place.

Then we talked about no party systems which was easy and self explanatory; Saudi Arabia was used as an example.

We ended the class talking about interest groups and what not, nothing too crazy, and then a five minute debate. Two people were chosen as Pro marijuana and the other two were opposed. It was a weird debate and just kind of frustrating.

Anyway I’ll conclude with a comment my professor made when it came to Joe Biden and Donald Trump: “I’m non-partisan, but I don’t think either are that great. Also make sure to watch the State of The Union address.”

Had to write this quickly because I’ve got a DnD session really soon.

  • @cfgaussian
    link
    51 year ago

    Germany’s government is only left wing on paper. The current incarnation of the Greens is one of the most warmongering bunch of lunatics since the OG Nazi party while the so-called socdems are neoliberal through and through and since the 90s have done more to dismantle and sabotage German social democracy than the actual right wing parties ever did. Also they are basically all puppets of Washington.

    • @SpaceDogsOP
      link
      31 year ago

      I’m unsure as to why he considers the current German government as left wing considering their track record. I will admit wholeheartedly that I’m not well versed in the current state of German politics but with what I’ve seen in regards to the war, they’re far from left.