sign in sign up
<<
Home , Additional member system, Alternative Vote Plus, Andrew Stunell, Anonymous elector, Bucklin voting, Cumulative voting

Liberal Democrats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the British . For similarly named parties in other countries, see Liberal Democratic Party. For the system of , see Liberal . Liberal Democrats

Leader MP Deputy Leader MP President [1] MP Founded 2 March 1988 Merger of Liberal Party and SDP

Preceded by SDP-Liberal Alliance 8-10 Great George Street, Headquarters London, SW1P 3AE [2]

Youth wing Liberal Youth Membership (2010) 65,038[3] Cultural liberalism Economic liberalism[4] Internal ideological trends:

Ideology • Green • Green Liberalism • Civil • Internationalism[5] • • Community politics[6] Radical centre to Centre-

Political position left[7][8][9] International

Liberal International affiliation European Liberal Democrat European affiliation

and European Alliance of Liberals and

Parliament Group Democrats for [10]

Official colours Yellow 57 / 650

House of Commons [11] 79 / 738

House of Lords [12][13] European 12 / 72 [14]

Parliament

London Assembly 3 / 25

Scottish Parliament 5 / 129 5 / 60

Welsh Assembly [15][16] 3,078 / 21,871

Local government [17] Website

libdems.org.uk Politics of the Political parties

The Liberal Democrats are a social liberal political party in the United Kingdom which supports constitutional and ,[18] progressive taxation,[19] wealth taxation,[20] human laws,[21] cultural liberalism,[22] banking reform[23] and civil (the party president's book of office is John Stuart Mill's 1859 On ).

The party was formed in 1988 by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. The two parties had formed the electoral SDP–Liberal Alliance for seven years before then, since the SDP's formation. The Liberals had been in existence for 129 years and in power under leaders such as Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George.

Nick Clegg was elected leader in 2007. At the 2010 general , Liberal Democrats won 23%[24] of the votes resulting in 8.77% of the parliamentary seats, that being 57 of the 650, making them the third-largest party in the House of Commons, behind the Conservatives with 307 seats and Labour with 258. No party had an overall ; the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats formed a government, with Clegg becoming Deputy Prime and other Liberal Democrats taking up government positions.[25]

Contents

[hide]

 1 o 1.1  2 History o 2.1 Founding o 2.2 Post-1988 history . 2.2.1 Ashdown (1988–99) . 2.2.2 Kennedy (1999–2006) . 2.2.3 Campbell (2006–2007) . 2.2.4 Clegg (2007–present) o 2.3 In (2010–present) . 2.3.1 Liberal Democrat Government Ministers . 2.3.1.1 Members of the Cabinet . 2.3.1.2 Other Ministers  3 Backbench  4 Electoral results o 4.1 European elections o 4.2 elections o 4.3 Welsh Assembly elections  5 Structure o 5.1 Membership figures  6 Leaders o 6.1 Deputy Leaders o 6.2 Party Presidents o 6.3 Leaders in the European Parliament  7 See also  8 References  9 External links o 9.1 parties o 9.2 Regional parties o 9.3 Party sub-organisations o 9.4 Historical information o 9.5 Miscellaneous

[edit] Ideology

The opening line to the preamble of the Liberal Democrats constitution is "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and , in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."[26] Most commentators describe the party as either centrist or centre-left[27][28]. In 2011 party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said "But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal."[29]

There are two main strands of distinct ideology within the party, social liberals and the economic liberals, more commonly known as Orange Bookers. The social liberals are seen as being the more traditionally centre-left end of the party with Orange Bookers being more towards the centre. The principal difference between the two is that the Orange Bookers tend to support greater choice and competition and as such aiming to increase social mobility through increasing economic freedom and opportunity for those with more disadvantaged backgrounds. Whereas the social liberals are more commonly associated with directly aiming to increase equality of outcome through state means. Correspondingly, Orange Bookers tend to favour cutting taxes for the poorest in order to increase opportunity contrasting with social liberals who would rather see higher spending on the disadvantaged to reduce income inequality.[30]

Being an Orange Booker and a social liberal within the party are not mutually exclusives. , one of the most economically liberal MPs in the party said in Parliament "I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments about Gladstonian Liberalism. I hope that this is not only Gladstonian Liberalism, but liberalism tinged with the social liberalism about which my party is so passionate."[31] Indeed the Orange Book, to which the term refers, discusses the need for a more complete liberalism for the party, more fully supporting the liberalism as a whole including social liberalism.

The social liberalism in the party stems from the start of the 20th Century when the Liberal party were bringing about many reforms, known as Liberal reforms which are often viewed as the creation of the modern public welfare system in the UK. A major part of creating the liberal welfare reforms was done by , who later went on to become Prime Minister. They may also often look to William Beveridge who is credited with drafting further advancements of the welfare state and especially the National Health Service (NHS) and also social liberal economist . In February 2009, many social liberals founded an internal party pressure group, the to pursue social liberal policies within the party.

In a poll of Liberal Democrat members on 30 April 2011 64% classed themselves as social liberal with 35% counting themselves as economic liberals. Others high on the list were progressive with 65%, social democrat 34%, 45% centre left, 60% internationalist, 44% radical, 41% green.[32]

In December 2011, in a speech to the Demos think tank and the Open Society Foundation Clegg put forward his definition of the three main political traditions in Britain, saying:

"Socialists support the idea of the good society, typically judged in terms of equality of income. In order to bring about this end they use the state quite aggressively in terms of labour market regulation, centralised public services and through tax and benefits.

Conservatives support the idea of a , with responsibility shared throughout society - people are responsible both for themselves and each other. The emphasis is naturally on non-state institutions such as marriage, the family, churches and voluntary organisations.

The liberal ideal is of the open society, where power is vested in people, not in the state or other institutions. This means that individuals need the capabilities and opportunities to chart their own course through life, and to hold institutions to account. So while the good society needs a strong state, and the big society needs strong social institutions, the open society needs strong citizens."[33]

[edit] Policies

The party was the first major party in the United Kingdom to formally endorse same-sex marriage.[34] List of policies followed by their status in the current Liberal Democrat - Conservative coalition government.

Economy:

 Tax-free earning threshold to rise to £10,000, paid for by a "mansion tax" of 1% on properties worth over £2m applicable to value of property over that figure. — Tax- free earning threshold to rise to £10,000, to be achieved by 2015.

 Annual savings totalling £15bn, including scrapping ID cards and not renewing the Trident nuclear deterrent. — ID cards scrapped, Trident under review for cost effectiveness and decision on its replacement pushed back until after next .

 Minimum wage set at same level for all workers aged over 16 - except apprentices.

 Replace council tax with local income tax ( only).

Schools:

 Pupil premium of £2.5bn given to head teachers, aimed at disadvantaged children, which could allow average primary school to cut class size to 20 pupils. — £488 per child on free school meals, is given to schools on top of their main funding. Total pupil premium funding for 2011-12 is £625m and is due to rise to £2.5bn a year by 2014-15.[35]

 Introduce shared parental leave from work, extended to 18 months over time, and right for fathers to attend ante- appointments. Right for grandparents to request flexible working. — From April 2011 fathers will be able to take any unused maternity leave themselves if their partners go back to work early. Plans also announced to consult on further reforms to the current system of parental leave.[36]

 Workplace scheme for 800,000 pupils to give them the opportunity to gain skills and experience. — £1bn of new funding will provide opportunities including job subsidies, apprenticeships and work experience placements for 500,000 unemployed people. The government will subsidise 160,000 work places by providing £2,275 to any private sector business willing to hire an unemployed person aged 18 to 24 years old.[37]

 Replace national curriculum with "minimum curriculum entitlement" in state-funded schools and scale back tests at age 11. More freedom for school management.

Health:

 Cut size of the Department of Health by half, abolishing or cutting budgets of quangos, scrapping Strategic Health Authorities and seeking to limit pay of top NHS managers to below level of prime minister. — Three quarters of health quangos axed. Plans announced to scrap Strategic Health Authorities.[38][39]  Integrate health and social care, allow people to stay in homes for longer rather than going into hospital or residential care by limiting .

 Scrap Labour's personal care at home and divert cash to give one week's respite for one million carers. — Over £400million available in additional funding over coalition period to the hundreds of thousands of carers who work over 50 hours a week.[40]

Crime, justice and immigration:

 Focus on treatment, rather than imprisonment, of drug addicts. Drug based on independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advice.

 Make prisoners work, contributing from prison wages to compensation fund for victims. As resources allow, increase number of hours prisoners spend in and training.

 Presumption against short-term sentences of less than six months, replaced by rigorously enforced community sentences - allowing cancellation of prison-building programme.

 A freedom to regulate CCTV, end the collection of DNA from innocent citizens, scrap ID cards, the children's contact database and control orders. Halt the creation of new criminal offences. —Freedom bill announced which will regulate CCTV, end the collection of DNA from innocent citizens, scrap ID cards, the children's contact database, ends control orders, reduces the maximum pre-charge detention period under that Act from 28 to 14 days, outlaws wheel-clamping on private land, and enables those with convictions for consensual sexual relations between men aged 16 or over (which have since been decriminalised) to apply to have them disregarded.[41]

Political reform:

 Introduce system (STV), cut number of MPs by 150 and introduce fixed-term . — took place on single winner variant of STV (Alternative vote), number of MPs to be reduced by 50 and fixed term parliaments introduced.

 Replace with smaller, fully elected . Introduce written constitution. —Plans outlined for a House of Lords with 300 members, 80% of which would be elected using STV.

 Introduce rights from age 16. Give powers for electorate to sack MPs who break rules. Require all MPs, Lords and parliamentary candidates to pay UK tax.

 Introduce statutory register of lobbyists, changing Ministerial Code to ban ministers and officials from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby. -Statuary register of lobbyists in coalition agreement.

Foreign policy:  There would be a full judicial inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torture and state kidnapping. —A full judicial inquiry has been announced.[42]

 No like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system. —Final decision on replacement to be pushed until after the next general election and

 There should be a "strong and positive" commitment to Europe. —Included in coalition agreement.[43][44] [edit] History

[edit] Founding

Interim logo of the Social and Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats were formed on 2 March 1988 by a merger between the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, which had formed a pact nearly seven years earlier as the SDP–Liberal Alliance. The Liberals descended from the Whigs, Radicals and , while the SDP were a party created by former Labour members, MPs and cabinet ministers, but also gained defections from Conservatives.[45]

Having declined to third party status after the rise of the Labour Party from 1918 and especially during the 1920s, the Liberals were challenged for this position in the 1980s when a group of Labour MPs broke away and established the Social Democratic Party (SDP).[45] The SDP and the Liberals realised that there was no space for four political parties and entered into the SDP–Liberal Alliance so that they would not stand against each other in elections. The Alliance was led by (Liberal) and (SDP); Jenkins was replaced by .[45] The two parties had their own policies and emphases, but produced a joint manifesto for the 1983 and 1987 general elections.

Following disappointing results in the 1987 election, Steel proposed to merge the two parties. Although opposed by Owen, it was supported by a majority of members of both parties, and they formally merged in March 1988, with Steel and Robert Maclennan (who had become SDP leader in August 1987) as joint interim leaders. The new party was initially named Social and Liberal Democrats (SLD) with the unofficial short form The Democrats being used from September 1987.[46] The name was subsequently changed to Liberal Democrats in October 1989, which is frequently shortened to Lib Dems.[45] A new party logo, the Bird of Liberty, was adopted in 1989. This was famously dismissed by , the Conservative prime minister at the time, as being "as dead as John Cleese's parrot".[47]

The minority of the SDP who rejected the merger remained under Owen's leadership in a rump SDP; the minority of the Liberal Party divided, with some retiring from politics immediately and others (led by former Liberal MP Michael Meadowcroft) creating a new 'Liberal Party' that claimed to be the continuation of the Liberal Party which had just dissolved itself. Michael Meadowcroft eventually joined the Liberal Democrats in 2007 but some of his former followers continue still as the Liberal Party, most notably in a couple of electoral wards of the City of Liverpool.[45]

[edit] Post-1988 history

[edit] Ashdown (1988–99)

Paddy Ashdown: Leader from 1988 to 1999

The then-serving Liberal MP was elected leader in July 1988. At the 1989 European Elections, the party received only 6% of the vote, putting them in fourth place after the Green Party.[45] They failed to gain a single Member of the European Parliament at this election.[48]

Over the next three years, the party recovered under Ashdown's leadership. They performed better at the 1990 local elections and in by-elections—including at Eastbourne in 1990, Ribble Valley in 1991 and Kincardine & Deeside in 1991.

The Lib Dems did not reach the share of national votes in the 1990s that the Alliance had achieved in the 1980s. At their first election in 1992 (which ended in a fourth successive Conservative win), they won 17.8% of the vote and twenty seats.[49] They more than doubled their representation at the 1997 general election, when they gained 46 seats[49]—through and concentrating resources in winnable seats.[50]

In the 1994 European Elections, the party gained its first two Members of European Parliament.[51]

Following the election of as Labour leader in July 1994 after the death of his predecessor John Smith, Ashdown pursued co-operation between the two parties because he wanted to form a coalition government should the next general election end without any party having an overall majority.[52] This Lib-Lab pact failed to form because Labour's massive majority after the 1997 general election made it an irrelevance for Labour, and because Labour were not prepared to consider the introduction of proportional representation and other Lib Dem conditions.[52] The election was, however, something of a turning point for the Liberal Democrats. They took a smaller share of the vote than at the previous election, but they managed to more than double their representation in parliament.[53]

[edit] Kennedy (1999–2006)

Charles Kennedy: Leader from 1999 to 2006

Ashdown retired as leader in 1999[54] and was elected as his replacement. The party improved on their 1997 results at the 2001 general election, increasing their seats to 52 and their vote share to 18.3%.[55] They won support from former Labour and Conservative voters due to the Lib Dems' position on issues that appeal to those on the left and the right: to the war in [56] and support for , electoral reform, and open government. Charles Kennedy expressed his goal to replace the Conservatives as the official opposition;[57] The Spectator awarded him the 'Parliamentarian of the Year' award in November 2004 for his position on the war.[58] The party won seats from Labour in by- elections in Brent East in 2003 and Leicester South in 2004, and narrowly missed taking others in Birmingham Hodge Hill and Hartlepool.[59]

At the 2005 general election, the Lib Dems gained their highest share of the vote since the SDP–Liberal Alliance (22.1%), receiving 62 seats.[60] Many had anticipated that this election would be the Lib Dem's breakthrough at Westminster; party activists hoped to better the 25.4% support of the 1983 election, or to reach 100 MPs.[61] 2005 could be considered a wasted opportunity for the party; but much of the apparent lack of success was a result of the Westminster first-past-the-post elections: the party got almost a quarter of the total votes nationally but only one-tenth of the seats in the Commons.[60] Controversy attached itself to the campaign when it became known that Michael Brown had donated £2.4 million to the Liberal Democrats. Brown, who lived in Majorca, Spain at the time, was charged in June 2008 with fraud and money laundering and subsequently jumped bail and fled the country.[62] In November 2008, he was convicted in his absence of thefts amounting to £36 million and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.[63] One trend at the election was that Lib Dems replaced the Conservatives as Labour's main opponents in urban areas. Many gains came in previously Labour-held urban constituencies (e.g. Manchester Withington, Cardiff Central, Birmingham Yardley), many of which had been held by the Conservatives in the 1980s, and they had over 100 second-place finishes behind Labour candidates.[60] The British makes it hard for the Conservatives to form a government without winning some city seats out of its rural heartlands, such as the Lib Dem Bristol West constituency, where the Conservatives came third in 2005 after holding the seat until 1997.[64]

In a statement on 5 January 2006, Charles Kennedy admitted to a long battle with alcoholism and announced a leadership election in which he intended to stand for re-election, while Sir took over as acting leader.[65]

For several years there had been rumours alleging that Kennedy had problems with alcohol— the BBC's Nick Robinson called it "Westminster's worst-kept secret".[66] Kennedy had on previous occasions denied these rumours, although some suggested that he had deliberately misled the public and his party.[66]

[edit] Campbell (2006–2007)

Menzies Campbell: Leader from 2006 to 2007

Kennedy initially planned to stand as a candidate, but he withdrew from the election citing a lack of support among Lib Dem MPs.[67] Sir Menzies subsequently won the contest, defeating and Simon Hughes, among others, in a very controversial race. withdrew from the contest because of revelations about visits to male prostitutes. Simon Hughes came under attack regarding his sexuality while Chris Huhne was accused live on The Daily Politics of attempting to rig polls.[67]

Despite the negative press over Kennedy's departure, the leaderless party won the and West by-election over Labour in February 2006. This result was viewed as a particular blow for , who lives in the constituency, represents the adjacent seat and featured in Labour's campaign.[68] The party also came second place by 633 votes in the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, threatening the safe Conservative seat and pushing Labour into fourth place behind the United Kingdom Independence Party.[69] In July 2007, Sir Menzies announced that the party wished to cut the basic rate of income tax from 20 to 16p per pound—the lowest rate since 1916—and wanted to finance the cut using green taxes and other revenues, including making gains from UK properties owned by non-UK residents eligible for capital gains tax.[70]

Opinion poll trends during Campbell's leadership showed support for the Lib Dems decline to less than 20%.[71] Campbell resigned on 15 October 2007, and became acting leader until a leadership election could be held.[72] Cable was praised during his tenure for his performances at Prime Minister's Questions over the Northern Rock crisis, HMRC's loss of child benefit data, and the 2007 Labour party donation scandal.[73]

[edit] Clegg (2007–present)

Nick Clegg: Leader from 2007 to present, and current Deputy Prime Minister

On 18 December 2007, Nick Clegg won the leadership election, becoming the party's fourth leader. Clegg won the leadership with a majority of 511 votes (1.2%) over his opponent Chris Huhne, in a poll of party members.[74] Clegg is the for Sheffield Hallam, and was an MEP for the East Midlands from 1999 to 2004.[75]

In his acceptance speech, Clegg declared that he was "a liberal by temperament, by instinct and by upbringing" and that he believes "Britain [is] a place of tolerance and pluralism". He claimed that his priorities were defending civil liberties; devolving the running of public services to parents, pupils and patients; and protecting the environment,[76] and that he wanted to forge a "liberal alternative to the discredited policies of big government".[75] He also proposed a target to double the number of Lib Dem MPs within two elections, and before the 2008 local elections confirmed that he was pleased with their performance in the polls: "the polls yesterday were at 20%, that's considerably higher than 13% just a few years ago. It's far, far higher than we've ever been at this point in the political cycle two or three years after a general election."[77]

Shortly after election, Clegg reshuffled the party's frontbench team, making Chris Huhne the replacement Home Affairs spokesperson, the Foreign Affairs spokesperson, and keeping Vince Cable as Shadow Chancellor.[78] His predecessors were also given roles: Campbell joined the all-party Commons foreign affairs select , and Kennedy campaigned nationwide on European issues, as president of the European Movement UK.[78] Political commentators have identified Clegg's leadership as promoting a shift to the radical centre in the Liberal Democrat Party, bringing a little more emphasis on to the economically liberal side of social liberalism

In March 2011 Nick Clegg made a speech to his party conference stating that he believed that his party belonged to the radical centre. Clegg also quoted John Meynard Keynes, William Beveridge, , David Lloyd George and John Stuart Mill, implying that they may also have belonged to the radical centre. He pointed to liberalism as an ideology of people, and therefore, one of the radical centre "For the left, an obsession with the state. For the right, a worship of the market. But as liberals, we place our faith in people. People with power and opportunity in their hands. Our opponents try to divide us with their outdated labels of left and right. But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal. We are liberals and we own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics. Our politics is the politics of the radical centre."[8]

[edit] In coalition government (2010–present)

Main article: United Kingdom coalition government (2010–present)

After Clegg's performance in the first of three general election debates on 15 April 2010, ComRes reported that the Liberal Democrats polled 24% on the day.[79] On 20 April, in a YouGov poll, the Liberal Democrats were on 34%, 1 point above the Conservatives, with Labour in third place on 28%.[80]

In the general election held on 6 May 2010, the Liberal Democrats' representation went down by 5 seats in the House of Commons, giving them 57 seats, despite increasing their share of the vote to 23%. Nevertheless, the election returned a with no party having an absolute majority. Negotiations between the Lib Dems and the two main parties occurred in the following days. became Prime Minister on 11 May after Gordon Brown's resignation and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government with the Conservative Party, with Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister and other Liberal Democrats in the cabinet.[25] Three quarters of the Liberal Democrat's manifesto pledges went into the Programme for Government.[81]

Since joining the coalition poll ratings for the party have fallen,[82] particularly following the government's support for raising the cap on tuition fees with Liberal Democrat MPs voting 27 for, 21 against and 8 abstaining.[83][84]

On 8 December 2010, the eve of a House of Commons vote on the raising of the UK's undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000, an conducted by YouGov recorded voting intention figures of Conservatives 41%, Labour 41%, Other Parties 11% and Liberal Democrats 8%,[85] the lowest level of support recorded for the Liberal Democrats in any opinion poll since September 1990.[86] However,in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by- election, 2011 held on 13 January 2011, the Liberal Democrats gained 31.9% of the vote, a 0.3% increase despite losing to Labour. It has been reported that 65% of the Lib Dem 2010 UK general election manifesto made it into the coalition agreement. In a by-election in the South Yorkshire constituency of Barnsley in March 2011, the Liberal Democrats fell from a low 2nd place at the general election to 6th,[87] coming behind the BNP, UKIP and an Independent candidate. Many party members and MPs pointed to the constituency being held by Labour since 1922 and the very poor turnout as reasons why they were not very successful[citation needed]. It has also been pointed out by party president Tim Farron that previously both Labour and the Conservatives have had very similar results, as well as pointing to the optimism of the by-election result in Oldham being the best for a governing party since the Falklands War[citation needed].

In the many council by-elections held on 5 May 2011, the Liberal Democrats suffered heavy defeats, particularly in the Midlands, North and . They also lost heavily in the Welsh assembly and Scottish Parliament, where several LibDem candidates lost their deposits.[88] However, the party received 15% of the vote at a time when they were on 9-11% in most polls, which is a substantial difference.

According to

"They lost control of Sheffield council – the city of Clegg's constituency – were ousted from Liverpool, Hull and Stockport, and lost every Manchester seat they stood in. Overall, they got their lowest share of the vote in three decades".

Clegg admitted that the party had taken "big knocks" due to a perception that the coalition government had returned to the Thatcherism of the 1980s.[89]

As part of the deal that formed the coalition, it was agreed to hold a referendum on the Alternative Vote, in which the Conservatives would campaign for First Past the Post and the Liberal Democrats for Alternative Vote. The referendum, held on 5 May 2011, resulted in First Past the Post being chosen over Alternative Vote by two-thirds of voters.

In May 2011, Nick Clegg revealed plans to make the House of Lords a mainly elected chamber, limiting the number of peers to 300, 80% of whom would be elected with a third of that 80% being elected every 5 years by Single transferable vote.[90] The Lib Dem secretary of state for energy and climate change Chris Huhne also announced plans for halving UK carbon emissions by 2025 as part of the "Green Deal" in the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto.[91]

[edit] Liberal Democrat Government Ministers

Further information: Liberal Democrat Frontbench Team

[edit] Members of the Cabinet

 Nick Clegg – Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Deputy Prime Minister  Vince Cable – Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills  Chris Huhne – Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change  Michael Moore – Secretary of State for Scotland  – Chief Secretary to the Treasury[92]

[edit] Other Ministers

– Minister of State for (Department for Work and Pensions)  – Minister of State for Care Services (Department of Health)  – Minister of State for Children and Families (Department for Education)  The Rt Hon.Tom McNally, Baron McNallyPC– Minister of State in Justice, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Ministry of Justice)  – Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (responsibility for South East Asia/Far East, Caribbean, Central/South America, Australasia and Pacific, , consular, migration, drugs and international crime, public diplomacy and the Olympics)  – Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Ministry of Defence)  – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities ()  – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Regional and Local Transport (Department for Transport)  – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Community Cohesion (Department for Communities and )  Edward Davey – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills)  – Chief Parliamentary and Political Adviser to the Deputy PM Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister  – Deputy Leader of the House of Commons  The Rt Hon. Jim Wallace, Baron Wallace of Tankerness PC QC–Advocate General for Scotland

Whips Commons Whips

– Deputy Chief , Comptroller of the Household, Liberal Democrat Chief Whip  Mark Hunter– Assistant Whip  Norman Lamb– Assistant Whip

Lords Whips

 The Rt Hon. David Shutt, Baron Shutt of Greetland PC– Deputy Chief Whip, Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard  Lindsay Northover, Baroness Northover  William Wallace, Baron Wallace of Saltaire

[edit] Backbench committees

In mid-2010, after the formation of the coalition, several backbench committees were created to effectively shadow government departments, in order for the party to keep a distinct and separate set of polices to that of the Conservatives. These committees work together with ministers in order to keep joined up policy and democratic policy making decisions. There must be one co-chair for each of the committees from each House. The list of committees and co chairs as of 29 March 2011 is detailed in the table below:[93]

Commons co- Committee Lords co-chair(s) chair

Work and Pensions Lord German Education, Families and Young

Dan Rogerson Baroness Walmsley People Constitutional and Political Reform Lord Tyler

Mark Williams (including Cabinet & House Lord Maclennan of Rogart (Cabinet Business) Office)

Culture, Media and Sport Don Foster Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury

Energy and Climate Change Lord Teverson

Environment, Food, and Rural Andrew George

Lord Greaves Affairs

Transport Julian Huppert Lord Bradshaw Communities and Local

Annette Brooke Lord Tope Government Baroness Falkner International Affairs (FCO,

Martin Horwood Defence & DfID) Lord Lee of Trafford (MoD) Lord Chidgey (DFID)

Health and Social Care John Pugh Lord Alderdice Baroness Hamwee (Home Office) Home Affairs, Justice and

Tom Brake Equalities Lord Thomas of Gresford (Justice)

Business, Innovation & Science Lord Razzall Stephen

Treasury Lord Newby

Williams

Wales Roger Williams None

Scotland Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Northern Stephen Lloyd Lord Smith of Clifton

[edit] Electoral results

Lib Dem vote and seat share 1983–2005

In United Kingdom general elections, the Lib Dems succeeded the Liberal–SDP Alliance as the third most popular party, behind Labour and the Conservatives. Their popularity initially declined from the levels attained by the Alliance, but their seat count has risen to its peak of 63 seats, a feat that has been credited to more intelligent targeting of vulnerable seats.[50] The vote percentage for the Alliance in 1987 and the Lib Dems in 2005 is similar, yet the Lib Dems won 62 seats to the Alliance's 22.[60]

The first-past-the-post electoral system used in UK General Elections is not suited to parties whose vote is evenly divided across the country, resulting in those parties achieving a lower proportion of seats in the Commons than their proportion of the popular vote (see table and graph). The Lib Dems and their Liberal and SDP predecessors have suffered especially,[94] particularly in the 1980s when their electoral support was greatest while the disparity between the votes and the number of MPs returned to parliament was significantly large. The increase in their number of seats in 1997, 2001 and 2005 was attributed to the weakness of the Conservatives and the success of their election strategist Lord Rennard.[50] Lib Dems state that they want 'three-party politics' in the Commons;[95][96] the most realistic chance of power with first past the post is for the party to be the kingmakers in a hung parliament.[97] Party leaders often set out their terms for forming a coalition in such an event—Nick Clegg stated in 2008 that the policy for the 2010 general election is to reform elections, parties and Parliament in a "constitutional convention".[98]

General election Name Share of votes Seats Share of seats Source [99]

1983 SDP–Liberal Alliance 25.4% 23 3.5% [99]

1987 SDP–Liberal Alliance 22.6% 22 3.4% [49]

1992 Liberal Democrats 17.8% 20 3.1% [49]

1997 Liberal Democrats 16.7% 46 7.0% [55]

2001 Liberal Democrats 18.3% 52 7.9% [60]

2005 Liberal Democrats 22.1% 62 9.6% [11]

2010 Liberal Democrats 23.0% 57 8.8%

The party has performed better in local elections as it won control of 31 councils.[100] In the 2008 local elections, they gained 25% of the vote, placing them ahead of Labour and increasing their control by 34 to more than 4,200 council seats—21% of the total number of seats.[101]

[edit] European elections

Graham Watson: Former leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is the Liberal Democrat MEP for the South West of England and the first Lib Dem to be elected to the European parliament The party has generally not performed as well in elections to the European Parliament. In the 2004 local elections, their share of the vote was 29% (placing them second, ahead of Labour)[96] and 14.9% in the simultaneous European Parliament elections (putting them in fourth place behind UK Independence Party (UKIP)).[102] The results of the 2009 European elections were similar with the party achieving a vote of 28% in the county council elections yet achieving only 13.7% in the Europeans despite the elections taking place on the same day. The 2009 elections did however see the party gain one seat from UKIP in the East Midlands region taking the number of representatives in the parliament up to 11.[103]

In Europe, the party sits with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) political group, which favours further strengthening the EU.[104] The group's leader for seven and a half years was the South West of England MEP Graham Watson, who was also the first Liberal Democrat to be elected to the European parliament when he won the old Somerset and North Devon constituency in 1994.[105] The group's current leader is the former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt.[106]

European election Share of Share of Name Seats Source (UK) votes seats [107]

1984 SDP–Liberal Alliance 18.5% 0 0%

Social and Liberal [108]

1989 6.2% 0 0% Democrats [109]

1994 Liberal Democrats 16.1% 2 2.3% [110]

1999 Liberal Democrats 12.7% 10 11.5% [102]

2004 Liberal Democrats 14.9% 12 15.4% [14]

2009 Liberal Democrats 13.7% 11 15.3%

[edit] Scottish Parliament elections

Tavish Scott: Former Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats

The first elections for the Scottish parliament were held in 1999 and resulted in the Liberal Democrats forming a coalition government with Labour from its establishment until 2007.[111] The Liberal Democrat leader Jim Wallace became Deputy First Minister, a role he continued until his retirement as party leader in 2005. The new leader of the party, , then took on the role of Deputy First Minister until the election of 2007[112]

Since the parliament was established, the Lib Dems have maintained a consistent number of MSPs. From the 17 initially elected, they retained this number in 2003 and went down one to 16 in 2007.[113] The current leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats is the MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, , who took up his role in 2011.[114]

The party suffered heavy losses in the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections, losing 11 seats. This is seen by many as a response to the unpopular Lib Dem/Conservative coalition in Westminster.

Scottish Share of Share of Total Share of Parliament Name constituency Seats regional Seats Seats Seats Elections votes votes Liberal

1999 14.15% 12 12.43% 5 17 13.2% Democrats Liberal

2003 15.3% 13 11.8% 4 17 13.2% Democrats Liberal

2007 16.2% 11 11.3% 5 16 12.6% Democrats Liberal

2011 7.9% 2 5.2% 3 5 3.88% Democrats

[edit] Welsh Assembly elections

Kirsty Williams: Leader of the

Elections to the newly created for also took place for the first time in 1999 and saw the Liberal Democrats take six seats in the inaugural Assembly, with winning a of seats in the assembly, but not enough to win an outright majority. In October 2000, following a series of close votes, the parties formed a coalition that saw the Liberal Democrat leader in the assembly, Michael German, become the Deputy First Minister.[115] The deal lasted until the election of 2003, when Labour won enough seats to be able to govern outright.[116]

The Party has polled consistently in all four elections to the National Assembly, returning six representatives in the first three elections and five in the 2011 Election, thereby establishing itself as the fourth party in Wales behind Labour, the Conservatives and . The current leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats is , the assembly member for Brecon & Radnorshire, the Assembly's first female leader.[117]

Welsh Share of Share of Total Share of Assembly Name constituency Seats regional Seats Seats Seats elections votes votes Liberal

1999 13.5% 3 12.50% 3 6 10% Democrats Liberal

2003 14.1% 3 12.7% 3 6 10% Democrats Liberal

2007 14.8% 3 11.7% 3 6 10% Democrats Liberal

2011 10.6% 1 8.0% 4 5 8.3% Democrats

[edit] Structure

See also: Liberal Democrats in England, Scottish Liberal Democrats, and Welsh Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats are a federal party of the parties of England, Scotland and Wales. The English and Scottish parties are further split into regions. The parliamentary parties of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly form semi-autonomous units within the party. The leaders in the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament are the leaders of the federal party and the Scottish Party; the leaders in the other two chambers, and the officers of all parliamentary parties, are elected from their own number. Co-ordination of all party activities across all federated groups is undertaken through the Federal . Chaired by the party leader, its 30+ members includes representatives from each of the groups and democratically elected representatives.[118]

The Lib Dems had around 65,000 members at the end of 2010[119] and in the first quarter of 2008, the party received £1.1 million in donations and have total borrowings and unused credit facilities of £1.1 million (the "total debt" figure reported by the Electoral Commission includes, for example, unused overdraft facilities). This compares to Labour's £3.1 million in donations and £17.8 million of borrowing/credit facilities, and the Conservatives' £5.7 million in donations and £12.1 million of borrowing/credit facilities.[120]

Specified Associated Organisations (SAOs) review and input policies, representing groups including: ethnic minorities (EMLD),[121] women (WLD),[122] the LGBT community (Delga),[123] youth and students (Liberal Youth), engineers and scientists (ALDES),[124] parliamentary candidates (PCA)[125] and local councillors (ALDC).[126] Others can become Associated Organisations (AOs) as pressure groups in the party, such as the Green Liberal Democrats,[127] Liberal Democrats Online,[128] the Liberal Democrat European Group (LDEG)[129] and the Liberal Democrat Disability Association.[130] The National Union of Liberal Clubs (NULC) represents Liberal Social Clubs which encourages recreational institutions where the promotion of the party can take place.

Like the Conservatives, the Lib Dems organise in , though they do not contest elections in the province: they work with the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, agreeing to support the Alliance in elections.[131] There is a separate local party operating in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats.[132] Several individuals, including Alliance Party leader David Ford, hold membership of both parties. Alliance members of the House of Lords take the Lib Dem whip on non-Northern Ireland issues, and the Alliance Party usually has a stall at Lib Dem party conferences.

The party is a member of Liberal International and the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party, and their 11 MEPs sit in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) group in the European Parliament.

[edit] Membership figures

Year Membership (as of 31 December) 2001 73,276[133] 2002 71,636[133] 2003 73,305[134] 2004 72,721[135] 2005 72,031[136] 2006 68,743[137] 2007 65,400[138] 2008 59,810[139] 2009 58,768[140] 2010 65,038[119]

[edit] Leaders

See also: List of leaders of the Liberal Democrats, Social and Liberal Democrats leadership election, 1988, Liberal Democrats leadership election, 1999, Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006, and Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2007 Entered office Left office Date of Birth

David Steel 1 7 July 1987 16 July 1988 31 March 1938 Robert Maclennan 2 6 August 1987 16 July 1988 26 June 1936

Paddy Ashdown 16 July 1988 9 August 1999 27 February 1941

Charles Kennedy 9 August 1999 7 January 2006 25 November 1959 Sir Menzies Campbell 3 2 March 2006 15 October 2007 22 Vince Cable 4 15 October 2007 18 December 2007 9 May 1943

Nick Clegg 18 December 2007 Incumbent 7 January 1967

 1 Joint interim leader, as leader of the Liberal Party before the merger.  2 Joint interim leader, as leader of the Social Democratic Party before the merger.  3 Interim leader between the resignation of Charles Kennedy on 7 January 2006 and his own election on 2 March 2006.  4 Interim leader between the resignation of Menzies Campbell on 15 October 2007 and the election of Nick Clegg on 18 December 2007.

[edit] Deputy Leaders See also: List of Deputy Leaders of the Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2003, Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2006, and Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2010

, 1988–1992  , 1992–2003  Sir Menzies Campbell, 2003–2006  Vince Cable, 2006–2010  Simon Hughes, 2010–present

[edit] Party Presidents

See also: List of Presidents of the Liberal Democrats

(Presidents are elected for a two-year term, starting on 1 January and ending on 31 December. They may serve a maximum of two terms.)

 Sir , 1988–1990  Charles Kennedy, 1991–1994  Robert Maclennan, 1995–1998  Diana Maddock, Baroness Maddock, 1999–2000  Navnit Dholakia, Baron Dholakia, 2001–2004  Simon Hughes, 2005–2008  Rosalind Scott, Baroness Scott of Needham Market, 2009–2010  Tim Farron, 2011–present

[edit] Leaders in the European Parliament

 Graham Watson, 1994–2002 (President of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party)  Diana Wallis, 2002–2004  Chris Davies, 2004–2006  Diana Wallis, 2006–2007 (Vice-President of the European Parliament)  Andrew Duff, 2007–2009  Fiona Hall, 2009–present

The Liberal Democrats did not have representation in the European Parliament prior to 1994.

