POLITICAL SCIENCE 100

Politics and Governance

Department of Political Science
School of Social Sciences
Ateneo de Manila University – Loyola Schools
2nd Semester, SY 2017 – 2018
Section I, Thursdays, 5:00 – 8:00 PM, CTC 307 (Economics Tie-up)
Section O, TTh, 2:00 – 3:30, BEL-306 (Health Sciences Tie-up)
Instructor: Miguel Paolo P. Rivera, M.A.
Email: mprivera@ateneo.edu
Office number: (02) 426-6001 loc. 5250
Consultation Hours: TTh 3:30 – 5:00 or by appointment (Political Science Department)

Course Description

The course is an introduction to the persons, structures and processes involved in the operation of
the political system. Topics include basic political concepts, institutions, of government, and the
complex relationship between citizenry and the state. Focus is on the Philippine context and
contemporary issues.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of the course, the students are expected to:

Knowledge
- examine various concepts, ideas, and frameworks about the state, institutions, governance
and citizenship
- assess the relationship between these concepts vis-à-vis power and politics

Skills
- demonstrate the proficient use of the various tools and ideas in evaluating and designing
social and political reform alternatives
- construct a critical stance towards the state, its institutions and democratic practices

Attitudes
- contribute to the process of democratic citizenship by maximizing their capacities as citizens
and as future leaders of the country
- collectively respond to the challenges of governance by building a constituency of reform

1
Course Outline and Required Texts

I. The State

A. Defining Politics, Democracy, and the Philippine State

Arendt, Hannah. 2007. “Introduction into Politics.” In The Promise of Politics, 92 -200. New York:
Schocken Books.

Zialcita, Fernando. N. c2005, 2011. “Toward a community broader than kin.”, In Authentic though not
exotic: Essays on Filipino Identity. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Rodriguez, Agustin Martin G. 2009. “Governing the Other: An Introduction” and “The Ground of
Solidarity: From Consensus to Discourse.” In Governing the Other: Exploring the Discourse of Democracy in
a Multiverse of Reason, 1 – 46. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

B. Power

Digeser, Peter. 1992. “The Fourth Face of Power.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 54, No. 4: 977 – 1007.

Cregan, Kate, 2006. “Part I Object – The Regulated Body: Regimes and Institutions: Authority and
Delimited Control” In The Sociology of the Body: Mapping the Abstraction of Embodiment, edited by Paul
Rabinow, 43 - 63. New York: Sage Books.

II. Institutions and Governance

A. Institutions and Development

Leftwich, Adrian and Kunal, Sen. 2011. “’Don’t mourn: Organize’: Institution and organizations in
the politics and economics of growth and poverty-reduction” Journal of International Development 23: 319
– 337.

Leftwich, Adrian. 2005. “Democracy and development: Is there institutional incompatibility?”

Democratization. 12(5): 686–703.

Raquiza, Antoinette. 2012. State structure, policy formation, and economic development in Southeast Asia: The
political economy of Thailand and the Philippines. London: Routledge Books.

B. Elites: Local and Global

Hau, Caroline. 2017. “Patria e intereses”, “Who are the ‘Elites’”?, “People’s Power, Crony
Capitalism, and the (Anti-)Development State”, and “Transnational Elite Alliance” In Elites and
Ilustrados in Philippine Culture, pp. 1 – 49; 165 – 244. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Ho, Karen. 2009. “Introduction: Anthropology Goes to Wall Street”, “Biographies of Hegemony:
The Culture and Smartness and the Construction of Investment Bankers”, and “Leveraging

2
Dominance and Crises through the Global” In Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street, 1 – 72; 295 –
324. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Mendoza, R., Beja, E., et. al. 2016. “Political dynasties and poverty: measurement and evidence of
linkages in the Philippines” Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 44, Issue 2: 189 – 201.

C. Human Rights

Asad, Talal. 2000. “What Do Human Rights Do? An Anthropological Enquiry,” Theory and Event, 4:4.

Kraft, Herman Joseph S. 2001. “Human Rights, ASEAN, and Constructivism: Revisiting the ‘Asian
Values’ Discourse.” Philippine Political Science Journal 22(45): 33 – 54.

III. Citizenship and Nation-Building

A. Urban Governance and Local Governments

Harvey, David. “The Right to the City” New Left Review 53 (Sept-Oct 2008): 23 – 40.

