Political transition and structural politicisation : The long shadow of Taiwan's one-party legacy

Väitöskirjatutkimuksessa tarkastellaan Taiwanin politiikkaa ensimmäisen vaalien kautta tapahtuneen vallanvaihdon jälkeen (2000) yhteiskunnan rakenteellisen politisoitumisen näkökulmasta. Koska Taiwanilla siirryttiin verettömästi autoritaarisesta yksipuoluejärjestelmästä monipuoluejärjestelmään sitä on pidetty poliittisen muodonmuutoksen mallioppilaana. Aiempi optimismi Taiwanin demokratisoitumisen suhteen on sittemmin vaihtunut pessimismiin, pitkälti yhteiskunnan voimakkaasta politisoitumisesta johtuen. Tutkimuksessa haetaan selitystä tälle politisoitumiselle. Yhteiskunnan rakenteellisella politisoitumisella tarkoitetaan tilannetta, jossa ”poliittisen” alue kasvaa varsinaisia poliittisia instituutioita laajemmaksi. Rakenteellinen politisoituminen muuttuu helposti yhteiskunnalliseksi ongelmaksi, koska siitä usein seuraa normaalin poliittisen toiminnan (esim. lainsäädännän) jähmettyminen, yhteiskunnan jyrkkä jakautuminen, alhainen kynnys poliittisille konflikteille ja yleisen yhteiskunnallisen luottamuksen alentuminen. Toisin kuin esimerkiksi Itä-Euroopassa, Taiwanissa entinen valtapuolue ei romahtanut poliittisen avautumisen myötä vaan säilytti vahvan rakenteellisen asemansa. Kun valta vaihtui ensimmäisen kerran vaalien kautta, vanha valtapuolue ei ollut valmis luovuttamaan poliittisen järjestelmän ohjaksia käsistään. Alkoi vuosia kestänyt taistelu järjestelmän hallinnasta vanhan ja uuden valtapuolueen välillä, jossa yhteiskunta politisoitui voimakkaasti. Tutkimuksessa Taiwanin yhteiskunnan politisoituminen selitetään useiden rakenteellisten piirteiden yhteisvaikutuksen tuloksena. Tällaisia politisoitumista edistäviä rakentellisia piirteitä ovat hidas poliittinen muutos, joka säilytti vanhat poliittiset jakolinjat ja niihin liittyvät vahvat edut ja intressit; sopimaton perustuslaki; Taiwanin epäselvä kansainvälinen asema ja jakautunut identiteetti; sekä sosiaalinen rakenne, joka helpottaa ihmisten nopeaa mobilisointia poliittiisiin mielenilmauksiin. Tutkimuksessa kiinnitetään huomiota toistaiseksi vähän tutkittuun poliittiseen ilmiöön, joidenkin demokratisoituvien yhteiskuntien voimakkaaseen rakenteelliseen politisoitumiseen. Tutkimuksen pääasiallinen havainto on, että yksipuoluejärjestelmän demokratisoituminen kantaa sisällään rakenteellisen politisoitumisen siemenen, jos entinen valtapuolue ei romahda demokratisoitumisen myötä.

Ydinperheen politiikka

The research topic is the formation of nuclear family understanding and the politicization of nuclear family. Thus, the question is how did family historically become understood particularly as nuclear family and why did it become central in terms of politics and social? The research participates in discussions on the concept and phenomena of family. Central theme of analysis is to ask what is family? Family is seen as historically contingent and the discussions on the concept and phenomena are done via historical analysis. Center of attention is nuclear family, thus, a distinction between the concepts of family and nuclear family is made to be able to focus on historically specific phenomena of nuclear family. Family contrary to the concept of nuclear family -- in general is seen to be able to refer to families in all times and all cultures, as well as all types of families in our times and culture. The nuclear family understanding is examined through two separate themes, that of parent-child relationships and marital relations. Two simultaneous processes give nuclear family relations its current form: on the one hand the marital couple as the basis of family is eroding and losing its capacity to hold the family together; on the other, in Finland at least from 1950s on, the normal development of the child has became to be seen ontologically bound to the (biological) mother and (via her to) the father. In the nucleus of the family is the child: the biological, psychological and social processes of normal development are seen ontologically bound to the nuclear family relations. Thus, marriages can collapse, but nuclear family is unbreakable. What is interesting is the historical timing: as nuclear family relations had just been born, the marriage dived to a crisis. The concept and phenomena of nuclear family is analyzed in the context of social and politics (in Finnish these two collapses in the concept of yhteiskunnallinen , which refers both to a society as natural processes as well as to the state in terms of politics). Family is political and social in two senses. First, it is understood as the natural origin of the social and society. Human, by definition, is understood as a social being and the origin of social, in turn, is seen to be in the family. Family is seen as natural to species. Disturbances in family life lead to un-social behaviour. Second, family is also seen as a political actor of rights and obligations: family is obligated to control the life of its members. The state patronage is seen at the same time inevitable family life is way too precious to leave alone -- and problematic as it seems to disturb the natural processes of the family or to erode the autonomy of it. The rigueur of the nuclear family is in the role it seems to hold in the normal development of the child and the future of the society. The disturbances in the families first affect the child, then the society. In terms of possibility to re-think the family the natural and political collide: the nuclear family seems as natural, unchangeable, un- negotiable. Nuclear family is historically ontologised. The biological, psychological and social facts of family seem to be contrary to the idea of negotiation and politics the natural facts of family problematise the politics of family. The research material consists of administrational documents, memoranda, consultation documents, seminar reports, educational writings, guidebooks and newspaper articles in family politics between 1950s and 1990s.

Somali State Failure: Players, Incentives and Institutions

In Somalia the central government collapsed in 1991 and since then state failure became a widespread phenomenon and one of the greatest political and humanitarian problems facing the world in this century. Thus, the main objective of this research is to answer the following question: What went wrong? Most of the existing literature on the political economy of conflict starts from the assumption that state in Africa is predatory by nature. Unlike these studies, the present research, although it uses predation theory, starts from the social contract approach of state definition. Therefore, rather than contemplating actions and policies of the rulers alone, this approach allows us to deliberately bring the role of the society – as citizens – and other players into the analyses. In Chapter 1, after introducing the study, a simple principal-agent model will be developed to check the logical consistence of the argument and to make the identification of causal mechanism easier. I also identify three main actors in the process of state failure in Somalia: the Somali state, Somali society and the superpowers. In Chapter 2, so as to understand the incentives, preferences and constraints of each player in the state failure game, I in some depth analyse the evolution and structure of three central informal institutions: identity based patronage system of leadership, political tribalism, and the Cold War. These three institutions are considered as the rules of the game in the Somali state failure. Chapter 3 summarises the successive civilian governments’ achievements and failures (1960-69) concerning the main national goals, national unification and socio-economic development. Chapter 4 shows that the military regime, although it assumed power through extralegal means, served to some extent the developmental interest of the citizens in the first five years of its rule. Chapter 5 shows the process, and the factors involved, of the military regime’s self-transformation from being an agent for the developmental interests of the society to a predatory state that not only undermines the interests of the society but that also destroys the state itself. Chapter 6 addresses the process of disintegration of the post-colonial state of Somalia. The chapter shows how the regime’s merciless reactions to political ventures by power-seeking opposition leaders shattered the entire country and wrecked the state institutions. Chapter 7 concludes the study by summarising the main findings: due to the incentive structures generated by the informal institutions, the formal state institutions fell apart.