[edit] See also

 Alliance Party of Northern Ireland  Liberalism worldwide  Glee Club (British politics)  List of Liberal Democrat MPs   List of liberal theorists  Liberal Youth  List of UK Liberal Party general  Liberalism in the United Kingdom election manifestos  Lloyd George Society

 Politics of the United Kingdom  The Land, song [edit] References

1. ^ article on results - Lib Dem Voice 2. ^ http://www.libdemvoice.org/revealed-the-liberal-democrats-new-hq-24201.html 3. ^ http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/119448/Liberal- Democrats-Federal-SoA-2010.pdf 4. ^ Who are the Liberal Democrats?, Progressonline 5. ^ How Lib Dem members describe their political identity: ‗liberal‘, ‗progressive‘ and ‗social liberal‘ top the bill, Stephen Tall, 30 April 2011, Liberal Democrat Voice 6. ^ A challenge to Community Politics, Iain Roberts, 13 June 2011, Liberal Democrat Voice 7. ^ "Anthony Wells looks at our Lib Dem results". Retrieved 18 December 2010.. On a left right scale 65% of Liberal Democrat members identify themselves as being left- of-centre, with an average score on a scale of -100 (very left wing) to +100 (very right wing) of -32 8. ^ a b "Nick Clegg‘s speech to Spring Conference". Libdems.org.uk. 13 March 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 9. ^ Stratton, Allegra; Wintour, Patrick (2011-03-13). "Liberal Democrats". The Guardian (London). 10. ^ "Liberal Democrats' 2010 style guidelines". Docs.google.com. Retrieved 2010-11- 27. 11. ^ a b Election 2010 United Kingdom – National Results BBC News 12. ^ "Lords by party and type of peerage". UK Parliament. 1 November 2010. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 13. ^ "Liberal Democrat Peers". Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 14. ^ a b "Elections 2009". BBC. 2009-06-08. Retrieved 2010-04-18. 15. ^ "Barred Lib Dem Aled Roberts regains Welsh assembly seat". BBC News. 6 July 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 16. ^ "Your Assembly Members by Party". National Assembly for Wales. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 17. ^ Keith Edkins (8 May 2010). "Local Council Political Compositions". Retrieved 9 May 2010. 18. ^ "Political Reform". Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 2 September 2011. 19. ^ Cable, Vince (10 June 2010). "We agree to differ on restoring economy". Financial Times. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 20. ^ Stacey, Kiran (14 August 2011). "Lib Dems press for 'son of mansion tax'". Financial Times. Retrieved 2 September 2011. 21. ^ Stratton, Allegra (25 August 2011). "Nick Clegg: I will refuse to let human rights laws be weakened". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2 September 2011. 22. ^ "Mr Cameron must show HE runs Britain". Daily Mail (London). 2011-09-11. 23. ^ Wachman, Richard (1 September 2011). "City hits back at Vince Cable over banking reform comments". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2 September 2011. 24. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ 25. ^ a b "David Cameron is UK's new prime minister". bbc.co.uk. 2010-05-12. Retrieved 2010-05-12. 26. ^ "Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution". Libdems.org.uk. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 27. ^ "Quiet battle rages for Lib Dem soul". BBC. Retrieved 2008-03-24. 28. ^ Woodward, Will (2007-09-19). "Campbell happy to claim centre-left ground". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2010-04-04. 29. ^ Clegg, Nick (13 March 2011). "Full Transcript: Speech to Liberal Democrat spring conference". NewStatesman. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 30. ^ "Commons Debates: Government Spending Cuts". Department of the Official Report (), House of Commons, Westminster. 26 May 2010. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 31. ^ "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 May 2010 (pt 0001)". Department of the Official Report (Hansard), House of Commons, Westminster. 26 May 2010. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 32. ^ How Lib Dem members describe their political identity: ‗liberal‘, ‗progressive‘ and ‗social liberal‘ top the bill, Stephen Tall, Liberal Democrat Voice, 30 April 2011 33. ^ "Deputy Prime Minister speech to Demos and the Open Society Foundation". Libdems.org.uk. 19 December 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 34. ^ "BBC News - Lib Dems call for end to barriers to gay marriage". 2010-09-21. 35. ^ "Government to extend number of children to get £488 pupil premium". The Guardian. 11 December 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 36. ^ "Nick Clegg: More freedom for couples to organise parental leave". Libdems.org.uk. 17 January 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 37. ^ Wintour, Patrick; Mulholland, Hélène (25 November 2011). "Nick Clegg: £1bn youth jobs fund to prevent lost generation". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 38. ^ "Three-quarters of health quangos axed". . 14 October 2010. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 39. ^ Evans, Lisa (19 May 2011). "What will be left when Strategic Healthcare Authorities are axed? Get the data". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 40. ^ "Government announces £400 million for carers‘ respite breaks". The Princess Royal Trust for Carers. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 41. ^ "Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-11". Services.parliament.uk. 15 December 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 42. ^ Cobain, Ian (6 July 2010). "David Cameron announces torture inquiry". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 43. ^ "At-a-glance: Lib Dem general election 2010 manifesto". BBC News. 14 April 2010. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 44. ^ "General election 2010: Liberal Democrat manifesto at a glance". The Guardian. 14 April 2010. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 45. ^ a b c d e f "A concise history of the Liberal Parties, SDP and Liberal Democrats". Liberal Democrat History Group. 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 46. ^ The Alliance: a chronology, 13 April 2009, .org.uk 47. ^ "Top Ten: Lib Dem 'breakthrough moments'". ePolitix.com. 2010-04-24. Retrieved 2010-11-27. 48. ^ "The European Elections in 1989 | UK Office of the European Parliament". Europarl.org.uk. Retrieved 2010-11-27. 49. ^ a b c d "Statistics 1990s". Electoral Reform Society. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-13. 50. ^ a b c Hall, Sarah (2004-07-17). "No rest yet for wily architect of poll triumph". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-02-18. 51. ^ "The European Elections in 1994 | UK Office of the European Parliament". Europarl.org.uk. Retrieved 2010-11-27. 52. ^ a b "Blair considered coalition after 1997". BBC. 1999-11-16. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 53. ^ "Election battles 1997: Blair's landslide". BBC News. Retrieved 30 December 2011. 54. ^ "Paddy Ashdown's letter of resignation". BBC. 1999-06-22. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 55. ^ a b "Results & Constituencies". BBC. 2001. Retrieved 2008-03-29. 56. ^ Tania Branigan; Michael White (22 September 2005). "Blair in denial over Iraq, says Kennedy". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2010-04-16. 57. ^ Assinder, Nick (2002-09-26). "Kennedy sounds election battle cry". BBC. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 58. ^ "Kennedy wins top politician title". BBC. 2004-11-11. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 59. ^ " admit by-election 'blow'". BBC. 2004-10-01. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 60. ^ a b c d e "Blair wins historic third term – majority of 66". BBC. 2005-09-08. Retrieved 2008-03-21. 61. ^ Kettle, Martin (2005-04-26). "Kennedy can still exploit this perfect political storm". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-03-21. 62. ^ Kennedy, Dominic; Goddard, Jacqui (2008-11-29). "Lib Dems face repaying 24m after Michael Brown partys biggest donor convicted". The Times (London). 63. ^ "Top Lib Dem donor stole millions". BBC News. 2008-11-28. Retrieved 2008-11- 28. 64. ^ "Seats to Watch". UK Polling Report. 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 65. ^ "Kennedy calls for Lib Dem contest". BBC. 2006-01-08. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 66. ^ a b "Westminster's worst kept secret?". BBC. 2006. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 67. ^ a b "Timeline: Lib Dem election". BBC. 2006-03-02. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 68. ^ "Lib Dems deliver blow to Labour". BBC. 2006-02-10. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 69. ^ "Bromley and Chislehurst". London: The Guardian. 2006. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 70. ^ "Lib Dems plan 4p cut in tax rate". BBC. 2007-07-12. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 71. ^ "Voting Intention since 2005". UK Polling Report. 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 72. ^ "Campbell quits as Lib Dem leader". BBC. 2007-10-15. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 73. ^ Ansari, Arif (2007-11-30). "Vince Cable: Acting like a leader". BBC. Retrieved 2008-02-17. 74. ^ "Nick Clegg is new Lib Dem leader". BBC. 2007-12-18. Retrieved 2008-02-06. 75. ^ a b "The Nick Clegg story". BBC. 2007-12-19. Retrieved 2008-02-06. 76. ^ "Nick Clegg's speech in full". BBC. 2007-12-18. Retrieved 2007-11-22. 77. ^ "Clegg bid for compulsory English". BBC. 2008-04-28. Retrieved 2008-04-28. 78. ^ a b "Clegg reveals his frontbench team". BBC. 2007-12-20. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 79. ^ "ITV News Instant Poll Results 15 April 2010". Comres. Retrieved 18 April 2010. 80. ^ Anthony Wells. "Latest voting intention 20 April 2010". YouGov. Retrieved 20 April 2010.[dead link] 81. ^ http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/coalition-government/interim- report.pdf 82. ^ "Coalition under pressure as Liberal Democrat support plummets". Thisislondon.co.uk. 2010-08-10. Retrieved 2010-12-28. 83. ^ "Tuition fees vote: Plans approved despite rebellion". bbc.co.uk. 2010-12-09. Retrieved 2011-05-06. 84. ^ "Tuition Fees : London streets in flames again as 25k go on rampage". Dailymail.co.uk. 2010-12-15. Retrieved 2010-12-28. 85. ^ Author: by YouGov. "Gov't trackers - update 8th Dec". Today.yougov.co.uk. Retrieved 2010-12-28. 86. ^ "YouGov – Lib Dems hit 8%". UK Polling Report. 2010-12-08. Retrieved 2010-12- 28. 87. ^ Groves, Jason (2011-03-04). "'We got a kicking': Lib Dems in crisis after coming SIXTH in Barnsley by-election crushing". Daily Mail (London). 88. ^ "Scottish election: SNP wins election". BBC News. 2011-05-06. 89. ^ Liberal Democrats Have Taken Big Knocks Says Clegg, Guardian 6 May 2011: guardian.co.uk 90. ^ "Clegg unveils plans for elected House of Lords". BBC News. 2011-05-17. 91. ^ Harvey, Fiona; Stratton, Allegra (2011-05-17). "Carbon emissions (Environment), , Chris Huhne, UK news, Environment, Climate change (Environment), Politics". The Guardian (London). 92. ^ Hennessy, Patrick; Kite, Melissa (2010-05-29). "David Laws resigns over expenses claim — Telegraph". London: telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2010-05-29. 93. ^ Brooke, Horwood and Huppert join the list of Liberal Democrat co-chairs, Mark Pack, Liberal Democrat Voice, 28 March 2011 94. ^ "Voting Systems". Electoral Reform Society. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-01-20. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 95. ^ "Expect more , says Clegg". BBC. 2008-03-08. Retrieved 2008-03-13. 96. ^ a b "Lib Dems hail three-party contest". BBC. 2004-06-11. Retrieved 2008-03-21. 97. ^ Freedland, Jonathan (2007-12-19). "If Clegg gets it right in 2008, he could bring the Lib Dems into government". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-03-23. 98. ^ Sparrow, Andrew (2008-03-10). "Clegg's terms for deal in hung parliament". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-03-15. 99. ^ a b "Statistics 1980s". Electoral Reform Society. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-13. 100. ^ "Lib Dems launch councils campaign". BBC. 2008-04-03. Retrieved 2008- 04-03. 101. ^ "Elections 2008: results summary". Liberal Democrats. 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-22. 102. ^ a b "Vote 2004". BBC. 2007-08-15. Retrieved 2008-03-21. 103. ^ "European Election 2009: East Midlands". BBC. 2009-04-19. Retrieved 2009-06-08. 104. ^ "Groups in the European Parliament". BBC. 2009-06-05. Retrieved 2009- 06-08. 105. ^ "Biographical details: Graham Watson MEP, Former leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament". ALDE. 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-08. 106. ^ "ALDE | Guy Verhofstadt elected unopposed as new ALDE group leader". Alde.eu. 2009-06-30. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 107. ^ "The European Elections in 1984". European Parliament. 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-04.[dead link] 108. ^ "The European Elections in 1989". European Parliament. 2008. Archived from the original on 2007-12-14. Retrieved 2008-05-04. 109. ^ "The European Elections in 1994". European Parliament. 2008. Archived from the original on 2007-12-15. Retrieved 2008-05-04. 110. ^ "The European Elections in 1999". European Parliament. 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-04.[dead link] 111. ^ "Election 2007 – Come of Age?". Institute of . 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-21.[dead link] 112. ^ "Lib Dems choose Stephen as leader". BBC. 2005-06-23. Retrieved 2008- 03-28. 113. ^ "Holyrood Results". The Herald. 2007. Archived from the original on 2008- 04-23. Retrieved 2008-05-08. 114. ^ "Willie Rennie named new Scottish Lib Dem leader". BBC News. 2011-05- 17. 115. ^ Gibbs, Geoffrey (2001-03-21). "Lib Dems agree Welsh Assembly power deal". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-06-09. 116. ^ "Morgan pledges to govern alone". BBC. 2003-05-07. Retrieved 2008-03- 21. 117. ^ "Williams election breaks mould". BBC. 2008-12-08. Retrieved 2009-06- 09. 118. ^ "Federal Executive". Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 2010-05-10. 119. ^ a b "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2010". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 31 July 2011. 120. ^ "New figures published showing political parties' donations and borrowing". Electoral Commission (United Kingdom). 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-22. 121. ^ "Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats". Ethnic-minority.libdems.org. 2010- 03-08. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 122. ^ "Women Liberal Democrats". Wld.org.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 123. ^ "DELGA: Liberal Democrats for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Action". Lgbt.libdems.org.uk. 2010-02-17. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 124. ^ "ALDES". ALDES. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 125. ^ "PCA Encyclopedia : Welcome to the Parliamentary Candidates Association Website". Parliamentary.org.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 126. ^ "Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors". ALDC. 2010-02-17. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 127. ^ "Green Liberal Democrats". Greenlibdems.org.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 128. ^ "Liberal Democrats Online". Online.libdems.org. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 129. ^ "Liberal Democrat European Group". www.ldeg.org. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 130. ^ "LDDA — The Liberal Democrat Disability Association". Disabilitylibdems.org.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-13. 131. ^ "Alliance Party faces uphill battle". BBC. 2001-09-14. Retrieved 2008-03- 21. 132. ^ "Scribd". Scribd. Retrieved 2010-11-27. 133. ^ a b "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2002". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 134. ^ "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2003". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 135. ^ "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2004". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 136. ^ "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2005". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 137. ^ "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2006". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 138. ^ "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2007". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 139. ^ "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2008". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010. 140. ^ "The Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) - Reports and Financial Statements - Year Ended 31 December 2009". The Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 14 November 2010.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (January 2009)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged

and removed. (January 2009)

Part of the Politics series

Democracy

History · Varieties List of types

 Anticipatory  Athenian  Consensus  Deliberative  Demarchy  Direct   Illiberal  Inclusive  Islamic  Liberal  Messianic  Non-partisan  Participatory  Radical  Representative  Representative direct  Republican  Social   Soviet  Totalitarian

Politics portal

 v  d  e

An illiberal democracy, also called a pseudo democracy, partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, or delegative democracy,[1] is a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties. It is not an 'open society'. There are many countries ―that are categorized as neither ―free‖ nor ― not free,‖ but as ―probably free,‖ falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes‖.[2] This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but its liberties are ignored, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist. The term illiberal democracy was used by in a regularly cited 1997 article in the journal Foreign Affairs.[3]

According to Fareed Zakaria, illiberal are increasing around the world and are increasingly limiting the freedoms of the people they represent. Zakaria points out that in the west, democracy and free and fair elections go hand in hand. But around the world, the two concepts are coming apart. He argues that democracy without constitutional liberalism is producing centralized regimes, the erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war. He points out is democratic but because of Putin‘s super presidency, illiberal. In order to solve this problem, Zakaria proposes that the international community and the must end their obsession with balloting and promote gradual of societies. Zakaria advances institutions like the world trade organization, the System and the judicial system to promote democracy and limit the power of people which can be destructive.[4] Illiberal democratic may believe they have a mandate to act in any way they see fit as long as they hold regular elections. Lack of liberties such as and freedom of assembly make opposition extremely difficult. The rulers may centralize powers between branches of the central government and local government (having no ). Media are often controlled by the state and strongly support the regime. Non-governmental organizations may face onerous regulations or simply be prohibited. The regime may use red tape, economic pressure or violence against its critics. There is a spectrum of illiberal democracies: from those that are nearly liberal democracies to those that are almost openly . One proposed method of determining whether a regime is an illiberal democracy is to determine whether "it has regular, free, fair, and competitive elections to fill the principal positions of power in the country, but it does not qualify as Free in 's annual ratings of civil liberties and political rights."[5]

Contents

[hide]

 1 Terminological controversy  2 Tentative illustration  3 See also  4 References  5 Further  6 External links

[edit] Terminological controversy

Other writers[who?] reject the concept of an illiberal democracy, saying it only "muddies the waters" on the basis that it if a country does not have opposition parties and an independent media, it is not democratic.[6] Scholars such as and Lucan Way argue that terms like "illiberal democracy" are inappropriate for some of these states, because the term implies that these regimes are, at their heart, democracies that have gone wrong. Levitsky and Way argue that states such as under Slobodan Milosevic, , and post-Soviet Russia, were never truly democratic and not developing toward democracy, but were rather tending toward authoritarian behaviour, despite having elections (which were sometimes sharply contested).

Thus, Levitsky and Way coined a new term to remove the positive connotation of democracy from these states and distinguish them from flawed or developing democracies: competitive .[7] [edit] Tentative illustration

In contrast to these disputed examples[which?], a classic example of an illiberal democracy is the of .[8] Conversely, liberal are regimes with no elections and that are ruled autocratically but have some liberties. Here, a good example is the Special Administrative Region of . Both Hong Kong and Singapore are ethnic Chinese majority city-states and former British colonies. However, their political evolution has taken different paths, with Hong Kong residents enjoying the liberal freedoms of the United Kingdom, but, as a colony, without the power to choose its leaders.[9] This contradictory state of affairs was inherited by the People's Republic of China when it resumed control of the territory in 1997. In contrast, Singapore acquired full independence, first from Britain and then from in the 1960s. At that time, it was structured as a relatively liberal democracy, albeit with some internal security laws that allowed for detention without trial. Over time, as Singapore's People's Action Party government consolidated power in the 1960s and 1970s, it enacted a number of laws and policies that curtailed constitutional freedoms (such as the right to assemble or form associations, bearing in mind that there were race and religious riots at this times), and extended its influence over the media, unions, NGOs and academia. Consequently, although technically free and fair multi-party elections are regularly conducted, the political realities in Singapore (including fear and self-censorship) make participation in opposition politics extremely difficult, leaving the dominant ruling party as the only credible option at the polls.[10] In Russia, the disturbing rate of journalist murder shows the limits of freedom of speech in Russia. 13 Russian journalists died between 2000 and 2003. Also, the major television networks are owned by the government and openly support it or parties that support the government during elections.[11] [edit] See also

 Liberal democracy   Dominant-party system  State inside a state [edit] References

1. ^ Juan Carlos Calleros, Calleros-Alarcó,The Unifinished Transition to Democracy in , Routledge, 2009, p1 2. ^ O'Neil, Patrick. Essentials of . 3rd ed. New York, N.Y: W. W Norton & Company, 2010. 162-163. Print. 3. ^ The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997. 4. ^ http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53577/fareed-zakaria/the-rise-of-illiberal- democracy. "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy". Foreign Affairs. November/December 1997. Accessed date, june 30, 2011. 5. ^ Diamond, Larry & Morlino Leonardo. Assessing the Quality of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, p. xli 6. ^ Halperin, M. H., Siegle, J. T. & Weinstein, M. M. The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace. Routledge, 2005. pp. 10. ISBN 978- 0415950527. 7. ^ Levitsky, Steven & Lucan Way. Assessing the Quality of Democracy, Journal of Democracy, April 2002, vol. 13.2, pp. 51-65 8. ^ Mutalib , H. Illiberal democracy and the future of opposition in Singapore. Third World Quarterly, 2000. 21(2), pp. 313-342. 9. ^ Ma, Ngok. Political Development in Hong Kong: State, Political Society, and . Hong Kong University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-9622098107. 10. ^ Russia had also moved towards a period of democracy in the early 1990s, but whilst elections remain in place, state control of media is increasing and opposition is difficult.ref>Whatever happened to ?, BBC News, February 7, 2009. 11. ^ http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/32074.html. Illiberal Democracy and 's Russia. "Collegeboard". July 2004 [edit] Further reading  Bell, Daniel, Brown, David & Jayasuriya, Kanishka (1995) Towards Illiberal Democracy in Pacific Asia, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 978-0333613993.  Thomas, Nick & Thomas, Nicholas. (1999) Democracy Denied: Identity, Civil Society, and Illiberal Democracy in Hong Kong, Ashgate, ISBN 978-1840147605.  Zakaria, Fareed. (2007) The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 978-0393331523. [edit] External links

 The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/ December 1997  Liberalism and Democracy: Can't have one without the other, Marc Plattner, Foreign Affairs, March/ April 1998  Illiberal Democracy, Five Years Later, Fareed Zakaria, Havard International Review, Summer 2002. Authoritarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about authoritarianism in and organizational studies. For authoritarianism in psychology, see Authoritarian personality.

Part of the Politics series

Basic forms of government

Power structure

 Unitary  Federal  Confederal 

Power source

 Aristocratic o Popular . . o Constitutional . .  Democratic o Direct o Representative  Theocratic o Canonical o Ecclesiastical . Divine right

Legal system

 Authoritarian regime  Republic o Parliamentary o Presidential

Political alignment

 Communist  Left-wing  Centrist  Right-wing  Fascist

List of forms of government

Politics portal

 v  d  e

Engelbert Dollfuss's chancellorship in Austria contained many authoritarian elements.

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians.[1]

Contents

[hide]

 1 Characteristics  2 Authoritarianism and  3 Authoritarianism and democracy  4 Authoritarian states  5 Authoritarianism in history  6 See also  7 References  8 External links

[edit] Characteristics

This section requires expansion.

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated, and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime.[2]

Authoritarianism emphasizes arbitrary law rather than the rule of law, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules,[dubious – discuss] which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition;[2]

A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.[2]

Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people."[2] Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system."[2] Because the of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.[2]

Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a single-party state) or other authority.[2] The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as .[2]

John Duckitt of the University of the Witwatersrand suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism.[3] Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.[4] Others argue that collectivism, properly defined, has a basis of consensus decision-making, the opposite of authoritarianism. [edit] Authoritarianism and totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian and organized them in a chart:[5]

Totalitarianism Authoritarianism

Charisma High Low Role conception Leader as function Leader as individual Ends of power Public Private

Corruption Low High Official ideology Yes No Limited pluralism No Yes Legitimacy Yes No

Sondrol argues that while both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are forms of , they differ in "key dichotomies": (1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic 'mystique' and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.

(2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view themselves as individual beings, largely content to control; and often maintain the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The is less a person than an indispensable 'function' to guide and reshape the universe.

(3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a .[5]

Thus, compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems may also leave a larger sphere for private life, lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits. [edit] Authoritarianism and democracy

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged

and removed. (January 2009)

Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another, it is thus perfectly possible for democracies to possess strong authoritarian elements, for both feature a form of submission to authority. An illiberal democracy (or ) is distinguished from liberal democracy (or ) in that illiberal democracies lack the more democratic features of liberal democracies, such as the rule of law, an independent , along with a further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that more democratic countries tend to have few Militarized Interstate Disputes causing less battle deaths with one another, and that democracies have few civil wars.[6][7]

 Poor democracies tend to have better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than poor dictatorships. This is not due to higher levels of foreign assistance or spending a larger percentage of GDP on health and education. Instead, the available resources are more likely to be managed better.[8]

 Studies suggest that several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, size of the public sector, or income inequality.[9]

 A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has theorized that no functioning country labeled as having a liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.[10] This includes democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like , which had its last great famine in 1943 and many other large-scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under British rule. (However, some others ascribe the Bengal famine of 1943 to the effects of World War II[citation needed]. The had been becoming progressively more democratic for years. Provincial government had been entirely so since the Government of India Act of 1935.)

 Refugee crises almost always occur in the least democratic countries. Looking at the volume of refugee flows for the last twenty years, the first eighty-seven cases occurred in most authoritarian countries.[8]

 Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government. However it should be noted that those were also moderately developed nations before applying liberal democratic policies.[11] Similarly, they have less genocide and politicide.[12]

 Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.[13] Freedom of information legislation is important for accountability and transparency. The Indian Right to Information Act "has already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely."[14]

 Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four decades, only five were in countries labeled as democracies. Similarly, those labeled as "poor democracies" are half as likely as countries labeled as non-democracies to experience a 10 percent decline in GDP per capita over the course of a single year.[8]

 One study has concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least amount of terrorism are the most and least democratic nations.[15] [edit] Authoritarian states

Any list of such states is bound to be controversial; certain indices have striven to ascertain the openness or democratic quality of countries based on a somewhat simplistic tick-box method, the notion of index itself being economically oriented. Within the present world system, unsurprisingly the "soft power" countries of major western power centers often come out at the top of such lists, countries such as Sweden, , etc.. on the other hand, places like North Korea, Chad and Turkmenistan appear as strongly authoritarian. For a list see, for example, The Economist magazine's , though this is a economic-liberal magazine - but indexes compiled from other points of view such as Amnesty International or Freedom House are available from time to time. It is often the more wealthy countries that come out at the top of such lists and the poorer ones that fall toward the end; whether this is a cause or result of their political systems is open to debate.

Another way of looking at the problem of trying to make a list of authoritarian regimes is not to compare the apparent forms of government (for example, whether as in the Swiss Cantons or by collegiate representation etc.) but, in making such a list, to compare the balance of power between the political and the general populace. Such an index asks questions as to whether or not a given government allows the direct influence of its subjects in the decision making process, whether or not it suppresses Freedom of Speech, imprisons them in Gulags or other such prison systems or behaves in a belligerent manner towards more democratic nations or allows poor work conditions to flourish or even allows forms of slavery. [edit] Authoritarianism in history

This section requires expansion.

Many different forms of authoritarianism have served as the norm in many polities and in most periods from the dawn of recorded history. Tribal chiefs and god-kings often gave way to despots and emperors, then to enlightened monarchs and juntas. Even superficially democratic constitutions or those claiming to be such can allow the concentration of power or domination by strong-men or by small groups of political - note the history of the Icelandic .

In contrast to the varying manifestations of authoritarianism, more democratic forms of governance as a standard mode of political organization became widespread only after the Industrial Revolution had established modernity. and oligarchs bracketed the flourishing of democracy in ancient Athens; and kings and emperors preceded and followed experimentation with democratic forms in the Roman Republic. [edit] See also

 Anti-authoritarianism [edit] References

1. ^ Shepard, Jon; Robert W. Greene (2007). Sociology and You. Ohio: Yin Chi Lo-Hill. pp. A–22. ISBN 0078285763. 2. ^ a b c d e f g h "Vestal, Theodore M. : A Post- African State. Greenwood, 1999, p. 17. 3. ^ Duckitt, J. (1989). "Authoritarianism and Group Identification: A New View of an Old Construct". 10 (1): 63–84. doi:10.2307/3791588. JSTOR 3791588. edit 4. ^ Kemmelmeier, M.; Burnstein, E.; Krumov, K.; Genkova, P.; Kanagawa, C.; Hirshberg, M. S.; Erb, H. P.; Wieczorkowska, G. et al. (2003). "Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34 (3): 304. doi:10.1177/0022022103034003005. edit 5. ^ a b Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies 23 (3): 599. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868. edit 6. ^ Hegre, Håvard, Tanja Ellington, Scott Gates, and Nils Petter Gleditsch (2001). "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816- 1992". American Political Science Review 95: 33–48. Archived from the original on 2004-04-06. 7. ^ Ray, James Lee (200l3). A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program From Progress in Theory, edited by Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman. MIT Press. 8. ^ a b c "The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace". Carnegie Council.[dead link] 9. ^ Franco, Á.; Álvarez-Dardet, C.; Ruiz, M. T. (2004). "Effect of democracy on health: ecological study". BMJ 329 (7480): 1421–1423. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1421. PMC 535957. PMID 15604165. edit 10. ^ Sen, A. K. (1999). "Democracy as a Universal Value". Journal of Democracy 10 (3): 3–1. doi:10.1353/jod.1999.0055. edit 11. ^ Rummel RJ (1997). Power kills: democracy as a method of nonviolence. , N.J., U.S.A: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-56000-297-2. 12. ^ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003, [1][dead link]. 13. ^ Daniel Lederman, Normal Loaza, Rodrigo Res Soares, (November 2001). "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter". World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708. SSRN 632777. Retrieved February 19, 2006. 14. ^ AsiaMedia :: Right to Information Act India's magic wand against corruption 15. ^ Harvard Gazette: Freedom squelches terrorist violence [edit] External links Totalitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the Politics series

Basic forms of government

Power structure

 Unitary  Federal  Confederal  Anarchy

Power source

 Aristocratic o Popular . Monarchy . Oligarchy o Constitutional . Constitutional monarchy . Technocracy  Democratic o Direct o Representative  Theocratic o Canonical o Ecclesiastical . Divine right

Legal system

 Authoritarian regime  Republic o Parliamentary o Presidential

Political alignment

 Communist  Left-wing  Centrist  Right-wing  Fascist

List of forms of government

Politics portal

 v  d  e

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[1] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror. The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920s by the Italian fascists. The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era in order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi and other fascist regimes on the one hand, and Soviet on the other.[2][3][4][5][6]

Contents

[hide]

 1 Etymology  2 Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes  3 Examples of the term's use  4 Cold War-era research  5 Criticism and recent work with the concept  6 Totalitarianism in Architecture  7 In popular culture  8 See also  9 References  10 Further reading  11 External links

[edit] Etymology

The notion of "Totalitarianism" a "total" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola who described Italian as a system fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships.[7] The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of , ‘s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term ―totalitario‖ to refer to the structure and goals of the new state. The new state was to provide the ―total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.‖[8] He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens.[9] According to , this system politicizes everything spiritual and human:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.[7]

As an example, he stated that "We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula 'chess for the sake of chess', like the formula 'art for art's sake'. We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess."[10] [edit] Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes

The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single power holder - an individual '', a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite - monopolizes political power. However, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens ."[7]

According to one publication, the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian dictators can be expressed in a chart:[11]

Totalitarianism Authoritarianism

Charisma High Low Role conception Leader as function Leader as individual Ends of power Public Private

Corruption Low High Official ideology Yes No Limited pluralism No Yes Legitimacy Yes No

Compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems may also leave a larger sphere for private life, lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits.

The difference one could be summarised like this:

Authoritarian state: "Mind your own business, or we'll shoot you" Totalitarian state: "Do what we say, or we'll shoot you" [edit] Examples of the term's use

One of the first to use the term "Totalitarianism" in the was the Austrian writer Franz Borkenau in his 1938 book The Communist International, in which he commented that it more united the Soviet and German dictatorships than divided them.[12] Isabel Paterson, in The God of the Machine (1943), used the term in connection with the under Stalin and Nazi Germany under AdolfHitler.

F.A. Hayek helped develop the idea of totalitarianism in his classic defense of economic competition The Road to Serfdom (1944). In his Introduction, Hayek contrasts Western Anglo values with Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler, stating that "the conflict between the National-Socialist "Right" and the "Left" in Germany is the kind of conflict that will always arise between rival socialist factions". He later conflates "Germany, Italy and Russia" going on to say that "the history of these countries in the years before the rise of the totalitarian system showed few features with which we are not familiar" (Chapter 1, The Abandoned Road).

During a 1945 lecture series entitled The Soviet Impact on the (published as a book in 1946), the pro-Soviet British historian E. H. Carr claimed that "The trend away from individualism and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable", and that Marxism- Leninism was much the most successful type of totalitarianism, as proved by Soviet industrial growth and the Red Army's role in defeating Germany. Only the "blind and incurable" could ignore the trend towards totalitarianism, said Carr.[13]

Sir Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1961), articulated an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future in accordance with knowable laws.

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt argued that Nazi and State communist regimes were new forms of government, and not merely updated versions of the old tyrannies. According to Arendt, the source of the mass appeal of totalitarian regimes is their ideology, which provides a comforting, single answer to the mysteries of the past, present, and future. For , all history is the history of race struggle; and, for Marxism, all history is the history of class struggle. Once that premise is accepted, all actions of the state can be justified by appeal to Nature or the Law of History, justifying their establishment of authoritarian state apparatus.[14]

Scholars such as Lawrence Aronsen, Richard Pipes, Leopold Labedz, Franz Borkenau, Walter Laqueur, Sir Karl Popper, Eckhard Jesse, Leonard Schapiro, Adam Ulam, Raymond Aron, Claude Lefort, Richard Löwenthal, Hannah Arendt, Robert Conquest, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Carl Joachim Friedrich and Juan Linz describe totalitarianism in slightly different ways. They all agree, however, that totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire populations in support of an official state ideology, and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties. [edit] Cold War-era research

The political scientists Carl Friedrich and were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the Soviet Union as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive organic entity composed of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; a single mass party, typically led by a dictator; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction, and control of the economy through state planning. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of World War I, at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power.

The German historian Karl Dietrich Bracher, whose work is primarily concerned with Nazi Germany, argues that the "totalitarian typology" as developed by Friedrich and Brzezinski is an excessively inflexible model, and failed to consider the ―revolutionary dynamic‖ that Bracher asserts is at the heart of totalitarianism.[15] Bracher maintains that the essence of totalitarianism is the total claim to control and remake all aspects of society combined with an all-embracing ideology, the value on authoritarian leadership, and the pretence of the common identity of state and society, which distinguished the totalitarian "closed" understanding of politics from the "open" democratic understanding.[15] Unlike the Friedrich- Brzezinski definition Bracher argued that totalitarian regimes did not require a single leader and could function with a collective leadership, which led the American historian Walter Laqueur to argue that Bracher's definition seemed to fit reality better than the Friedrich- Brzezinski definition.[16]

Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer argues that mass movements like communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. The individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.[17] [edit] Criticism and recent work with the concept

In the social sciences, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and as a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even in class terms (using the concept of the nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class).[18] These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation.

Further information: Collective leadership and History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982)

From a historical angle, the totalitarian concept has been criticized. Historians of the Nazi period inclined towards a functionalist interpretation of the Third Reich such as Martin Broszat, Hans Mommsen and Ian Kershaw have been very hostile or lukewarm towards the totalitarianism concept, arguing that the Nazi regime was far too disorganized to be considered as totalitarian.[19]

In the field of Soviet history, the concept has been disparaged by the "revisionist" school, a group of mostly American left-wing historians, some of whose more prominent members are Sheila Fitzpatrick, Jerry F. Hough, William McCagg, Robert W. Thurston, and J. Arch Getty.[20] Though their individual interpretations differ, the revisionists have argued that the Soviet state under Stalin was institutionally weak, that the level of terror was much exaggerated, and that to the extent it occurred, it reflected the weaknesses rather the strengths of the Soviet state.[20] Fitzpatrick argued that since to the extent that there was terror in the Soviet Union, since it provided for increased social mobility, and thus far from being a terrorized society, most people in the Soviet Union supported Stalin's purges as a chance for a better life.[21]

Writing in 1987, Walter Laqueur commented that the revisionists in the field of Soviet history were guilty of confusing popularity with morality, and of making highly embarrassing and not very convincing arguments against the concept of the Soviet Union as totalitarian state.[22] Laqueur argued the revisionists' arguments with regard to Soviet history were highly similar to the arguments made by Ernst Nolte regarding German history.[22] Laqueur asserted that concepts such as modernization were inadequate tools for explaining Soviet history while totalitarianism was not.[23]

François Furet used the term "totalitarian twins"[24] in an attempt to link [25] and Nazism.[26] [edit] Totalitarianism in Architecture

Non-political aspects of the culture and motifs of totalitarian countries have themselves often been labeled innately "totalitarian". For example, Theodore Dalrymple, a British author, physician, and political commentator, has written for City Journal that brutalist structures are an expression of totalitarianism given that their grand, concrete-based design involves destroying gentler, more-human places such as gardens.[27] In 1984, author George Orwell described the Ministry of Truth as an "enormous, pyramidal structure of white concrete, soaring up terrace after terrace, three hundred metres into the air"; columnist Ben Macintyre of The Times has stated that that was "a prescient description of the sort of totalitarian architecture that would soon dominate the Communist bloc".[28] [edit] In popular culture

George Orwell's books Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm are famous for their dystopian depiction of totalitarian society, as is their lesser-known predecessor, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Additional totalitarian regimes are also depicted in the classics The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood and Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley.

According to Soviet writer Fazil Iskander,[29], "Under the totalitarian regime, it was as if you were forced to live in the same room with an insanely violent man" [edit] See also

 Carceral state  Cult of personality   Single-party state  State capitalism  Total institution  Totalitarian democracy  Führerprinzip  Counterintelligence state [edit] References

1. ^ Robert Conquest Reflections on a Ravaged Century (2000) ISBN 0-393-04818-7, page 74 2. ^ Andrew Defty, Britain, America and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945-1953: The Information Research Department, 2007, chapters 2-5 3. ^ Achim Siegel, The totalitarian paradigm after the end of Communism: towards a theoretical reassessment, 1998, page 200 "Concepts of totalitarianism became most widespread at the height of the Cold War. Since the late 1940s, especially since the , they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western world tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation" 4. ^ Nicholas Guilhot, The democracy makers: human rights and international order, 2005, page 33 "The opposition between the West and Soviet totalitarianism was often presented as an opposition both moral and epistemological between truth and falsehood. The democratic, social, and economic credentials of the Soviet Union were typically seen as "lies" and as the product of a deliberate and multiform propaganda...In this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset, as it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism 5. ^ David Caute, Politics and the novel during the Cold War, 2009, pages 95-99 6. ^ George A Reisch, How the Cold War transformed of science: to the icy slopes of logic, 2005, pages 153-154 7. ^ a b c Pipes 1995, pp. 240–281 8. ^ Stanley G. Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (UW Press, 1980), porn. 73 9. ^ G. Gentile & B. Mussolini in "La dottrina del fascismo" 1932) 10. ^ Robert Conquest. The Great Terror: A Reassessment, , 1990, ISBN 0-19-507132-8 p. 249 11. ^ "Sondrol, Paul C. "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner." Journal of Latin American Studies 23(3): October 1991, pp. 449-620. 12. ^ Nemoianu, Virgil, Review of End and Beginnings pages 1235-1238 from MLN, Volume 97, Issue # 5, December 1982, p.1235. 13. ^ Laqueur, Walter, The Fate of the Revolution, New York: Scribner, 1987, p.131. 14. ^ Dana Richard Villa (2000), The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press, p.2-3. ISBN 0521645719 15. ^ a b Kershaw, Ian The Nazi : Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, London: Arnold; New York page 25. 16. ^ Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 page 241 17. ^ Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Harper Perennial Modern Classics (2002), ISBN 0060505915, p.61, 163 18. ^ Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 pages 186-189 & 233-234 19. ^ Lorenz, Chris "Broszat, Martin" pages 143-144 from The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Volume 1, edited by Kelly Boyd, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1999 page 143; Kerhsaw, Ian The Nazi Dictatorship Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, London: Arnold Press, 2000 pages 45-46; Menke, Martin "Mommsen, Hans" pages 826-827 from The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing edited by Kelly Boyd, Volume 2, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishing, 1999 20. ^ a b Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 pages 225-227 21. ^ Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 pages 225 & 228 22. ^ a b Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 page 228 23. ^ Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 page 233 24. ^ "Furet, borrowing from Hannah Arendt, describes Bolsheviks and Nazis as totalitarian twins, conflicting yet united." (Daniel Singer, The Nation - April 17, 1995) 25. ^ "The totalitarian nature of Stalin's Russia is undeniable." (Daniel Singer) 26. ^ "The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state." (Gary M. Grobman) 27. ^ Theodore Dalrymple (Autumn 2009). "The Architect as Totalitarian". City Journal. Retrieved January 5, 2010. 28. ^ Ben Macintyre (March 30, 2007). "Look on those monuments to megalomania, and despair". The Times. Retrieved January 5, 2010. 29. ^ Robert Conquest Reflections on a Ravaged Century (2000) ISBN 0-393-04818-7, page 189 [edit] Further reading

 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958, new ed. 1966)  John A. Armstrong, The Politics of Totalitarianism (New York: Random House, 1961)  Franz Borkenau The Totalitarian Enemy, London, Faber and Faber 1940  Karl Dietrich Bracher ―The Disputed Concept of Totalitarianism,‖ pages 11–33 from Totalitarianism Reconsidered edited by Ernest A. Menze (Port Washington, N.Y. / London: Kennikat Press, 1981), ISBN 0804692688.  Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics (in particular March 7, 1979 course)  Carl Friedrich and Z. K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (2nd edn 1967)  Zheliu Zhelev, The Fascism, 1982  Guy Hermet with Pierre Hassner and Jacques Rupnik, Totalitarismes (Paris: Éditions Economica, 1984)  Abbott Gleason Totalitarianism : The Inner History Of The Cold War, New York: Oxford University Press, (1995), ISBN 0195050177  Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (1982)  Walter Laqueur The Fate of the Revolution Interpretations of Soviet History From 1917 to the Present, London: Collier Books, (1987) ISBN 0-02-034080-X.  Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems Of Democratic Transition And Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, And Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, (1996), ISBN 0801851572.  Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (1944)  Ewan Murray, Shut Up: Tale of Totalitarianism (2005)  Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism (Routledge, 1996)  Pipes, Richard (1995), Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, New York: Vintage Books, Random House Inc., ISBN 0-394-50242-6.* Robert Jaulin L'Univers des totalitarismes (Paris : Loris Talmart, 1995)  Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited (Chatham, N.J: Chatham House, 1987)  Wolfgang Sauer, "National : totalitarianism or fascism?" pages 404-424 from The American Historical Review, Volume 73, Issue #2, December 1967.  Leonard Schapiro, Totalitarianism (London: The Pall Mall Press, 1972)  J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, (1952)  Slavoj Žižek, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? (London: Verso, 2001)  Marcello Sorce Keller, ―Why is Music so Ideological, Why Do Totalitarian States Take It So Seriously: A Personal View from History, and the Social Sciences‖, Journal of Musicological Research, XXVI(2007), no. 2-3, pp. 91–122

[eTotalitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the Politics series

Basic forms of government

Power structure

 Unitary  Federal  Confederal  Anarchy

Power source

 Aristocratic o Popular . Monarchy . Oligarchy o Constitutional . Constitutional monarchy . Technocracy  Democratic o Direct o Representative  Theocratic o Canonical o Ecclesiastical . Divine right

Legal system

 Authoritarian regime  Republic o Parliamentary o Presidential

Political alignment

 Communist  Left-wing  Centrist  Right-wing  Fascist

List of forms of government

Politics portal

 v  d  e

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[1] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.

The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920s by the Italian fascists. The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era in order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes on the one hand, and Soviet communism on the other.[2][3][4][5][6]

Contents

[hide]

 1 Etymology  2 Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes  3 Examples of the term's use  4 Cold War-era research  5 Criticism and recent work with the concept  6 Totalitarianism in Architecture  7 In popular culture  8 See also  9 References  10 Further reading  11 External links

[edit] Etymology

The notion of "Totalitarianism" a "total" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola who described Italian Fascism as a system fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships.[7] The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy‘s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term ―totalitario‖ to refer to the structure and goals of the new state. The new state was to provide the ―total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.‖[8] He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens.[9] According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.[7]

As an example, he stated that "We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula 'chess for the sake of chess', like the formula 'art for art's sake'. We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess."[10] [edit] Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes

The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single power holder - an individual 'dictator', a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite - monopolizes political power. However, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens ."[7]

According to one publication, the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian dictators can be expressed in a chart:[11]

Totalitarianism Authoritarianism

Charisma High Low Role conception Leader as function Leader as individual Ends of power Public Private

Corruption Low High Official ideology Yes No Limited pluralism No Yes Legitimacy Yes No

Compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems may also leave a larger sphere for private life, lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits.

The difference one could be summarised like this:

Authoritarian state: "Mind your own business, or we'll shoot you" Totalitarian state: "Do what we say, or we'll shoot you" [edit] Examples of the term's use

One of the first to use the term "Totalitarianism" in the English language was the Austrian writer Franz Borkenau in his 1938 book The Communist International, in which he commented that it more united the Soviet and German dictatorships than divided them.[12] Isabel Paterson, in The God of the Machine (1943), used the term in connection with the Soviet Union under Stalin and Nazi Germany under AdolfHitler.