Ocenar, Remigio D., “Planning and Budgeting of Selected Barangays in Five Provinces: A Synthesis
of Findings”, in Remigio D. Ocenar and Proserpina Domingo Tapales, eds., Local Government in the
Philippines: A Book of Readings (IV): New Directions in Local Governance. Quezon City: Center for Local
and Regional Governance and National College of Public Administration and Governance,
University of the Philippines, 2013.

Tapales, Proserpina D. "The Nature and State of Local Government", in Danilo D.R. Reyes, et. al.
Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader, 3rd ed., vol. 1. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines - National College of Public Administration and Governance, 2015.

B. Contemporary Populism

Moffitt, Benjamin. 2016. The Global Rise of Populism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

C. The Anthropocene and Climate Change

7. Praxis

Course Requirements:

Praxis Final Integrative Paper and Presentation - 30%

Final Oral Exam - 30%
Sectoral Context Midterm Report - 20%
Module Essays - 20%

3
Grading System:
A 100 – 92 C+ 82 - 79
B+ 91 – 87 C 78 - 75
B 86 – 83 D 74 – 70
F 69 and below
No curving. .56~ grades and above are rounded up.

Breakdown of Course Requirements:

Praxis Final Integrative Paper and Presentation – 30%

For Economics Tie-up: The final paper and presentation that synthesizes the student’s praxis
interventions for their Theology, Economics, and Political Science classes. The final integrative
paper shall contain a separate political analysis section, akin to the separate theological reflection in
their papers. Additional guidelines will be posted later during the semester.

For Health Sciences Tie-up: The final paper synthesizes the student’s praxis interventions and the
various modules tackled throughout the course. Additional guidelines will be posted later during the
semester.

For both: The Final Praxis Report should contain:

(i) A synthesis of their experience using the theoretical political approaches tackled throughout the
course.

(ii) Refined Sectoral Context Report that identifies the political dynamics and problems within their
praxis communities and the group's recommendations regarding these.

(iii) If applicable, a discussion on the policy creation environment relevant to the praxis site and
concrete policy proposals for the area. This should include, when relevant, discussions on urban and
local governance, climate change, human rights, poverty, elites, etc.

(iv) As a conclusion, link (i), (ii) and (iii) to the broader discourse on democracy and citizenship.

Final Oral Exam – 30%

Each student will write separate thesis statements pertaining to the modules on (i) Politics, (ii)
Power, (iii) any other topic covered during the semester and defend any one of these thesis
statements (chosen at random) for nine minutes. Afterwards, the instructor may ask further
questions for 1 minute. The exam will be graded based on the originality of the discussion and its
nuanced synthesis of the course materials. Students are also expected to provide examples relevant
to their own disciplines and/or contemporary political realities. Additional guidelines for writing are
given later during the semester.

4
Sectoral Context Midterm Report – 20%

This is a data-driven research paper to be done before the immersion period that gives a political
snapshot of the social sector relevant to the student’s or group’s praxis sites. This outlines the
various formal political and informal social institutions, current issues, and organizations (global,
national, and local), relevant to such sectors.

Module Essays – 20%

I will post questions for everyone in the class Facebook group related to current events and/or a set
of readings. Students are then to reply with their comments and/or answer to the question. There is
no minimum or maximum number of words for each comment. I base the grade for this component
on the rigor and quality of the reply. Students are also encouraged to reply to each other’s
comments, and to reply in turn (i.e. have an actual conversation regarding the question). All other
factors (who posted first, the comment which gets the most likes, or is liked by myself does not
factor in the grade). There will be a deadline for each round of discussion and these are announced
in the post itself or in class.

Classroom Policies

1. The maximum allowable absences (excused and unexcused) are nine class hours. Absences that
exceed this automatically receives a grade of W (Withdrawal). Dean's Listers during the previous
semester as well as students with a Cumulative QPI of 3.35 or above are allowed unlimited absences.
Students who intend to use this privilege must inform me beforehand. Class attendance will be
checked at the second bell. Students who arrive after the second bell are considered late. If a student
is late, it is the responsibility of the student to approach me after class to make sure that I have
correctly marked the students as 'late' instead of 'absent'. Three lates constitutes one cut. The written
record of attendance is the final and definitive source for the counting of cuts. On exceptional cases,
such as medical emergencies, onset of psychological illness, deaths in the family, etc., proof must be
presented to me as soon as possible (e.g. medical certificate, letter signed by a legal guardian, etc.).
Such exceptional cases will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (for matters such as make-up
exams, or catching up with missed lectures).

