Mining Historical Testimonials and Visuals to Develop Predictive Models of Genocide Risk
Research Agenda
Examining the Influence of Populist Leaders on Power Dynamics
On a broad scale, Power Transition Theory (PTT) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding major shifts in global power dynamics. Zooming in, it offers insights into how changes within a nation’s power structure can impact both its domestic stability and its relationships with other countries. At a more granular level, PTT facilitates a deeper exploration of global power transitions, with a focus on the pivotal role of leadership in either escalating conflicts or fostering peace. However, I propose that PTT can be further enhanced by employing the Constructed Actor Model (CAM), particularly in examining the influence of populist leaders on power dynamics. These leaders play a crucial role in shaping global power shifts, as they possess the political authority to initiate war or negotiate peace within the constraints and opportunities presented by various levels of analysis – micro, meso, and macro. Given the rise of populist leaders in countries like India and the re-election of a populist leader in the U.S., a key and dominant global state actor, scholars and policymakers across disciplines should be attentive. Utilizing the Constructed Actor Model within the framework of PTT can offer valuable insights into addressing this concern.
A Novel Way of Testing the Claims of PTT & BoP Theories on Whether Peace is Reserved in Unipolar or Multipolar World Order
Equality of power is conducive to peace and an imbalance of power leads to war are two of the trinity of beliefs of Balance of Power. These beliefs are contradicted by Power Transition theorists who argue that peace is preserved best when there is an imbalance of national capabilities between advantaged and disadvantaged nations. In other words, power transition theory asserts that our world is at relative peace in a unilateral world order than it is in a bipolar world order, while the contrary is true for balance of power theory. My research introduces a new and novel way of testing the stated conflicting arguments. It is true: Data on interstate war may be fitting to test the conflicting claims, but it should not be the only source. Data on severity of genocide may also help to test. Because a conflict that begets genocide is not that fundamentally different than that that leads to interstate war. This is in line with what Grady Nixon (2017) pondered about after he reread Clausewitz “…with more patient eye…much of his theory of war could be applied to conflict of any sort…” (page,1).
Nuclear Proliferation
Title: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): A Review of NPT’s Historical Development & the Efficacy of Its Enforcement & Compliance Mechanisms
Central Argument: If the immense threat posed by WMD is to be averted, norms that govern non-proliferation treaty may have to become strongly held belief among states that signed and ratified the treaty. In addition, for the legal commitments of the NPT to be strongly binding, there should not be inconsistencies and duplicities among the signatory states in abiding by the three pillars of the NPT regime. If the norms and legal commitments of the NPT are to be violated by few states with success, the potential of the treaty to avert the threat posed by WMD in ending the world may become feeble. It is for this reason that some scholars see a paradox at play—the fact that few states are outside the reach of the norms and legal commitments of the NPT, while the NPT has reached an astonishing near-universality in its membership.
Democracy & Democratization
Title: The Possibility or Lack Thereof of China’s Transition to a Democratic Rule
Central Argument: China will not transition into a democratic system in the real sense of having near universal suffrage, competitive multi-party system, free and non-corrupt elections and an effective framework of civil liberties and or human rights. Rather, China is most likely to transition into an alternative and variant form of “democracy,” because of micro, meso, and macro level reasons, decisions, and actions. In other words, the possibility or lack thereof of China’s transition to a democratic rule is better explained by the Constructed Actor Model (CAM). The CAM raises important issues as to why leaders and the Communist Party of China are at best reluctant to accept democracy, while leaders and parties in Taiwan, South Korea and Japan with the exception of North Korea have embraced democracy. The CAM also raises important issues as to whether or not the structural pressures that transitioned Japan into a democratic rule are helping or impeding democracy from emerging in China. The CAM raises these important issues to elaborate succinctly, by identifying individuals as socially constructed actor[s] affected by large current of social facts, such as value systems, social structures, extended social networks and the likes.
Voter Choice in America
Title: Vote Choice in America
Central Argument: A multitude of scholarly work has been done in search of the variable(s) that most determine voter choice. Party ID of Michigan School (1960), SES of Columbia (1954), Rational Choice theory (Downs 1957, Key 1966, Dowding 2005), Zaller’s Elite-driven media discourse (1992), and Fiorina’s Retrospective voting (1981) are the few from the many approaches that claim to have found the variable(s) that most determine voter choice. These schools of thoughts are contradictory and at times arguably complimentary of each other’s approach. Resolving the contradictory nature of these findings is relevant since it may pave the avenue to enhance broad public participation in the democratic process—thereby fostering and maintaining democratic rule. However, resolving the contradictory nature may not be easily compared to doing a closer review of these school of thoughts. And a closer review of these schools of thoughts on voter choice reveals that party ID more than anything else is the most important variable that determines voter choice.