F.A. Hayek helped develop the idea of totalitarianism in his classic defense of economic competition The Road to Serfdom (1944). In his Introduction, Hayek contrasts Western Anglo values with Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler, stating that "the conflict between the National-Socialist "Right" and the "Left" in Germany is the kind of conflict that will always arise between rival socialist factions". He later conflates "Germany, Italy and Russia" going on to say that "the history of these countries in the years before the rise of the totalitarian system showed few features with which we are not familiar" (Chapter 1, The Abandoned Road).

During a 1945 lecture series entitled The Soviet Impact on the Western World (published as a book in 1946), the pro-Soviet British historian E. H. Carr claimed that "The trend away from individualism and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable", and that Marxism- Leninism was much the most successful type of totalitarianism, as proved by Soviet industrial growth and the Red Army's role in defeating Germany. Only the "blind and incurable" could ignore the trend towards totalitarianism, said Carr.[13]

Sir Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1961), articulated an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future in accordance with knowable laws.

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt argued that Nazi and State communist regimes were new forms of government, and not merely updated versions of the old tyrannies. According to Arendt, the source of the mass appeal of totalitarian regimes is their ideology, which provides a comforting, single answer to the mysteries of the past, present, and future. For Nazism, all history is the history of race struggle; and, for Marxism, all history is the history of class struggle. Once that premise is accepted, all actions of the state can be justified by appeal to Nature or the Law of History, justifying their establishment of authoritarian state apparatus.[14]

Scholars such as Lawrence Aronsen, Richard Pipes, Leopold Labedz, Franz Borkenau, Walter Laqueur, Sir Karl Popper, Eckhard Jesse, Leonard Schapiro, Adam Ulam, Raymond Aron, Claude Lefort, Richard Löwenthal, Hannah Arendt, Robert Conquest, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Carl Joachim Friedrich and Juan Linz describe totalitarianism in slightly different ways. They all agree, however, that totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire populations in support of an official state ideology, and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties. [edit] Cold War-era research

The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the Soviet Union as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive organic entity composed of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; a single mass party, typically led by a dictator; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction, and control of the economy through state planning. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of World War I, at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power.

The German historian Karl Dietrich Bracher, whose work is primarily concerned with Nazi Germany, argues that the "totalitarian typology" as developed by Friedrich and Brzezinski is an excessively inflexible model, and failed to consider the ―revolutionary dynamic‖ that Bracher asserts is at the heart of totalitarianism.[15] Bracher maintains that the essence of totalitarianism is the total claim to control and remake all aspects of society combined with an all-embracing ideology, the value on authoritarian leadership, and the pretence of the common identity of state and society, which distinguished the totalitarian "closed" understanding of politics from the "open" democratic understanding.[15] Unlike the Friedrich- Brzezinski definition Bracher argued that totalitarian regimes did not require a single leader and could function with a collective leadership, which led the American historian Walter Laqueur to argue that Bracher's definition seemed to fit reality better than the Friedrich- Brzezinski definition.[16]

Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer argues that mass movements like communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. The individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.[17] [edit] Criticism and recent work with the concept In the social sciences, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and as a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even in class terms (using the concept of the nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class).[18] These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation.

Further information: Collective leadership and History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982)

From a historical angle, the totalitarian concept has been criticized. Historians of the Nazi period inclined towards a functionalist interpretation of the Third Reich such as Martin Broszat, Hans Mommsen and Ian Kershaw have been very hostile or lukewarm towards the totalitarianism concept, arguing that the Nazi regime was far too disorganized to be considered as totalitarian.[19]

In the field of Soviet history, the concept has been disparaged by the "revisionist" school, a group of mostly American left-wing historians, some of whose more prominent members are Sheila Fitzpatrick, Jerry F. Hough, William McCagg, Robert W. Thurston, and J. Arch Getty.[20] Though their individual interpretations differ, the revisionists have argued that the Soviet state under Stalin was institutionally weak, that the level of terror was much exaggerated, and that to the extent it occurred, it reflected the weaknesses rather the strengths of the Soviet state.[20] Fitzpatrick argued that since to the extent that there was terror in the Soviet Union, since it provided for increased social mobility, and thus far from being a terrorized society, most people in the Soviet Union supported Stalin's purges as a chance for a better life.[21]

Writing in 1987, Walter Laqueur commented that the revisionists in the field of Soviet history were guilty of confusing popularity with morality, and of making highly embarrassing and not very convincing arguments against the concept of the Soviet Union as totalitarian state.[22] Laqueur argued the revisionists' arguments with regard to Soviet history were highly similar to the arguments made by Ernst Nolte regarding German history.[22] Laqueur asserted that concepts such as modernization were inadequate tools for explaining Soviet history while totalitarianism was not.[23]

François Furet used the term "totalitarian twins"[24] in an attempt to link Stalinism[25] and Nazism.[26] [edit] Totalitarianism in Architecture

Non-political aspects of the culture and motifs of totalitarian countries have themselves often been labeled innately "totalitarian". For example, Theodore Dalrymple, a British author, physician, and political commentator, has written for City Journal that brutalist structures are an expression of totalitarianism given that their grand, concrete-based design involves destroying gentler, more-human places such as gardens.[27] In 1984, author George Orwell described the Ministry of Truth as an "enormous, pyramidal structure of white concrete, soaring up terrace after terrace, three hundred metres into the air"; columnist Ben Macintyre of The Times has stated that that was "a prescient description of the sort of totalitarian architecture that would soon dominate the Communist bloc".[28] [edit] In popular culture

George Orwell's books Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm are famous for their dystopian depiction of totalitarian society, as is their lesser-known predecessor, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Additional totalitarian regimes are also depicted in the classics The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood and Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley.

According to Soviet writer Fazil Iskander,[29], "Under the totalitarian regime, it was as if you were forced to live in the same room with an insanely violent man" [edit] See also

 Carceral state  Cult of personality  Police state  Single-party state  State capitalism  Total institution  Totalitarian democracy  Führerprinzip  Counterintelligence state [edit] References

1. ^ Robert Conquest Reflections on a Ravaged Century (2000) ISBN 0-393-04818-7, page 74 2. ^ Andrew Defty, Britain, America and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945-1953: The Information Research Department, 2007, chapters 2-5 3. ^ Achim Siegel, The totalitarian paradigm after the end of Communism: towards a theoretical reassessment, 1998, page 200 "Concepts of totalitarianism became most widespread at the height of the Cold War. Since the late 1940s, especially since the Korean War, they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western world tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation" 4. ^ Nicholas Guilhot, The democracy makers: human rights and international order, 2005, page 33 "The opposition between the West and Soviet totalitarianism was often presented as an opposition both moral and epistemological between truth and falsehood. The democratic, social, and economic credentials of the Soviet Union were typically seen as "lies" and as the product of a deliberate and multiform propaganda...In this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset, as it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism 5. ^ David Caute, Politics and the novel during the Cold War, 2009, pages 95-99 6. ^ George A Reisch, How the Cold War transformed philosophy of science: to the icy slopes of logic, 2005, pages 153-154 7. ^ a b c Pipes 1995, pp. 240–281 8. ^ Stanley G. Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (UW Press, 1980), porn. 73 9. ^ G. Gentile & B. Mussolini in "La dottrina del fascismo" 1932) 10. ^ Robert Conquest. The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, 1990, ISBN 0-19-507132-8 p. 249 11. ^ "Sondrol, Paul C. "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner." Journal of Latin American Studies 23(3): October 1991, pp. 449-620. 12. ^ Nemoianu, Virgil, Review of End and Beginnings pages 1235-1238 from MLN, Volume 97, Issue # 5, December 1982, p.1235. 13. ^ Laqueur, Walter, The Fate of the Revolution, New York: Scribner, 1987, p.131. 14. ^ Dana Richard Villa (2000), The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press, p.2-3. ISBN 0521645719 15. ^ a b Kershaw, Ian The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, London: Arnold; New York page 25. 16. ^ Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 page 241 17. ^ Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Harper Perennial Modern Classics (2002), ISBN 0060505915, p.61, 163 18. ^ Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 pages 186-189 & 233-234 19. ^ Lorenz, Chris "Broszat, Martin" pages 143-144 from The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Volume 1, edited by Kelly Boyd, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1999 page 143; Kerhsaw, Ian The Nazi Dictatorship Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, London: Arnold Press, 2000 pages 45-46; Menke, Martin "Mommsen, Hans" pages 826-827 from The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing edited by Kelly Boyd, Volume 2, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishing, 1999 20. ^ a b Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 pages 225-227 21. ^ Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 pages 225 & 228 22. ^ a b Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 page 228 23. ^ Laqueur, Walter The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet history from 1917 to the Present, New York: Scribner's, 1987 page 233 24. ^ "Furet, borrowing from Hannah Arendt, describes Bolsheviks and Nazis as totalitarian twins, conflicting yet united." (Daniel Singer, The Nation - April 17, 1995) 25. ^ "The totalitarian nature of Stalin's Russia is undeniable." (Daniel Singer) 26. ^ "The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state." (Gary M. Grobman) 27. ^ Theodore Dalrymple (Autumn 2009). "The Architect as Totalitarian". City Journal. Retrieved January 5, 2010. 28. ^ Ben Macintyre (March 30, 2007). "Look on those monuments to megalomania, and despair". The Times. Retrieved January 5, 2010. 29. ^ Robert Conquest Reflections on a Ravaged Century (2000) ISBN 0-393-04818-7, page 189

Gerrymandering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Jerrymander" redirects here. Jerrymander may also refer to the arachnid known as Solifugae. For the 2010 documentary film, see (film).

Part of the Politics series

Elections

 Allotment ()  By-election   Show election  Fixed-term election  General election  o Open vs. closed o Nonpartisan blanket  Two-round (runoff)  Direct vs. Indirect   Referendum  Criticisms of electoralism

Terminology

(redistricting)   Gerrymandering   Majority-minority districts  Nesting  Secret

Subseries

 Political party  Voting  Voting systems

Lists

 Elections by country  Election results by country  Electoral calendar

Politics portal

 v  d  e

In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander ( /ˈdʒɛriˌmændər/); however, that word can also refer to the process.

Gerrymandering may be used to achieve desired electoral results for a particular party, or may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group.

When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term gerrymandering has negative connotations. However, a gerrymander may also be used for purposes that some perceive as positive, such as in US federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities (these are thus called "minority-majority districts").

Contents

[hide]

 1 Difference from malapportionment  2 Etymology  3 Voting systems  4 Packing and cracking  5 Effects of gerrymandering o 5.1 Reduction in and o 5.2 Increased incumbent advantage and campaign costs o 5.3 Less descriptive representation o 5.4 Incumbent gerrymandering o 5.5 Prison-based gerrymandering  6 Changes to achieve competitive elections o 6.1 Redistricting by neutral or cross-party agency o 6.2 Changing the voting system o 6.3 Changing the size of districts and the elected body o 6.4 Using fixed districts o 6.5 Objective rules to create districts . 6.5.1 Minimum district to convex polygon ratio . 6.5.2 Shortest splitline algorithm . 6.5.3 Minimum isoperimetric quotient  7 Use of databases and computer technology  8 National examples of gerrymandering o 8.1 o 8.2 o 8.3 Chile o 8.4 Germany o 8.5 Greece o 8.6 Hong Kong o 8.7 o 8.8 Ireland o 8.9 Latvia o 8.10 o 8.11 Malaysia o 8.12 o 8.13 o 8.14 Northern Ireland o 8.15 Singapore o 8.16 Sudan o 8.17 United States . 8.17.1 Voting Rights Act of 1965 . 8.17.2 Recent steps o 8.18  9 Related terms  10 See also  11 References  12 External links

[edit] Difference from malapportionment

Gerrymandering should not be confused with malapportionment, whereby the number of eligible voters per elected representative can vary widely without relation to how the boundaries are drawn. Nevertheless the ~mander suffix has been applied to particular malapportionments, such as the "Playmander" in South and the "Bjelkemander" in . Sometimes political representatives use both gerrymandering and malapportionment to try to maintain power. [edit] Etymology

First printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the state electoral districts drawn by the Massachusetts to favour the Democratic- Republican Party candidates of Elbridge Gerry over the . The caricature satirises the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts as a dragon. newspapers editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry's last name.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander. The exact author of the term gerrymander may never be definitively established. It is widely believed by historians that Federalist newspaper editors Nathan Hale, Benjamin and John Russell were the instigators, but the historical record gives no definitive evidence as to who created or uttered the word for the first time.[1] The term was a portmanteau of the governor's last name and the word salamander.

Appearing with the term, and helping to spread and sustain its popularity, was a political cartoon depicting a strange animal with claws, wings and a dragon-like head satirising the map of the odd-shaped district. This cartoon was most likely drawn by Elkanah Tisdale, an early 19th century painter, designer, and engraver who was living in Boston at the time.[2]

Tisdale also had the engraving skills to cut the woodblocks that printed the original cartoon.[3] These woodblocks survive and are preserved in the Library of Congress.[4] The word gerrymander was reprinted numerous times in Federalist newspapers in Massachusetts, New England, and nationwide during the remainder of 1812.[5] This suggests some organised activity of the Federalists to disparage Governor Gerry in particular and the growing Democratic-Republican party in general. Gerrymandering soon began to be used to describe not only the original Massachusetts example but also other cases of district-shape manipulation for partisan gain in other states. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, institutionalisation of the word became complete with its first appearance in a dictionary (1848) and first appearance in an encyclopedia (1868).[6]

Although the letter g of the eponymous Gerry is pronounced /ɡ/ as in go, the word gerrymander is most commonly pronounced /ˈdʒɛrimændər/, with a /dʒ/ as in gentle. [edit] Voting systems

Gerrymandering is used most often in favor of ruling incumbents[7] or a specific political party. Societies whose use a single-winner voting system are the most likely to have political parties that gerrymander for advantage.[citation needed] Most notably, gerrymandering is particularly effective in non-proportional systems that tend towards fewer parties, such as first past the post.

Most democracies have partly proportional electoral systems, where several political parties are proportionally represented in the national parliaments, in proportion to the total numbers of votes of the parties in the regional or national elections. In these more or less proportional representation systems, gerrymandering has little or less significance.

Some countries, such as the UK and Canada, authorize non-partisan organizations to set constituency boundaries in an attempt to prevent gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is most common in countries where elected politicians are responsible for defining constituency boundaries. They have obvious self interest in determining boundaries to their and their party's interest. [edit] Packing and cracking

The two aims of gerrymandering are to maximize the effect of supporters' votes and to minimize the effect of opponents' votes. One strategy, packing, is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single to reduce their influence in other districts. In some cases this may be done to obtain representation for a community of common interest, rather than to dilute that interest over several districts to a point of ineffectiveness. A second strategy, cracking, involves spreading out voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny them a sufficiently large voting bloc in any particular district. The strategies are typically combined, creating a few "forfeit" seats for packed voters of one type in order to secure even greater representation for voters of another type.

Gerrymandering is effective because of the effect. By packing opposition voters into districts they will already win (increasing excess votes for winners) and by cracking the remainder among districts where they are moved into the minority (increasing votes for eventual losers), the number of wasted votes among the opposition can be maximized. Similarly, with supporters holding narrow margins in the unpacked districts, the number of wasted votes among supporters is minimized.

While the wasted vote effect is strongest when a party wins by narrow margins across multiple districts, gerrymandering narrow margins can be risky when voters are less predictable. To minimize the risk of demographic or political shifts swinging a district to the opposition, politicians can instead create more packed districts, leading to more comfortable margins in unpacked ones.

Examples of gerrymandered districts

North Carolina's 12th An example of packing. The district is predominantly African-American and liberal.

Designed to proportionality segment voters from the Democratic Party, 's 23rd congressional district, is confined to a narrow strip of coast, an example of the packing style of districting.

An example of "cracking" style of gerrymandering. The urban (and mostly liberal) concentration of Columbus, Ohio, located at the center of the map in Franklin County, is split into thirds, each segment then attached to—and outnumbered by—largely conservative suburbs.

California's 11th congressional district drawn to favor its then- Republican incumbent.

Bi-partisan incumbent gerrymandering produced California District 38, home to Grace Napolitano, a Democrat, who ran unopposed in 2004.

Texas' controversial 2003 partisan gerrymander produced Texas District 22 for former Rep. Tom DeLay, a Republican.

The odd shapes of California Senate districts in Southern California (2008) have led to claims of gerrymandering.

The earmuff shape of Illinois's 4th congressional district packs two Hispanic areas while remaining contiguous by narrowly tracing Interstate 294.

Utah's 2nd congressional district was redrawn after the election of Democrat Jim Matheson in 2000 to favor future Republican . The predominantly Democratic city of Salt Lake was connected to predominantly Republican eastern and southern Utah through a thin sliver of land running through Utah County. This particular redistricting did not have the desired effect, as Matheson is still in office. In 2011, the gerrymandering continued. Each of the new congressional districts combined conservative rural areas with more urban areas to further dilute Democratic votes.

Another example of Illinois gerrymandering is the 17th congressional district in the western portion of the state. Notice how the major urban centers are anchored and how Decatur is nearly isolated from the primary district.

[edit] Effects of gerrymandering

How Gerrymandering can influence electoral results on a non-proportional system. Example for a state with 3 equally sized districts, 15 voters and 2 parties: Plum (squares) and Orange (circles).

In (a), creating 3 mixed-type districts yields a 3–0 win to Plum — a disproportional result considering the state-wide 9:6 Plum majority.

In (b), Orange wins the urban district while Plum wins the rural districts — the 2-1 result reflects the state-wide vote ratio.

In (c), gerrymandering techniques ensure a 2-1 win to the state-wide minority Orange party.

[edit] Reduction in electoral competition and voter turnout

The most immediate and obvious effect of gerrymandering is that elections become less competitive in all districts, particularly packed ones. As electoral margins of victory become significantly greater and politicians have safe seats, the incentive for meaningful campaigning is reduced. As the chance of influencing electoral results by voting is reduced, voter turnout is likely to decrease. Correspondingly, political campaigns are less likely to expend resources to encourage turnout. With a reduction in competition, a candidate puts more effort into securing party nomination for a given district rather than gaining approval of the general electorate. In an effectively gerrymandered district, the candidate is virtually assured of a win once nominated. In 2004, for example, when California's 3rd congressional district became an open seat after Republican Congressman Doug Ose ran for higher office, the state's three strongest Republican congressional candidates campaigned vigorously against one another for nomination in the district's primary election. Several other districts were uncontested, with no Republican nominees making even a token campaign effort.

[edit] Increased incumbent advantage and campaign costs

The effect of gerrymandering for incumbents is particularly advantageous, as incumbents are far more likely to be reelected under conditions of gerrymandering. For example, in 2002, according to political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, only four challengers were able to defeat incumbent members of the US Congress, the lowest number in modern American history.[8] Incumbents are likely to be of the majority party orchestrating a gerrymander, and incumbents are usually easily renominated in subsequent elections, including incumbents among the minority.

This demonstrates that gerrymandering can have a deleterious effect on the principle of democratic accountability. With uncompetitive seats/districts reducing the fear that incumbent politicians may lose office, they have less incentive to represent the interests of their constituents, even when those interests conform to majority support for an issue across the electorate as a whole. Incumbent politicians may look out more for their party's interests than for those of their constituents.

Gerrymandering can have an impact on campaign costs for district elections. If districts become increasingly stretched out, candidates must pay increased costs for transportation and trying to develop and present campaign advertising across a district.[citation needed] The incumbent's advantage in securing campaign funds is another benefit of his or her having a gerrymandered secure seat.

[edit] Less descriptive representation

Gerrymandering also has significant effects on the representation received by voters in gerrymandered districts. Because gerrymandering can be designed to increase the number of wasted votes among the electorate, the relative representation of particular groups can be drastically altered from their actual share of the voting population. This effect can significantly prevent a gerrymandered system from achieving proportional and descriptive representation, as the winners of elections are increasingly determined by who is drawing the districts rather than the preferences of the voters.

Gerrymandering may be advocated to improve representation within the legislature among otherwise underrepresented minority groups by packing them into a single district. This can be controversial, as it may lead to those groups' remaining marginalised in the government as they become confined to a single district. Candidates outside that district no longer need to represent them to win election. As an example, much of the redistricting conducted in the United States in the early 1990s involved the intentional creation of additional "majority-minority" districts where racial minorities such as African Americans were packed into the majority. This "maximisation policy" drew support by both the Republican Party (who had limited support among African Americans and could concentrate their power elsewhere) and by minority representatives elected as Democrats from these constituencies, who then had safe seats.

[edit] Incumbent gerrymandering

Gerrymandering can also be done to help incumbents as a whole, effectively turning every district into a packed one and greatly reducing the potential for competitive elections. This is particularly likely to occur when the minority party has significant obstruction power— unable to enact a partisan gerrymander, the legislature instead agrees on ensuring their own mutual reelection.

In an unusual occurrence in 2000, for example, the two dominant parties in the state of California cooperatively redrew both state and Federal legislative districts to preserve the status quo, ensuring the electoral safety of the politicians from unpredictable voting by the electorate. This move proved completely effective, as no State or Federal legislative office changed party in the 2004 election, although 53 congressional, 20 state senate, and 80 state assembly seats were potentially at risk.

In 2006, the term "70/30 District" came to signify the equitable split of two evenly split (i.e. 50/50) districts. The resulting districts gave each party a guaranteed seat and retained their respective power base.

[edit] Prison-based gerrymandering

Prison-based gerrymandering occurs when prisoners are counted as residents of a particular district increasing the district's population with non-voters when assigning political apportionment. This phenomenon, according to prisoners' rights organization, violates the principle of one person, one vote. Prison Policy argues that although many prisoners come from (and return to) urban communities, they are counted as "residents" of the rural districts that contain large prisons, artificially inflating the political representation in districts with prisons at the expense of voters in all other districts without prisons.[9] Others contend that prisoners should not be counted as residents of their original districts when they do not reside there and are not legally eligible to vote. [edit] Changes to achieve competitive elections

Electoral divisions: Sydney area

Due to many issues associated with gerrymandering and its impact on competitive elections and democratic accountability, numerous countries have enacted reforms making the practice either more difficult or less effective. Countries such as the UK, Australia, Canada and most of those in Europe have transferred responsibility for defining constituency boundaries to neutral or cross-party bodies.

In the United States, however, such reforms are controversial and frequently meet particularly strong opposition from groups that benefit from gerrymandering. In a more neutral system, they might lose considerable influence.

[edit] Redistricting by neutral or cross-party agency

The most commonly advocated electoral reform proposal targeted at gerrymandering is to change the redistricting process. Under these proposals, an independent and presumably objective commission is created specifically for redistricting, rather than having the legislature do it. This is the system used in the United Kingdom, where the independent Boundary Commissions determine the boundaries for constituencies in the House of Commons and regional legislatures, subject to ratification by the body in question (almost always granted without debate). A similar situation exists in Australia where the independent Australian Electoral Commission, and its state based counterparts, determines electoral boundaries for federal, state and local .

To help ensure neutrality, members of a redistricting agency may be appointed from relatively apolitical sources such as retired judges or longstanding members of the civil service, possibly with requirements for adequate representation among competing political parties. Additionally, members of the board can be denied access to information that might aid in gerrymandering, such as the demographic makeup or voting patterns of the population. As a further constraint, consensus requirements can be imposed to ensure that the resulting district map reflects a wider perception of fairness, such as a requirement for a approval of the commission for any district proposal. Consensus requirements, however, can lead to deadlock, such as occurred in Missouri following the 2000 census. There, the equally numbered partisan appointees were unable to reach consensus in a reasonable time, and consequently the courts had to determine district lines.

In the US state of Iowa, the nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau (LSB, akin to the US Congressional Research Service) determines boundaries of electoral districts. Aside from satisfying federally mandated contiguity and population equality criteria, the LSB mandates unity of counties and cities. Consideration of political factors such as location of incumbents, previous boundary locations, and political party proportions is specifically forbidden. Since Iowa's counties are chiefly regularly shaped polygons, the LSB process has led to districts that follow county lines.[8]

In 2005, the US state of Ohio had a ballot measure to create an independent commission whose first priority was competitive districts, a sort of "reverse gerrymander". A complex mathematical formula was to be used to determine the competitiveness of a district. The measure failed voter approval chiefly due to voter concerns that communities of interest would be broken up.[10] [edit] Changing the voting system

Because gerrymandering relies on the wasted vote effect, the use of a different voting system with fewer wasted votes can help reduce gerrymandering. In particular, the use of multimember districts alongside voting systems establishing proportional representation such as Single Transferable Voting can reduce wasted votes and gerrymandering. Semi- proportional voting systems such as single non-transferable vote or are relatively simple and similar to first past the post and can also reduce the proportion of wasted votes and thus potential gerrymandering. Electoral reformers have advocated all three as replacement systems.[11]

Electoral systems with different forms of proportional representation are now found in nearly all European countries. In this way, they have multi-party systems (with many parties represented in the parliaments) with higher voter attendance in the elections[citation needed], fewer wasted votes, and a wider variety of political opinions represented.

Electoral systems with election of just one winner in each district (i.e., "winner-take-all" electoral systems), and no proportional distribution of extra mandates to smaller parties, tend to create two-party systems (Duverger's Law). In these, just two parties effectively compete in the national elections and thus the national political discussions are forced into a narrow two-party frame, where loyalty and forced statements inside the two parties distort the political debate.

[edit] Changing the size of districts and the elected body

If a proportional or semi-proportional voting system is used then increasing the number of winners in any given district will reduce the number of wasted votes. This can be accomplished both by merging separate districts together and by increasing the total size of the body to be elected. Since gerrymandering relies on exploiting the wasted vote effect, increasing the number of winners per district can reduce the potential for gerrymandering in proportional systems. Unless all districts are merged, however, this method cannot eliminate gerrymandering entirely.

In contrast to proportional methods, if a nonproportional voting system with multiple winners (such as block voting) is used, then increasing the size of the elected body while keeping the number of districts constant will not reduce the amount of wasted votes, leaving the potential for gerrymandering the same. While merging districts together under such a system can reduce the potential for gerrymandering, doing so also amplifies the tendency of block voting to produce landslide victories, creating a similar effect to gerrymandering by concentrating wasted votes among the opposition and denying them representation.

If a system of single-winner elections is used, then increasing the size of the elected body will implicitly increase the number of districts to be created. This change can actually make gerrymandering easier when raising the number of single-winner elections, as opposition groups can be more efficiently packed into smaller districts without accidentally including supporters, further increasing the number of wasted votes amongst the opposition.

[edit] Using fixed districts Another way to avoid gerrymandering is simply to stop redistricting altogether and use existing political boundaries such as state, county, or provincial lines. While this prevents future gerrymandering, any existing advantage may become deeply ingrained. The , for instance, has more competitive elections than the House of Representatives due to the use of existing state borders rather than gerrymandered districts—Senators are elected by their entire state, while Representatives are elected in legislatively drawn districts.

The use of fixed districts creates an additional problem, however, in that fixed districts do not take into account changes in population. Individual voters can come to have very different degrees of influence on the legislative process. This malapportionment can greatly affect representation after long periods of time or large population movements. In the United Kingdom during the Industrial Revolution, several constituencies that had been fixed since they gained representation in the Parliament of England became so small that they could be won with only a handful of voters (rotten boroughs). Similarly, in the US the state legislature of refused to redistrict for more than 60 years, despite major changes in population patterns. By 1960 less than a quarter of the state's population controlled the majority of seats in the legislature.[12] However, this practice of using fixed districts for state legislatures was effectively banned in the United States after the Reynolds v. Sims Supreme Court decision, establishing a rule of one man, one vote.

[edit] Objective rules to create districts

Another means to reduce gerrymandering is to create objective, precise criteria to which any district map must comply. Courts in the United States, for instance, have ruled that congressional districts must be contiguous in order to be constitutional.[13] This, however, is not a particularly binding constraint, as very narrow strips of land with few or no voters in them may be used to connect separate regions for inclusion in one district.

[edit] Minimum district to convex polygon ratio

One method is to define a minimum district to convex polygon ratio. To use this method, every proposed district is circumscribed by the smallest possible convex polygon (similar to the concept of a convex hull, think of stretching a rubberband around the outline of the district). Then, the area of the district is divided by the area of the polygon; or, if at the edge of the state, by the portion of the area of the polygon within state boundaries. The advantages of this method are that it allows a certain amount of human intervention to take place (thus solving the Colorado problem of splitline districting); it allows the borders of the district to follow existing jagged subdivisions, such as neighbourhoods or voting districts (something isoperimetric rules would discourage); and it allows concave coastline districts, such as the Florida gulf coast area. It would mostly eliminate bent districts, but still permit long, straight ones. However, since human intervention is still allowed, the gerrymandering issues of packing and cracking would still occur, just to a lesser extent. Also, it would not allow convex coastline districts[why?], although this could be remedied by a secondary calculation using a "polygon" with a border being a defined distance from the shore[clarification needed].[citation needed]

[edit] Shortest splitline algorithm The Center for Range Voting has proposed[14] a way to draw districts by a simple algorithm.[15] The algorithm uses only the shape of the state, the number N of districts wanted, and the population distribution as inputs. The algorithm (slightly simplified) is:

1. Start with the boundary outline of the state. 2. Let N=A+B where A and B are as nearly equal whole numbers as possible. (For example, 7=4+3.) 3. Among all possible dividing lines that split the state into two parts with population ratio A:B, choose the shortest. 4. We now have two hemi-states, each to contain a specified number (namely A and B) of districts. Handle them recursively via the same splitting procedure.

This district-drawing algorithm has the advantages of simplicity, ultra-low cost, lack of intentional bias, and it produces simple boundaries that do not meander needlessly. It has the disadvantage of ignoring geographic features such as rivers, cliffs, and highways and cultural features such as tribal boundaries. This landscape oversight causes it to produce districts differently than those an unbiased human would produce. Ignoring geographic features can induce very simple boundaries.

Another criticism of the system is that splitline districts sometimes divide and diffuse the voters in a large metropolitan area. This condition is most likely to occur when one of the first splitlines cuts through the metropolitan area. It is often considered a drawback of the system because residents of the same city are assumed to be a community of common interest. This is most evident in the splitline allocation of Colorado.[16]

As of July 2007, shortest-splitline redistricting pictures are now available for all 50 states.[17]

[edit] Minimum isoperimetric quotient

It is possible to define a specific minimum isoperimetric quotient,[18] proportional to the ratio between the area and the square of the perimeter of any given congressional voting district. Although technologies presently exist to define districts in this manner, there are no rules in place mandating their use, and no national movement to implement such a policy. Such rules would prevent incorporation of jagged natural boundaries, such as rivers or mountains. When such boundaries are required (such as at the edge of a state), certain districts may not be able to meet the required minima. Enforcing a minimum isoperimetric quotient, would encourage districts with a high ratio between area and perimeter.[18]

See also: Compactness measure of a shape [edit] Use of databases and computer technology

See also: Geographic information system

The introduction of modern computers alongside the development of elaborate voter databases and special districting software has made gerrymandering a far more precise science. Using such databases, political parties can obtain detailed information about every household including political party registration, previous campaign donations, and the number of times residents voted in previous elections and combine it with other predictors of voting behaviour such as age, income, race, or education level. With this data, gerrymandering politicians can predict the voting behaviour of each potential district with an astonishing degree of precision, leaving little chance for creating an accidentally competitive district. [edit] National examples of gerrymandering

Among western democracies, and the employ electoral systems with only one (nationwide) voting district for election of national representatives. This virtually precludes gerrymandering.

[edit] Brazil

Since the end of the Era (1822–1889), Brazil has adopted the proportional system for the National, State, and local legislative elections, with some variations. However, it is said that during the dictatorship (1964–1985), especially in the General Ernesto Geisel Presidency, States were incorporated (Guanabara State into Rio de Janeiro State - 1975) or split (Mato Grosso/Mato Grosso do Sul - 1979), both without popular referendum, in order to prevent the rising of the opposition party (MDB).

[edit] Canada

Early in Canadian history, both the federal and provincial levels used gerrymandering to try to maximise partisan power. When Alberta and Saskatchewan were admitted to in 1905, their original district boundaries were set forth in the respective Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts. These boundaries had been devised by federal Liberal cabinet members to ensure the election of provincial Liberal governments.

Since responsibility for drawing federal and provincial electoral boundaries was handed over to independent agencies, this problem has largely been eliminated at these levels of government. Manitoba was the first province to authorise a non-partisan group to define constituency boundaries in the 1950s. In 1964, the federal government delegated the drawing of boundaries for national seats to the "arm's length" Elections Canada.

As a result, gerrymandering is not generally a major issue in Canada except at the civic level. Although city wards are recommended by independent agencies, city councils occasionally overrule them. This is much more likely where the city is not homogenous and different neighbourhoods have sharply different opinions about city policy direction.

In 2006, a controversy arose on over the provincial government's decision to throw out an electoral map drawn by an independent commission. Instead they created two new maps. The government adopted the second of these, designed by the caucus of the governing party. Opposition parties and the media attacked Pat Binns for what they saw as gerrymandering of districts. Among other things, the government adopted a map that ensured that every current Member of the Legislative Assembly from the premier's party had a district to run in for re-election, whereas in the original map, several had been redistricted.[19] Despite this, in the 2007 provincial election only seven of 20 incumbent Members of the Legislative Assembly were re-elected (seven did not run for re-election), and the government was defeated. The current federal electoral district boundaries in Saskatchewan have also been labelled as gerrymandered—the province's two major cities, Saskatoon and Regina, are both "cracked" into four districts each when the populations of the cities proper would justify about three and two and a half all-urban (or mostly urban) districts respectively;[20] the map instead groups parts of the -friendly cities with large Conservative-leaning rural areas.[21]

At that time, the districts were created in their largely present form in the mid-1990s, it was alleged that they were intended to give the NDP and Liberals a fair chance of winning additional seats that included large sections of the province's rural hinterlands at the expense of the Reform Party. In 1997, the Reform Party won three of the four Saskatoon seats despite their failure to earn a plurality of the city vote in any of the three ridings. In 2000, its successor, the Canadian Alliance, added the remaining Saskatoon seat plus one in Regina, and, in 2004, the Canadian Alliance's successor, the Conservative Party of Canada, added the NDP's two remaining Regina seats to shut the NDP out of the province. Since then, the Conservatives have held the seven districts in question, while the NDP holds no seats in the province despite a strong proportion of the vote especially in the cities. Polling data shows the Conservatives could probably not have swept either of these cities had they contained either completely or mostly urban constituencies. In 2011, the NDP again failed to win a seat in Saskatchewan, despite polling nearly a third of the popular vote in the province (above the national average) and winning 103 seats elsewhere in the country.

[edit] Chile

The military government which ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990 was ousted in a national plebiscite in October 1988. Opponents of General Augusto Pinochet voted NO to remove him from power and to trigger democratic elections, while supporters (mostly from the right- wing) voted YES to keep him in office for another eight years.

Five months prior to the plebiscite, the regime published a law regulating future elections and , but the configuration of electoral districts and the manner in which Congress seats would be awarded were only added to the law seven months after the referendum,[22][23] raising suspicions of gerrymandering.

For the Chamber of Deputies () 60 districts were drawn by grouping (mostly) neighboring (the smallest administrative subdivision in the country) belonging to the same region (the largest administrative division). It was established that only two deputies would be elected per district and that the most voted coalition would need to outpoll its closest rival by a margin of more than 2-to-1 to take both seats. An opposition party study demonstrated that, with the results of the plebiscite at hand, the electoral districts were drawn to favor the rightist parties, with a positive bias towards the traditionally more conservative rural areas of the country. The vote/seat ratio was lower in districts which supported Pinochet in the plebiscite and higher in those where the opposition was strongest. By reducing the seats per district to two, the new districts guaranteed Pinochet supporters a more or less equal representation with less than 40% of the votes.[24] In spite of this, at the 1989 parliamentary election, the center-left opposition was able to capture both seats (the so-called doblaje) in twelve out of 60 districts, winning control of 60% of the Chamber.

Senate constituencies were created by grouping all lower-chamber districts in a region, or by dividing a region into two constituencies of contiguous lower-chamber districts. The 1980 Constitution had envisioned the little effect of gerrymandering in the upper house by allocating a number of seats to appointed senators. This would ensure that neither coalition would have the necessary votes to change the Constitution by themselves. The opposition won 22 senate seats in the 1989 election, taking both seats in three out of 19 constituencies, controlling 58% of the elected Senate, but only 47% of the full Senate.

The unelected senators were eliminated in the 2005 constitutional reforms, but the electoral map has remained largely untouched. (Two new regions were created in 2007, one of which altered the composition of two senatorial constituencies. The first election to be affected by this minor change will take place in 2013.)

[edit] Germany

When the electoral districts in Germany were redrawn in 2000, the ruling Social Democratic Party (SPD) was accused of gerrymandering to marginalise the socialist PDS party. The SPD combined traditional PDS strongholds in eastern Berlin with new districts made up of more populous areas of western Berlin, where the PDS had very limited following.

After having won four seats in Berlin in the 1998 national election, the PDS was able to retain only two seats altogether in the 2002 elections. Under German electoral law, a political party has to win either more than five percent of the votes, or at least three directly elected seats, to qualify for top-up seats under the . The PDS vote fell below five percent thus they failed to qualify for top-up seats and were confined to just two members of the , the German federal parliament (elected representatives are always allowed to hold their seats as individuals). Had they won a third constituency, the PDS would have gained at least 25 additional seats, which would have been enough to hold the balance of power in the Bundestag.

In the election of 2005, the Left Party (successor of the PDS) gained 8.7% of the votes and thus qualified for top-up seats.

However, the number of Bundestag seats of parties which traditionally get over 5% of the votes cannot be affected very much by gerrymandering, because seats are awarded to these parties on a proportional basis. Only when a party wins so many districts in any one of the 16 federal states that those seats alone count for more than its proportional share of the vote in that same state does the districting have some influence on larger parties—those extra seats, called "Überhangmandate", remain.

[edit] Greece

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be

challenged and removed. (October 2010)

Gerrymandering has been rather common in Greek history since organised parties with national only appeared after the 1926 Constitution. The only case before that was the creation of the Piraeus electoral district in 1906, in order to give the Theotokis party a safe district. The most infamous case of gerrymandering was in the 1956 elections, which was incidentally the first election where women voted. While in all other post World War II national elections the districts were based on the prefecture (νομός) for 1956 the country was split in districts of varying sizes, others being the size of prefectures, others the size of sub- prefectures (επαρχία) and others somewhere in between. In small districts the winning party would take all seats, in intermediate size it would take most and there was proportional representation in the largest districts. The districts though were chosen in such a way that small districts were those that traditionally voted for the right while large districts were those that voted against the right. This system has become known as the three-phase (τριυασικό) system or the baklava system (because, as baklava is split into full pieces and corner pieces, the country was also split into disproportionate pieces). The opposition, being composed of the center and the left, formed a coalition with the sole intent to change the electoral law to be more representative and call new elections, despite the fact that only seven years earlier the center and the left had fought each other in the . Despite the opposition winning the popular vote (1,620,007 votes against 1,594,992), the right wing ERE won the majority of seats (165 to 135) and was to lead the country for the next two years.

[edit] Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, although constituencies of district councils, the Urban Council, the Regional Council and the geographical constituencies of the Legislative Council have always been demarcated by the Boundary and or its successor Electoral Affairs Commission, which is chaired by a judge, functional constituencies are demarcated by the government and defined in statutes,[25] making them prone to gerrymandering. The functional constituency for the information technology sector was particular criticised for gerrymandering and voteplanting.[26]

[edit] Hungary

In 2011, politician János Lázár has proposed a redesign to Hungarian voting districts; considering the territorial results of previous elections, this redesign would favor right-wing politics.[27][28]. Since then, the law has been passed by the FIDESZ-majority Parliament [29].

[edit] Ireland

Until the 1980s Dáil boundaries in the state of Ireland were drawn not by an independent commission but by government ministers. Successive arrangements by governments of all political characters have been attacked as gerrymandering. Ireland uses the Single Transferable Vote and as well as the actual boundaries drawn the main tool of gerrymandering has been the number of seats per constituency used, with three-seat constituencies normally benefiting the strongest parties in an area, whereas four-seat constituencies normally helped the second strongest party.