2. Procedures on offenses involving dishonesty as per the Undergraduate Student's Handbook will
be strictly enforced.

3. The class emphasizes class participation and discussion. As such, students are expected to have
read the readings before coming to class. The discussion will center around the ideas presented in
the readings, and their pertinence to current political realities and other historical events. As such,
students are forewarned that coming to class without having read the readings will result in a very
confusing and unproductive session.

4. Students may only use their laptops or any other device for note-taking. Students are also not
allowed nor are they given permission to record the class proceedings. Students who are caught
using their devices for surfing, chatting, etc. will be called out in class. Such incidents deviate from

5
the flow of the class and is highly distracting to your colleagues. Hence, students are requested to
refrain from doing so. Students who wish to answer calls or texts during class may do so once they
step out of the classroom. Students will not receive demerits if they properly follow this instruction.

5. Students may request for their class standing at any time before finals week. I will not entertain
requests for extra credit or any other matter pertaining to the pre-final grade beginning a week
before finals week.

6. I cannot emphasize enough that discussion is integral to the success of the class. As such, students
are encouraged to air out their questions, opinions, and their arguments as long as these are relevant
to the discussion. Again, students are forewarned since class participation and recitations constitute a
substantial part of the grade. Everyone in the classroom should be respectful and courteous to his or
her peers. Students are also encouraged to make ample use of their consultation privileges, given the
complexity of some of the readings and the short amount of time we are given to discuss these.

7. Bonus points on any aspect of the course may be given when a student attends a talk, seminar,
forum, activity, etc. designated by the teacher.

8. Given the timing of the requirements of the course (i.e. a substantial part of the final letter grade
will be determined at the final days of the semester), students are hereby cautioned to keep
track of their class standing always. More importantly, they are reminded not to slack off in fulfilling
the work required to complete the said final requirements. Both the group project and the rules of
the final oral exam allows the student to begin working on these requirements from week 1 of class.
Extra credit work may be given to boost the grades for online discussions and recitations, but it is
not possible to gain extra credit points for the final oral exam and the class/group project.

9. At the beginning of each class, the instructor will ask the students for any topic or news item that
they want to discuss for a few minutes. Students are encouraged to participate in this activity as it
sometimes yields to discussions that are pertinent to the student and covers topics that are relevant
but cannot be included in the syllabus due to certain constraints.

10. Since the course requires group work, I will always assume that the members of the groups work
in a harmonious and professional relationship with each other. In cases where members are
unproductive, or are not contributing on a level or manner agreed upon the group amongst
themselves, members should be honest with each other and try to come to a just arrangement that
re-integrates the erring member within the group dynamic. If the erring member still does not
amend, then groups at that point may seek my intervention, whereupon I will ask to consult with the
entire group. If at that point, the group still reports that there are problems, the erring member will
receive the necessary demerits for that component.

11. Any other concern regarding classroom policies will be discussed and agreed upon on a case-by-
case basis. I reserve the right to make changes to the syllabus (including the readings) if these
changes are not inimical to the goals of the course.

6
12. I will assign a class beadle. The beadle is responsible for class coordination especially regarding
photocopying of readings, scheduling of classes, creation of the class Facebook group, and other
similar responsibilities.

13. If you are a person with disability or mental illness, please approach me so we could discuss
accessibility to the materials, discussions, and other adjustments to accommodate you.

Suggested Readings:

Abinales, P. (1998). Images of state power: Essays on Philippine politics from the margins. University of the
Philippines Press.
Abinales, P. (2010). "National Advocacy and Local Power in the Philippines." Pp. 391-417 in Y.
Kasuya and N.G. Quimpo (Eds.) The Politics of Change in the Philippines. Manila: Anvil.
Dahlgren P. (2009). Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication and Democracy. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, UK.

De Guzman, J. & Montiel, C. (2012). “Social representations of foreign aid: Exploring meaning-
making in aid practice in Sulu, Southern Philippines.” Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology.
Foucault, M. (2002). Power (Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 Vol.3). London: Penguin
Books.