Political Theory
Title: The Myth of “Value-free” Political Science & Political Scientists
Central Argument: Power defined as the ability of political actor to get another actor to do what it wants at the international, national, and local levels appears to be the main focus of political science in general. But the particular primary purpose of empirical political science, as it is often stated, is to explain political phenomena, not to justify social engineering or political reform. And it follows that empirical political theory must aspire to the highest level of generality possible since its purpose is to produce valid knowledge. Succinctly restated in an argument form, empirical political science is a path to valid knowledge that does not justify any social engineering or political reform in the process. In other words, the scientific study of politics has to work on a value neutral approach to the subject—while political scientists should seek to uncover what is, not what it ought to be. After evaluating the often-stated purpose of empirical political science and political scientists, I argue that the stated purpose empirical political science is more of a myth than a reality.
Political Philosophy
Title: A Review of Aristotle’s Claim About Slavery
Central Argument:
Aristotle’s claim that slavery is natural constitutes one of the most offensive portions of his moral and political thought. Contrary to what the evidence suggests, however, some scholars have taken a nuanced perspective while others find ways to defend Aristotle’s offensive moral and political thought. Scholars who defend Aristotle view on slavery argue that, by “slavery,” Aristotle meant “conventional slavery,” and that he did not believe Greeks were superior “by nature” to non-Greeks. On another hand, scholars with a nuanced perspective much like G.E.R. Lloyd, assert that “…Aristotle was misled into taking a temporary, man-made institution for something natural and permanent.” Resolving these contradictory perspectives about Aristotle’s claim that slavery is natural is relevant. By thoroughly examining Aristotle’s claim about the institution of slavery, we may be able to infer indirectly what he means by freedom. And this in turn may lead us to the reason why it is important to resolve the contradictory perspectives for at least two reasons. One, if we grasp what freedom means by thoroughly examining what slavery is, we may be able to gain the insight to create a better working relationship between employees and employers, especially now at the height of globalized market and labor. And two; a strong grasp on what freedom means may also enhance the knowledge of public policy makers, to define the relationship between those who own the means of production and those who do not, in a way that avoids acute and bloody class contradictions. With this in mind, and based on G.E.R Lloyd’s nuanced assertion that “…Aristotle was misled into taking a temporary, man-made institution for something natural and permanent,” and also based on my own understanding of the readings of BOOK I, Chapter iii through viii of the Politics, and Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics, this paper argues that slavery is not natural and that there is no clear evidence to suggest that Aristotle was misled into taking such an offensive moral and political stance. But more importantly though, this paper argues that the telos in Aristotle argument, especially that with reference to the rational for the institution of slavery, is built on a deductively inferred presumption not strong enough to make the claim that something is created for some end and that end is for good.
International Relations
Title: The Difference Between Classical Political Realism and Neorealism
Central Argument: International politics does not proceed in ideological vacuum. The intricate interaction between states is shaped and reshaped by world views. And for all intended purposes, a state utilizes a specific world view on how to interact with other states diplomatically, militarily and economically. A state without a world view is not perceivable, because a worldview of some kind is important if a state is to function in a world of intricate relations that subsume peace and war, wealth and deprivation, based on asymmetric international relations. To have an international role of some kind and to safeguard its interest and security, a state needs to have a working worldview. In this regard and out of the various world perspectives known for states, classical political realism and neorealism are two of the various world perspectives known in international politics. In this paper, I intend to accomplish a systematic presentation of the differences between classical political realism and neorealism in describing the role and interest of the state in international politics.
Comparative Politics
Title: Comparing Two Groups of Eight African Countries [1] with British and French Colonial Legacies: A Non-parametric Analysis
Central Argument: The article makes two arguments: One, in the eight African countries studied, colonization by the British did not lead to better economic growth and voice and accountability relative to French. Two, the main factor that is impeding the eight African countries from gaining better economic growth is the lasting effect of colonial economic institution, which the colonies were coerced to create and maintain to date.
[1] Countries with French colonial legacy: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’ Ivoire, and Niger. And countries with British colonial legacy: Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone.
Dr. Adal Isaw (PhD International Politics / Political Science) 