In 1947 the rapid rise of new party Clann na Poblachta threatened the position of the governing party Fianna Fáil. The government of Éamon de Valera introduced the Electoral Amendment Act, 1947, which increased the size of the Dáil from 138 to 147 and increased the number of three-seat constituencies from fifteen to twenty-two. The result was described by the journalist and historian Tim Pat Coogan as "a blatant attempt at gerrymander which no Six County Unionist could have bettered."[30] The following February the 1948 general election was held and Clann na Poblachta secured ten seats instead of the nineteen they would have received proportional to their vote.[30] In the mid-1970s, the Minister for Local Government, James Tully, attempted to arrange the constituencies to ensure that the governing Fine Gael–Labour Party National Coalition would win a parliamentary majority. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 1974 was planned as a major reversal of previous gerrymandering by Fianna Fáil (then in opposition). Tully ensured that there were as many as possible three-seat constituencies where the governing parties were strong, in the expectation that the governing parties would each win a seat in many constituencies, relegating Fianna Fáil to one out of three. In areas where the governing parties were weak, four-seat constituencies were used so that the governing parties had a strong chance of still winning two. The election results created substantial change, as there was a larger than expected collapse in the vote. Fianna Fáil won a landslide victory in the Irish general election, 1977, two out of three seats in many cases, relegating the National Coalition parties to fight for the last seat. Consequently, the term Tullymandering was used to describe the phenomenon of a failed attempt at gerrymandering.

[edit] Latvia

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be

challenged and removed. (October 2010)

In 1989 and 1990 elections, some accused the Popular Front of Latvia (PFL) of gerrymandering in favour of ethnic Latvians. For example, in 1990 the nearly pure Latvian- ethnic Ventspils district (with about 0.6% of population) was awarded three constituencies out of 201 (1.5%), with two of PFL candidates running unopposed.[31] In 1991, most native Russians were non-citizens and so had no voting rights. In 1993, the country returned to proportional representation.

[edit] Lithuania

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be

challenged and removed. (October 2010)

After declaring independence from the USSR in 1990, in 1994, the government reorganised the county and municipal boundaries in the Vilnius region to reduce the influence of the Polish majority in the area. That was done by connecting the majority-Polish areas in the Vilnius, Trakai and Šalčininkai municipalities to municipalities without major Polish populations, such as Elektrėnai, Ukmergė and Širvintos. The result is that Vilnius County has a total Polish minority of 29.01%, which contain municipalities like Vilnius and Šalčininkai, which have a much larger percentage of the population (61.3% and 80% respectively).

[edit] Malaysia

The practice of gerrymandering had been around in the country since its independence, the ruling coalition (National Front) was accused of controlling the election commission by revising the borders of the area of constituents, the general election results shown clearly that the ruling coalition needed only 40% of total votes to stay in power.[32]

[edit] Malta This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be

challenged and removed. (October 2010)

Allegedly, the Labour Party that won in 1981 even though the Nationalist Party got the most votes had done so because of its gerrymandering. A 1987 prevented that situation from reoccurring.

[edit] Nepal

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be

challenged and removed. (October 2010)

After the restoration of democracy in 1990, Nepali politics has well exercised the practice of gerrymandering with the view to take advantage in the election. It was often practised by Nepali Congress, which remained in power in most of the time. Learning from this, the reshaping of constituency was done for constituent assembly and the oppositin now wins elections.

[edit] Northern Ireland

Gerrymandering is widely considered to have been introduced after the establishment of in Northern Ireland in 1921, favouring Unionists who tended to be Protestant, to the detriment of Nationalists who were mostly Catholic. However Stephen Gwynn had noted as early as 1911 that since the introduction of the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898:

"In Armagh there are 68,000 Protestants, 56,000 Catholics. The County Council has twenty-two Protestants and eight Catholics. In Tyrone, Catholics are a majority of the population, 82,000 against 68,000; but the electoral districts have been so arranged that Unionists return sixteen as against thirteen Nationalists (one a Protestant). This Council gives to the Unionists two to one majority on its Committees, and out of fifty- two officials employs only five Catholics. In Antrim, which has the largest Protestant majority (196,000 to 40,000), twenty-six Unionists and three Catholics are returned. Sixty officers out of sixty-five are good Unionists and Protestants."[33]

In the 1920s and 1930s, the created new electoral boundaries for the Londonderry County Borough Council to ensure election of a Unionist council in a city where Nationalists had a large majority and had won previous elections.[34] Initially local parties drew the boundaries, but in the 1930s the province-wide government redrew them to reinforce the gerrymander.[34] Some critics and supporters spoke at the time of "A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People".

In 1929, the Parliament of Northern Ireland passed a bill shifting the Parliament's electoral system from the relatively proportional single transferable vote (STV) to the less proportional first past the post or system. The only exception was for the election of four Stormont MPs to represent the Queen's University of Belfast. Many scholars believe that the boundaries were gerrymandered to underrepresent Nationalists. [30]Some geographers and historians, for instance Professor John H. Whyte, disagree.[34][35] They have argued that the electoral boundaries for the Parliament of Northern Ireland were not gerrymandered to a greater level than that produced by any single-winner election system, and that the actual number of Nationalist MPs barely changed under the revised system (it went from 12 to 11 and later went back up to 12). Most observers have acknowledged that the change to a single- winner system was a key factor, however, in stifling the growth of smaller political parties, such as the Northern Ireland Labour Party and Independent Unionists.

The United Kingdom suspended the Parliament of Northern Ireland and its government in 1972. It restored the single transferable vote (STV) for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the following year, using the same definitions of constituencies as for the Westminster Parliament. Currently in Northern Ireland, all elections use the STV except those for positions in the Westminster Parliament, which follow the pattern in the rest of the United Kingdom by using "first past the post."

[edit] Singapore

In recent decades, critics have accused the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) of unfair electoral practices to maintain significant majorities in the . Among the complaints are that the government uses gerrymandering.[36]

The Elections Department was established as part of the executive branch under the Prime Minister of Singapore, rather than as an independent body.[37] Critics have accused it of giving the ruling party the power to decide polling districts and polling sites through electoral engineering, based on poll results in previous election.[38] Opposition parties have alleged that the Elections Department decisions have given unfair advantage to the ruling party and have affected the outcome of some electoral battles.[39][40]

Critics point out the dissolution of the Group Representation Constituencies (GRC) of Cheng San GRC and Eunos GRC. Each was dissolved by the Elections Department with voters redistributed to other constituencies after opposition parties gained ground in elections.[41][42] Such action was controversial.

PAP strongholds, such as Tanjong Pagar GRC and Ang Mo Kio GRC, where Minister Mentor and Prime Minister respectively contest, have seldom been contested by the opposition. When Ang Mo Kio GRC was last contested in 2006, the PAP has won 66% of the votes.

The electoral boundaries map as of 2010 shows a large variation in size of districts and the number of citizens represented on average by each MP.

[edit] Sudan

In the most recent election of 2010, there were numerous examples of gerrymandering throughout the entire country of Sudan. A report from the Rift Valley Institute uncovered violations of Sudan's electoral law, where constituencies were created that were well below and above the required limit. According to Sudan's National Elections Act of 2008, no constituency can have a population that is 15% greater or less than the average constituency size. The Rift Valley Report uncovered a number of constituencies that are in violation of this rule. Examples include constituencies in Jonglei, Warrap, South Darfur, and several other states.[43] [edit] United States

U.S. congressional districts covering Travis County, Texas (outlined in red) in 2002, left, and 2004, right. In 2003, the majority of Republicans in the Texas legislature redistricted the state, diluting the voting power of the heavily Democratic county by parcelling its residents out to more Republican districts.

The United States has a long tradition of gerrymandering that precedes the 1789 election of the First U.S. Congress. In 1788, Patrick Henry and his Anti-Federalist allies were in control of the Virginia House of Delegates. They drew the boundaries of Virginia's 5th congressional district in an unsuccessful attempt to keep James Madison out of the U.S. House of Representatives.[44]

Historically, each state legislature has used gerrymandering to try to control the political makeup of its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. Partisan legislators typically try to maximise the number of congressional delegation seats under the control of the legislature's majority party.

The practice of gerrymandering the borders of new states continued past the Civil War and into the late 19th century. The Republican Party used its control of Congress to secure the admission of more states in territories friendly to their party - the admission of Dakota Territory as two states instead of one being a notable example. By the rules for representation in the , each new state carried at least three electoral votes regardless of its population.[45]

All redistricting in the United States has been contentious because it has been controlled by political parties vying for power. As a consequence of the decennial census required by the United States Constitution, districts for members of the House of Representatives typically need to be redrawn. In many states, state legislatures have redrawn boundaries for state legislative districts at the same time.

"The Gerry-mander" first appeared in this cartoon-map in the Boston Gazette, 26 March 1812.

When faced with losing power, however, members of some legislatures simply refused to redistrict. Early struggles for power were between rural and urban interests, as well as between political parties. The state legislature of Alabama, for instance, refused to redistrict from 1901 to the 1960s, despite changing conditions in a state that was industrialising and where population was rapidly moving to cities. This allowed state politics to heavily favour rural interests. In 1960, approximately a quarter of the state's population controlled the state legislature. When the state legislature could not agree on boundaries, a federal court worked with a new non-partisan body to conclude defining new districts in 1972.[46]

Intense political battles over contentious redistricting typically take place within state legislatures responsible for creating the electoral maps. Since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, federal courts may be involved to ensure that historical patterns of discrimination are not perpetuated.

This process can create strange bedfellows interested in securing reelection; in some states, Republicans have cut deals with opposing black Democratic state legislators to create majority-black districts. By packing black Democratic voters into a single district, they can essentially ensure the election of a black Congressman or reelection of a black state legislator due to the packed concentration of Democratic voters—however, the surrounding districts are more safely Republican in areas like the South, where white conservatives have increasingly shifted from the Democratic to the Republican Party in national elections in the last four decades.

In Pennsylvania, the Republican-dominated state legislature used gerrymandering to help defeat Democratic representative Frank Mascara. Mascara was elected to Congress in 1994. In 2002, the Republican Party altered the boundaries of his original district so much that he was pitted against fellow Democratic candidate John Murtha in the election. The shape of Mascara's newly drawn district formed a finger that stopped at his street, encompassing his house, but not the spot where he parked his car. Murtha won the election in the newly formed district.[47]

State legislatures have used gerrymandering along racial or ethnic lines both to decrease and increase minority representation in state governments and congressional delegations. In the state of Ohio, a conversation between Republican officials was recorded that demonstrated that redistricting was being done to aid their political candidates. Furthermore, the discussions assessed race of voters as a factor in redistricting, because African-Americans had backed Democratic candidates. Republicans apparently removed approximately 13,000 African American voters from the district of Jim Raussen, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, in an attempt to tip the scales in what was once a competitive district for Democratic candidates.[48]

In some states, bipartisan gerrymandering is the norm. State legislators from both parties sometimes agree to draw congressional district boundaries in a way that ensures the re- election of most or all incumbent representatives from both parties.

International election observers from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, who were invited to observe and report on the 2004 national elections, expressed criticism of the U.S. congressional redistricting process and made a recommendation that the procedures be reviewed to ensure genuine competitiveness of Congressional election contests.[49]

[edit] Voting Rights Act of 1965

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be

challenged and removed. (July 2008)

After Reconstruction and the granting of and suffrage to freedmen, state legislatures developed new constitutions with provisions to make and elections more complicated, such as poll taxes, residency requirements, literacy tests and grandfather clauses. These were designed for and effectively succeeded in disfranchising most African Americans and many poor whites in southern states. In areas where African American and other minorities succeeded in registering, some states created districts that were gerrymandered to reduce the voting impact of minorities.

With the Civil Rights Movement and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, additional federal enforcement and protections of suffrage for all citizens were enacted. Gerrymandering for the purpose of reducing the political influence of a racial or ethnic minority group was prohibited. Poll taxes for federal elections were prohibited by ratification of the Twenty- fourth Amendment in 1964, and a later Supreme Court case struck down poll taxes as a prerequisite for any election. Gerrymandering for political gain has remained possible under the Constitution.

Shaw v. Reno was a United States Supreme Court case involving the redistricting and racial gerrymandering of North Carolina's 12th congressional district (pictured).

After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, some states created "majority-minority" districts. This practice, also called "affirmative gerrymandering", was supposed to redress historic discrimination and ensure that ethnic minorities would gain some seats in government. Since the 1990s, however, gerrymandering based solely on racial data has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently in Miller v. Johnson (1995).

The constitutionality of using racial considerations to create districts remains difficult to assess, despite past injustices. In Hunt v. Cromartie (1999), the Supreme Court approved a racially focused gerrymandering of a congressional district on the grounds that the definition was not pure racial gerrymandering but instead partisan gerrymandering, which is constitutionally permissible. With the increasing racial polarisation of parties in the South in the U.S. as conservative whites move from the Democratic to the Republican Party, gerrymandering may become partisan and also achieve goals for ethnic representation.

In a few circumstances the use of goal-driven district boundaries may be used for positive social goals. When the state legislature considered representation for Arizona's Native American reservations, they thought each needed their own House member, because of historic conflicts between the Hopi and Navajo nations. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, the legislature created an unusual district configuration that features a fine filament along a river course several hundred miles in length to attach two Navajo regions, Arizona's 2nd congressional district.

The California state legislature created a congressional district that extends over a narrow coastal strip for several miles. It ensures that a common community of interest will be represented, rather than the coastal areas being dominated by inland concerns.

[edit] Recent steps

In a decision on June 28, 2006, the United States Supreme Court upheld most of a Texas congressional map engineered in 2003 by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.[50] The 7–2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like (not just after the decennial census). Thus they may work to protect their political parties' standing and number of seats, so long as they do not harm racial and ethnic minority groups. A 5–4 majority declared one Congressional district unconstitutional in the case because of harm to an ethnic minority.

Rather than allowing more political influence, some states' citizens are considering shifting redistricting authority from politicians and giving it to non-partisan commissions. The states of Washington,[51] Arizona,[52] and California[53] have created standing committees for the redistricting following the 2010 census. Rhode Island[54] and New Jersey[55] have developed ad hoc committees, but developed the past two decennial reapportionments tied to new census data. Florida's amendments 5 and 6, meanwhile, established rules for the creation of districts but did not mandate an independent commission.[56]

[edit] Venezuela

This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the section; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (November 2011)

In the September 26, 2010 legislative elections, gerrymandering occurred by the single-party National Assembly of Venezuela a few months before, in an addendum to the electoral law). Hugo Chávez's political party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela drew 48% of the votes, but his opponents (the Coalition for Democratic Unity and the Fatherland for All) drew 52% of the votes.

Because of the recent and, by some accounts illegal, gerrymandering of electoral legislative districts, Chávez's United Socialist Party of Venezuela was awarded over 60% of the spots in the National Assembly (98 deputies), but those two parties of his opponents got a total of only 67 deputies.[57] [edit] Related terms

In a play on words, the use of race-conscious procedures in selection has been termed "jurymandering".[58][59] [edit] See also

Politics portal

 History of 19th century congressional redistricting in Ohio  Election fraud 

[edit] References

1. ^ Martis, Kenneth C. (2008). "The Original Gerrymander". Political Geography 27 (4): 833–839. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.09.003. 2. ^ There is no evidence that the famous American portrait painter Gilbert Stuart had any involvement with either the design, drawing, or naming of the cartoon, or with the coining of the term. Detailed biographies and academic journal articles about Stuart make no reference to gerrymandering. The myth of Stuart‘s association with the original gerrymander has been reproduced and spread, without verification or sources, from one reference book and Internet site to another. Modern scholars of Stuart are in agreement that no proof exists to credit him with the term or cartoon and that he had the propensity not to be involved with such issues. Martis, Kenneth C. (2008). "The Original Gerrymander". Political Geography 27 (4): 833–839. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.09.003. 3. ^ O‘Brien, D. C. (1984). "Elkanah Tisdale: Designer, Engraver and Miniature Painter". Connecticut Historical Bulletin 49 (2): 83–96. 4. ^ Library of Congress. Original woodblocks for printing ―Gerrymander‖ political cartoon. Geography and Map Reading Room. LCCN Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/2003620165. 5. ^ The word gerrymander was used again in two Boston-area papers the very next day. The first usage outside of the immediate Boston area came in the Newburyport Herald (Massachusetts) on March 31st, and the first use outside of the state of Massachusetts came in the Concord Gazette (New Hampshire) on April 14, 1812. The first use outside of New England came in the New York Gazette & General Advertiser on May 19th. What may be the first use of the term to describe the redistricting in another state (Maryland) occurred in the Federal Republican (Georgetown, Washington, DC) on October 12, 1812. All in all there are at least 80 known citations of the word from March through December 1812 in American newspapers. Martis, Kenneth C. (2008). "The Original Gerrymander". Political Geography 27 (4): 833–839. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.09.003. 6. ^ Simpson, J. A., Weiner, E. S. C. Gerrymander. Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press. 7. ^ Michel Balinski, "Fair Majority Voting (or How to Eliminate Gerrymandering)" Amer. Math. Monthly 115 2 (2008): 97. "Incumbent candidates, in tailored districts, are almost certain of reelection (over 98% in 2002, over 94% in 2006)". 8. ^ a b "Iowa's Redistricting Process: An Example of the Right Way to Draw Legislative". Centrists.Org. 2004-07-22. Retrieved 2009-08-05.[dead link] 9. ^ Prison-Based Gerrymandering—New York Times editorial, New York Times, May 20, 2006. 10. ^ "Issue 4: Independent Redistricting Process – Ohio State Government". Smartvoter.org. Retrieved 2009-08-05. 11. ^ See, e.g., Richard L. Engstrom, The Single Transferable Vote: An Alternative Remedy for Minority Vote Dilution, 27 U.S.F.L.Rev. 781, 806 (1993) (arguing that the Single Transferable Voting systems maintain minority electoral opportunities); Steven J. Mulroy, Alternative Ways Out: A Remedial Road Map for the Use of Alternative Electoral Systems as Voting Rights Act Remedies, 77 N.C.L.Rev. 1867, 1923 (1999) (concluding that ranked-ballot voting systems avoid minority vote dilution); Steven J. Mulroy, The Way Out: A Legal Standard for Imposing Alternative Electoral Systems as Voting Rights Remedies, 33 Harv.C.R.-C.L.L.Rev. 333, 350 (1998) (arguing that systems enhance minority representation); and Alexander Athan Yanos, Note, Reconciling the Right to Vote With the Voting Rights Act, 92 Colum.L.Rev. 1810, 1865-66 (1992) (arguing that Single Transferable Voting serves to preserve the minority party's right to representation). 12. ^ Dr. Michael McDonald, US Elections Project: Alabama Redistricting Summary Dept. of Public and International Affairs George Mason University. Retrieved 6 April 2008. 13. ^ Reynolds v. Sims states that "a state legislative apportionment scheme may properly give representation to various political subdivisions and provide for compact districts of contiguous territory if substantial equality among districts is maintained." See also the Wikipedia article. 14. ^ "Gerrymandering and a cure - shortest splitline algorithm". RangeVoting.org. Retrieved 2009-08-05. 15. ^ "RangeVoting.org - Center for Range Voting". 16. ^ http://www.rangevoting.org/SSHR/co_final.png 17. ^ "Splitline districtings of all 50 states + DC + PR". RangeVoting.org. Retrieved 2009-08-05. 18. ^ a b "James Case "Flagrant Gerrymandering: Help from the Isoperimetric Theorem?"" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-12-19. 19. ^ "No Christmas election: Binns". cbc.ca, November 16, 2006. 20. ^ Based on the average population per federal riding in Saskatchewan, which is considerably less than in the more populous provinces 21. ^ "Current electoral map of Saskatchewan". 22. ^ "LEY-18700 06-MAY-1988 MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR". Leychile.cl. Retrieved 2010-12-19. 23. ^ "LEY-18799 26-MAY-1989 MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR". Leychile.cl. Retrieved 2010-12-19. 24. ^ Valenzuela, Arturo and Peter Siavelis (1991). "Ley electoral y estabilidad democrática: Un ejercicio de simulación para el caso de Chile" (in Spanish). Estudios Públicos Nº 43. Santiago: Centro de Estudios Públicos. pp. 39. Retrieved 2011-12-29. 25. ^ Legislative Council Ordinance 26. ^ [1] 27. ^ http://index.hu/belfold/2011/11/28/igy_lesz_jobboldali_magyarorszag/ 28. ^ http://www.policysolutions.hu/userfiles/elemzesek/PID_Hungarian%20Politics%20In -Depth_2011_Week48.pdf 29. ^ http://index.hu/belfold/2011/12/23/elfogadtak_az_uj_valasztojogi_torvenyt/ 30. ^ a b c Tim Pat Coogan, De Valera: Long Fellow, Long Shadow (Hutchinson, London, 1993) hardback. page 637 ISBN 0-09-175030-X 31. ^ Constituencies in 1990 elections—see Ugāles, Tārgales, Ziru constituencies, # 199—201 32. ^ [2] See table 33. ^ Gwynn S.L. The Case for Home Rule (1911) pp.104-105. (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E900030.html book text here; accessed Aug 2010) 34. ^ a b c "CAIN: Issues – Discrimination: John Whyte, 'How much discrimination was there under the Unionist regime, 1921–1968?'". Cain.ulst.ac.uk. Retrieved 2009-08- 05. 35. ^ "Northern Ireland House of Commons, 1921–1972". Ark.ac.uk. Retrieved 2009-08- 05. 36. ^ Yawning Bread, "Electoral boundary changes: as opaque as ever", March 2006. http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-553.htm 37. ^ Prime Minister's Office, Our Departments 38. ^ Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior, Pippa Norris 39. ^ About Elections, Singapore Democratic Party 40. ^ Manifesto, The Workers' Party of Singapore 41. ^ [3] 1997 Election Results 42. ^ "Republic Polytechnic Forum". 43. ^ "Rift Valley Report" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-12-19. 44. ^ Labunski, Richard. James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006 45. ^ Compare a map of the United States in 1860 [4] with a map from 1870 [5]. 46. ^ Dr. Michael McDonald, U.S. Elections Project: Alabama Redistricting Summary George Mason University, Dept. of Public and International Affairs. Retrieved 6 April 2008. 47. ^ Rachel Morris (November 2006). "The Race to Gerrymander". The Washington Monthly. 48. ^ "Republican Party Politics (Part II)". Associated Press. WCPO. 29 April 2002. 49. ^ "XI" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-08-05. 50. ^ "High court upholds most of Texas redistricting map". Associated Press. CNN. 28 June 2006. 51. ^ Washington State Redistricting Commission "Washington State Redistricting Commission". Redistricting.wa.gov. Retrieved 2009-08-05. 52. ^ Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission "Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission". Azredistricting.org. Retrieved 2009-08-05. 53. ^ Proposition 11, passed in 2008, and Proposition 20, passed in 2010 54. ^ Rhode Island Reapportionment Commission Temporarily Disabled 55. ^ New Jersey Redistricting Commission 56. ^ "Election 2010: Palm Beach County & Florida Voting, Candidates, Endorsements | The Palm Beach Post". Projects.palmbeachpost.com. Retrieved 2010-12-19. 57. ^ Gerrymandering during parliament election 58. ^ King, Nancy J. (1993), Racial Jurymandering: Cancer or Cure--A Contemporary Review of Affirmative Action in Jury Selection, 68, N.Y.U. L. Rev., p. 707 59. ^ Fukurai, Hiroshi (2001), Critical Evaluations of Hispanic Participation on the : Key-Man Selection, Jurymandering Language, and Representative Quotas, 5, Tex. Hisp. J.L. & Pol'y 7

First Past the Post Share this article

First Past The Post (FPTP), also known as Simple majority voting or Plurality voting

How does First Past The Post work?

Under First Past The Post (FPTP) voting takes place in single-member constituencies. Voters put a cross in a box next to their favoured candidate and the candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins. All other votes count for nothing. We believe FPTP is the very worst system for electing a representative government. Find out why First Past the Post is bad for democracy...

Where is First Past The Post used?

Where is FPTP used?

1. UK to elect members of the House of Commons 2. USA to elect the US Congress 3. To elect members of the lower houses in India and Canada FPTP is the second most widely used voting system in the world, after Party List-PR.

In crude terms, it is used in places that are, or once were, British colonies. Of the many countries that use First Past The Post , the most commonly cited are the UK to elect members of the House of Commons, both chambers of the US Congress, and the lower houses in India and Canada.

First Past The Post used to be even more widespread, but many countries that used to use it have adopted other systems. Find out more about reform overseas...

Pros and cons of First Past The Post

The case for The arguments against It's simple to understand and thus Representatives can get elected on tiny amounts of public doesn't cost much to administer support as it does not matter by how much they win, only and doesn't alienate people who that they get more votes than other candidates. can't count. It doesn't take very long to count It encourages tactical voting, as voters vote not for the all the votes and work out who's candidate they most prefer, but against the candidate they won, meaning results can be most dislike. declared a handful of hours after polls close. The voter can clearly express a FPTP in effect wastes huge numbers of votes, as votes view on which party they think cast in a constituency for losing candidates, or for the should form the next government. winning candidate above the level they need to win that seat, count for nothing. It tends to produce a two-party FPTP severely restricts voter choice. Parties are coalitions system which in turn tends to of many different viewpoints. If the preferred-party produce single-party candidate in your constituency has views with which you governments, which don't have to don't agree, you don't have a means of saying so at the rely on support from other parties . to pass legislation. It encourages 'broad-church' Rather than allocating seats in line with actual support, centrist policies. FPTP rewards parties with 'lumpy' support, i.e. with just enough votes to win in each particular area. Thus, losing 4,000 votes in one area can be a good idea if it means you pick up 400 votes in another. With smaller parties, this works in favour of those with centralised support. . With relatively small constituency sizes, the way boundaries are drawn can have important effects on the election result, which encourages attempts at gerrymandering. Small constituencies also lead to a proliferation of safe seats, where the same party is all but guaranteed re- election at each election. This not only in effect disenfranchises a region's voters, but it leads to these areas being ignored when it comes to framing policy. The case for The arguments against If large areas of the country are electoral deserts for a particular party, not only is the area ignored by that party, but also ambitious politicians from the area have to move away from their homeland if they want to have influence within their party. Because FPTP restricts a constituency's choice of candidates, representation of minorities and women suffers from 'most broadly acceptable candidate syndrome', where the 'safest' looking candidate is the most likely to be offered a chance to stand for election Encouraging two-party politics can be an advantage, but in a multi-party culture, third parties with significant support can be greatly disadvantaged.

Further reading

A recent IPPR report outlines the case for why First Past the Post needs to go. View report Worst of Both Worlds.

What now?

If you‘re passionate about democracy and would like to help us shape our work campaigning for better politics, please take advantage of our free membership offer and join us in our fight to build a better democracy. First-past-the-post voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the Politics series

Electoral methods

Single-winner

 Simple

 Plurality (First-past-the-post · Two-round · )

 Preferential systems o o o Condorcet methods (Copeland's · Kemeny-Young · Minimax · Nanson's · · Schulze) o Coombs' method o Instant-runoff (alternative vote) . Contingent vote o primary electoral system

 Rated systems (Range voting · · )

Multiple-winner

 Proportional representation o Party-list (open · closed · mixed · local) . Highest averages (D'Hondt · Sainte-Laguë) . Largest remainder ( · · ) o Single transferable vote (CPO-STV · Schulze STV · )

 Semi-proportional representation o Additional member system o o Cumulative voting o . Single non-transferable vote o

 Majoritarian representation (Plurality-at-large · Preferential block voting · General )

Proxy voting

Random selection

 Demarchy  Sortition 

Social choice theory

 Arrow's theorem  Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem  Voting system criteria

Politics portal

 v  d  e

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Plurality voting

system. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2011.

First-past-the-post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) voting refers to an election won by the candidate(s) with the most votes. The winning candidate does not necessarily receive an absolute majority of all votes cast.

Contents

[hide]

 1 Overview  2 Example  3 Effects  4 Criticisms o 4.1 Tactical voting o 4.2 Effect on political parties o 4.3 Wasted votes o 4.4 Gerrymandering o 4.5 Manipulation charges o 4.6 Disproportionate influence of smaller parties  5 Voting system criteria o 5.1 o 5.2 Condorcet winner criterion o 5.3 Condorcet loser criterion o 5.4 Independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion o 5.5 Independence of clones criterion  6 See also  7 References  8 External links

[edit] Overview

The first-past-the-post voting method, although similar in design, does not relate solely to plurality voting.[clarification needed] The system is also known as the 'winner-take-all' system, in which the candidate with the most votes gets elected.

Confusion in terminology often exists between highest vote, majority vote and plurality voting systems. Both use a first-past-the-post voting method, but there are subtle differences in the method of execution.[citation needed] First-past-the-post voting is also used in two-round systems and exhaustive ballots.

First-past-the-post voting methods can be used for single and multiple member elections. In a single member election the candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a majority, of votes is elected. The two-round ('runoff') voting system uses a first-past-the-post voting method in each of the two rounds. The first round determines which two candidates will progress to the second, final round ballot.

In a multiple member first-past-the-post ballot, the first number of candidates, in order of highest vote, corresponding to the number of positions to be filled are elected. If there are six vacancies then the first six candidates with the highest vote are elected. A multiple selection ballot where more than one candidate can be voted for is also a form of first-past-the-post voting in which voters are allowed to cast a vote for as many candidates as there are vacant positions; the candidate(s) with the highest number of votes is elected.

The Electoral Reform Society is a political pressure group based in the United Kingdom which advocates scrapping First Past the Post (FPTP) for all National and local elections. It argues FPTP is 'bad for voters, bad for government and bad for democracy'. It is believed to be the oldest organisation concerned with electoral systems in the world.

The American Electoral College uses a form of first-past-the-post voting in selecting electors for all states except Nebraska and Maine. In this system, the party/candidate that gains the highest vote total wins all of the available electors. [edit] Example

[1][2] e • d Summary of the 27 August 2011 Singaporean presidential election results Results Candidate Symbol & Party Votes Percentage (%)

Tony Tan Keng Yam Nonpartisan 745,693 35.20

Tan Cheng Bock Nonpartisan 738,311 34.85

Tan Jee Say Nonpartisan 530,441 25.04

(loses deposit) Tan Kin

Nonpartisan 104,095 4.91 Lian

Valid votes 2,118,540 98.24

Rejected votes 37,849 1.76

Total vote cast 2,156,389 100.00

Electorate / Turnout rate 2,274,773 94.80

Under a first-past-the-post voting system the highest polling candidate (or a group of candidates for some cases) is elected. In this real-life example, obtained a greater number than the other candidates, and so was declared the winner. [edit] Effects

The effect of a system based on single seat constituencies is that the larger parties gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties are left with a disproportionately small share of seats. For example, the 2005 UK General election results in were as follows:

e • d Summary of the 5 May 2005 House of Commons of the United Kingdom election results (parties with more than one seat; not incl. N. Ireland)

Seats This table indicates those parties with over Seats % Votes % Votes one seat, Great Britain only

Labour Party 355 56.5 36.1 9,552,436

Conservative Party 198 31.5 33.2 8,782,192

Liberal Democrats 62 9.9 22.6 5,985,454

Scottish National Party 6 1.0 1.6 412,267

Plaid Cymru 3 0.5 0.7 174,838

Others 4 0.6 5.7 1,523,716

628 26,430,908

It can be seen that Labour took a majority of seats, 57%, with only 36% of the vote. The largest two parties took 69% of votes and 88% of seats. Meanwhile, the smaller Liberal Democrat party took over a fifth of votes but only about a tenth of the seats in parliament. [edit] Criticisms

[edit] Tactical voting

Main article: Comparison of instant runoff voting to other voting systems

To a greater extent than many other electoral methods, the first-past-the-post system encourages tactical voting. Voters have an incentive to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if they would prefer another of the candidates to win, because a vote for any other candidate will likely be "wasted" and have no impact on the final result.

The position is sometimes summed up, in an extreme form, as "All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner", because by voting for other candidates, they have denied those votes to the second place candidate who could have won had they received them. Following the 2000 U.S. presidential election, some supporters of Democratic candidate believed he lost the extremely close election to Republican George W. Bush because a portion of the electorate (2.7%) voted for of the Green Party, and exit polls indicated that more of these voters would have preferred Gore (45%) to Bush (27%), with the rest not voting in Nader's absence.[3]

In , there are three principal voter groups: the Independentistas (pro- independence), the Populares (pro-commonwealth), and the Estadistas (pro-statehood). Historically, there has been a tendency for Independentista voters to elect Popular candidates and policies. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have the most voters on the island. It is so widely recognised that the Puerto Ricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because the fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside (in reference to the party colors).

Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, results can be significantly distorted:

 Substantial power is given to the media. Some voters will tend to believe the media's assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore that those candidates who receive the most media attention will probably be the most popular and thus most likely to be the top two.

 A new candidate with no track record, who might otherwise be supported by the majority of voters, may be considered unlikely to be one of the top two candidates; thus they will receive fewer votes, which will then give them a reputation as a low poller in future elections, perpetuating the position.

 The system may promote votes against as opposed to votes for. In the UK, entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative party by voting either Labour or Liberal Democrat. For example, in a constituency held by the Conservatives, with the Liberal Democrats as the second-place party and the Labour Party in third, Labour supporters might be urged to vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate (who has a smaller shortfall of votes to make up and more support in the constituency) rather than their own candidate, on the basis that Labour supporters would prefer an MP from a competing left/ to a Conservative one.

 If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system effectively becomes runoff voting - a completely different system - in which the first round is held in the court of public opinion. A good example of this is believed to be the Winchester by- election, 1997.

Proponents of other single-winner voting systems argue that their proposals would reduce the need for tactical voting and reduce the spoiler effect. Examples include the commonly used two-round system of runoffs and instant runoff voting, along with less tested systems such as approval voting and Condorcet methods.

[edit] Effect on political parties

A graph showing the difference between the popular vote and the number of seats won by major political parties at the United Kingdom general election, 2005

Duverger's law is an idea in political science which says that constituencies that use first- past-the-post systems will become two-party systems, given enough time. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains:

The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the- post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past- the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first- past-the-post elections. —from Sachs' The Price of Civilization, 2011[4]

First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of viable political parties to a greater extent than most other methods, thus making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. (In the United Kingdom, 18 out of 23 general elections since 1922 have produced a single party majority government.)

FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rule can potentially produce a government that may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns. It is entirely possible that a voter will find that all major parties agree on a particular issue. In this case, the voter will not have any meaningful way of expressing a dissenting opinion through his or her vote.

As fewer choices are offered to the voters, voters may vote for a candidate with whom they largely disagree so as to oppose a candidate with whom they disagree even more (See tactical voting above). The downside of this is that candidates will less closely reflect the viewpoints of those who vote for them.

It may also be argued that one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes in government policy that are only favoured by a plurality or bare majority of the voters, whereas multi-party systems usually require greater consensus in order to make dramatic changes.

[edit] Wasted votes Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome.

[edit] Gerrymandering

Dots represent voters; lines represent electoral districts. The diagram to the left represents a fair (ungerrymandered) election. the other diagram shows how gerrymandering can tilt the odds to favor a party in power.

Because FPTP permits many wasted votes, an election under FPTP is easily gerrymandered. Through gerrymandering, constituencies are deliberately designed to unfairly increase the number of seats won by one party at the expense of another.

For example, suppose that governing Blue-dot party wishes to reduce the seats that will be won by opposition Red-dot party in the next election. It creates a number of constituencies in each of which the Red-dot party has an overwhelming majority of votes (such as the district in the lower left hand corner.) The Red-dot party will win these seats, but a large number of its voters will waste their votes. Then the rest of the constituencies are designed with small majorities for the Blue-dot party. Few Blue-dot votes are wasted, and the Blue-dot party will win a large number of seats by small margins. As a result of the gerrymander, the Red-dot party's seats have cost it more votes than the Blue-dot party's seats. In the diagram, after the gerrymander, the Blue-dot party will win three seats and the Red-dot party only one seat, despite the existence of an equal number of voters overall for both parties. In the United States, gerrymandering is a perfectly legal arrangement which is permitted according to rules specified by the United States Constitution which has spurred reformers to begin thinking about amendments.

[edit] Manipulation charges

The presence of spoilers often gives rise to suspicions that manipulation of the has taken place. The spoiler may have received incentives to run. A spoiler may also drop out at the last moment, inducing charges that such an act was intended from the beginning.

[edit] Disproportionate influence of smaller parties Smaller parties can disproportionately change the outcome of an FPTP election by swinging what is called the 50-50% balance of two party systems, by creating a faction within one or both ends of the which shifts the winner of the election from an absolute majority outcome to a simple majority outcome favouring the previously less favoured party. In comparison, for electoral systems using proportional representation small groups win only their proportional share of representation. However in PR systems, small parties can become decisive in Parliament so gaining a power of blackmail against the Government, a problem which is generally reduced by the FPTP system.[5][6]

For example the UK Independence Party received close to one million votes in the 2010 UK General Election, approximately 10% of the party with the most votes, the Conservative Party. Yet while the latter accumulated 306 seats in Parliament, UKIP received zero. This is in contrast to proportional representation, where parties receive seats in accordance with the proportion of the electorate that voted for them. [edit] Voting system criteria

Main article: Comparison of instant runoff voting to other voting systems#Voting system criteria

Scholars rate voting systems using mathematically-derived voting system criteria, which describe desirable features of a system. No ranked preference method can meet all of the criteria, because some of them are mutually exclusive, as shown by statements such as Arrow's impossibility theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem.[7]

[edit] Majority criterion

The majority criterion states that "if one candidate is preferred by a majority (more than 50%) of voters, then that candidate must win".[8] First-past-the-post meets this criterion (though not the converse: a candidate does not need 50% of the votes in order to win). Although the criterion is met for each constituency vote, it is not met when adding up the total votes for a winning party in a parliament.

[edit] Condorcet winner criterion

[9] The Condorcet winner criterion states that "if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election". First-past-the-post does not[9] meet this criterion.

[edit] Condorcet loser criterion

[9] The Condorcet loser criterion states that "if a candidate would lose a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must not win the overall election". First-past-the-post does not[9] meet this criterion.

[edit] Independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion The independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion states that "the election outcome remains the same even if a candidate who cannot win decides to run." First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.

[edit] Independence of clones criterion

The independence of clones criterion states that "the election outcome remains the same even if an identical candidate who is equally-preferred decides to run." First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion. [edit] See also

Politics portal

 Cube rule  Plurality-at-large voting  Single non-transferable vote  Single transferable vote [edit] References

1. ^ Presidential Elections Results. Singapore Elections Department. 28 August 2011. 2. ^ Polling Day Voter Turnout. Singapore Elections Department. 28 August 2011. 3. ^ Rosenbaum, David E. (2004-02-24). "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE INDEPENDENT; Relax, Nader Advises Alarmed Democrats, but the 2000 Math Counsels Otherwise". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-08. 4. ^ Sachs, Jeffrey (2011) (in English). The Price of Civilization. New York: Random House. pp. 107. ISBN 978-1-4000-6841-8. 5. ^ Ilan, Shahar. "about blackmail power of Israeli small parties under PR". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2010-05-08. 6. ^ "Dr.Mihaela Macavei, University of Alba Iulia." (PDF). Retrieved 2010-05-08. 7. ^ David Austen-Smith and Jeffrey Banks, "Monotonicity in Electoral Systems," American Political Science Review, Vol 85, No 2 (Jun. 1991) 8. ^ Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart "Majority Favorite Criterion: If a majority (more than 50%) of voters consider candidate A to be the best choice, then A should win." 9. ^ a b c d Felsenthal, Dan S. (2010) Review of paradoxes afflicting various voting procedures where one out of m candidates (m ≥ 2) must be elected. In: Assessing Alternative Voting Procedures, London School of and Political Science, London, UK. What is an Angel Policy? Essential Reading For Stampers Hoping to Sell Handstamped Work By Kate Pullen, About.com Guide

See More About:

 selling handmade cards  selling crafts  angel policies

Ads

New Franchise OpportunityRun Your Own Energy Saving Business PLC Seeks International Partnerswww.EnigIn.net

Stamp Auctions OnlineHuge Range of Stamps from Around the World. Register & Bid Today!Sandafayre.com

Rubber Stamp SuppliersFind the Best Rubber Stamp Makers, in Malaysia's Business Directory.www.701panduan.com/RubberStamp

Rubber Stamping Ads

 Rubber Stamp  Angel Card  Business Angel  Rubber Stamping Stamps  Ink Stamp

An Angel Policy is a form of limited license that specifies how a rubber stamped image can be used and any specific requirements of the manufacturer or artist. Typically this outlines under what circumstances, if any, a stamper can make and sell items created using a manufacturer's rubber stamps.

Some companies have a very generous Angel Policy, which allows stampers to work with the stamped images without restriction and this includes creating products for resale. Other companies offer more limited commercial use of their images, for instance limiting the number of products that can be created from a single stamp. Some companies do not have an Angel Policy – this does not mean that there is a 'free for all' when it comes to the use of their stamps – far from it! It means that their stamps are sold for personal use only and not for commercial gain.

Typical Angel Policy Terms

Many companies work on the basis that their rubber stamps are being sold for personal use only. They will, however, grant a limited license which is given the popular name of Angel Policy, that will allow the creation of products for resale using their stamped images. One of the common elements of most Angel Policies is that any items that are created for resale must be hand stamped and not reproduced mechanically or electronically. Most standard Angel Policies also prohibit the use of assembly or production line processes to create stamped products.