Grindle, M. and Thomas, J. (1991). Public choices and policy change: The political economy of reform in
developing countries. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hanisch, C. (1970). “The Personal is Political.” In Notes from the Second Year: Women’s Liberation, S.
Firestone and A. Koedt. New York: New York Radical Women. pp. 76-78.
Hedman, E. E. (2006). In the name of civil society: From free election movements to people power in the Philippines.
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Ileto, R. C. (2001). “Orientalism and the study of Philippine politics.” Philippine Political Science Journal
45: 1-32.
----. (1998). Filipinos and their Revolution: Event, Discourse and Historiography. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.
----. (1997). Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines, 1840-1910. Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila University Press.
Institute of Philippine Culture. (2005). The vote of the poor. Quezon City: Institute of Philippine
Culture.

Lara, F. J. and Champain, P. (2009). Inclusive Peace in Muslim Mindanao: Revisiting the Dynamics of Conflict
and Exclusion. International Alert.

7
Leftwich, A. (2011). “Chapter 12: Theorizing the State.” In P. Burnell Politics in the Developing World.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linga, A. S. M. (2008) “Understanding the Bangsamoro right to self-determination.” In Moro Reader:

History and Contemporary Struggles of the Bangsamoro People. Quezon City: Policy Study Publication and
Advocacy (PSPA), Center for Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) in partnership with Light a
Candle Movement for Social Change.

Magadia, J. (2003). State-society dynamics: Policy making in a restored democracy. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.

McCoy, A. (2007). An anarchy of families: State and family in the Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.

Miranda, F., Rivera, T., Ronas, M. and Holmes, R. (2011). Chasing the wind: Assessing Philippine
democracy. Quezon City: Commission on Human Rights Philippines.

Moore, B. (1966). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern
World. Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Montiel, C. Baquiano, M. and Inzon, C. (2013). “Conflicting group meanings of territorial rights in
Central Mindanao: Muslim–Christian social representations of land entitlement.” Journal of Pacific Rim
Psychology, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/prp.2013.1
Montiel, C. & de Guzman, J., & Macapagal, E. (2012). “Fragmented ethnopolitical social
representations of a territorial peace agreement: The Mindanao peace talks.” Journal of Pacific Rim
Psychology.
Montiel, C., Rodil, R., & de Guzman, J. (2012). “The Moro struggle and the challenge to peace-building
in Mindanao, Southern Philippines.” In D. Landis & R. Albert (Eds). Handbook of ethnic conflict:
International perspectives, pp. 71-92. NY: Springer.
Montiel, C. & de Guzman, J.. (2011). “Social Representations of a Controversial Peace Agreement:
Subjective Public Meanings of the MOA.” Philippine Political Science Journal, 32, 37 – 72.
Montiel, C. & de Guzman, J. (2011). “Intergroup Positioning in the Political Sphere: Contesting the
Social Meaning of a Peace Agreement.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 41, 92-116.
Montiel, C., De Guzman, J., Inzon, C., & Batistiana, B. (2010). “Political positioning in asymmetric
intergroup conflicts:Three cases from war-torn Mindanao.” In F. Moghaddam & R. Harre (Eds.),
Words of conflict, words of war: How the language we use in political processes sparks fighting. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Montiel, C. & Macapagal, E. (2006). “Effects of Social Position on Societal Attributions of an
Asymmetric Conflict." Journal of Peace Research, 43, 219-227.
Moreno, A. F. (2008). Engaged Citizenship: The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in the
Post-Authoritarian Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.

8
Ocenar, R. (2015). “The History and Structural Evolution of the Barangay in the Philippines”, in D.
dela Rosa Reyes, et. al., Introduction to public administration in the Philippines: A reader (3rd Edition, Volume
1). Quezon City: UP-NCPAG Diliman, pp. 393-406.

Pinches, M. (2010). "The Making of Middle Class Civil Society in the Philippines." Pp. 284-312 in Y.
Kasuya and N.G. Quimpo (Eds.) The Politics of Change in the Philippines. Manila: Anvil.

Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the Weak, Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.

Scott, J. C. (1999) Seeing like a state: How schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University
Press.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Volumes 1 and 2). Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Tilly, C. & Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious politics. New York: Oxford Press.