Other terms that maybe specified within an Angel Policy include:

 How many products can be made  Where the products can be sold  Whether a copyright statement needs to me made  Whether permission needs to be requested in writing  Stamped images cannot be used to create logos, clip art or for other commercial use

Note: Licensed images, such as Disney characters or other characters such as Thomas the Tank Engine are almost never permitted for use in the creation of items for resale.

What Does This Mean to a Rubber Stamper?

This might all sound pretty daunting to a stamper who is unfamiliar with Angel Policies – however the terms of a policy are not meant to be restrictive or prohibitive. They are simply to protect the original artist, the stamp manufacturer and the stamper from the misuse of stamped images.

Stamping for Personal Use

Stampers who enjoy making cards and other creations for their own use or to give to family and friends needn't worry! The terms of an Angel Policy generally for stampers who are looking to sell their work. Stampers who are interested in altered arts, however, may want to check the Angel Policy of the companies whose stamps they are using as some do not allow the altering of their images. This includes masking and layering images.

Further Information

A list of the Angel Policies from over 50 rubber stamping companies can be found here - Rubber Stamping Companies With an Angel Policy , however, as terms maybe subject to change, do check with the companies whose stamps you are considering using before making items for resale. If in doubt as to whether a specific point applies to you, contact the company direct and ask for clarification.

Tips

 Angel Policies do change, therefore print out the policy that you are using and date it. This will be a record of the terms under which you are operating.  Keep copies of any correspondence with the stamp company.  There are many rubber stamping companies who make their stamps available under generous Angel Policy terms. Therefore if you can't use the stamps you require from one company, take a look at what others have to offer. THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE IN A DEMOCRACY

By Norman Ornstein

Introduction What Legislatures Do Forms of Legislatures The Role of Political Parties The Role of Outside Groups Internal Organizations of Legislatures Lessons to Be Learned Conclusion

Clean Air Legislation in the United States Poll Tax Legislation in Britain The Informal Role of the Kenyan National Assembly The Democratic Tradition in

Glossary Sources of Further Information About the Author

Introduction

Democracy is based on the notion that a people should be self-governing and that the representatives of the people should be held accountable for their actions. The legislature, which represents the people and acts as their agent, is therefore at the core of the Western democratic tradition. But what does a legislature really do, and what role does it play in a democracy?

In a simple sense, a legislature makes laws. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a legislature as "a body of persons invested with the power of making the laws of a country or state." But this definition only begins to address the broad range of activities and responsibilities performed by a legislature, and it does not account for the many kinds of legislatures that exist in the various countries of the world.

This paper will begin by describing the basic functions that all legislatures in democracies share. It will then show some of the ways in which legislatures can differ, focusing mainly, but not exclusively, on the and the British Parliament, which have served as models for many of the world's legislatures. These differences involve the form of the legislature, the role of the majority and opposition parties, the role of outside groups, and internal organization.

For any democracy, deciding how to form the legislature, how to elect its members, what powers to invest in it (and in the other branches of government), how to provide rights and channels of expression for minority parties, and how to organize its internal functions and deliberations are crucial issues in determining how the government, and the democracy, will function.

There are no simple or universal answers to any of these questions, because cultural considerations, historical experiences, and political realities affect the evolution and development of legislative bodies. Some countries work best with at-large election systems; others work best with geographically confined, single-member districts. Some legislatures have a strong role in foreign policy; others, no role at all. Some have well-developed and defined committee systems; others have no sophisticated division of labor. Some have two parties; others, many parties. But one thing is clear: no country can long have a workable democracy--with voices of opposition, accountable government, and adequate avenues for citizens to be heard--without a vibrant and meaningful legislature and legislative process.

What Legislatures Do

Although legislatures are known primarily as lawmaking bodies, it is important to recognize that these institutions have many other important responsibilities. Despite what the dictionary says, legislatures are not the only governmental bodies that make and implement laws. Those in positions of executive authority, courts of law, and may at times perform these same functions. What is it then that distinguishes legislatures?

The first and foremost characteristic of a legislature is its intrinsic link to the citizens of the nation or state--representation. As John Stuart Mill wrote in 1862, in a representative democracy the legislature acts as the eyes, ears, and voice of the people: "[T]he proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts, to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable; to censure them if found condemnable....In addition to this, the Parliament has an office...to be at once the nation's Committee of Grievances, and its Congress of Opinions."

In addition to gaining their legitimacy by representing the public will, legislatures have other distinguishing features. For instance, most consist of a rather large group of individuals who come together, at least in theory, as equals. While some members may assume leadership positions or special responsibilities, each member's vote is customarily weighed equally. Thus, legislatures operate under a system of collective decision making.

Legislatures adopt policies and make laws through the process of deliberation. While usually based on some broad set of principles contained in written and unwritten constitutions, decisions need not proceed from the rule of law or specific legal precedents. In this way legislatures differ from the courts.

In addition to their official lawmaking capacity, most legislatures perform a unique educational role. Individual legislators simplify complicated issues and define policy choices. They use their resources and expertise to filter information from many sources and to resolve conflicting ideological positions, ultimately presenting their constituents with clear-cut options. This educational function has become increasingly important as societies have become more complex, as the scope of government activity has become more extensive, and as the public has gained increased access to legislative proceedings, particularly via television. Another defining characteristic of most legislatures is the dual role of the legislators. On the one hand, the legislature makes laws that affect the entire nation and are presumably intended to be for the good of the nation as a whole. On the other hand, its individual members, the legislators, have a duty to represent the interests of their individual constituencies. This inherent tension is unique to representative forms of government that have districts.

The British House of Commons, like many other parliaments and like the U.S. Congress, has single-member districts, designed by geographic boundaries. Other legislatures, like the Dutch, operate through proportional representation. Members might have geographically defined districts, but they are chosen through a national election process where seats are allocated by national percentage votes for parties. In some systems, a party needs 5 or 10 percent of the votes cast nationwide before it gets seats in the parliament. In others, only 1 percent is required.

The well-known political theorist and lawmaker eloquently expressed the tension between the roles of trustee and delegate in a speech to his constituents in the city of Bristol in 1774. Discussing whether a representative should be a delegate, who simply reflects the views and interests of his constituency, or be a trustee, who offers his own independent judgment of what is best for the nation, even if it conflicts with the interests or desires of his constituency, Burke came down firmly on the side of the legislator as trustee: "Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and the glory of a representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention....But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, to any set of men living....Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole--where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament."

The tension Burke described between the trustee and delegate roles exists for all legislators. It can be a tension built around the needs of a smaller geographic constituency versus the needs of a nation, or around the needs of a narrow ideological or ethnic group versus the needs of a nation, depending on the base of representation.

Each country and each legislature has to decide how best to channel and balance those tensions. If the minimum number of votes required to gain representation in the legislature is too low, small and narrow groups can wield inordinate power and the desires and needs of the majority can suffer. But creating districts that are too large or holding elections only at the national level can disenfranchise minority ethnic and interest groups and leave them feeling powerless and bitter.

The U.S. system was set up the way it was in part as a reaction against the British . The framers of the U.S. Constitution derived the concept of representative government from the social-contract theories of John Locke and other political philosophers that held that legitimate authority ought to be based on the consent of the governed. Furthermore, the nature of colonial society, where there were few if any claims to hierarchical or hereditary privileges, facilitated a form of representation based on direct popular election. In colonial America, there were no claims to royalty, nor were there clearly drawn lines among social classes. Land ownership was based more on individual initiative than on wealth or status, and vast amounts of land were available for the taking. All of these factors helped to place colonial Americans on relatively equal footing and contributed to the spirit of self-government and the ideal of equality.

Over time, members of Congress have acted as trustees for the nation rather than as direct agents of their constituents. They most often adopt this role in response to personal philosophy or the urgency or complexity of a particular issue. However, their commitment to constituent interests remains strong, and when issues of local interest arise, members usually vote accordingly.

Forms of Legislatures

As the brief description of the U.S. system showed, the characteristics of an individual legislature are often varied and related to the historical and cultural traditions of a nation or state. Indeed, legislatures do not exist only in democracies. They often play a role in nondemocratic regimes as well. One example is the Supreme Soviet of the former Soviet Union. Such legislative bodies simply act as rubber stamps for government policy. They lend legitimacy to the ruling government and thereby contribute to the stability of the political system as a whole. They do not serve as a means of popular participation, direct or indirect, although they do provide an entree into the upper echelons of government for a select few.

In open, democratic regimes, legislatures take a variety of forms. One major way in which legislatures can differ concerns their relationship to the overall political system of which they are a part. For instance, a legislature may be part of either a parliamentary system or a system of separated powers--usually known as a . This distinction is rooted in a system's constitution and has a major impact on the role the legislature is equipped to play.

In a parliamentary system, the executive and the leaders of the administrative bureaucracies are chosen from and are accountable to the majority in Parliament. Where separation of powers is the rule, as in a presidential system (such as that in the United States), the executive and the cabinet are entirely separate from the legislative body. Consequently, separate resources, goals, and responsibilities exist for the legislature. No one (an exception is the vice president in the U.S. case) can be a member of both the executive and the legislative branch. Depending on party dynamics, the two branches can be at odds over policy priorities and legislative agenda.

The legislature in a parliamentary system is a parliament; the legislature in a presidential system is a congress. Although the distinction goes beyond mere names, the names do reflect some of the differences. As political scientist James Q. Wilson has pointed out, the root of the word parliament is the French word "parler" (to talk), whereas the root of the word congress is the Latin "congressus" (to come together, or assemble). While most legislatures fall into one or the other of these categories, the names of individual legislatures are sometimes misleading. For instance, the Hungarian legislature is akin to a parliament, yet its name, the National Assembly, might suggest otherwise. Similarly, in Russia, the word "soviet" means "council" in English; nonetheless, the legislature is part of a presidential system.

A parliament's main function is to debate policy. Its core activity is the , during which time members of the government answer pointed inquiries from members of parliament, mainly of the opposition. A congress, on the other hand, has as its main function the passage of laws. It turns ideas or proposals into through debate, bargaining, and compromise.

Writing in 1975, Nelson Polsby, a renowned scholar of the U.S. Congress, put this distinction in a different form. Polsby argued that legislatures can be separated into two basic types: arena legislatures and transformative legislatures. Arena legislatures are forums for discussion of ideas and policies: "[They] serve as formalized settings for the interplay of significant political forces in the life of a political system; the more open the regime the more varied and the more representative and accountable the forces that find a welcome in the arena." By contrast, transformative legislatures actively translate ideas into laws: "[They] possess the independent capacity, frequently exercised, to mold and transform proposals from whatever source into laws. The act of transformation is crucial because it postulates a significance of the internal structure of legislatures, to the internal division of labor, and to the policy preferences of various legislators."

The British Parliament is a good example of an arena legislature. The U.S. Congress is a transformative legislature. In the British system, the executive/prime minister and the legislature/Parliament are linked and are necessarily controlled by the same party. As a result, there is less need or opportunity for transformative activity in the area of policymaking. The Parliament is, in essence, an arena where policies are aired and refined through debate and where conflict within the bounds of the party, compromise among differing viewpoints, and entrepreneurial instincts on the part of individual members are largely absent. Michael Ryle, former clerk of the British House of Commons, provided an apt description: "The British Parliament has not exercised power directly for many, many years. It provides a forum where the public exercise of power by the government must be portrayed and displayed....In other words, it is through Parliament that power is exercised, not by Parliament."

The U.S. Congress, on the other hand, is a much more activist legislature. Conflict, compromise, and individualism can all be found in the U.S. legislature. There is constant give-and-take at work, as inputs from throughout the political system are transformed into legislative output.

The Role of Political Parties

In Britain, political parties dominate the political system. A government is formed in Britain when the monarch, at the request of the sitting prime minister, dissolves the Parliament, and calls for an election. The election is held, pitting the prime minister (or the majority leader in Parliament, should the prime minister decide not to run) against the leader of the minority party; the winner then has the responsibility of forming a new government. He or she chooses cabinet members and other government officials from among the majority party in Parliament. The government then rules until the next dissolution of Parliament is called for.

The policymaking process in the British system is relatively smooth: the government of the majority party sets policies and the majority in Parliament affirms them. In fact, during the period from 1895 to 1972, with one minor wartime exception, no government with a working majority in the House of Commons had any legislation of real substance defeated. This stems from a whole host of factors: the willingness of the government to make concessions in order to avoid party revolts, the desire of "back-benchers" for eventual promotion to ministerial office, the fear that the electorate will not support a disunited party, and a unique sense of loyalty to the party and its causes. An additional factor is undoubtedly self-interest on the part of individual members of Parliament. Each member realizes that voting against the government risks bringing down the government, thus forcing a new election that could result in defeat for the member and his or her party.

Not only does the party shape and control policy options, but it also defines and carries public opinion to a large extent. Hence, members of parliament do not necessarily need the autonomy or the resources available to members of the U.S. Congress, because they can rely on the strong party apparatus for information and support. Indeed, the party system is deeply ingrained in British history. Various attempts to reform the political system have been scuttled precisely because of the strength and solidity of the party system.

Although the majority party dominates the parliamentary system in Britain, the role of the opposition party should not be overlooked. Whereas some consider the opposition merely "the government of tomorrow," others have recognized the important role it plays. Gerhard Kunz, a former member of the German Bundestag, has said that the opposition actually serves an important function for the Parliament as a whole. This is true, he says, because the government simply presents and passes bills. It is therefore up to the opposition to think critically, forcing the government to justify its positions and even at times to amend its legislation.

In the British Parliament, the opposition plays a vital role in the lively floor debates that characterize that body. The opposition must clarify and articulate its positions clearly and be ready to present a united front if and when the majority stumbles or falls out of favor with the public.

In the U.S. Congress, political parties play a much different role. While it is true that nearly all members of Congress are aligned with one of the two major parties and that party affiliation does have an effect on the members' legislative voting decisions, parties in the United States show nowhere near the level of cohesiveness exhibited by British parliamentary parties. U.S. legislative parties embrace broad coalitions, they are decentralized and largely nonhierarchical, and they are relatively flexible over a range of issues. Thus, party positions may not always be consistent from one policy area to another.

The legislative system in the United States is designed to encompass varied interests and produce legislation that represents a compromise among them. When the legislature is dominated by one party and the executive held by the other--as has been the case in the United States since 1987--bipartisan support of legislation is usually necessary to pass a bill. (In the U.S. case, the president has the power to veto legislation and can be overridden only by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress.)

Although members of the opposition party in the United States often experience frustration over their inability to control the legislative process, their power is significantly greater than that of their counterparts in the British Parliament. They can join forces with majority members in voting on legislation that suits their individual interests. Also, depending on their numbers in the chamber, they can exercise a certain degree of leverage in legislative bargaining. And finally, if all else fails, they can use their own individual vote in visible defense of the interests of their constituents back home.

The Role of Outside Groups In addition to the internal dynamics of a legislature, arena and transformative legislatures differ in how they handle and relate to outside groups. In the British system, interest groups exert some influence over the legislative process, but rarely in a major or direct way. By contrast, in the U.S. Congress, interest groups play a larger and more visible role. , a former Secretary of State for Education and Science in Great Britain, offered an example of how outside interests can exert influence there. The incident involved an effort to reform Britain's nursery school education system. Apparently, the government favored expanding nursery school education by increasing the number of teacher's assistants employed and thereby increasing the number of children who could be served. The teachers' union made it clear from the outset, however, that it would not accept such an approach, as such a move would undoubtedly threaten the jobs of many members of the union. As a result, the proposal was never even made public, in part because the government did not want to disclose that this type of pressure had been brought to bear. According to Williams, the exercise of such influence is not uncommon across a range of policy areas. She pointed to the "great corporate power" of such outside interests as the trade unions, individual professional groups, and big business. These groups, according to Williams, have the power to scuttle legislative programs and that they feel are not in their own best interest. The danger in a parliamentary system is that the pressure brought to bear by these groups is often hidden and subtle, because the system is less open than in the United States. As a result, these interests are rarely held accountable for their actions.

In the United States, outside interest groups are able to play an active role in the legislative process because there are so many points of entry into the system--Congress is characterized by decentralization and a detailed division of labor. No one party or member or committee can totally dominate any given issue, and interest groups attempt to influence each of these actors. They employ various tactics in an attempt to introduce or derail legislation, alter its form or content, or secure its passage; no member of Congress can avoid the daunting task of dealing with a wide variety of interest groups from his or her constituency.

Many critics of the U.S. system believe interest groups have come to exert too much influence--largely through their contributions to candidates' election campaigns; thus, politicians are perceived as beholden to the interest groups that have supported them. Attempts to reform the campaign-finance system are aimed mainly at decreasing the power and influence of monied interests in the political system.

Internal Organization of Legislatures

Legislative committees and staffs must also be taken into consideration when comparing congresses and parliaments. A strong committee system is a hallmark of a transformative legislature like the U.S. Congress. For a legislature to be independent of the executive, it must have internal mechanisms to enable it to carry out the complicated task of policy- making.

Woodrow Wilson, a prominent scholar of Congress who was to become a U.S. president, described the power of committees in the U.S. Congress and the important role they play in the legislative process: "The leaders of the House are the chairmen of the Standing Committees....[These] chairmen...do not constitute a cooperative body like a ministry. They do not consult and concur in the adoption of homogeneous and mutually helpful measures; there is no thought of acting in concert.... "Of course it goes without saying that the practical effect of this Committee organization of the House is to consign to each of the Standing Committees the entire direction of legislation upon those subjects which properly come to its consideration. As to those subjects it is entitled to initiative [that is, to introduce legislation], and all legislative action with regard to them is under its overruling guidance. It gives shape and course to the determinations of the House."

Since Wilson wrote this description in 1885, little has changed in terms of the power wielded by congressional committees, except that the committees, roughly 15 to 20 each in the House and Senate, have been supplemented in each chamber by 100 or more subcommittees, each with its own chairman and staff.

Committees may also exist in an arena legislature, though they are rarely as strong or well- defined as those described above. In an article in the Canadian Journal of Politics, C.E.S. Franks offers some insight into why committees play only a secondary role in that legislative body. The British model is based on tough public scrutiny and debate on the parliament floor, forcing an executive to sharpen its own positions and improve its own legislation to avoid embarrassment and bad publicity: "The parliamentary system is based on competition not consensus. The argument against strong parliamentary committees is that they submerge the distinction between parties and give power to 'irresponsible' legislative committees rather than responsible government."

By their nature, transformative legislatures will have a more vibrant committee system than will arena legislatures. In the former, as the term "transformative" suggests, proposals and initiatives from various sources are transformed into law. This process takes place internally and largely independent of the executive; therefore, the internal structures and division of labor within the legislative body are crucial to the outcome of the legislative product. In arena legislatures, on the other hand, there is less give and take in the legislative process, and less of a need for consensus building. The party system dominates, and although there is debate and competition, the majority party usually works its will. As a result, the government's legislative agenda is less reliant on the internal structures of a parliament.

Over the years, the British have debated whether or not they should strengthen their legislative committee system. During the late 1970s, some reformers believed that in order to strengthen the position of Parliament in relation to the executive, a stronger system of select committees should be created. At the time, the Parliament had two kinds of committees. Standing committees dealt with specific pieces of legislation after they had gained general approval on the floor, while select committees examined government policy and activities more broadly. Under this committee system, policy issues were addressed as they arose. There were no permanent mechanisms in place to deal with specialized policy areas, such as foreign affairs or the budget.

Many back-benchers--the rank-and-file members of Parliament--supported the reform, hoping it would give them a more active role in the policy-making process. Those who were opposed to such a change feared stronger committees would undermine the role of the parties.

In 1979 a new committee system was adopted: a set of back-benchers' select committees was established to conform to the various government departments. The committees, which were to collect information, hold hearings, and report back to the full chamber, were modeled on the U.S. congressional committee system.

The new system has fared relatively well. Those committees operating under strong leadership and with a clear mandate have had considerable success. The Education Committee falls into this category. In general, the new committees have had their greatest success in dealing with technical matters while avoiding controversial or politically charged issues. It is not clear how much of an impact the committees have had on government policy, but most observers agree that they have played a valuable role in making the political system more open. They have provided outside viewpoints an entry into the policymaking process and have exposed the ruling government's positions and decisions to increased public scrutiny.

Along with the call for a stronger committee system came similar calls for increased staff and other resources for members of Parliament. One former MP, who also happened to be a former civil servant, described the "massive imbalance" that exists between the resources available to ministers and civil servants compared with those available to members of Parliament. Another member recounted his early days in Parliament when he was without even a desk or a secretary for five weeks. He said it was "virtually impossible to run the constituency, to do the party job and the parliamentary job, and to be an effective member of the select committee, with enormous amounts of paper to handle, with no staff and inadequate office facilities."

This state of affairs represents a stark contrast to the staff and resources employed by members of the U.S. Congress. Today members of Congress are served by professional staff members, secretaries, administrative assistants, and committee staff aides, not to mention pollsters, political consultants, and campaign workers. Every member of Congress, whether of the majority or minority party, is entitled to hire 22 staff members and has a staff budget of nearly half a million dollars.

Of course these differences are related to the role of the U.S. legislature compared with the role of the Parliament. Members from each body have come to agree that a certain amount of staff and resources are necessary in order to function effectively.

In recent years, legislatures around the world have begun to adopt similar organizational features. Certain common trends can be identified among legislative bodies that traditionally have had little in common. During the 1970s, the U.S. Congress underwent some significant reforms. Power was decentralized, resources were expanded, and congressional proceedings were opened up to the public and the media. At the same time, other legislatures throughout the Western world were undergoing similar, though less dramatic, changes. Committee systems were expanded (as we saw in the British reforms of 1979), staffs and resources were increased, back-bench members began to demand a greater role in the policymaking process, and legislative proceedings were opened up to the media.

In 1986, the Royal Commission issued a report entitled "Towards a Better Democracy: Report on the Electoral System." The report included a number of recommendations for improving the parliamentary system. The commission's main recommendation with regard to the legislative branch was that the number of members of Parliament be increased as a means of strengthening that body's ability to carry out its representative and legislative functions. An increase in the general membership of Parliament would have several probable consequences. First, it would automatically mean an increase in the number of back-bench members. This, in turn, might diminish the ability of cabinet ministers to dominate the legislative process. Another effect would be a larger number voting in the caucus and thus a wider range of dialogue on important policy issues. In addition, having more MPs would strengthen the caucus committees, increasing them in size and number. Such an expanded committee system would allow individual members to develop areas of expertise. The new system would not only improve the quality of parliamentary debates but also increase the relative strength of the legislature in relation to the executive.

Although the proposals were not adopted at the time, it is important to note that the debate was taking place and that these issues were raised and taken seriously. This supports the premise that there has been a worldwide trend toward decentralization, specialization, and democratization of legislative bodies. The debate over the size of New Zealand's Parliament, as well as the manner in which its members are elected, has continued since the Royal Commission made its report in 1986. In fact, in September 1992 New Zealanders voted to reform the system for electing members of Parliament, supporting a system of proportional representation similar to that proposed by the Royal Commission.

In , committees are an integral part of the governing process. Most of the legislative work of the National Congress takes place in the committees. In addition, the committees act as a liaison of sorts between the National Congress and the public. They provide points of access for groups and interests outside of the legislature, solicit information and input from myriad sources, and act as a sounding board for public opinion.

Lessons to Be Learned

Every country's political system develops and evolves according to its history, makeup, and political and social conditions. When a country tries to graft another country's political system onto its own, it rarely works. This was the case, for example, when tried to adopt the U.S. presidential system some years ago. The system failed because it did not provide a role or outlet for dissenting parties. As a result, revolts in the form of military coups ensued. There has been no sustained stability in Nigeria since. Countries need to adapt structures and rules to fit their own cultures and circumstances.

That said, it is still possible to draw lessons from the experience of legislatures in democracies, mature and developing, around the world. One is fundamental and particularly clear: a democracy thrives best if it has an active, vibrant, meaningful, and legitimate legislature. The other lessons flow from this one:

 No legislature can be effective unless it has adequate resources to conduct research on policy issues, develop models, analyze data, and write laws. Staffs, libraries, and expertise are all necessary, as are tools like computers, telephones, and fax machines. Following the U.S. model of a large staff for each individual lawmaker is not always essential, however. Central research staffs can work very well--for example, the U.S. Congress benefits from the services of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Technology Assessment. But some resources, including secretarial assistance and research assistance, should be available to individual members as well.  Some division of labor is necessary in any meaningful legislature. A committee system created to fit the policy areas that the legislature will deal with is essential. Committees may be given the responsibility to draft bills, hold hearings, or air grievances. They can include chairmen from the governing party or parties or from opposition parties. They can be independently strong or weak. But committee systems are increasingly being recognized in parliaments as a way to facilitate the policy- making process, even though it is difficult to define clear jurisdictional lines for subjects like energy or the environment, and committees often squabble among themselves.  A major function of a legislature is to provide an outlet for, and representation of, the legitimate opposition. Striking a balance between an appropriate role for the minority and the legitimate right of the majority to act is another one of those inherent dilemmas in a democratic legislature. Finding a meaningful role for the opposition, whether it is organized in one party or several, or cuts across party lines into regional and ethnic constituencies, is a key to the stability and legitimacy of the political system.  Outside interests, from trade associations to ethnic or racial groupings, need access to the legislature. The legislature in a democracy should be the most open and accessible organization in the entire political process, for its role is to listen to and represent all the forces, big and small, in the society. Committees, staffs, party organizations, and individual lawmakers all can be points of access to the political system. Care and sensitivity should be taken to make sure that many such points exist.

A balance also must be struck among the different kinds of groups in a society that have legitimate voices. One way to do this is through . Most democracies have two houses in their legislatures--one whose representation is based on population size and another whose representation is based on some other criterion. In the United States, the House of Representatives represents by population--each congressional district has roughly the same number of people and a single representative. The U.S. Senate represents by state--each of the 50 states has two senators, each elected at a different time and statewide. This ensures that the interests of states--some of which are very small and sparsely populated--will be amply represented.

 A legislature needs to act as a counterweight to the executive, whether in a parliamentary or a presidential system. No institution in government should be able to act without accountability, without some other individual or organization to keep it accountable to the public. In the British Parliament, the question period--usually one hour each day when opposition party members can question members of the government, especially the prime minister--is designed specifically for this purpose, as well as to provide a real role for the opposition.

The committees in the British House of Commons also attempt to oversee the actions of the executive departments and their civil servants. They are responsible for ensuring that there is no fraud, scandal, or abuse of power, and that insulated government bureaucrats do not wield their power carelessly, arrogantly, or sloppily. Congressional committees in the United States do the same thing, although much more aggressively. But whether by committees or some other mechanism, the legislature should be set up to act in an oversight capacity.

 The legislature is often the best and most legitimate forum for debating differences. Every society has differences over policy directions, items to be on the national agenda, and groups that deserve special treatment. Providing opportunities and the best environment for real debate is an important function of the legislature.  An important but delicate task of the legislature is to offer balanced representation. Every legislature has to balance the need to represent with the need to govern. The ability to act, in other words, must be balanced against the need to hear all voices, even if that means delaying action to afford every opportunity of expression for a minority that feels intensely about an issue or action.

In Britain, the upper house, the House of Lords, was designed to ensure a voice for the monarchy and its representatives and designees. In some cases, upper houses exist largely to provide another check and vehicle for representation in the system. They can also provide balance for ethnic, regional, class, or racial groups. For example, in the U.S. Senate, each state has equal representation. Therefore, no one state or region is able to dominate the debate on issues of national import nor can the interests of any one state (or region) be overridden because that state lacks adequate representation.

As noted above, the U.S. and British models have single-member districts. Proportional representation is another way to ensure balance in representation, but it is easy to go too far, allowing a disproportionately large role for small and splinter groups. Evidence of this can be seen in the recent emergence of radical, right-wing, anti-immigrant parties, which did surprisingly well in the most recent round of elections in Western Europe, particularly in Germany.

Conclusion

From this brief overview, it should be apparent that the legislature is a necessary ingredient for democratic governance in the complex societies of the modern world. Legislatures represent a permanent and independent link between the populace and the government. Through elections, petitions, lobbying, and participation in political parties and interest groups, citizens can express their will and affect the outcomes of the legislative process.

Some common traits of a well-developed legislature include a division of labor, a leadership structure, a seniority system, and a committee system. As I have noted throughout this essay, various legislatures possess these traits to differing degrees. An interesting trend noted by legislative scholars in recent years is the apparent convergence of legislatures around the world. Certain common trends can be identified among legislative bodies that have traditionally had little in common.

While we have witnessed some convergence in terms of institutional direction among the legislatures of the world, individual legislatures have at the same time maintained distinct characteristics related to the history, culture, and character of the citizens they represent. What is important to keep in mind is that while legislatures have a crucial role to play in a democracy, they are not meant to dominate the government. They are large and sometimes unwieldy, their membership encompasses a multitude of interests, and their complex internal organization does not often lend itself to swift and decisive action. Ultimately, the most important task of a legislature in a democratic regime is to give legitimacy to the government by providing representation for the citizenry.

CLEAN AIR LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES The clean air legislation passed and signed into law in 1990 offers a useful illustration of the inner workings of the U.S. Congress. Compromise legislation on air pollution was finally reached after more than a decade of political stalemate on the issue. Ultimately, it took a delicate balancing of varied interests, including the administration, environmentalists, representatives of industry, and individual members with their own regional and constituent concerns, to develop a piece of legislation that everyone could live with.

The clean air legislation of 1990 was in fact a reauthorization of the original Clean Air Act passed in 1970. At the time of its passage, that act was hailed as the nation's most comprehensive and complex pollution control law. By the 1980s, however, many aspects of the law had become obsolete, others were not being adequately enforced, and the country's air was becoming more and more polluted.

While few people could dispute the importance of clean air, any major changes in the provisions of the law would inevitably have resulted in the loss of jobs for many Americans, as well as increased costs for industry and consumers. For many concerned interests that was a price they were not willing to pay.

Little progress was made in strengthening clean air legislation during the 1980s. Leading members in both the House and Senate used their influence to scuttle any attempts to force a vote on the issue, and Reagan administration officials did not wish to proceed.

In 1989, several factors came together that increased the potential for progress. First and foremost, the new administration under President George Bush came out strongly in support of the legislation and offered a fairly comprehensive proposal. In addition, George Mitchell, long a champion of clean air legislation, became majority leader in the Senate. He took over from Robert Byrd, who for years had discouraged action on the law, fearing constituents of his coal-mining state (West Virginia) would be hit hard by new restrictions. At the same time, public pressure was building for new legislation as concern started to grow over such issues as global warming and ozone depletion.

These factors helped overcome some of the remaining hurdles, such as parochial concerns and environmental and industry interests. Nonetheless, molding the legislation proved long and arduous. The bill President Bush had introduced in June 1989 was not signed into law until November 15, 1990.

The legislation addressed four major sources of air pollution: urban smog, automobile exhaust, toxic air pollution, and acid rain. Each of the components involved a complex set of requirements, regulations, deadlines, and penalties for noncompliance. Different regions of the country as well as different industries were affected to varying degrees by each of the bill's provisions. Compromises had to be made and bargains struck among representatives of these groups in order to ensure that a strong coalition could be held together.

The legislation worked its way through the House and the Senate, following somewhat different courses in each chamber (conforming to the differing rules and norms of each body, as well as to the personal interests of the key players involved). Throughout the process a dialogue was maintained with administration officials. Although the bill that ultimately emerged disappointed some environmentalists, Democratic leaders in Congress supported it, recognizing that it was the best they could hope for from a Republican administration. The president's primary concern was the cost of the legislation, and he made it clear throughout the process of negotiation that he would veto any bill that exceeded his prescribed cost limitations.

The legislation was nearly derailed in the Senate when former Majority Leader Byrd offered an amendment to which the administration was adamantly opposed. Byrd used his powerful position as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee to gather support for his effort. In the end, Byrd's amendment was narrowly defeated, 49-50.

On the House side, most of the contentious issues were worked out at the committee level, and debate on the floor was fairly brief. Few members viewed the legislation as perfect, but opponents saw it as largely inevitable and proponents hesitated to risk undermining its passage by attempting to tighten its provisions further.

A compromise was reached in the House-Senate conference and the presence of administration officials helped to speed the process along. The bill passed overwhelmingly in both chambers. Passage came at an opportune time for many members. With the off-year election only days away and a groundswell of negative public opinion building toward Congress as an institution, members could hold up this landmark piece of legislation as a positive product of the legislative system.

POLL TAX LEGISLATION IN BRITAIN

A brief look at Britain's Local Government Finance Bill, more commonly known as the poll tax, gives us some insight into how contentious pieces of legislation are dealt with in the British Parliament. The majority government, back-bench majority members, and the opposition all played a crucial role in the development and passage of this controversial legislation.

The poll tax was suggested by Britain's ruling government, headed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in 1987. It was, in essence, a proposal to change the way in which Britain's local authorities raised their tax revenue. More specifically, it was an attempt to replace existing "rates," or local property taxes, with two new taxes: one a flat-rate poll tax on domestic households, the other a nationally levied uniform business rate on commercial enterprises. The idea was based on the premise that each individual citizen should pay a uniform tax for local services from which all benefit equally.

Opponents of the bill argued that it was grossly unfair because it taxed rich and poor citizens at the same rate. The opposition in Parliament said the adoption of such a flat-tax proposal would represent "the abandonment of the principle of fairness in personal taxation."

In spite of widespread opposition to the bill inside and outside of Parliament, the majority government pushed the proposal forward. Sponsors of the legislation argued it was needed in order to correct the inequities of the current system of local financing. They argued further that a flat-rate system in which all citizens participated would bring about greater accountability on the part of local councils, suggesting that if individual voters are paying for the local services they receive, they will weigh more carefully the cost of what they are voting for. It follows that more eligible voters will vote when they know they will have to pay for the result. Furthermore, by instituting a flat tax rate, the government hoped to discourage voters from being lured by the promise of local councils to spend lavishly on the community with the revenues collected from wealthy individuals and local businesses. Finally, they contended that the change would relieve businesses from excessive local taxation.

Under normal circumstances, with the Conservative Party holding a strong majority of seats in Parliament, government-sponsored legislation would move through the legislative process relatively smoothly. Because opposition to the poll tax was so widespread and crossed over party boundaries, however, the fate of the Local Government Finance Bill was less certain.

During the bill's second reading, a group of Conservative back-benchers banded together to oppose the government's bill. This "mutiny" did not derail the legislation, but it did embarrass the government and encourage the opposition.

In the ensuing months, support gathered for a back-bench sponsored amendment to make the poll tax income-related. At one point there were rumored to be as many as 50 back-bench supporters for the amendment. When the Labor Party decided to back the amendment on a three-line whip, it looked as if the government might be defeated. In the end, what was described as "the biggest revolt by back-benchers since the general election" (38 of them voted against the government and 10 more abstained) did not result in any significant amendment to the poll tax bill.

Opponents held out hope that the legislation might be derailed in Great Britain's upper house- -the House of Lords. However, because finance-related bills are rarely altered in the upper house, the bill made it through virtually unscathed.

The history of the poll tax is instructive in several ways. It illustrates the limitations on the power of the ruling government. Although the legislation did become law, Prime Minister Thatcher was forced to make a few significant concessions, such as reducing the impact of the tax on the poorest citizens. It also shows the importance of back-bench and opposition opinion and the power that can be wielded when the two groups band together, as well as the limits to that power.

THE INFORMAL ROLE OF THE KENYAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

In many respects, is similar to other African states. Like many of its neighbors, it existed under British rule for more than 40 years, had a British model of government imposed upon it at independence, and soon became a one-party presidential state headed by a strong popular leader. In other ways, however, Kenya is unique. For instance, its parliament has taken on a much more active and vibrant role in the political system than has been the case in some other African countries. Thus, the Kenyan Assembly provides a valuable illustration of how a legislature can be effective and influential in a one-party presidential state.

According to some scholars, the National Assembly is the most important participatory institution created in Kenya at the time of independence. The Kenyan Assembly performs a wide range of functions within the political system, both formal and informal. A brief review of these functions will show that the informal tasks tend to outweigh the formal duties in terms of their overall importance.

The lawmaking function is not where the Assembly exerts its greatest influence. The cabinet has the primary responsibility for policymaking and lawmaking, and the president and his key officials have little trouble pushing their legislative agenda through the Assembly. Legislation is often presented to the Assembly as a fait accompli, allowing little if any opportunity for legislative review or analysis. In some cases where the Assembly has tried to assert its independence on legislative matters, usually through the mechanism of a select committee, members disloyal to the government have been punished, pressured, or even removed from their seats. Moreover, the legislature has no authority over budgetary or spending policy, which reduces its overall influence even further.

This is not to suggest that the Assembly has no influence over policy decisions. Legislators can assume a role in defining and clarifying policy goals and in promoting policy alternatives. And the legislature remains a forum for criticism of government policy and for populist, even radical, rhetoric.

The real power and influence of the Assembly comes through the exercise of its informal powers. The most important informal function the legislature performs is to provide legitimacy to government actions. This in turn promotes support among the populace for the regime. The legitimizing function is vital in light of the revolts and bouts of instability that have plagued other nations in the region. By accommodating cultural and historical realities, the Kenyan Assembly allows for opposition and within the system, yet also provides stability. As a result, the populace feels at ease about the strength and legitimacy of the system; at the same time, it feels it has some say in the political process.

While providing legitimacy may be the legislature's more important function in terms of the stability of the governmental system, it is not its only function, and that is how it differs from rubber-stamp legislatures such as that of the former Soviet Union. Members of the legislature play an important representative role by serving as a liaison between the government and the populace, providing important constituent services and articulating the demands of special interests. Because they have performed this role so effectively, many representatives have become virtual patrons, servicing the needs of constituents who have become their clients.

Another important function of the legislature is recruitment. The Assembly is a breeding ground for future national leaders. In fact, the party has ceased to be an agent for recruitment; the Assembly has assumed this role.

The legislature also serves as the primary outlet for political participation and expression and as a symbol of equitable representation. Even though the representatives are often unable to influence the policy outcomes of the government, they do provide their constituents with access to the system and a voice in the process, whether it be in support or dissent.

At first glance, the role of the Kenyan Assembly may seem meager compared with the powers and prerogatives of the U.S. Congress or the British Parliament. Nonetheless, the Assembly has survived the difficult transition to democracy, while the legislative bodies of some neighboring African countries (such as ) have not fared as well. The Assembly's greatest strength lies in its ability to build unity in the nation and provide legitimacy for the regime, while at the same time steering government policy and acting as a check on executive power.

THE DEMOCRATIC TRADITION IN BOTSWANA Africa is a diverse continent made up of countries with vastly different historical and cultural traditions. As a result, democracy has taken on different forms in the various African nations in which it has been adopted. In some countries, where democracy is not rooted in tradition, it has been transformed into a or a one-party state. In other countries, where a modern democratic system has meshed with the traditional system of governance, the transition has been fairly smooth, and democratic institutions have flourished.

Botswana is one country that inherits a strong democratic tradition. Historically, Botswana's political system was highly centralized under the ruler or chief, but the system remained open because of the important role played by the legislature, traditionally called the lekgotla. The lekgotla served as a central organization to which all citizens had access. It was the heart of the governmental system, with the chief acting as a chairman of sorts, overseeing the activities of the lekgotla. This system, which was in place at the national, regional, and local levels, provided for effective government at all levels.

This system remained largely intact during the colonial period, and when Botswana achieved independence in 1966, it adopted a constitutional system with an eye toward preserving these traditions. The Constitution vested extensive powers in a president, to be supported by a democratic base. In addition, it established a popularly elected National Assembly and a House of Chiefs (to act as an advisory body to the National Assembly on prescribed issues). Today, the legislature remains the central forum where public affairs are conducted and issues of national interest are discussed and debated.

Scholars argue that Botswana has been successful in its transition to a democratic system of government because the basic concepts of democracy were already an integral part of that country's traditions. Today, Botswana has a vibrant multiparty system supported by a solid constitutional and institutional framework, where free expression and open debate are encouraged and where dissent is expressed through various opposition parties. It is true that the ruling party in Botswana has held power without interruption since independence and that the strength of the opposition parties is limited. Nonetheless, the fact remains that political power is rooted in popular support rather than the rule of law. There is room for dissent and a role for the opposition, and the ruling leaders are prepared to relinquish their power at any time if that is what a majority of the people desire.

GLOSSARY at-large election -- an election in which candidates are chosen on an individual basis rather than as representatives of a geographically defined, single-member district. At-large elections can be held at the legislative and presidential levels. In the United States, some states hold at- large elections for congressional seats, when, for instance, a state's entire population warrants only one representative. Some countries hold at-large elections when choosing an executive. In these cases, voters cast their ballots en masse rather than as part of a designated voting bloc. back-bencher -- any member of parliament who is not a leader of the ruling government or of the opposition. These members, even if they belong to the majority party, have little influence over the legislative process. bicameralism -- a legislative system made up of two separate chambers, each serving as a check on the other's power. In most cases, the members of each chamber are elected on a different basis. For example, in the U.S. Congress, two senators are elected from each of the 50 states, whereas the number of House members assigned to each state varies according to the state's population. caucus -- a meeting of the members of a political party to decide questions of policy, establish internal rules and structures, and elect the party membership. second reading -- a stage in the process of considering a bill in parliament. A bill is read for the first time when it is introduced; it is then printed and read again. During the second reading, the general principles of a bill are debated; a detailed discussion of the bill's specific provisions is reserved for the committee or report stage. The opposition may vote against a bill after its second reading. three-line whip -- "whip" refers to a member of parliament chosen by his or her parliamentary party to keep members informed about day-to-day parliamentary business, to maintain the party's voting strength, and to convey to the leadership the opinions of back- bench members. "Whip" also refers to the weekly publication sent out by the chief whip to all party members informing them of upcoming business and requesting their presence at certain meetings. The "three-line whip" relates to the relative importance attached to a given debate or division. If an item in the weekly publication is underlined three times, it is considered extremely important, and failure to attend is generally seen as a rebellion against the party's policy.

SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION

Here is just a sample of the many resources available to help people learn more about the role of the legislature in a democracy.

Books

Bradshaw, Kenneth, and David Pring. Parliament and Congress. London: Quartet Books, 1972.

Chaleff, Ira, et al. Setting Course: A Congressional Management Guide, third edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Management Foundation, 1988.

Congressional Quarterly. Guide to Congress, third edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1982.

Greenstein, Fred I., and Nelson W. Polsby. Handbook of Political Science. Volume 5: Governmental Institutions and Processes. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

Ornstein, Norman J. The Role of the Legislature in Western Democracies. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1981.

Schwarz, John E., and L. Earl Shaw. The United States Congress in Comparative Perspective. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, 1976. Thayson, Uwe, Roger H. Davidson, and Robert G. Livingston, Eds. The U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1990.

Valeo, Francis R., and Charles E. Morrison, Eds. The Japanese Diet and the U.S. Congress. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983.

Wootten, Graham. Pressure Politics in Contemporary Britain. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1978.

Organizations

Congressional Management Foundation 513 Capitol Court, N.E., Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20002 USA Telephone: (202) 546-0100 Fax: (202) 547-0936

The Congressional Management Foundation offers management training programs for members of the U.S. Congress and their staffs, publishes books related to congressional management, and consults with members of Congress on specific management issues.

Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1414 22nd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 USA Telephone: (202) 887-8500 Fax: (202) 728-1863

In addition to its weekly journal, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, which provides news and analysis on the legislative, budget, and political processes, CQ produces a wide range of publications on Congress. CQ also offers courses and seminars for professional development in government and politics through its Professional Education Service.

International Republican Institute 1212 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 USA Telephone: (202) 408-9450 Fax: (202) 408-9462

Through financial, technical, and organizational support, the Institute seeks to assist indigenous organizations in building foundations of democracy in countries where development has been stunted by command economies and monopolistic political structures. The staff provides training in leadership development, communications strategy, policy research, political-party building, and election processes.

Library of Congress 101 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20540 USA Telephone: (202) 707-2905 Fax: (202) 707-9199

The Library of Congress offers the largest collection of books and resources in the United States. In addition, the Library's Congressional Research Service provides a model of how a legislature can utilize the centralized staff and resources of a large research institution for the purpose of legislative research and policy-making.

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 503 Washington, D.C. 20036 USA Telephone: (202) 328-3136 Fax: (202) 939-3166

Designed to help strengthen democratic institutions in new and emerging democracies, this institute has organized legislative seminars focusing on legislative procedures, staffing, research information, constituent services, and committee structures in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa. It also publishes a series of books based on its experiences in developing democracies.

About the Author: Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He received his B.A. from the University of Minnesota and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He has worked at different times on Capitol Hill, serving most recently as the staff director of the U.S. Senate's Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System in 1977. He has written, edited, and co-authored a number of books, including Vital Statistics on Congress (now in its sixth edition), The New Congress, and The Role of the Legislature in Western Democracies.

Background Note:

Official Name: Taiwan

PROFILE

Geography Area: 36,189 sq. km. (13,973 sq. mi.). Cities (2009): Capital-- (pop. 2.6 million). Other cities--Kaohsiung (1.5 million), Taichung (1.07 million). Terrain: Two thirds of the island is largely mountainous with 100 peaks over 3,000 meters (9,843 ft.). Climate: Maritime subtropical.

People Population (February 2009): 23.0 million. Annual population growth rate (2009): 0.23%. Languages: Mandarin Chinese (official), Taiwanese, Hakka. Education: Years compulsory--9. Attendance (2007)--99.30%. Literacy (2008)--97.78%. Health: Infant mortality rate (2007)--0.47%. Life expectancy (2008)--78.57 years (males 75.59 years; females 81.94 years). Work force (August 2009): 10.96 million.

Political Establishment Type: Multi-party democracy. Constitution: December 25, 1946; last amended 2005. Branches (Yuan): Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Control, Examination. Major political parties: (KMT or Nationalist Party); Democratic Progressive Party (DPP); several small parties. Suffrage: Universal over 20 years of age. Central budget proposed (FY 2011): NT $1.789 trillion (U.S. $62.79 billion). Defense proposed (FY 2011): NT $297.2 billion (U.S. $10.43 billion), 16.6% of entire budget, or 2.73% of Taiwan's GDP.

Economy GDP (2010): $430 billion. Real annual growth rate (2010): 10.88%. Per capita GDP (2010): $18,588. Unemployment (April 2011): 4.29%. Natural resources: Small deposits of coal, natural gas, limestone, marble, and asbestos. Agriculture (1.6% of GDP): Major products--pork, rice, fruit and vegetables, flowers, sugarcane, poultry, shrimp, eel. Services: (67.1% of GDP). Industry (31.3% of GDP): Types--electronics and flat panel products, chemicals and petrochemicals, basic metals, machinery, textiles, transport equipment, plastics, machinery. Trade (2010): Exports--$274.6 billion: electronics, optical and precision instruments, information and communications products, textile products, basic metals, plastic and rubber products. Major markets--P.R.C. and Hong Kong $114.8 billion, U.S. $31.5 billion, $14.5 billion. Imports--$251.4 billion: electronics, optical and precision instruments, information and communications products, machinery and electrical products, chemicals, basic metals, transport equipment, crude oil. Major suppliers--Japan $36.2 billion, P.R.C. and Hong Kong $37.6 billion, U.S. $25.4 billion.

PEOPLE Taiwan has a population of 23 million. More than 18 million, the "native" Taiwanese, are descendants of Chinese who migrated from Fujian and Guangdong Provinces on the mainland, primarily in the 18th and 19th centuries. The "mainlanders," who arrived in Taiwan after 1945, came from all parts of mainland China. About half a million indigenous peoples inhabit the mountainous central and eastern parts of the island and are believed to be of Malayo-Polynesian origin. Of Taiwan's total population, approximately one million, or 4.4%, currently reside in mainland China.

Education Since 1968, 6 years of elementary school and 3 years of junior high have been compulsory for all children. About 98% of junior high graduates continue their studies in either a senior high or vocational school. Taiwan has an extensive higher education system with 165 institutions of higher learning. In 2010, about 147,561 applied for admission to universities and colleges through a modified multi-channel admissions system; 100% of the applicants were offered placement and 76% of the candidates actually enrolled. Opportunities for graduate education are expanding in Taiwan, but many students travel abroad for advanced education. In FY 2010, over 15,890 U.S. student visas were issued to Taiwan passport holders.

Languages A large majority of people in Taiwan speak Mandarin Chinese, which has been the medium of instruction in the schools for more than 5 decades. Native Taiwanese and many others also speak one of the Southern Fujianese dialects, Min-nan, also known as Taiwanese. Recently there has been a growing use of Taiwanese in the broadcast media. The Hakka, who are concentrated in several counties throughout Taiwan, have their own distinct dialect. As a result of the half-century of Japanese rule, many older people also can speak Japanese. The method of Chinese romanization most commonly used in Taiwan is the Wade-Giles system. In 2002, Taiwan authorities announced adoption of the system used on the mainland to replace the Wade-Giles system, but its use is not consistent throughout society, often resulting in two or more romanizations for the same place or person.

Religions According to Taiwan's Government Information Office, there are about 11.2 million religious believers in Taiwan, with more than 75% identifying themselves as Buddhists or Taoists. At the same time, there is also a strong belief in traditional folk throughout the island. These are not mutually exclusive, and many people practice a combination of the three. Confucianism also is an honored school of thought and ethical code. Christian churches have been active on Taiwan for many years, and today, the population includes a small but significant percentage of Christians.

Culture Taiwan's culture is a blend of its distinctive Chinese, Japanese, and Western influences. Fine arts, folk traditions, and popular culture embody traditional and modern, Asian, and Western motifs. One of Taiwan's greatest attractions is the Palace Museum, which houses over 650,000 pieces of Chinese bronze, jade, calligraphy, painting, and porcelain. This collection was moved from the mainland in 1949 when Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Party (KMT) fled to Taiwan. The collection is so extensive that only 1% is on display at any one time.

HISTORY Taiwan's indigenous peoples, who originated in Austronesia and southern Asia, have lived on Taiwan for 12,000 to 15,000 years. Significant migration to Taiwan from the Chinese mainland began as early as A.D. 500. Dutch traders first claimed the island in 1624 as a base for Dutch commerce with Japan and the China coast. Two years later, the Spanish established a settlement on the northwest coast of Taiwan, which they occupied until 1642 when they were driven out by the Dutch. Dutch colonists administered the island and its predominantly aboriginal population until 1661. The first major influx of migrants from the Chinese mainland came during the Dutch period, sparked by the political and economic chaos on the China coast during the Manchu invasion and the end of the Ming Dynasty.

In 1664, a fleet led by the Ming loyalist Cheng Ch'eng-kung (Zheng Chenggong, known in the West as Koxinga) retreated from the mainland and occupied Taiwan. Cheng expelled the Dutch and established Taiwan as a base in his attempt to restore the Ming Dynasty. He died shortly thereafter, and in 1683, his successors submitted to Manchu (Qing Dynasty) control. From 1680, the Qing Dynasty ruled Taiwan as a prefecture and, in 1875, divided the island into two prefectures, north and south. In 1887 the island was made into a separate Chinese province.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, migration from Fujian and Guangdong provinces steadily increased, and Chinese supplanted indigenous peoples as the dominant population group. In 1895, a weakened Imperial China ceded Taiwan to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki following the first Sino-Japanese war.

During its 50 years (1895-1945) of rule, Japan expended considerable effort in developing Taiwan's economy. At the same time, Japanese rule led to the "Japanization" of the island, including compulsory Japanese education and pressuring residents of Taiwan to adopt Japanese names.

At the end of World War II in 1945, Taiwan reverted to Chinese rule. During the immediate postwar period, the Nationalist Chinese (KMT) administration on Taiwan was repressive and corrupt, leading to local discontent. Anti-mainlander violence flared on February 28, 1947, prompted by an incident in which a cigarette seller was injured and a passerby was shot to death by Nationalist authorities. The island-wide rioting was brutally put down by Nationalist Chinese troops, who killed thousands of people. As a result of the February 28 Incident, the native Taiwanese felt a deep-seated bitterness toward the mainlanders. For 50 years the KMT authorities suppressed accounts of this episode in Taiwan history. In 1995 a monument was dedicated to the victims of the "2-28 Incident," and for the first time, Taiwan's leader, President Lee Teng-hui, publicly apologized for the Nationalists' brutality.

Starting before World War II and continuing afterwards, a civil war was fought on the mainland between Chiang Kai-shek's KMT government and the led by . When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominately from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. In October 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded on the mainland by the victorious communists. Chiang Kai-shek established a "provisional" Republic of China (R.O.C.) capital in Taipei in December 1949. During the 1950s, the KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with refugee businessmen from the mainland, they managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.

Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power with $496 billion in two-way trade (2008). Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2002 has expanded its trade opportunities and further strengthened its standing in the global economy. Tremendous prosperity on the island has been accompanied by economic and social stability. Chiang Kai-shek's successor, his son Chiang Ching-kuo, began to liberalize Taiwan's political system, a process that accelerated when President Lee Teng-hui took office in 1988. The direct election of Lee Teng-hui as president in 1996 was followed by opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Shui-bian's election victory in March 2000. Chen was re-elected in March 2004 in a tightly contested election. The KMT's Ma Ying-jeou won the March 2008 presidential election by a substantial majority and took office on May 20, 2008.

ADMINISTRATION The authorities in Taipei exercise control over Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, Penghu (Pescadores) and several other smaller islands. Taiwan is divided into counties, provincial municipalities, and two special municipalities, Taipei and Kaohsiung. At the end of 1998, the Constitution was amended to make all counties and cities directly administered by the Executive Yuan. From 1949 until 1991, the authorities on Taiwan claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of China, including the mainland. In keeping with that claim, when the Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan in 1949, they re-established the full array of central political bodies, which had existed on the mainland. While much of this structure remains in place, the authorities on Taiwan in 1991 abandoned their claim of governing mainland China, stating that they do not "dispute the fact that the P.R.C. controls mainland China."

The first National Assembly, elected on the mainland in 1947 to carry out the duties of choosing the President and amending the constitution, was re-established on Taiwan when the KMT moved. Because it was impossible to hold subsequent elections to represent constituencies on the mainland, representatives elected in 1947-48 held these seats "indefinitely." In June 1990, however, the Council of Grand Justices mandated the retirement, effective December 1991, of all remaining "indefinitely" elected members of the National Assembly and other bodies.

The second National Assembly, elected in 1991, was composed of 325 members. The majority were elected directly, while 100 were chosen from party slates in proportion to the popular vote. This National Assembly amended the Constitution in 1994, paving the way for the direct election of the President and Vice President the first of which was held in March 1996. In April 2000, the members of the National Assembly voted to permit their terms of office to expire without holding new elections. The National Assembly elected in May 2005 voted to abolish itself the following month, leaving Taiwan with a unicameral legislature. The President is both leader of Taiwan and Commander-in-Chief of its armed forces. The President has authority over four of the five administrative branches (Yuan): Executive, Control, Judicial, and Examination. The President appoints the President of the Executive Yuan, who also serves as the Premier. The Premier and the cabinet members are responsible for government policy and administration.

The main lawmaking body, the (LY), was originally elected in the late 1940s in parallel with the National Assembly. The first LY had 773 seats and was viewed as a "rubber stamp" institution. The second LY was not elected until 1992. The third LY, elected in 1995, had 157 members serving 3-year terms, while the fourth LY, elected in 1998, was enlarged to 225 members. The LY has greatly enhanced its standing in relation to the Executive Yuan and has established itself as a major player on the central level. With increasing strength, size, and complexity, the LY now mirrors Taiwan's recently liberalized political system. In the 1992 and 1995 elections, the main opposition party--the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)--challenged the half-century of Kuomintang (KMT) dominance of the Legislature. In both elections, the DPP won a significant share of the LY seats, leaving only half of the LY seats in the hands of the KMT. In 2001, the DPP won a plurality of LY seats--88 to the KMT's 66, the People First Party's 45, the Taiwan Solidarity Union's 13, and 13 won by other parties and independents. In the December 2004 LY election, the Pan-Blue coalition won a slender majority of 114 of the 225 seats compared to the Pan-Green coalition's 101. The LY was halved in size from 225 to 113 seats by constitutional amendments in 2005. In the January 2008 LY election, the first to be held under this new structure, the KMT won an absolute majority of 81 seats to the DPP's 27 seats, with the remaining five seats going to independent and small party candidates.

In 1994, when the National Assembly voted to allow direct popular election of the President, the LY passed legislation allowing for the direct election of the Governor of Taiwan Province and the mayors of Taipei and Kaohsiung Special Municipalities. These elections were first held in December 1994. In a move to streamline administration, the position of elected Governor was abolished at the end of 1998, and most other elements of the Taiwan Provincial Government have been eliminated.

The Control Yuan (CY) monitors the efficiency of public service and investigates instances of corruption. The 29 Control Yuan members are appointed by the President and approved by the Legislative Yuan; they serve 6-year terms. In recent years, the Control Yuan has become more activist, and it has conducted several major investigations and . From January 2005 to August 2008 the Control Yuan was inactive because the Pan-Blue dominated LY has refused to approve the new slate of CY members proposed by President Chen. The new Control Yuan members appointed by President Ma took office on August 1, 2008.

The Judicial Yuan (JY) administers Taiwan's court system. It includes a 15-member Council of Grand Justices (COGJ) that interprets the constitution. Grand Justices are appointed by the President, with the consent of the National Assembly, to 8-year terms.

The (EY) functions as a and includes two ministries: the Ministry of Examination, which recruits officials through competitive examination, and the Ministry of Personnel, which manages the civil service. The President appoints the President and members of the Examination Yuan.

Principal Leaders President--Ma Ying-jeou Vice President--Vincent Siew (Siew Wan-chang) Premier--Wu Den-yih Vice Premier--Sean Chen (Chen Chung) Legislative Yuan President--Wang Jin-pyng Judicial Yuan President--Rai Hau-min Defense Minister--Kao Hua-chu Foreign Minister--Timothy Yang (Yang Chin-tien) Minister of Justice--Tseng Yung-fu Mainland Affairs Council Chairman--Lai Shin-yuan Government Information Office Minister--Phillip Yang (Yang Yung-ming) Cabinet Spokesperson--Phillip Yang (Yang Yung-ming)

POLITICAL CONDITIONS Until 1986, Taiwan's political system was controlled by one party, the Kuomintang (KMT), the chairman of which was also Taiwan's top leader. As the ruling party, the KMT was able to fill appointed positions with its members and maintain political control of the island.

Before the 1986 island-wide elections, many "nonpartisans" grouped together to create Taiwan's first new opposition political party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Despite an official ban on forming new political parties, Taiwan authorities did not prohibit the DPP from operating, and DPP and independent candidates captured more than 20% of the vote in the 1986 elections. In 1987, President Chiang Ching-kuo ended the nearly 4 decades of martial law under which dissent had been suppressed. Since then, Taiwan has taken dramatic steps to improve respect for human rights and create a democratic political system, including ending almost all restrictions on the press. Vice President Lee Teng-hui succeeded Chiang Ching-kuo as president upon Chiang's death in 1988, and in 1990 the National Assembly (NA) elected Lee to a 6-year term as President, the final indirect presidential election conducted by the NA. Under President Lee, the Legislative Yuan (LY) passed the Civic Organizations Law in 1989, which allowed for the formation of new political parties, thereby legalizing the DPP. In 1992, the DPP won 51 seats in the 161-seat LY, increasing the DPP's influence on legislative decisions. Chen Shui-bian's victory in the Taipei mayoral election in December 1994 further enhanced the profile of the DPP, which won 45 of the 157 seats in the 1995 LY elections.

In 1996, the KMT's Lee Teng-hui was elected President and Lien Chan Vice President in the first direct presidential election by Taiwan's voters. In the November 1997 local elections, the DPP won 12 of the 23 county magistrate and city mayor contests to the KMT's 8, outpolling the KMT for the first time in a major election. In a three-way contest in March 2000, DPP candidate Chen Shui-bian became the first opposition party candidate to win the presidency. His victory resulted in the first-ever transition of the presidency from one political party to another, validating Taiwan's democratic political system. President Chen was re-elected by 50.1% of the popular vote to a second term in a very tight contest on March 20, 2004. The election was marred by a shooting incident the day before the election during which President Chen and his running mate Vice President Annette Lu were slightly wounded. While the opposition contested the results, it was the first time that the DPP had won an outright majority in an island-wide election. Taiwan's second democratic transition of ruling party followed the March 22, 2008, presidential election, which went decisively (58%) to KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou. Together with the KMT legislative victory 2 months earlier, Taiwan now had a unified government under KMT control.

The March 2004 election also included two "defensive referenda." Historically, referenda have been closely tied to the question of Taiwan independence, and thus a highly sensitive issue in cross-Strait relations. Both referenda in 2004 failed to meet the required participation threshold of 50% of eligible voters, as did four more referenda held in conjunction with the 2008 legislative and presidential elections. The 2008 DPP referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan was especially controversial.

The final National Assembly passed a set of constitutional amendments in June 2005 that halved the number of LY seats from 225 to 113 and created single-member legislative election districts beginning with the January 2008 legislative election. The constitutional revisions also abolished the National Assembly and provided for the public to confirm or reject future constitutional amendments passed by the Legislative Yuan. President Chen's controversial efforts to promote a second round of constitutional revisions focused on changing the government structure were unsuccessful. The P.R.C. accused him of using the constitution issue to move Taiwan toward independence. While not entirely ruling out future constitutional changes, President Ma has stressed the need to implement rather than revise the constitution.

In the December 2004 legislative elections, the ruling DPP won a plurality with 89 of the 225 seats, gaining 2 seats more than it did in 2001, but the opposition KMT and its Pan-Blue allies continued to hold a narrow majority in the Legislative Yuan. The ruling DPP's inability to form a majority coalition led to gridlock in the LY until 2008. Following a landslide victory in December 2005 local elections, the KMT won the 2006 mayoral election in Taipei City, while the DPP won in Kaohsiung City. In the January 2008 elections for the downsized 113-seat LY, the KMT won 81 seats and KMT allies won a further five seats, giving them a three-quarters majority over the DPP, which won just 27 seats. The DPP subsequently won several by-elections, and by April 2010 it had added six more seats, enough to prevent the ruling KMT from acting on its own to send proposed constitutional amendments to a referendum vote. As of June 2011, the KMT held 72 seats, the DPP 33 seats, the NSU 3 seats, and there were two independents.

Political Parties In addition to the Kuomintang (KMT) (described above in 'History' and 'Political Conditions'), the other major political party is the DPP, whose membership is made up largely of native Taiwanese, and whose platform includes outspoken positions on some of the most sensitive issues in Taiwan politics. For example, the DPP maintains that Taiwan is an entity separate from mainland China, in contrast to the KMT position that Taiwan and the mainland, though currently divided, are both part of "one China." In sharp contrast to the tenets of both KMT and P.R.C. policy, a number of prominent DPP politicians openly advocate independence for Taiwan.

There are a number of small political parties, including the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), the People First Party (PFP), and the New Party (NP). After the 2000 presidential election, former KMT President Lee Teng-hui broke with the KMT and in 2001 formed the pro- independence Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), which allied itself with the DPP, an alliance that largely fell apart over time. The TSU failed to elect any members to the LY in January 2008. The People First Party (PFP) was formed in the wake of the March 2000 presidential election by disgruntled KMT members who supported the presidential bid of former KMT Taiwan Provincial Governor James Soong, who did not receive the KMT nomination. The PFP and KMT subsequently formed the "Pan-Blue" Alliance to oppose the DPP government. The PFP, however, gradually shrank and it largely merged with the KMT in the runup to the January 2008 LY elections, although one PFP candidate did win election to the LY under the name PFP. The New Party, which also split from the KMT, holds several seats on the Taipei City Council, but has no legislators at this point. In addition, there are more than 100 other registered small political parties, such as the Hakka Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party. None of these small parties received more than 1% or 2% of votes in the January 2008 LY election.

Taiwan and the Mainland Over the past several years, Taiwan has relaxed restrictions on unofficial contacts with the P.R.C., and cross-Strait interaction has mushroomed. In January 2001, Taiwan formally allowed the "three mini-links" (direct trade, travel, and postal links) from Kinmen (Quemoy) and Matsu Islands to Fujian Province and permitted direct cross-Strait trade in February 2002. Cross-Strait trade has grown rapidly over the past 10 years. China is Taiwan's largest trading partner, and Taiwan is China's seventh-largest. Estimates of Taiwan investment on the mainland, both officially approved by Taiwan authorities and investment made by Taiwan firms through third parties, range from $150 billion to over $300 billion, making Taiwan and Hong Kong by some measures the two largest investors in the P.R.C. This trade generally runs in Taiwan's favor and continues to grow, providing another engine for the island's economy. On June 29, 2010, following 6 months of negotiations, Taiwan and the P.R.C. signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), aimed at bringing about liberalization of cross-Strait trade in products and services, and eventually creating an essentially free-trade regime. ECFA came into force on September 12, and reduced tariff treatment for the bilateral trade of more than 500 products began on January 1, 2011. Ma administration officials see ECFA as a critical first step in avoiding Taiwan's regional economic marginalization and paving the way for expanded trade relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the United States, and other major trading partners.

In February 2003, Taiwan and the P.R.C. agreed to allow Taiwan carriers to fly non-stop (although routed via Hong Kong or Macau airspace) to bring Taiwan residents on the mainland home for the Lunar New Year holiday. The two sides agreed to conduct Lunar New Year charter flights again in 2005, with flights operated by both Taiwan and P.R.C. carriers flying over, but not having to land in, Hong Kong or Macau. Over time these flights were expanded to cover three other major holidays. In July 2008, Taiwan and P.R.C. carriers began operating cross-Strait charter flights every weekend. These flights are open to mainland tourists, as well as Taiwan and foreign travelers. Daily direct cross-Strait charter flight service began in December 2008, and the two sides have also begun cargo charter flights, direct shipping, direct postal service, and cooperation on food safety issues. To meet rapidly increasing air transport demand, both parties agreed to increase the number of passenger and cargo flights to 270 per week in 2009; carriers from each side operate 135 flights per week. Following an agreement in May 2010 to eventually increase cross-Strait flights to a total of 370 per week, both sides on June 14, 2010 added 14 flights between Shanghai and Taipei. As of November 1, 2010 298 weekly cross-Strait flights were in operation. More than 1.5 million P.R.C. tourists were expected to go to Taiwan in 2010. Many senior P.R.C. officials-- including the culture minister, a vice minister of public security, the mayor of Shanghai, and numerous provincial and Communist Party leaders--have visited as part of an effort to improve mainland China's image among a generally wary Taiwan population.

The development of semiofficial cross-Strait relations has had ups and downs. In April 1993, the first round of high-level cross-Strait talks was held in Singapore between the heads of two private intermediary organizations--Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the P.R.C.'s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS). These talks primarily addressed technical issues relating to cross-Strait interactions. Beijing suspended lower-level talks from 1995-97 following President Lee's U.S. visit. SEF Chairman Koo Chen-fu visited the mainland in October 1998 for the second round of high-level talks. In 1999 Beijing once again suspended the cross-Strait dialogue, canceling plans for a visit by ARATS Chairman Wang Daohan to Taiwan, because of statements by President Lee that relations between the P.R.C. and Taiwan should be conducted as "state-to-state" or at least as "special state-to-state relations." Following his May 20, 2000 inauguration, President Chen called for resuming the cross-Strait dialogue without any preconditions, but the P.R.C. insisted President Chen first acknowledge what it claimed was the "1992 consensus" on one China reached by the two sides. The cross-Strait dialogue remained suspended for the following 8 years of President Chen's two-term administration. Nonetheless, economic and social ties continued to develop rapidly despite the "one China" obstacle and Taiwan's resentment over the P.R.C.'s March 2005 "Anti-Secession Law," and the two sides were able through intermediary organizations to reach agreements on holiday cross-Strait charter flights. The KMT began its own dialogue with Beijing in 2005.

President Ma has moved quickly to resume the SEF-ARATS dialogue, expand flights, and, in a major step to enhance cross-Strait relations, signed an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with Beijing. The United States has welcomed and encouraged the regular cross-Strait dialogue as a process which contributes to a reduction of tension and to an environment conducive to the eventual peaceful resolution of the outstanding differences between the two sides. The United States believes that differences between Taipei and Beijing should be resolved peacefully in a manner acceptable to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Over the past 2 years, SEF and ARATS have held six rounds of talks and signed 15 agreements, including the ECFA. President Ma has stressed the importance of people-to-people contact, and in 2010 the Legislative Yuan revised the University Law, the Junior College Law, and the Cross-strait Relations Act that would allow P.R.C. college students to come to Taiwan for graduate and undergraduate degree studies.

ECONOMY Through decades of hard work and sound economic management, Taiwan has transformed itself from an underdeveloped, agricultural island to an economic power that is a leading producer of high-technology goods. In the 1960s, foreign investment in Taiwan helped introduce modern, labor-intensive technology to the island, and Taiwan became a major exporter of labor-intensive products. In the 1980s, focus shifted toward increasingly sophisticated, capital-intensive and technology-intensive products for export and toward developing the service sector. At the same time, the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar (NTD), rising labor costs, and increasing environmental consciousness in Taiwan caused many labor-intensive industries, such as shoe manufacturing, to move to China and Southeast Asia. Taiwan has transformed itself from a recipient of U.S. aid in the 1950s and early 1960s to an aid donor and major foreign investor, especially in Asia. Taiwan is now a creditor economy, holding the world's fourth-largest stock of foreign exchange reserves ($399.5 billion as of April 2011). Although Taiwan enjoyed sustained economic growth, full employment, and low inflation for many years, in 2001, Taiwan joined other regional economies in its first recession since 1949. From 2002-2007, Taiwan's economic growth ranged from 3.5% to 6.2% per year. With the global economic downturn, Taiwan's economy slumped into recession in the second half of 2008. Its real GDP, following growth of 5.7% in 2007, rose 0.73% in 2008 and contracted 1.93% in 2009. The economy saw a robust recovery in 2010, growing by 10.88%, the highest rate in 28 years.

Foreign Trade Foreign trade has been the engine of Taiwan's rapid growth during the past 50 years. Taiwan's economy remains export-oriented, so it depends on an open world trade regime and remains vulnerable to fluctuations in the world economy. The total value of trade increased more than five-fold in the 1960s, nearly ten-fold in the 1970s, doubled in the 1980s, nearly doubled again in the 1990s, and grew more than 85% in the past decade. Export composition changed from predominantly agricultural commodities to industrial goods (now 98%). The electronics sector is Taiwan's most important industrial export sector. Taiwan became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as a special customs territory in January 2002.

Taiwan firms are the world's largest suppliers of computer monitors and leaders in PC manufacturing, although now much of the final assembly of these products occurs overseas, typically in China. Imports are dominated by raw materials and capital goods, which account for more than 90% of the total. Taiwan imports coal, crude oil, and gas to meet most of its energy needs. Reflecting the large Taiwan investment in China, the P.R.C. supplanted the United States as Taiwan's largest trade partner in 2003. In 2010, China (including Hong Kong) accounted for over 29.0% of Taiwan's total trade and 41.8% of Taiwan's exports. Japan was Taiwan's second-largest trading partner with 13.3% of total trade, including 20.7% of Taiwan's imports. The United States is now Taiwan's third-largest trade partner, taking 11.5% of Taiwan's exports and supplying 10.1% of its imports. In 2010, Taiwan was the United States' 9th-largest trading partner; Taiwan's two-way trade with the United States amounted to $61.9 billion in 2010. Imports from the United States consist mostly of machinery and equipment as well as agricultural and industrial raw materials. Exports to the United States are mainly electronics and consumer goods. The United States, Hong Kong, China, and Japan account for 60% of Taiwan's exports, and the United States, Japan, and China provide almost 46% of Taiwan's imports. As Taiwan's per capita income level has risen, demand for imported, high-quality consumer goods has increased. The U.S. trade deficit with Taiwan in 2010 was $9.88 billion, up $3 million from 2009. Even though Taiwan maintains formal diplomatic relations with about a score of its trading partners, Taiwan maintains trade offices in nearly 100 countries. Taiwan is a member of the Asian Development Bank, the WTO, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. Taiwan is also an observer at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 2009, Taiwan acceded to the WTO Agreement. These developments reflect Taiwan's economic importance and its desire to become further integrated into the global economy.

Agriculture Although less than one-quarter of Taiwan's land area is arable, virtually all farmland is intensely cultivated, with some areas suitable for two and even three crops a year. Agriculture comprises only about 1.7% of Taiwan's GDP. Taiwan's main crops are rice, fruit, and vegetables. While largely self-sufficient in rice production, Taiwan imports large amounts of wheat, corn, and soybeans, mostly from the United States. Poultry and pork production are mainstays of the livestock sector and the major demand drivers for imported corn and soybeans. Rising standards of living have led to increased demand for a wide variety of high- quality food products, much of it imported. Overall, U.S. agricultural and food products account for over 30% of Taiwan's agricultural import demand. U.S. food and agricultural exports total about $3.0 billion annually, making Taiwan the United States' sixth-largest agricultural export destination. Taiwan's agricultural exports include frozen fish, aquaculture and sea products, canned and frozen vegetables, and nursery products such as orchids. Taiwan's imports of agricultural products and the range of countries supplying the market have increased since its WTO accession in 2002, and it is slowly liberalizing previously protected agricultural markets.

Economic Outlook Taiwan faces many of the same economic issues as other developed economies. As labor- intensive industries have relocated to countries with low-cost labor, Taiwan's future development will rely on further transformation to a high technology and service-oriented economy and carving out its niche in the global supply chain. Taiwan's economy has become increasingly linked with China, and the Ma administration is expected to further develop these links and liberalize cross-Strait economic relations, particularly through negotiations under the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). Taiwan official statistics indicate that Taiwan firms had invested about U.S. $102.1 billion in China as of the end of April 2011, which is more than 60% of Taiwan's stock of direct foreign investment. Many unofficial estimates put the actual number at between U.S. $150 and over $300 billion. Exact figures are difficult to obtain, as much Taiwan investment in the P.R.C. is via Hong Kong and other third-party jurisdictions. More than one million Taiwan people are estimated to be residing in China, and more than 70,000 Taiwan companies have operations there. Taiwan firms are increasingly acting as management centers that take in orders, produce them in Taiwan, the mainland, or Southeast Asia and then ship the final products to the U.S. and other markets.

DEFENSE In proportion to its population, Taiwan still maintains a large military establishment. Defense expenditures for 2009 were NTD 387.7 billion (approximately U.S. $12.3 billion), accounting for 3.1% of GDP. For 2010, the Legislative Yuan allocated NTD 370.8 billion (approximately U.S. $11.73 billion) for defense, accounting for 2.96% of GDP. The military's primary mission is the defense of Taiwan against the P.R.C., which is seen as the predominant threat and which has not renounced the use of force against Taiwan. Taiwan's armed forces were reduced as part of a reform initiative from 1997 to 2001, going from about 450,000 to 385,000, with further reductions planned by the current administration to reduce the total force to just under 215,000. Registered reservists reportedly totaled 2,800,000 in 2009. Conscription remains universal for qualified males between the ages of 18 and 30. In 2009 the length of conscription service was 12 months, with a view to moving toward an all- volunteer force by the end of 2014. For qualified applicants, alternative service is available in police and fire departments and public clinics, as well as through teaching in some rural schools. Applicants with advanced degrees may qualify for National Defense Service, consisting of reserve officer training followed by 4 years of work in a government or academic research institution.

Following heavy criticism of the leadership‘s response to the August 2009 Typhoon Morakot recovery efforts, the military assumed a greater role in carrying out disaster prevention and relief missions, a task formally outlined in the Ministry of National Defense‘s 2009 Defense Policy White Paper.

Taiwan's armed forces are equipped with weapons obtained primarily from the United States, with a much smaller number of systems procured from other Western nations. In response to economic difficulties related to the global financial crisis, along with the challenge of acquiring foreign military equipment in the face of increasingly stronger Chinese opposition, Taiwan has given greater consideration and effort to further developing its domestic defense industry, concentrating in select fields as it attempts to further develop domestic capacity. Consistent with Taiwan‘s reliance on the U.S. for major weapons systems, in January 2010, the administration notified Congress of its intent to sell Taiwan various defensive weapons, valued at $6.4 billion, including Blackhawk helicopters and Patriot missiles. Taiwan adheres to the principles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has stated that it does not intend to produce nuclear weapons.

FOREIGN RELATIONS The People's Republic of China replaced Taiwan at the in 1971, and Taiwan's diplomatic position has continued to erode, as many countries changed their official recognition from Taipei to Beijing. As of June 2011, Taiwan had formal diplomatic ties with 23 countries. At the same time, Taiwan has cultivated informal ties with most countries to offset its diplomatic isolation and to expand its economic relations. Many nations have set up unofficial organizations to carry out commercial and other relations with Taiwan. Including its official overseas missions and its unofficial representative and/or trade offices, Taiwan is represented in 122 countries. During the administration of President Chen, Taiwan lobbied strongly for admission into the United Nations and other international organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO). The P.R.C. opposes Taiwan's membership in such organizations, most of which require statehood for membership, because it considers Taiwan to be a part of its territory, not a separate sovereign state. The administration of President Ma has called for a "diplomatic truce" with Beijing, under which Taiwan would retain its existing diplomatic allies but not seek to win over countries that recognize the P.R.C. The Ma administration also hopes to expand Taiwan's "international space," increasing its participation in international organizations, such as the WHO, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Civil Aviation Administration (ICAO).

U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS On January 1, 1979, the United States changed its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique that announced the change, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The Joint Communique also stated that within this context the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan.

On April 10, 1979, President Carter signed into law the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which created domestic legal authority for the conduct of unofficial relations with Taiwan. U.S. commercial, cultural, and other interaction with the people on Taiwan is facilitated through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private nonprofit corporation. The Institute has its headquarters in the Washington, DC area and has offices in Taipei and Kaohsiung. It is authorized to issue visas, accept passport applications, and provide assistance to U.S. citizens in Taiwan. A counterpart organization, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO), has been established by the Taiwan authorities. It has its headquarters in Taipei, the representative branch office in Washington, DC, and 12 other Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices (TECO) in the continental U.S. and Guam. The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) continues to provide the legal basis for the unofficial relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan, and enshrines the U.S. commitment to assisting Taiwan maintain its defensive capability.

Following de-recognition, the United States terminated its Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. However, the United States has continued the sale of appropriate defensive military equipment to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides for such sales and which declares that peace and stability in the area are in U.S. interests. Sales of defensive military equipment are also consistent with the 1982 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique.

The United States position on Taiwan is reflected in the Three Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The U.S. insists on the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences and encourages dialogue to help advance such an outcome. The U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. President George W. Bush stated on December 9, 2003 that the United States is opposed to any attempt by either side to unilaterally alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. While the United States welcomes recent exchanges that enhance channels of communication between leaders in Beijing and Taipei, the United States urges Beijing and Taipei to further advance cross-Strait cooperation and dialogue, including direct discussions between the authorities in Beijing and elected leaders in Taipei.

U.S. commercial ties with Taiwan have been maintained and have expanded since 1979. Taiwan continues to enjoy Export-Import Bank financing, Overseas Private Investment Corporation guarantees, normal trade relations (NTR) status, and ready access to U.S. markets. In recent years, AIT commercial dealings with Taiwan have focused on expanding market access for American goods and services. AIT has been engaged in a series of trade discussions, which have focused on protection of intellectual property rights and market access for U.S. goods and services.

Maintaining diplomatic relations with the P.R.C. has been recognized to be in the long-term interest of the United States by seven consecutive administrations; however, maintaining strong, unofficial relations with Taiwan also a major U.S. goal, in line with our desire to further peace and stability in Asia. In keeping with our one-China policy, the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence, but it does support Taiwan's membership in appropriate international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and the Asian Development Bank, where statehood is not a requirement for membership. In addition, the U.S. supports Taiwan's meaningful participation in appropriate international organizations where its membership is not possible.

U.S. Representative Offices American Institute in Taiwan Washington Headquarters Suite 1700, 1700 North Moore Street Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703-525-8474 Fax: 703-841-1385

American Institute in Taiwan Taipei Office No. 7, Lane 134, Hsin Yi Road Section 3, Taipei, Taiwan Tel: 011-886-2-2162-2000 Fax: 011-886-2-2162-2239

American Institute in Taiwan Kaohsiung Office 5F, No. 2, Chung Cheng 3rd Road Kaohsiung, Taiwan 800 Tel: 011-886-7-238-7744 Fax: 011-886-7-238-5237

Taiwan Representative Office Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) 4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016-2137 Tel: 202-895-1800 Fax: 202-895-0825

TRAVEL AND BUSINESS INFORMATION Travel Alerts, Travel Warnings, Trip Registration The U.S. Department of State's Consular Information Program advises Americans traveling and residing abroad through Country Specific Information, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings. Country Specific Information exists for all countries and includes information on entry and exit requirements, currency regulations, health conditions, safety and security, crime, political disturbances, and the addresses of the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Travel Alerts are issued to disseminate information quickly about terrorist threats and other relatively short-term conditions overseas that pose significant risks to the security of American travelers. Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid travel to a certain country because the situation is dangerous or unstable.

For the latest security information, Americans living and traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet web site at http://travel.state.gov, where current Worldwide Caution, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings can be found. The travel.state.gov website also includes information about passports, tips for planning a safe trip abroad and more. More travel-related information also is available at http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Travel/International.shtml.

The Department's Smart Traveler app for U.S. travelers going abroad provides easy access to the frequently updated official country information, travel alerts, travel warnings, maps, U.S. embassy locations, and more that appear on the travel.state.gov site. Travelers can also set up e-tineraries to keep track of arrival and departure dates and make notes about upcoming trips. The app is compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad (requires iOS 4.0 or later).

The Department of State encourages all U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad to enroll in the State Department's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). A link to the registration page is also available through the Department's Smart Traveler app. U.S. citizens without internet access can enroll directly at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. By enrolling, you make your presence and whereabouts known in case it is necessary to contact you in an emergency and so you can receive up-to-date information on security conditions.

Emergency information concerning Americans traveling abroad may be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the U.S. and Canada or the regular toll line 1-202-501-4444 for callers outside the U.S. and Canada.

Passports The National Passport Information Center (NPIC) is the U.S. Department of State's single, centralized public contact center for U.S. passport information. Telephone: 1-877-4-USA- PPT (1-877-487-2778); TDD/TTY: 1-888-874-7793. Passport information is available 24 hours, 7 days a week. You may speak with a representative Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., Eastern Time, excluding federal holidays.

Health Information Travelers can check the latest health information with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, . A hotline at 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) and a web site at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/default.aspx give the most recent health advisories, immunization recommendations or requirements, and advice on food and drinking water safety for regions and countries. The CDC publication "Health Information for International Travel" can be found at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/contentYellowBook.aspx.

More Electronic Information Department of State Web Site. Available on the Internet at http://www.state.gov, the Department of State web site provides timely, global access to official U.S. foreign policy information, including more Background Notes, the Department's daily press briefings along with the directory of key officers of Foreign Service posts and more. The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) provides security information and regional news that impact U.S. companies working abroad through its website http://www.osac.gov

Export.gov provides a portal to all export-related assistance and market information offered by the federal government and provides trade leads, free export counseling, help with the export process, and more. Mobile Sources. Background Notes are available on mobile devices at http://m.state.gov/mc36882.htm, or use the QR code below.

In addition, a mobile version of the Department's http://www.state.gov website is available at http://m.state.gov, or use the QR code below. Included on this site are Top Stories, remarks and speeches by Secretary Clinton, Daily Press Briefings, Country Information, and more. Background Note: Brazil

Official Name: Federative Republic of Brazil

PROFILE

Geography Area: 8,511,965 sq. km. (3,290,000 sq. mi.); slightly smaller than the U.S. Cities: Capital--Brasilia (pop. 2.5 million). Other cities--Sao Paulo (11.2 million), Rio de Janeiro (6.3 million), Belo Horizonte (2.4 million), Salvador (2.7 million), Fortaleza (2.4 million), Curitiba (1.7 million), Recife (1.5 million), Porto Alegre (1.4 million). Terrain: Dense forests in northern regions including Amazon Basin; semiarid along northeast coast; mountains, hills, and rolling plains in the southwest, including Mato Grosso; midwestern savannahs; the world's largest wetland area; and coastal lowland. Climate: Mostly tropical or semitropical with temperate zone in the south.

People Nationality: Brazilian. Population (2010): 190 million. Annual population growth rate: 1.17%. Ethnic groups: African, Portuguese, Italian, German, Spanish, Japanese, indigenous peoples, and people of Middle Eastern descent. Religion: Roman Catholic (74%). Language: Portuguese. Education: Literacy (2009)--90.3% of adult population. Health: Infant mortality rate (2009)--22.5/1,000. Life expectancy (2010)--73.1 years. Work force (2009 est.): 101.7 million.

Government Type: Federative republic. Independence: September 7, 1822. Constitution: Promulgated October 5, 1988. Branches: Executive--president (chief of state and head of government popularly elected to no more than two 4-year terms). Legislative--Senate (81 members popularly elected to staggered 8-year terms), Chamber of Deputies (513 members popularly elected to 4-year terms). Judicial--Supreme Federal Tribunal (11 lifetime positions appointed by the president). Political parties: Workers' Party (PT), Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB), Democrats (DEM), Democratic Labor Party (PDT), Brazilian Labor Party (PTB), Party of the Republic (PR), Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), Communist Party of Brazil (PC do B), Progressive Party (PP), Social Democratic Party (PSD), Popular Socialist Party (PPS), Green Party (PV), Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL), National Mobilization Party (PMN), Humanistic Solidarity Party (PHS), Brazilian Republican Party (PRB), Christian Social Party (PSC), Christian Labor Party (PTC), Labor Party of Brazil (PT do B), Brazilian Communist Party (PCB), and Brazilian Labor Renewal Party (PRTB).

Economy (2011 est.) GDP (nominal exchange rate): $2.5 trillion. GDP (purchasing power parity): $2.3 trillion. Annual real growth (2011 est.): 3.5%. Per capita GDP (nominal exchange rate): $12,917. Per capita GDP (purchasing power parity): $11,845. Natural resources: Iron ore, manganese, bauxite, nickel, uranium, gemstones, oil, wood, and aluminum. Brazil has 14% of the world's renewable fresh water. Agriculture (6% of GDP): Products--soybeans, coffee, sugarcane, cocoa, rice, livestock, corn, oranges, cotton, wheat, and tobacco. Industry (28% of GDP): Types--steel, commercial aircraft, chemicals, petrochemicals, footwear, machinery, motors, vehicles, auto parts, consumer durables, cement, and lumber. Services (66% of GDP): Types--mail, telecommunications, banking, energy, commerce, and computing. Trade: Trade balance (2011)--$20 billion surplus. Exports--$202 billion. Major markets-- China 15%, United States 10%, Argentina 9%. Imports--$182 billion. Major suppliers-- United States 15%, China 14%, and Argentina 8%. Exchange rate (October 3, 2011): U.S. $1 = 1.75 Brazilian reais.

PEOPLE AND HISTORY With its 190 million inhabitants, Brazil has the largest population in Latin America and ranks fifth in the world. The majority of people live in the south-central area, which includes the industrial cities of Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Belo Horizonte. Brazil underwent rapid urban growth; by 2005, 81% of the total population was living in urban areas. This growth aids economic development but also creates serious social, security, environmental, and political problems for major cities.

Six major groups make up the Brazilian population: the Portuguese, who colonized Brazil in the 16th century; Africans brought to Brazil as slaves; various other European, Middle Eastern, and Japanese and other Asian immigrant groups who settled in Brazil since the mid- 19th century; and indigenous peoples of Tupi and Guarani language stock. Intermarriage between the Portuguese and indigenous people or slaves was common. Although the major European ethnic stock of Brazil was originally Portuguese, subsequent waves of immigration contributed to a diverse ethnic and cultural heritage.

From 1875 until 1960, about 5 million Europeans immigrated to Brazil, settling mainly in the four southern states of Sao Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul. Immigrants came mainly from Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan, , and the Middle East. The largest Japanese community outside Japan is in Sao Paulo. Despite class distinctions, national identity is strong. Brazil prides itself on being open to all races. It recently began a national conversation on racial equality and entered into a memorandum of understanding with the United States on addressing racial inequality. Indigenous people, located mainly in the northern and western border regions and in the upper Amazon Basin, make up less than 1% of the population. Their numbers are declining as contact with the outside world and commercial expansion into the interior increase. Brazilian Government programs to establish indigenous reservations and to provide other forms of assistance for these groups have existed for years but are controversial.

Brazil is the only Portuguese-speaking nation in the Americas. About three-quarters of all Brazilians belong to the Roman Catholic Church; most others are members of traditional Protestant denominations, members of growing evangelical movements, or follow practices derived from African .

Pedro Alvares Cabral claimed Brazil for Portugal in 1500. The colony was ruled from Lisbon until 1808, when Dom Joao VI and the rest of the Portuguese royal family fled from Napoleon's army, and established its seat of government in Rio de Janeiro. Dom Joao VI returned to Portugal in 1821. His son declared Brazil's independence on September 7, 1822, and became emperor with the title of Dom Pedro I. His son, Dom Pedro II, ruled from 1831 to 1889, when a federal republic was established in a coup led by Deodoro da Fonseca, Marshal of the Army. Slavery had been abolished a year earlier by the Princess Regent Isabel while Dom Pedro II was in Europe.

From 1889 to 1930, the government was a constitutional republic, with the presidency alternating between the dominant states of Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais. This period ended with a military coup that placed Getulio Vargas, a civilian, in the presidency; Vargas remained as dictator until 1945. Between 1945 and 1961, Brazil had six presidents: Jose Linhares, Gaspar Dutra, Vargas himself, Cafe Filho, Carlos Luz, Nereu Ramos, Juscelino Kubitschek, and Janio Quadros. When Quadros resigned in 1961, Vice President Joao Goulart succeeded him.

Goulart's years in office were marked by high inflation, economic stagnation, and the increasing influence of radical political elements. The armed forces, alarmed by these developments, staged a coup on March 31, 1964. The coup leaders chose Humberto Castello Branco as president, followed by Arthur da Costa e Silva (1967-69), Emilio Garrastazu Medici (1969-74), and Ernesto Geisel (1974-79), all of whom were senior army officers. Geisel began a democratic opening that was continued by his successor, Gen. Joao Baptista de Oliveira Figueiredo (1979-85). Figueiredo permitted the return of politicians exiled or banned from political activity during the 1960s and 1970s and allowed them to run for state and federal offices in 1982.

Concurrently, an electoral college consisting of all members of Congress and six delegates chosen from each state continued to choose the president. In January 1985, the electoral college voted Tancredo Neves from the opposition Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) into office as President. Neves died 39 days later, before his presidential inauguration, from abdominal complications. Vice President Jose Sarney became President upon Neves' death. Brazil completed its transition to a popularly elected government in 1989, when Fernando Collor de Mello won 53% of the vote in the first direct presidential election in 29 years. In 1992, a major corruption scandal led to his and, ultimately, resignation. Vice President Itamar Franco took his place and governed for the remainder of Collor's term.

To date, all democratically elected presidents that followed Itamar Franco started and finished their mandate with no interruptions in the constitutional order. On October 3, 1994 Fernando Henrique Cardoso was elected President with 54% of the vote. Cardoso took office January 1, 1995, and pursued a program of ambitious economic reform. He was re-elected in 1998 for a second 4-year term. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, commonly known as Lula, was elected president in 2002, after his fourth campaign for the office. He was re-elected in 2006 for a second 4-year term. President Lula, a former union leader, was Brazil's first working- class president. In office, he took a prudent fiscal path, warning that social reforms would take years and that Brazil had no alternative but to maintain tight fiscal austerity policies. At the same time, he made fighting poverty through conditional transfer payments an important element of his policies.

In October 2010, Brazil held its sixth consecutive presidential and general elections since the reinstatement of democracy in 1985. About 130 million Brazilians, two-thirds of the country‘s population, were eligible to vote, a mandatory civic duty. Up for election were the President, the governors of all 26 states and of the federal district of Brasília; all 513 federal deputies; 54 senators (two-thirds of the total); and 1,057 delegates to the 27 state assemblies.

Dilma Vana Rousseff, the Workers' Party (PT) candidate, won a runoff election against the Brazilian Social Democratic Party candidate, becoming the first woman president of Brazil. President Rousseff had previously served as the Minister of Mines and Energy and as the Chief of Cabinet in President Lula‘s administration. Rousseff took office on January 1, 2011 and has prioritized growth with equity policies to eradicate poverty and fiscal austerity. She has been a vocal defender of human rights and promoter of social inclusion, most notably gender equality, and is generally seen as a strong advocate for transparency in government. Within the first year of her government, several cabinet ministers resigned at Rousseff's urging due to accusations of graft.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS Brazil is a federal republic with 26 states and a federal district. The 1988 constitution grants broad powers to the federal government, made up of executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The president holds office for 4 years, with the right to re-election for an additional 4-year term, and appoints the cabinet. There are 81 senators, three for each state and the Federal District, and 513 deputies. Senate terms are 8 years, staggered so that two-thirds of the upper house is up for election at one time and one-third 4 years later. Chamber terms are 4 years, with elections based on a complex system of proportional representation by states. Each state is eligible for a minimum of eight seats; the largest state delegation (Sao Paulo's) is capped at 70 seats. This system is weighted in favor of geographically large but sparsely populated states.

Several political parties are represented in Congress. Since representatives to the lower house might switch parties, the proportion of congressional seats held by particular parties can change. Brazil's major political parties include:

Workers' Party (PT-center-left) Democrats (DEM-center-right) Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB-center) Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB-center) Green Party (PV-center-left) Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL-left) Brazilian Labor Party (PTB-center-right) Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB-center-left) Democratic Labor Party (PDT-center-left) Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB-left) Progressive Party (PP-center-right) Party of the Republic (PR-center-right) Brazilian Republican Party (PRB-center) Christian Social Party (PSC-center) Social Democratic Party (PSD-center-right)

Chief of State and Cabinet Members President--Dilma Vana Rousseff Vice President--Michel Miguel Elias Temer Lulia Minister-Chief Casa Civil (Chief of Staff)--Gleisi Helena Hoffmann Minister of Defense--Celso Amorim Minister of Development, Industry, and Trade--Fernando Damata Pimentel Minister of Finance--Guido Mantega Minister of Foreign Affairs--Antonio de Aguiar Patriota Minister of Justice--Jose Eduardo Cardozo Minister of the Environment--Izabella Teixeira Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply--Mendes Ribeiro Minister of Mines and Energy--Edison Lobao

Ambassador to the United States--Mauro Vieira Ambassador to the United Nations--Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti Ambassador to the OAS--Ruy de Lima Casaes e Silva

Brazil maintains an embassy in the United States at 3006 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008 (tel. 202-238-2700). Brazil has consulates general in New York, , , Miami, Houston, Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco, Hartford, and Washington, DC.

ECONOMY The Brazilian economy‘s solid performance during the 2008 financial crisis and its strong and early recovery, including 2010 growth of 7.5%, have contributed to the country‘s transition from a regional to a global power. Expected to grow 3.5% in 2011 and 4.0% in 2012, the economy is the world‘s seventh-largest and is expected to rise to fifth within the next several years. During the administration of former President Lula, surging exports, economic growth, and social programs helped lift tens of millions of Brazilians out of poverty. For the first time, a majority of Brazilians are now middle-class, and domestic consumption has become an important driver of Brazilian growth. President Dilma Rousseff, who took office in January 2011, has indicated her intention to continue the former president‘s economic policies, including sound fiscal management, inflation control, and a floating exchange rate.

Low unemployment and strong domestic demand pushed 12-month inflation to 7.3% through the first three quarters of 2011, above the upper limit of the government‘s target of 2.5%- 6.5%. The central bank believes, however, that the global economic downturn will dampen inflationary pressure and projects inflation to fall within the target band by the end of 2011 and throughout 2012. Concerns regarding global economic conditions drove the central bank to reduce interest rates from 12.5% to 12%, the first such rate decrease since mid-2009, to keep domestic consumption high. Prolonged high interest rates have attracted foreign currency inflows that have driven up the value of the currency (the real) by nearly 30% since the start of 2009. In an effort to limit the appreciation, the government had increased dollar reserves and introduced capital controls.

Brazil is generally open to and encourages foreign investment. It is the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Latin America, and the United States is traditionally the top foreign investor in Brazil. Since domestic savings are not sufficient to sustain long-term high growth rates, Brazil must continue to attract FDI, especially as the government plans to invest billions of dollars in off-shore oil, nuclear power, and other infrastructure sectors over the next few years. The major international athletic competitions that Brazil will host every year until the 2016 Rio Olympics are also leading the government to invest in roads, airports, sports facilities, and other areas.

Trade Policy President Rousseff has made economic growth and poverty alleviation top priorities. Export promotion is a main component of plans to generate growth and reduce what is seen as a vulnerability to international financial market fluctuations. To increase exports, the government is seeking access to foreign markets through trade negotiations and increased export promotion, including tax breaks for exporters.

Brazil has been a leading player in the World Trade Organization‘s Doha Round negotiations and continues to seek to bring that effort to successful conclusion. To further increase its international profile (both economically and politically), the Rousseff administration is also seeking expanded trade ties with developing countries, as well as a strengthening of the Mercosul (Mercosur in Spanish) customs union with Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina. In 2008, Mercosul concluded a free trade arrangement with Israel, followed by another arrangement with in 2010. Mercosul is pursuing free trade negotiations with and Canada and resumed trade negotiations with the EU. This trade bloc also plans to launch trilateral free trade negotiations with India and , building on partial trade liberalization agreements concluded with these countries in 2004. China has significantly increased its purchases of Brazilian soy, iron ore, and steel in recent years, becoming Brazil's principal export market and an important source of investment.

Agriculture Agriculture is a major sector of the Brazilian economy, and is key for economic growth and foreign exchange. Agriculture accounts for about 6% of GDP (25% when including agribusiness) and 36% of Brazilian exports. Brazil enjoyed a positive agricultural trade balance of $55 billion in 2009. Brazil is the world's largest producer of sugarcane, coffee, tropical fruits, frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ), and has the world's largest commercial cattle herd (50% larger than that of the U.S.) at 170 million animals. Brazil is also an important producer of soybeans (second to the United States), corn, cotton, cocoa, tobacco, and forest products. The remainder of agricultural output is in the livestock sector, mainly the production of beef and poultry (second to the United States), pork, milk, and seafood.

Environment, Science, and Technology About half of Brazil is covered in forests, and Brazil has the majority of the world's largest rain forest, the Amazon. A little less than 40% of the Amazon, and to a lesser extent the Cerrado (tropical savannah), is managed by national, state, or municipal governments, either as conservation units, forest concessions, or officially designated indigenous lands. In the last 30 years, migration into the Amazon and the conversion of forest land, primarily for agricultural use, reduced forest cover in the Brazilian Amazon by 20%. Through initiatives such as the revitalization of degraded pastures and forest, agriculture, and livestock integration, the government made progress in reducing deforestation for agricultural use. However, deforestation due to illegal logging remains a serious problem. In 2006, the government created the Brazilian Forest Service with the aim to manage the Amazon forest resources in a sustainable manner.

Including emissions from deforestation, Brazil is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. As part of its domestic commitments on climate change incorporated into legislation in 2010, Brazil inscribed a target of reducing emissions by 36.1%-38.9% below business as usual by 2020. This commitment includes further reductions in deforestation rates as well as advances on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Brazil also created a National Climate Change Fund, the country‘s primary means for financing national climate change policies.

Figures from 2010 demonstrated that Brazil had reduced the rate of Amazon deforestation by more than 70%, its lowest rate of deforestation in over 20 years. Government officials predict that, at the current pace, Brazil‘s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 36.1%-38.9% could be reached by 2016 rather than 2020. Brazil also increased its programs in other biomes at risk for significant deforestation. At COP-16 in December 2010 in Cancun, the Brazilian Government delegation played an important role in developing a characterization of country commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the central outcome of the conference. These commitments could enable Protocol proponents to continue into a second commitment period.

Brazil is a regional leader in science and technology and a global leader in fields such as biofuels, agricultural research, deep-sea oil production, and remote sensing. The Brazilian Government seeks to develop an environment that is more supportive of innovation, taking scientific advances from the laboratory to the marketplace in order to promote economic growth. Yet it still faces some challenges. With the vast majority of the population living in urban areas, Brazil faces serious environmental obstacles in providing potable water to its citizens and removing and treating their waste water.

U.S. Government, private sector, and academic researchers have extensive ties with Brazilian counterparts. Areas in which there is close cooperation include biofuels, medical research, remote sensing, and agriculture. The extent of bilateral scientific and technological cooperation is expanding and prospective areas in which to expand include advanced materials, telecommunications, energy transmission, and energy efficiency. Limitations to cooperation include substantial restrictions on foreign researchers collecting or studying biological materials, due to concerns over possible unauthorized taking and commercialization of genetic resources or traditional knowledge of indigenous communities (often referred to as "biopiracy").

Other Aspects Brazil has one of the most advanced industrial sectors in Latin America. Accounting for roughly one-third of the GDP, Brazil's diverse industries include automobiles and parts, machinery and equipment, textiles, shoes, cement, computers, aircraft, and consumer durables. Brazil continues to be a major world supplier of commodities and natural resources, with significant operations in lumber, iron ore, tin, other minerals, and petrochemicals. Brazil has a diverse and sophisticated services industry as well, including developed telecommunications, banking, energy, commerce, and computing sectors. The financial sector is secure and provides local firms with a wide range of financial products, yet interest rates remain among the highest in the world. The largest financial firms are Brazilian (and the two largest banks are government-owned), but U.S. and other foreign firms have an important share of the market.

Government-initiated privatization after 1996 triggered a flood of investors in the telecom, energy, and transportation sectors. Privatization in the transportation sector has been particularly active over the last 20 years. Many antiquated and burdensome state management structures that operated in the sector were dismantled, though some still exist. The Brazilian railroad industry was privatized through concession contracts ranging from 30 to 60 years, and the ports sector is experiencing similar, albeit less expansive, privatization. In response to the dramatic deterioration in the national highway system, the federal government granted concessions for existing highways to private companies, which in turn promise to restore, maintain, and expand these highways in exchange for toll revenues generated. New opportunities are expected to arise with the opening of Brazilian civil airports to private management and investment through a federal concession model, but the initiative faces obstacles due to questions surrounding and opposition from airport unions. The United States and Brazil signed an Air Services Liberalization Agreement in 2008 that increased commercial air travel between the two countries. In 2010, they initialed an air transportation agreement and an air transportation memorandum of understanding that, when they are signed and enter into force, will continue and expand this process.

The Government of Brazil undertook an ambitious program to reduce dependence on imported oil. In the mid-1980s, imports accounted for more than 70% of Brazil's oil and derivatives needs; the net figure is now zero. Brazil announced in early 2008 the discovery of pre-salt oil fields off the coast of Brazil. The oil reserves in these fields are conservatively estimated at between 30 billion and 80 billion barrels, which would make Brazil one of the top 10 countries worldwide in reserves. Output from the existing Campos Basin and the discovery of the new fields could make Brazil a significant oil exporter by 2015. Brazil is one of the world's leading producers of hydroelectric power. Of its total installed electricity- generation capacity of 112,000 megawatts, hydropower accounts for 77,000 megawatts (69%). Brazil is also one of the world‘s largest biofuels producers, and sugar-based ethanol comprises over 50% of its vehicle fuel usage. Brazil and the United States, as the world‘s largest biofuels producers, have worked jointly through a 2007 memorandum of understanding to help make sustainable biofuels a global commodity. In 2011, that memorandum was subsumed under the Strategic Energy Dialogue, a partnership announced by President Rousseff and President Barack Obama when the latter visited Brazil in March.

Like its supply of carbon-based fossil fuels, Brazil‘s proven mineral resources are extensive. Large iron and manganese reserves are important sources of industrial raw materials and export earnings. Mining companies, most of them Brazilian, tend to prefer to explore the deposits of nickel, tin, chromite, bauxite, beryllium, copper, lead, tungsten, zinc, gold, and other minerals. High-quality, coking-grade coal required in the steel industry is in short supply.

FOREIGN RELATIONS Brazil has traditionally been a leader in the inter-American community. It has played an important role in collective security efforts, as well as in economic cooperation in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil supported the Allies in both World Wars. During World War II, its expeditionary force in Italy played a key role in the Allied victory at Monte Castello. It is a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) and a party to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty). Recently, Brazil has given high priority to expanding relations with its South American neighbors and is a founding member of the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI); the Union of South American Nations (UNASUL) created in June 2004; and Mercosul, the customs union of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil, with Chile, , , , and as associate members; Venezuela's full membership is pending.

Brazil is a charter member of the United Nations and participates in its specialized agencies. It has contributed troops to UN peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East, the of the Congo, Cyprus, Mozambique, , East Timor, and most recently Haiti. Brazil is currently leading the UN peacekeeping force in Haiti. In 2010-2011, Brazil served as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. Prior to this, it had been a member of the UN Security Council nine times. Brazil is seeking a permanent position on the Council.

As Brazil's domestic economy has grown and diversified, the country has become increasingly involved in international economic and trade policy discussions. For example, Brazil was a leader of the G-20 group of nations and in 2009 became a creditor country to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The U.S., Western Europe, and Japan are primary markets for Brazilian exports and sources of foreign lending and investment. China is a growing market for Brazilian exports. Brazil also bolstered its commitment to nonproliferation through ratification of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signing a full-scale nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), acceding to the Treaty of Tlatelolco, and joining the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

U.S.-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS The United States and Brazil have traditionally enjoyed friendly, active relations encompassing a broad political and economic agenda. The excellent bilateral relationship was foreshadowed when United States was the first country to recognize Brazil's independence in 1822. Since then, deepening U.S.-Brazil engagement and cooperation are reflected in high- level contacts between the two governments. Most recently, there have been reciprocal visits by President George W. Bush and President Lula in March 2007, President Obama's visit to Brazil in March 2011, and six other cabinet-level and cabinet-rank visits in the first part of 2011. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the January 1, 2011 inauguration of President Dilma Rousseff.

As the two largest democracies and economies in the Western Hemisphere, the U.S. and Brazil are in the process of consolidating the foundation for a new partnership for the 21st century. In the aftermath of President Obama‘s March 2011 visit, a series of cabinet-level dialogues were created or reinvigorated. The second annual Global Partnership Dialogue, chaired by Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota, met in Washington, DC in June 2011 and was followed by the Economic and Financial Dialogue in July and the Strategic Energy Dialogue in August. These dialogues are the primary vehicles for policy coordination and for defining partnership priorities.

The 10 agreements signed between the U.S. and Brazil at the time of President Obama‘s 2011 visit testify to an intensification of bilateral engagement in a broad range of areas that involve major interests of both countries. The formal intergovernmental dialogues involve multiple U.S. and Brazilian agencies that report directly to both presidents on issues relating to politics, economics, trade, finance, agriculture, energy, technology, innovation, the environment, defense, and nonproliferation.

Bilateral relations are complemented by people-to-people initiatives and trilateral and multilateral cooperation. To foster and increase the existing goodwill and understanding between the people of the United States and Brazil, 50,000 Brazilian secondary and post- secondary students will be selected by the Brazilian Government for exchange programs in United States in the next 5 years. The United States and Brazil also undertake trilateral cooperation in third countries, particularly in support of development programs focused on food security, health, and women‘s rights. To facilitate such programs, a memorandum of understanding to advance trilateral cooperation was signed in March 2011 during President Obama‘s trip to Brazil. Multilaterally, the closeness of U.S.-Brazil relations is evidenced by the launch of the Open Government Partnership on the margins of the 2011 UN General Assembly, in which Brazil and the U.S. head a multi-country initiative to foster transparency.

In addition to recently signed initiatives and periodic meetings, the governments of Brazil and the United States have a long-standing collaboration on biofuels and eliminating racial discrimination. Under the memorandum of understanding signed in 2007, Brazil and the U.S. have worked together to advance biofuels cooperation, both bilaterally and globally. In March 2008, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Brazil and signed a historic Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Discrimination and Promote Equality. The plan calls for Brazil and the United States to work jointly in combating racial discrimination and sharing best practices in tackling discrimination in the areas of education, law enforcement, labor, health, and many other areas. There has been cooperation on trilateral development programs in Mozambique in the health sector and food security, with plans or programs extending this cooperation to additional countries in Africa, Haiti, and .

U.S. Embassy and Consulate Functions The U.S. embassy and consulates in Brazil provide a wide range of services to U.S. citizens and business. Political, economic, and science officers deal directly with the Brazilian Government in advancing U.S. interests but are also available to brief U.S. citizens on general conditions in the country. Attaches from the U.S. Commercial Service and Foreign Agriculture Service work closely with hundreds of U.S. companies that maintain offices in Brazil. These officers provide information on Brazilian trade and industry regulations and administer several programs to aid U.S. companies starting or maintaining business ventures in Brazil. The number of trade events and U.S. companies traveling to Brazil to participate in U.S. Commercial Service and Foreign Agriculture Service programs tripled over the last 3 years.

The consular section of the embassy, the consulates, and the consular agents provide vital services to the estimated 70,000 U.S. citizens residing in Brazil. Among other services, the consular sections assist Americans who wish to participate in U.S. elections while abroad and provide U.S. tax information. Besides the U.S. residents living in Brazil, some 150,000 U.S. citizens visit annually. The consular sections offer passport and emergency services to U.S. tourists as needed during their stay in Brazil. The U.S. Mission in Brazil is the third-largest visa operation in the world, issuing over 820,000 visas in FY 2011. The consulate in Sao Paulo is the largest non-immigrant visa issuing post, conducting over 3,000 visa interviews a day. It is expected that Brazilian travel to the U.S. will increase 198% by 2015. Brazilian tourists spent $4.57 billion in the U.S. economy in 2009.

Principal U.S. Embassy Officials Ambassador--Thomas A. Shannon Deputy Chief of Mission--Todd Chapman Defense Attache--Colonel Samuel Prugh, U.S. Army Consul General--Donald Jacobson Economic Counselor--James Dudley Agricultural Counselor--Robert Hoff Commercial Attache--Devin Rambo Political Counselor--Ricardo Zuniga Science Counselor--Stefanie Amadeo Public Affairs Counselor--John Matel Consul General in Sao Paulo--William Popp (Acting) Consul General in Rio de Janeiro--Dennis Hearne Principal Officer in Recife--Usha Pitts

The U.S. Embassy in Brasilia is located at SES Avenida das Nacoes, quadra 801, lote 3, Brasilia, DF, CEP: 70.403-900 (tel. 55-61-3312-7000), (fax 55-61-3225-9136). Internet: http://brazil.usembassy.gov/.

U.S. consulates general are in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, and a consulate is in Recife. Consular agents are located in Manaus, Belem, Salvador, Fortaleza, and Porto Alegre. Branch offices of the U.S. Foreign Commercial Services are located in Brasilia, Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Belo Horizonte.

Other Business Contacts U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Latin America and the Caribbean International Trade Administration 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Tel: 202-482-0428 1-800-USA-TRADE Fax: 202-482-4157 Automated fax service for trade-related info: 202-482-4464

American Chamber of Commerce of Sao Paulo Rua da Paz, No. 1431 04713-001 - Chacara Santo Antonio Sao Paulo - SP, Brazil Tel: 55-11-51-803-804 Fax: 55-11-51-803-777 E-mail: [email protected]

American Chamber of Commerce of Rio de Janeiro Praca Pio X-15, 5th Floor Caixa Postal 916 20040 Rio de Janeiro--RJ-Brazil Tel: 55-21-2203-2477 Fax: 55-21-2263-4477 E-mail: [email protected]

TRAVEL AND BUSINESS INFORMATION Travel Alerts, Travel Warnings, Trip Registration The U.S. Department of State's Consular Information Program advises Americans traveling and residing abroad through Country Specific Information, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings. Country Specific Information exists for all countries and includes information on entry and exit requirements, currency regulations, health conditions, safety and security, crime, political disturbances, and the addresses of the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Travel Alerts are issued to disseminate information quickly about terrorist threats and other relatively short-term conditions overseas that pose significant risks to the security of American travelers. Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid travel to a certain country because the situation is dangerous or unstable.

For the latest security information, Americans living and traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet web site at http://travel.state.gov, where current Worldwide Caution, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings can be found. The travel.state.gov website also includes information about passports, tips for planning a safe trip abroad and more. More travel-related information also is available at http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Travel/International.shtml.

The Department's Smart Traveler app for U.S. travelers going abroad provides easy access to the frequently updated official country information, travel alerts, travel warnings, maps, U.S. embassy locations, and more that appear on the travel.state.gov site. Travelers can also set up e-tineraries to keep track of arrival and departure dates and make notes about upcoming trips. The app is compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad (requires iOS 4.0 or later).

The Department of State encourages all U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad to enroll in the State Department's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). A link to the registration page is also available through the Department's Smart Traveler app. U.S. citizens without internet access can enroll directly at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. By enrolling, you make your presence and whereabouts known in case it is necessary to contact you in an emergency and so you can receive up-to-date information on security conditions.

Emergency information concerning Americans traveling abroad may be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the U.S. and Canada or the regular toll line 1-202-501-4444 for callers outside the U.S. and Canada.

Passports The National Passport Information Center (NPIC) is the U.S. Department of State's single, centralized public contact center for U.S. passport information. Telephone: 1-877-4-USA- PPT (1-877-487-2778); TDD/TTY: 1-888-874-7793. Passport information is available 24 hours, 7 days a week. You may speak with a representative Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., Eastern Time, excluding federal holidays.

Health Information Travelers can check the latest health information with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. A hotline at 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) and a web site at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/default.aspx give the most recent health advisories, immunization recommendations or requirements, and advice on food and drinking water safety for regions and countries. The CDC publication "Health Information for International Travel" can be found at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/contentYellowBook.aspx.

More Electronic Information Department of State Web Site. Available on the Internet at http://www.state.gov, the Department of State web site provides timely, global access to official U.S. foreign policy information, including more Background Notes, the Department's daily press briefings along with the directory of key officers of Foreign Service posts and more. The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) provides security information and regional news that impact U.S. companies working abroad through its website http://www.osac.gov

Export.gov provides a portal to all export-related assistance and market information offered by the federal government and provides trade leads, free export counseling, help with the export process, and more.

Mobile Sources. Background Notes are available on mobile devices at http://m.state.gov/mc36882.htm, or use the QR code below.

In addition, a mobile version of the Department's http://www.state.gov website is available at http://m.state.gov, or use the QR code below. Included on this site are Top Stories, remarks and speeches by Secretary Clinton, Daily Press Briefings, Country Information, and more.

Background Note: Mexico

Official Name: United Mexican States

PROFILE

Geography Area: 1,964,375 sq. km. (761,600 sq. mi.); about three times the size of Texas. Cities: Capital-- (22 million, estimate for metro area). Other major cities-- Guadalajara, Monterrey, Puebla, Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, Acapulco, Merida, Leon, Veracruz. Terrain: Coastal lowlands, central high plateaus, and mountains up to 5,400 m. (18,000 ft.). Climate: Tropical to desert.

People Nationality: Noun and adjective--Mexican(s). Population (July 2011 est.): 113,724,226. Annual population growth rate (2011 est.): 1.102%. Ethnic groups: Indian-Spanish (mestizo) 60%, Indian 30%, Caucasian 9%, other 1%. Religions (2000 census): Roman Catholic 76.5%, Protestant 6.3%, other 0.3%, unspecified 13.8%, none 3.1%. Language: Spanish. Education: Years compulsory--11 (note: preschool education was made mandatory in Dec. 2001). Literacy--91.4%. Health (2011): Infant mortality rate--17.29/1,000. Life expectancy--male 73.65 years; female 79.43 years. Work force (2010 est., 47 million): Agriculture--13.7%, industry--23.4%, services--62.9%.

Government Type: Federal republic. Independence: First proclaimed September 16, 1810; republic established 1824. Constitution: February 5, 1917. Branches: Executive--president (chief of state and head of government). Legislative-- bicameral. Judicial--Supreme Court, local and federal systems. Administrative subdivisions: 31 states and a federal district. Political parties: Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), National Action Party (PAN), Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), Green Ecological Party (PVEM), Labor Party (PT), and several small parties. Suffrage: Universal at 18.

Economy GDP (nominal): $1.04 trillion (2010); $876 billion (2009); $1.088 trillion (2008). GDP (purchasing power parity): $1.459 trillion (2009 est.); $1.550 trillion (2008). Per capita GDP (nominal, 2010): $9,395. Annual real GDP growth: 5.4% (2010); -6.1% (2009); 1.3% (2008). Natural resources: Petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber. Agriculture (5% of GDP): Products--corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, fruit, tomatoes, beef, poultry, dairy products, wood products. Industry (31% of GDP): Types--food and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables. Services (64% of GDP): Types--commerce and tourism, financial services, transportation and communications. Trade (goods): Exports (2010)--$298 billion f.o.b. Imports (2010)--$301 billion f.o.b. Exports to U.S. (2010)--$230 billion (80% of total). Imports from U.S. (2010)--$163 billion (50% of total). Major markets--U.S., EU (5% of total), South America (5% of total).

PEOPLE Mexico is the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world and the second most- populous country in Latin America after Portuguese-speaking Brazil. About 76% of the people live in urban areas. Many Mexicans emigrate from rural areas that lack job opportunities--such as the underdeveloped southern states and the crowded central plateau--to the industrialized urban centers and the developing areas along the U.S.-Mexico border. According to some estimates, the population of the area around Mexico City is nearly 22 million, which would make it the largest concentration of population in the Western Hemisphere. Cities bordering on the United States--such as Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez--and cities in the interior--such as Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Puebla--have undergone sharp rises in population in recent years.

Mexico has made great strides in improving access to education and literacy rates over the past few decades. According to a 2006 World Bank report, enrollment at the primary level is nearly universal, and more children are completing primary education. The average number of years of schooling for the population 15 years old and over was around 8 years during the 2004-2005 school year, a marked improvement on a decade earlier--when it was 6.8 years-- but low compared with other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

HISTORY Highly developed cultures, including those of the Olmecs, Mayas, Toltecs, and Aztecs, existed long before the Spanish conquest. Hernan Cortes conquered Mexico during the period 1519-21 and founded a Spanish colony that lasted nearly 300 years.

Independence from Spain was proclaimed by Father Miguel Hidalgo on September 16, 1810. Father Hidalgo's declaration of national independence, ―Viva Mexico!,‖ known in Mexico as the "Grito de Dolores," launched a decade-long struggle for independence from Spain. Prominent figures in Mexico's war for independence were: Father Jose Maria Morelos; Gen. Augustin de Iturbide, who defeated the Spaniards and ruled as Mexican emperor from 1822- 23; and Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, who went on to dominate Mexican politics from 1833 to 1855. An 1821 treaty recognized Mexican independence from Spain and called for a constitutional monarchy. The planned monarchy failed; a republic was proclaimed in December 1822 and established in 1824.

Throughout the rest of the 19th century, Mexico's government and economy were shaped by contentious debates among liberals and conservatives, republicans and monarchists, federalists and those who favored . During the four presidential terms of Benito Juarez (1858-72), Mexico experimented with modern democratic and economic reforms. President Juarez' terms in office and Mexico's early experience with democracy were interrupted by the invasion of French forces in early 1862. They imposed a monarchy on the country in the form of Hapsburg archduke Ferdinand Maximilian of Austria, who ruled as emperor from 1864-67. Liberal forces succeeded in overthrowing, and executing, the emperor in 1867 after which Juarez returned to office until his death in 1872. Following several weak governments, the authoritarian General Porfirio Diaz assumed office and was president during most of the period between 1877 and 1911.

Mexico's severe social and economic problems erupted in a revolution that lasted from 1910 until 1920 and gave rise to the 1917 constitution. Prominent leaders in this period--some of whom were rivals for power--were Francisco Madero, Venustiano Carranza, Pancho Villa, Alvaro Obregon, Victoriano Huerta, and Emiliano Zapata. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), formed in 1929 under a different name, emerged from the chaos of revolution as a vehicle for keeping political competition among a coalition of interests in peaceful channels. For 71 years, Mexico's national government was controlled by the PRI, which won every presidential race and most gubernatorial races until the July 2000 presidential election of Vicente Fox Quesada of the National Action Party (PAN), in what were widely considered at the time the freest and fairest elections in Mexico's history. President Fox completed his term on December 1, 2006, when Felipe Calderon, also of the PAN, assumed the presidency.

GOVERNMENT The 1917 constitution provides for a federal republic with powers separated into independent executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Historically, the executive has been the dominant branch, with power vested in the president, who promulgates and executes the laws of the Congress. The Congress has played an increasingly important role since 1997, when opposition parties first made major gains. The president also legislates by executive decree in certain economic and financial fields, using powers delegated by the Congress. The president is elected by universal adult suffrage for a 6-year term and may not hold office a second time. There is no vice president.

The Congress is comprised of a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. Consecutive re-election is prohibited. Senators are elected to 6-year terms, and deputies serve 3-year terms. The Senate's 128 seats are filled by a mixture of direct-election and proportional representation. In the lower chamber, 300 deputies are directly elected to represent single-member districts, and 200 are selected by a modified form of proportional representation from five electoral regions. The 200 proportional representation seats were created to help smaller parties gain access to the Chamber.

The judiciary is divided into federal and state court systems, with federal courts having over most civil cases and some major felonies. Under the constitution, trial and sentencing must be completed within 12 months of arrest for crimes that would carry at least a 2-year sentence. In practice, the judicial system often does not meet this requirement. Trial is by judge, not jury; however, Mexico is currently implementing an oral, adversarial justice system. Defendants have a right to counsel, and public defenders are available. Other rights include defense against self-incrimination, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a public trial. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. (See "Reforms" below for comments on judicial reform currently underway.)

Principal Government Officials President--Felipe CALDERON Hinojosa Foreign Secretary--Patricia ESPINOSA Cantellano Ambassador to the U.S.--Arturo SARUKHAN Casamitjana Ambassador to the United Nations--Claude HELLER Rouassant Ambassador to the OAS--Joel Hernandez Garcia

Mexico maintains an embassy in the United States at 1911 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006 (tel. 202-728-1600). Consular offices are located at 2827 - 16th St. NW, 20009 (tel. 202-736-1000), and the trade office is co-located at the embassy (tel. 202- 728-1687, fax. 202-296-4904).

Besides its embassy, Mexico maintains 52 diplomatic offices in the United States. Mexican consulates general are located in Chicago, Dallas, , El Paso, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York, San Antonio, San Diego, and San Francisco; consulates are (partial listing) in Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, Seattle, St. Louis, and Tucson.

POLITICAL CONDITIONS President Felipe Calderon of the PAN was elected in 2006 in an extremely tight race, with a margin of less than 1% separating his vote total from that of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador ("AMLO") of the left-of-center Democratic Revolution Party (PRD). AMLO contested the results of the election, alleging that it was marred by widespread fraud. Mexico's Federal Electoral Tribunal, while acknowledging the presence of randomly-distributed irregularities, rejected AMLO's accusation of widespread fraud and upheld Calderon's victory on September 5, 2006.

President Calderon‘s National Action Party currently is the largest party in the Senate but lost its majority in the Chamber of Deputies in the July 2009 elections. The PRI gained a de facto majority (through its alliance with another party) in those elections in which every Chamber of Deputies seat was up for vote. Although the PRI does not control the presidency or a majority in the Senate, it remains a significant force in Mexican politics, holding or having recently been elected to 19 of 31 governorships and often playing a pivotal role in forming coalitions in Congress. The next national elections--for the president, all 128 seats in the Senate, and all 500 seats in the Chamber of Deputies--will take place in July 2012.

Reforms One of President Fox's (2000-2006) most important reforms was the passage and implementation of freedom of information (FOIA) laws. President Fox also highlighted the need for modernization of Mexico's criminal justice system, including the introduction of oral trials. Judicial reforms stalled at the federal level during the Fox years, but President Calderon succeeded in passing legislation to reform the federal judicial system in 2008. The reform legislation set a timetable of 8 years for full implementation.

In addition to judicial reform, President Calderon has also succeeded in negotiating with Congress to pass security, fiscal, electoral, energy, and reforms. The administration is grappling with many economic challenges, including the need to upgrade infrastructure, modernize labor laws, and make the energy and manufacturing sectors more competitive. Calderon has stated that his top economic priorities remain reducing poverty and creating jobs. In the face of the serious threat posed by organized crime, the Mexican Congress passed legislation to expand the investigative and intelligence capabilities of the country‘s Federal Police. The Mexican Government has also bolstered vetting and training requirements for local, state, and federal police forces. In July 2011, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that all human-rights related crimes, including those committed by the military, should be tried in civilian courts.

ECONOMY Mexico is classified by the World Bank as an upper-middle-income country. Poverty is widespread (around 44% of the population lives below the poverty line), and high rates of economic growth are needed to create legitimate economic opportunities for new entrants to the work force. The Mexican economy grew by more than 5% in 2010 after a sharp recession in 2009 during the global economic crisis.

Since the 1994 devaluation of the peso, successive Mexican governments have improved the country's macroeconomic fundamentals. Inflation and public sector deficits are under control, while the current account balance and public debt profile have improved. Mexico‘s sovereign debt remains investment-grade, with a stable outlook. Mexico‘s tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 17.5% in 2009, the lowest of OECD members.

Mexico is a major recipient of remittances, sent mostly from Mexicans in the United States. Remittances amounted to $21.3 billion in 2010 and are the country‘s second-largest source of foreign currency, after oil. Most remittances are used for immediate consumption--food, housing, health care, education--but some collective remittances, sent from a U.S. community of migrants to their community of origin, are used for shared projects and infrastructure improvements. The Government of Mexico participates through its flagship fund-matching program ―3X1 Program for Migrants.‖ The Mexican Government also has implemented social development programs, like Oportunidades, to address the problems of poverty.

Mexico is one the most popular tourist destinations in the world. It attracted 21.3 million international tourists in 2010, making it the tenth-most popular international destination in terms of arrivals. Tourism contributed $11.8 billion to Mexico‘s economy in 2010, one of the top sources of foreign exchange for the country.

Trade Mexico's trade regime is built upon 13 trade agreements with 44 countries, including the United States, Canada, and the . In 2010 it exported nearly $300 billion of goods, led by electronic and other machinery (38% of total), road vehicles and transportation equipment (17.8%), and mining and crude oil (14.6%). Mexico relies heavily on supplying the U.S. market but has also sought to diversify its export destinations. Eighty percent of Mexico‘s exports went to the United States in 2010, down from a high of nearly 90% in 2001.

The United States exported $163 billion of goods to Mexico in 2010. Mexico is the United States‘ second-largest export market (after Canada) and third-largest trading partner (after Canada and China). Two-way trade (exports plus imports) reached nearly $400 billion in 2010, more than quadruple what it was 20 years ago. Top U.S. exports to Mexico include electronic equipment, motor vehicle parts, and chemicals. Trade matters are generally settled through direct negotiations between the two countries or addressed via World Trade Organization (WTO) or North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) formal dispute settlement procedures. Mexico is an active and constructive member of the World Trade Organization, the G-20, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Mexico is making progress in its intellectual property rights enforcement efforts, although piracy and counterfeiting rates remain high. Mexico appeared on the Watch List in the 2011 Special 301 report. The U.S. continues to work with the Mexican Government to implement its commitment to improving intellectual property protection.

Agriculture Mexico‘s agricultural sector accounts for 5% of GDP and employs 13.7% of the work force. Top revenue-producing crops include corn, tomatoes, sugar cane, dry beans, and avocados. Mexico also generates significant revenue from the production of beef, poultry, pork, and dairy products. Implementation of NAFTA has opened Mexico's agricultural sector to the forces of globalization and competition, and some farmers have greatly benefited from greater market access. In particular, fruit and vegetable exports from Mexico have increased dramatically in recent years. However, structural inefficiencies that have existed for decades continue to limit improvements in productivity and living standards for many in the agricultural sector. These inefficiencies include a prevalence of small-scale producers, a lack of infrastructure, inadequate supplies of credit, a communal land structure for many producers, and a large subsistence rural population that is not part of the formal economy. It is estimated that half of Mexico's producers are subsistence farmers and over 60% produce corn or beans, with the majority of these farmers cultivating five hectares or less, although the number of Mexican farmers is steadily decreasing as they seek greater economic opportunities from off-farm employment.

Foreign Investment Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico for 2010 was $17.7 billion, up slightly from 2009 but still below the peak levels of the mid-2000s. The global economic slowdown in 2008 and 2009 caused a significant decline in FDI. Portfolio investment totaled $37.1 billion in 2010. Most portfolio investment was in local bond issuances.

Energy In 2010, Mexico was the seventh-largest oil producer in the world and the second-largest supplier of oil to the United States. State-owned Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) holds a constitutionally-established monopoly for the exploration, production, transportation, and marketing of the nation's oil and is one of the largest oil companies in the world. However, oil production has decreased in recent years as production at the giant Cantarell field continues to decline. The oil sector is a crucial component of Mexico's economy; while its relative importance to the general Mexican economy has declined in the long term, the oil sector still generated 14% of the country's export earnings in 2010, according to Mexico's central bank. More importantly, the government relies upon earnings from the oil industry (including taxes and direct payments from Pemex) for 32% of total government revenues. Therefore, any decline in oil production has a direct effect upon the country's overall fiscal balance.

In early 2011, Mexico held licensing rounds for performance-based contracts on oil blocks, allowing participation by foreign oil companies for the first time since the of the oil industry in 1938. The foreign firms will have no ownership rights over any oil they produce, but they are expected to provide Mexican fields with needed technological improvements.

Transportation and Communications The ranks Mexico 79th globally on the overall quality of its infrastructure (out of 139 countries). A National Infrastructure Plan of $233 billion is designed to raise the coverage, quality, and competitiveness of the country‘s infrastructure assets.

Mexico's land transportation network is one of the most extensive in Latin America with 356,000 kilometers of paved roads. In terms of road density, however, Mexico has one of the lowest rates among the major economies in the region. Three major private companies operate Mexico‘s 27,000-km railroad network.

Mexico's sea ports have experienced a boom in investment and traffic following a 1993 law that privatized the port system. Mexico's ports moved 3.3 million 20-foot container equivalent units (TEU) in 2008 and 2.9 million TEUs in 2009. Manzanillo is the largest container port, followed by Veracruz and Altamira. Several dozen international airlines serve Mexico, with direct or connecting flights from most major cities in the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Latin America. Most Mexican regional capitals and resorts have direct air services to Mexico City or the United States. In 2010, 24.1 million air passengers visited Mexico.

The telecommunications sector is dominated by Telmex, the former state-owned monopoly, and its mobile telephone spinoff, America Movil. Several international companies compete in the sector with limited success. The fixed-line teledensity rate in Mexico (18%) is below the average for Latin America. Wireless penetration is much higher (more than 75%), with 91.3 million wireless subscribers in 2010, although many of these customers rely on prepaid cards or use their phones to receive calls only. In 2010, 35 million Mexicans had some form of Internet access.

NATIONAL SECURITY Mexico's armed forces number about 225,000. The air force is a semiautonomous organization that reports to the head of the army, and together the army and air force make up about three-fourths of that total. The navy is a completely autonomous cabinet agency, and there is no joint chief of staff position. Principal military roles include national defense, narcotics control, and civic action assignments such as search and rescue and disaster relief. Mexico‘s federal, state, and municipal police forces number approximately 450,000, including analysts and investigators. At the state and local level, police are generally divided into "preventive" and "judicial" police. Preventive police maintain order and public security and generally do not investigate crimes. As noted previously, the Mexican Congress passed legislation in 2009 expanding the investigative and intelligence capabilities of the Federal Police, which has expanded from 4,000 personnel at the beginning of the Calderon administration to over 35,000.

President Calderon has made combating organized crime a priority of his administration and, to that end, has deployed the Mexican military to 10 Mexican states to assist (or replace) the weak and often corrupt local and state police. Transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) have responded to increased pressure on their activities with unprecedented violence directed mostly at competing cartels, but also government security forces and innocent citizens. They have also expanded their business beyond narcotics into kidnapping, migrant smuggling, and extortion. New estimates suggest that of over the roughly 40,000 deaths attributed to narco- violence since December 2006, nearly 2,000 were members of the Mexican security services. The Mexican military and police have been increasingly successful in carrying out operations to remove top cartel leaders, including Jose de Jesus ―El Chango‖ Mendez (La Familia cartel- -arrested in June 2011); Antonio Ezequiel Cardenas Guillen ―Tony Tormenta‖ (Gulf Cartel-- killed in a shootout in November 2010); Edgar Valdez Villareal ―La Barbie‖ (Beltran Leyva Cartel--arrested in August 2010); Ignacio Coronel Villareal ―Nacho‖ (Sinaloa Cartel--killed in shootout in July 2010); Eduardo Teodoro Garcia Semental ―El Teo‖ (Arellano Felix Cartel--arrested in January 2010); Carlos Beltran Leyva (Beltran Leyva Cartel--arrested in January 2010); and Arturo Beltran Leyva (Beltran Leyva Cartel--killed during an attempted arrest in December 2009.) As the military has stepped up its engagement in law enforcement activities, allegations of human rights abuses against the military have also increased.

Mexico‘s efforts to reform its judicial sector and professionalize its police forces reflect its commitment to promote the rule of law and build strong law enforcement institutions to counter the threat posed by organized crime. The U.S. assists Mexico in this effort through the multi-year $1.6 billion Merida Initiative, which directly supports programs to help Mexico train its police forces in modern investigative techniques, promote a culture of lawfulness, and implement key justice reforms. Elements of the police force began to replace the military in strategic locations in 2010.

FOREIGN RELATIONS Traditionally, Mexico has sought to maintain its interests abroad and project its influence largely through moral persuasion and has championed the principles of nonintervention and self-determination. In its efforts to revitalize its economy and open up to international competition, Mexico has sought closer relations with the U.S., Western Europe, and the Pacific Basin. President Calderon has actively promoted international human rights and democracy and sought to increase Mexico's participation in international affairs.

Mexico is a strong supporter of the United Nations and Organization of American States systems. While selective in its membership in other international organizations, it pursues its interests through a number of ad hoc international bodies. Mexico was the Secretary Pro Tempore of the Rio Group for the term 2008-2010; separately, it held a seat on the UN Security Council for the period 2009-2010. In late 2010, Mexico hosted the 16th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whereas Mexico declined to become a member of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, it nevertheless seeks to diversify its diplomatic and economic relations, as demonstrated by its accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986; its joining the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) in 1993; its becoming, in April 1994, the first Latin American member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); and its entering the World Trade Organization as a founding member in 1996. Mexico attended the first Summit of the Americas, held in Miami in 1994; managed coordination of the agenda item on education for the 1998 Summit of the Americas in Santiago, Chile; hosted a Special Summit of the Americas in early 2004; and participated actively in the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, . In 2002 it hosted the APEC Leaders' Meeting in Cabo San Lucas. Mexico hosted the September 2003 WTO Ministerial in Cancun and a Hemispheric Security Conference in October of the same year. It was elected to the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors in 2003. Mexico has emerged as a key middle income player in the G-20 and hosted an H1N1 Conference in Cancun in 2009.

U.S.-MEXICAN RELATIONS U.S. relations with Mexico are important and complex. U.S. relations with Mexico have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans--whether the issue is trade and economic reform, homeland security, drug control, migration, or the environment. The U.S. and Mexico are partners in NAFTA, and enjoy a broad and expanding trade relationship. Since the first North American Leaders‘ Summit in 2005, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have been cooperating more closely on a trilateral basis to improve North American competitiveness, ensure the safety of our citizens, and promote clean energy and a healthy environment. The three nations also cooperate on hemispheric and global challenges, such as managing transborder infectious diseases and seeking greater integration to respond to challenges of transnational organized crime.

The scope of U.S.-Mexican relations goes far beyond diplomatic and official contacts; it entails extensive commercial, cultural, and educational ties, as demonstrated by the annual figure of about a million legal border crossings a day. In addition, a million American citizens live in Mexico and approximately 10 million Americans visit Mexico every year. More than 18,000 companies with U.S. investment have operations there, and the U.S. accounts for nearly $100 billion of foreign direct investment in Mexico. Along the 2,000-mile shared border, state and local governments interact closely.

There has been frequent contact at the highest levels. Presidents' meetings have included a visit by President Calderon to Washington, DC to meet with President-elect Barack Obama in January 2009; visits by President Obama to Mexico City in April 2009 and to Guadalajara in August 2009 for the North American Leaders‘ Summit; a visit by President Calderon to in September 2009 for a G-20 Summit; a state visit, hosted by President Obama, in honor of President Calderon in May 2010; and President Calderon‘s visit to Washington in March 2011.

In recent years, U.S.-Mexico cooperation in the struggle against organized crime and drug trafficking has been unprecedented. At the August 2007 North American Leaders' Summit in Montebello, Canada, Presidents George W. Bush and Calderon announced the Merida Initiative to work together and with the countries of Central America to combat drug trafficking and organized crime in the region. In June 2008, President Bush signed the congressional appropriations bill allocating assistance to Mexico as part of the Merida Initiative. Appropriated funds for Mexico under the initiative totaled $1.5 billion as of the end of 2010. In March 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Mexican counterpart Patricia Espinosa chaired a high-level group meeting that announced four strategic pillars for U.S.-Mexico cooperation. The first pillar aims to disrupt the capacity of organized crime to operate by capturing criminal groups and their leaders and reducing their revenues through better investigations, successful prosecutions, and shipment interdictions. The initiative‘s second pillar focuses on enhancing the capacity of Mexico‘s government and institutions to sustain the rule of law. The Merida Initiative‘s third pillar aims to improve border management to facilitate legitimate trade and movement of people while thwarting the flow of drugs, arms, and cash. Finally, the fourth pillar seeks to build strong and resilient communities. This high-level group met again in April 2011 to underscore the bilateral strategic partnership between the United States and Mexico, to reaffirm the four-pillar approach, and to ratify the shared commitment to achieving long-term solutions to the challenges posed by transnational organized crime.

Border, Environmental, and Telecom Affairs Cooperation between the United States and Mexico along the 2,000-mile common border includes state and local problem-solving mechanisms; transportation planning; and institutions to address resource, environment, and health issues. In 1993, the Border Liaison Mechanism (BLM) was established. Chaired by U.S. and Mexican consuls, the BLMs operate in "sister city" pairs and have proven to be effective means of dealing with a variety of local issues including border infrastructure, accidental violation of sovereignty by law enforcement officials, charges of mistreatment of foreign nationals, and cooperation in public health matters such as tuberculosis and H1N1 influenza.

With nearly one million people and over one billion dollars worth of commerce crossing the U.S.-Mexico border each day, coordination of border crossing operations and development among federal, state, and local partners on both sides of the border is critical. Presidents Obama and Calderon created a high-level Executive Steering Committee for 21st Century Border Management in 2010 to spur further advancements in creating a modern, secure, and efficient border. In 2010, the U.S. and Mexico opened three new border crossings (McAllen TX--Reynosa, Tamaulipas; San Luis AZ--San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora; and Donna TX-- Reynosa, Tamaulipas). The multi-agency U.S.-Mexico Binational Group on Bridges and Border Crossings meets twice yearly to improve the efficiency of existing crossings and coordinate planning for new ones. The 10 U.S. and Mexican border states are active participants in these meetings.

The United States and Mexico have a history of cooperation on environmental and natural resource issues, particularly in the border area, where there are serious environmental problems caused by rapid population growth, urbanization, and industrialization. Cooperative activities between the U.S. and Mexico take place under a number of agreements such as:

 The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is an international organization with roots dating back to the late 19th century. The IBWC comprises independent U.S. and Mexican sections and has settled numerous difficult U.S.- Mexico boundary and water problems, including the regularization of the Rio Grande near El Paso through the 1967 Chamizal settlement. The IBWC determines and accounts for national ownership of international waters, builds and operates water conservation and flood control projects, and constructs and maintains boundary markers on the land boundary and on international bridges. In recent years, the IBWC has worked to resolve longstanding border sanitation problems, to monitor the quantity and quality of border waters, and to address water delivery and sedimentation problems of the Colorado River.  The 1983 La Paz Agreement to protect and improve the border environment and Border 2012, a 10-year, binational, results-oriented environmental program for the U.S.-Mexico border region. The Border 2012 Program is the latest multi-year, binational planning effort to be implemented under the La Paz Agreement.  A November 1993 agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, establishing the North American Development Bank (NADBank) and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) under the auspices of NAFTA, in order to address border environmental problems. The NADBank uses capital and grant funds contributed by Mexico and the U.S. to help finance border environmental infrastructure projects certified by the BECC. The BECC works with local communities to develop and certify environmental infrastructure projects, such as wastewater treatment plants, drinking water systems, and solid waste disposal facilities. Prior to 2005, both institutions had separate Boards of Directors. In an effort to improve efficiency, the separate Boards were merged into a single entity.  The 1993 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), creating the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation under NAFTA by the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, to improve enforcement of environmental laws and to address common environmental concerns.  A series of agreements on border health (since 1942), wildlife and migratory birds (since 1936), national parks, forests, marine and atmospheric resources. In July 2000, the U.S. and Mexico signed an agreement to establish a binational Border Health Commission. The Border Health Commission meets annually and is made up of the federal secretaries of health, the 10 border states' chief health officers, and prominent community health professionals from both countries. A representative from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services manages the U.S. Section in El Paso, Texas.

The United States and Mexico have also cooperated on telecommunications services in the border area for more than 50 years. Currently, there are 39 bilateral agreements that govern shared use of the radio spectrum. When the United States completed the transition to digital television in 2009, a high percentage of Mexican border cities did the same well ahead of Mexico‘s deadline to complete the transition by 2021. Recent border agreements also cover mobile broadband services such as BlackBerrys, smartphones, and similar devices. The High Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications continues to serve as the primary bilateral arena for both governments to promote growth in the sector and to ensure compatible services in the border area. Under this mechanism, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement to improve cross-border public security communications in the border area in 2009.

Principal U.S. Embassy Officials Ambassador--E. Anthony Wayne Deputy Chief of Mission--John Feeley Minister Counselor for Political Affairs--Michael Glover Minister Counselor for Economic and Science Affairs--Adam Shub Minister Counselor for Public Diplomacy--James Williams Minister Counselor for Consular Affairs--John Brennan Minister Counselor for Commercial Affairs--Ann Bacher Minister Counselor for Management Affairs--Barbara Aycock Minister Counselor for Agricultural Affairs--Dan Berman Consul General Mexico City--Karin King

The U.S. Embassy in Mexico is located at Paseo de la Reforma 305, 06500 Mexico, DF. U.S. mailing address: Box 9000, Brownsville, Texas 78520; tel. (from the U.S.): (011) (52) 55- 5080-2000; Internet: http://mexico.usembassy.gov/

The embassy and the U.S. Consulates General, Consulates, and consular agents provide a range of services to American students, tourists, business people, and residents throughout Mexico.

U.S. Consulates General, Consulates, and Officials Consulate General, Ciudad Juarez--Thomas Rogan Address: Paseo de la 3650, Fracc. Partido Senecu, 32543 Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua U.S. Postal Address: Box 10545, El Paso, Texas 79995-0545 Tel. (from the U.S.): (011)(52) 656-227-3000

Consulate General, Guadalajara--Daniel Keller Address: Progreso 175. Col. Americana, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44160 U.S. Postal Address: Box 9001, Brownsville, Texas 78520-0901 Tel.: (011)(52) 333-268-2100

Consulate General, Hermosillo--John Tavenner Address: Calle Monterrey 141 Pte., Col. Esqueda 83260, Hermosillo, Sonora U.S. Postal Address: Box 1689, Nogales, Arizona 85628 Tel.: (011)(52) 662-289-3500

Consulate General, Matamoros--Michael Barkin Address: Ave. Primera 2002 y Azaleas, 87330, Matamoros, Tamaulipas U.S. Postal Address: Box 633, Brownsville, Texas 78522-0633 Tel.: (011)(52) 868-812-4402

Consulate General, Monterrey--Nace Crawford Address: Avenida Constitution 411 Poniente, 64000 Monterrey, Nuevo Leon U.S. Postal Address: Box 9002, Brownsville, Texas 78520-0902 Tel.: (011)(52) 818-047-3100

Consulate General, Nuevo Laredo--Donald Heflin Address: Calle Allende 3330, Col. Jardin, 88260 Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas U.S. Postal Address: Box 3089, Laredo, Texas 78044-3089 Tel.: (011)(52) 867-714-0512

Consulate General, Tijuana--Steven Kashkett Address: Paseo de las Culturas s/n, Mesa de Otay, Delegacion Centenario, 22425 Tijuana, Baja California Norte U.S. Postal Address: P.O. Box 439039, San Diego, California 92143-9039 Tel.: (011)(52) 664-977-2000

Consulate, Merida--Greg Segas Address: Calle 60 No 338 K x 29 y 31, Colonia Alcala Martin, CP 97050, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico U.S. Postal Address: Box 9003, Brownsville, Texas 78520-0903 Tel.: (011)(52)(999) 942-5700

Consulate, Nogales--Chad Cummins Address: Calle San Jose s/n, Fracc. Los Alamos 84065, Nogales, Sonora U.S. Postal Address: P.O. Box 1729, Nogales, AZ 85628-1729 Tel.: (011)(52) 631-311-8150

Consular Agents Acapulco--Alexander Richards Address: Hotel Continental Emporio, Costera M. Aleman 121-Local 14, 39670 Acapulco, Guerrero Tel. (from the U.S.): (011)(52) 744-481-0100

Cabo San Lucas--Trena Brown Schjetnan Address: Blvd. Marina, Local C-4, Plaza Nautica, Col. Centro, 23410 Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur Tel.: (011)(52) 624-143-3566

Cancun--Rebecca Kubisiak Address: Blvd. Kukulkan Km 13+000, Lote 18-13, Zona Hotelera, Torre La Europea, Despacho 301,77500 Cancun, Quintana Roo Tel.: (011)(52) 998-883-0272

Cozumel--Anne R. Harris Address: Plaza Villa Mar, Plaza Principal, Parque Juarez (entre Melgar y 5a Av.), Piso 2 Locales 8 y 9, 77600 Cozumel, Quintana Roo Tel.: (011)(52) 987-872-4574/4485

Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo--Debra Loiuse Mione Address: Hotel Fontan, Blvd Ixtapa S/N, 40880, Ixtapa, Zihuataejo, Guerrero Courier Address: Apdo. Postal 169, Paseo de los Hujes 236, Col. El Hujal, 40880 Zihuatanejo, Guerrero Tel.: (011)(52) 755-553-2100

Mazatlan--Luis Antonio Ramirez Maisonet Address: Hotel Playa Mazatlan, Playa Gaviotas 202, Zona Dorada, 82110 Mazatlan, Sinaloa Tel.: (011)(52) 669-916-5889

Oaxaca--Mark A. Leyes Address: Macedonio Alcala 407, Int. 20, 68000 Oaxaca, Oaxaca Tel.: (011)(52) 951-514-3054

Piedras Negras--Dina O'Brien Address: Abasolo 211, Zona Centro Piedras Negras, Coahuila, C.P. 26000 Tel. (011)(52) 878-782-5586/782-8664

Playa del Carmen--Samantha Mason Address: "The Palapa", Calle 1 Sur, entre Avenida 15 y Avenida 20 Playa del Carmen 77710 Quintana Roo Tel: (011)(52) 984-873-0303

Puerto Vallarta--Kelly Trainor de Oceguera Address: Paradise Village Plaza, Paseo de los Cocoteros #1, Local 4, Int. 17 63732 Nuevo Vallarta, Nayarit Tel.: (011)(52) 322-222-0069

Reynosa--Vera Nicole Vera Address: Hotel Holiday Inn, Rooms 1101 and 1102, Calle Emilio Portes Gil #703, Col. Prado Sur 88630 Reynosa, Tamaulipas Tel. (011)(52) 899-923-6530

San Luis Potosi--Deborah Escobar Address: Edificio "Las Terrazas," Av. Venustiano Carranza 2076-41, Col. Polanco, 78220 San Luis Potosi, San Luis Potosi Tel.: (011)(52) 444-811-7802

San Miguel de Allende--Edward Clancy Address: Plaza La Luciernaga, Libramiento Jose Manuel Zavala, Zavala No. 165, Locales 4 y 5, Colonia La Luciernada 37745 San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato Tel.: (011)(52) 415-152-2357

Other Contact Information American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico, Blas Pascual 205, 3rd Floor, Col. Los Morales, 11510 Mexico, D.F., Mexico U.S. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 60326-113, Houston, TX 77205-0326 Tel: (011)(52) 555-141-3820 Fax: (011)(52) 555-141-3836 E-Mail: [email protected] (Branch offices also in Guadalajara and Monterrey)

U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration Office of Latin America and the Caribbean 14th and Constitution, NW Washington, DC 20230 Tel: 202-482-0305; 1-800-USA-TRAD(E) Internet: http://trade.gov/

TRAVEL AND BUSINESS INFORMATION Travel Alerts, Travel Warnings, Trip Registration The U.S. Department of State's Consular Information Program advises Americans traveling and residing abroad through Country Specific Information, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings. Country Specific Information exists for all countries and includes information on entry and exit requirements, currency regulations, health conditions, safety and security, crime, political disturbances, and the addresses of the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Travel Alerts are issued to disseminate information quickly about terrorist threats and other relatively short-term conditions overseas that pose significant risks to the security of American travelers. Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid travel to a certain country because the situation is dangerous or unstable.

For the latest security information, Americans living and traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet web site at http://travel.state.gov, where current Worldwide Caution, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings can be found. The travel.state.gov website also includes information about passports, tips for planning a safe trip abroad and more. More travel-related information also is available at http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Travel/International.shtml.

The Department's Smart Traveler app for U.S. travelers going abroad provides easy access to the frequently updated official country information, travel alerts, travel warnings, maps, U.S. embassy locations, and more that appear on the travel.state.gov site. Travelers can also set up e-tineraries to keep track of arrival and departure dates and make notes about upcoming trips. The app is compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad (requires iOS 4.0 or later).

The Department of State encourages all U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad to enroll in the State Department's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). A link to the registration page is also available through the Department's Smart Traveler app. U.S. citizens without internet access can enroll directly at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. By enrolling, you make your presence and whereabouts known in case it is necessary to contact you in an emergency and so you can receive up-to-date information on security conditions.

Emergency information concerning Americans traveling abroad may be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the U.S. and Canada or the regular toll line 1-202-501-4444 for callers outside the U.S. and Canada.

Passports The National Passport Information Center (NPIC) is the U.S. Department of State's single, centralized public contact center for U.S. passport information. Telephone: 1-877-4-USA- PPT (1-877-487-2778); TDD/TTY: 1-888-874-7793. Passport information is available 24 hours, 7 days a week. You may speak with a representative Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., Eastern Time, excluding federal holidays.

Health Information Travelers can check the latest health information with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. A hotline at 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) and a web site at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/default.aspx give the most recent health advisories, immunization recommendations or requirements, and advice on food and drinking water safety for regions and countries. The CDC publication "Health Information for International Travel" can be found at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/contentYellowBook.aspx.

More Electronic Information Department of State Web Site. Available on the Internet at http://www.state.gov, the Department of State web site provides timely, global access to official U.S. foreign policy information, including more Background Notes, the Department's daily press briefings along with the directory of key officers of Foreign Service posts and more. The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) provides security information and regional news that impact U.S. companies working abroad through its website http://www.osac.gov

Export.gov provides a portal to all export-related assistance and market information offered by the federal government and provides trade leads, free export counseling, help with the export process, and more.

Mobile Sources. Background Notes are available on mobile devices at http://m.state.gov/mc36882.htm, or use the QR code below.

In addition, a mobile version of the Department's http://www.state.gov website is available at http://m.state.gov, or use the QR code below. Included on this site are Top Stories, remarks and speeches by Secretary Clinton, Daily Press Briefings, Country Information, and more.

Background Note:

Official Name: Republic of Korea

PROFILE

Geography Area: 98,480 sq. km. (38,023 sq. mi.); slightly larger than Indiana. Cities (2009): Capital--Seoul (10.5 million). Other major cities--Busan (3.6 million), Daegu (2.5 million), Incheon (2.7 million), Gwangju (1.4 million), Daejeon (1.4 million), Ulsan (1.1 million). Terrain: Partially forested mountain ranges separated by deep, narrow valleys; cultivated plains along the coasts, particularly in the west and south. Climate: Temperate, with rainfall heavier in summer than winter.

People Nationality: Noun and adjective--Korean(s). Population (July 2011 est.): 48,754,657. Annual population growth rate (2011 est.): 0.23%. Ethnic groups: Korean; small Chinese minority (about 20,000). Religions: Christianity, Buddhism, Shamanism, Confucianism, Chondogyo. Language: Korean; English widely taught in junior high and high school. Education: Years compulsory--9. Enrollment--11.5 million. Attendance--middle school 99%, high school 95%. Literacy--98%. Health (2010): Infant mortality rate--4.24/1,000. Life expectancy--78.81 years (men 75.56 years; women 82.28 years). Total labor force (2010): 24.62 million. Labor force by occupation (2010): Services--68.4%; industry--24.3%; agriculture--7.3%.

Government Type: Republic with powers shared between the president, the legislature, and the courts. Liberation: August 15, 1945. Constitution: July 17, 1948; last revised 1987. Branches: Executive--President (chief of state); Prime Minister (head of government). Legislative--unicameral National Assembly. Judicial--Supreme Court and appellate courts; Constitutional Court. Subdivisions: Nine provinces, seven administratively separate cities (Seoul, Busan, Incheon, Daegu, Gwangju, Daejeon, Ulsan). Political parties: Grand National Party (GNP); Democratic Party (DP), formerly known as United Democratic Party (UDP); Liberty Forward Party (LFP); New Progressive Party (NPP); Pro-Park Alliance (PPA); Renewal Korea Party (RKP). Suffrage: Universal at 19. Government budget (2010 est.): Expenditures--$267.3 billion. Defense (2008): 2.5% of GDP.

Economy GDP (purchasing power parity in 2010): $1.459 trillion. Real GDP growth rate: (2007) 5.1%; (2008) 2.3%; (2009) 0.2%; (2010) 6.1%. GDP per capita (2009, current U.S. $): $17,074. Unemployment rate (2010): 3.3%. Inflation rate (consumer prices): (2008) 4.7%; (2009) 2.8%. Natural resources: Coal, tungsten, graphite, molybdenum, lead, hydropower potential. Agriculture: Products--rice, root crops, barley, vegetables, fruit, cattle, pigs, chickens, milk, eggs, fish. Arable land--16.58% of land area. Industry: Electronics, telecommunications, automobile production, chemicals, shipbuilding, steel. Trade (2009): Exports--$363.5 billion: semiconductors, wireless telecommunications equipment, motor vehicles, computers, steel, ships, petrochemicals. Imports--$323.1 billion: crude oil, food, electronics and electronic equipment, machinery, transportation equipment, steel, organic chemicals, plastics, base metals and articles. Major export markets (2009)-- China (23.2%), U.S. (10.1%), Japan (5.8%), Hong Kong (5.3%), Singapore (3.6%). Major importers to South Korea (2009)--China (16.8%), Japan (15.3%), U.S. (9.0%), Saudi Arabia (6.1%), Australia (4.6%).

PEOPLE

Population Korea's population is one of the most ethnically and linguistically homogenous in the world. Except for a small Chinese community (about 20,000), virtually all Koreans share a common cultural and linguistic heritage. With 48.7 million people inhabiting an area roughly the size of Indiana, South Korea has one of the world's highest population densities. Major population centers are located in the northwest, southeast, and in the plains south of the Seoul-Incheon area.

Korea has experienced one of the largest rates of emigration, with ethnic Koreans residing primarily in China (2.4 million), the United States (2.1 million), Japan (600,000), and the countries of the former Soviet Union (532,000).

Language The Korean language is related to Japanese and Mongolian. Although it differs grammatically from Chinese and does not use tones, a large number of Chinese cognates exist in Korean. Chinese ideograms are believed to have been brought into Korea sometime before the second century BC. The learned class spoke Korean, but read and wrote Chinese. A phonetic writing system ("hangul") was invented in the 15th century by King Sejong to provide a writing system for commoners who could not read classical Chinese. Modern Korean uses hangul almost exclusively with Chinese characters in limited use for word clarification. Approximately 1,300 Chinese characters are used in modern Korean. English is taught as a second language in most primary and secondary schools. Chinese and Japanese are also widely taught at secondary schools.

Religion Freedom of religion is protected under South Korea‘s constitution. Roughly half of the South Korean population actively practice some form of religion. Most religious believers in South Korea follow Christianity (29.2% of the population) and Buddhism (22.8%). Although only 0.2% of South Koreans identify themselves as Confucianists, Korean society remains highly imbued with Confucian values and beliefs. A small minority of South Koreans practice Islam, Shamanism (traditional spirit worship), and Chondogyo ("Heavenly Way"); 46.5% of South Koreans practice no religion.

HISTORY The myth of Korea's foundation by the god-king Tangun in BC 2333 embodies the homogeneity and self-sufficiency valued by the Korean people. Korea experienced many invasions by its larger neighbors in its 2,000 years of recorded history. The country repelled numerous foreign invasions despite domestic strife, in part due to its protected status in the Sino-centric regional political model during Korea's Chosun dynasty (1392-1910). Historical antipathies to foreign influence earned Korea the title of "Hermit Kingdom" in the 19th century.

With declining Chinese power and a weakened domestic posture at the end of the 19th century, Korea was open to Western and Japanese encroachment. In 1910, Japan began a 35- year period of colonial rule over Korea. As a result of Japan's efforts to supplant the Korean language and aspects of Korean culture, memories of Japanese annexation still recall fierce animosity and resentment, especially among older Koreans. Nevertheless, import restrictions on Japanese movies, popular music, fashion, and the like have been lifted, and many Koreans, especially the younger generations, eagerly follow Japanese pop culture. Aspects of Korean culture, including television shows and movies, have also become popular in Japan.

Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers in 1945, signaling the end of World War II, only further embroiled Korea in foreign rivalries. Division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. On August 15, 1948 the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) was established, with as the first President. On September 9, 1948 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) was established under Kim Il Sung.

On June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Led by the U.S., a 16-member coalition undertook the first collective action under United Nations Command (UNC). Following China's entry on behalf of North Korea later that year, a stalemate ensued for the final 2 years of the conflict. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, were ultimately concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjom, in what is now the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The Armistice Agreement was signed by representatives of the Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the U.S.-led UNC. Though the R.O.K. supported the UNC, it refused to sign the Armistice Agreement. A peace treaty has never been signed. The war left almost three million Koreans dead or wounded and millions of others homeless and separated from their families.

In the following decades, South Korea experienced political turmoil under autocratic leadership. President Syngman Rhee was forced to resign in April 1960 following a student- led uprising. The Second Republic under the leadership of Chang Myon ended after only 1 year, when Major General Park Chung-hee led a military coup. Park's rule, which resulted in tremendous economic growth and development but increasingly restricted political freedoms, ended with his assassination in 1979. Subsequently, a powerful group of military officers, led by Lieutenant General Chun Doo-hwan, declared martial law and took power.

Throughout the Park and Chun eras, South Korea developed a vocal civil society that led to strong protests against authoritarian rule. Composed primarily of students and labor union activists, protest movements reached a climax after Chun's 1979 coup and declaration of martial law. A confrontation in Gwangju in 1980 left at least 200 civilians dead. Thereafter, pro-democracy activities intensified even more, ultimately forcing political concessions by the government in 1987, including the restoration of direct presidential elections.

In 1987, Roh Tae-woo, a former general, was elected president, but additional democratic advances during his tenure resulted in the 1992 election of a long-time pro-democracy activist, Kim Young-sam. Kim became Korea's first civilian elected president in 32 years. The 1997 presidential election and peaceful transition of power marked another step forward in Korea's democratization when Kim Dae-jung, a life-long democracy and human rights activist, was elected from a major opposition party. The transition to an open, democratic system was further consolidated in 2002, when self-educated human rights lawyer, Roh Moo- hyun, won the presidential election on a "participatory government" platform. In December 2007, South Koreans elected Lee Myung-bak, a former business executive and Mayor of Seoul, as president.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS The Republic of Korea (commonly known as "South Korea") is a republic with powers nominally shared among the presidency, the legislature, and the judiciary, but traditionally dominated by the president. The president is chief of state and is elected for a single term of 5 years. The 299 members of the unicameral National Assembly are elected to 4-year terms; elections for the assembly were held on April 9, 2008. South Korea's judicial system comprises a Supreme Court, appellate courts, and a Constitutional Court. The judiciary is independent under the constitution. The country has nine provinces and seven administratively separate cities--the capital of Seoul, along with Busan, Daegu, Daejeon, Gwangju, Incheon and Ulsan. Political parties include the Grand National Party (GNP), Democratic Party (DP), Liberty Forward Party (LFP), New Progressive Party (NPP), Pro- Park Alliance (PPA), and Renewal Korea Party (RKP). Suffrage is universal at age 19 (lowered from 20 in 2005).

Principal Government Officials President--Lee Myung-bak Prime Minister--Kim Hwang-sik Minister of Strategy and Finance--Bahk Jae-Wan Minister of Education, Science and Technology--Lee Ju-hoo Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade--Kim Sung-hwan Minister of Unification--Hyun In-taek Minister of Justice--Lee Kwi-nam Minister of National Defense--Kim Kwan-jin Minister of and Security--Maeng Hyung-Kyu Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism--Choung Byoung-gug Minister of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries--Suh Kyu-Yong Minister of Knowledge Economy--Choi Joong-kyung Minister of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs--Chin Soo-hee Minister of Environment--Yoo Young-sook Minister of Labor--Lee Chae-pil Minister of Gender Equality--Paik Hee-young Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs--Kwan Do-youp Director of the National Intelligence Service--Won Sei-hoon Senior Secretary to the President for Foreign Affairs and National Security--Chun Yung-woo

Chairman of Financial Services Commission--Kim Seok-dong Ambassador to the U.S.--Han Duk-soo Ambassador to the UN--Park In-kook

Korea maintains an embassy in the United States at 2450 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008 (tel. 202-939-5600). Consulates General are located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Hagatna (Agana) in Guam. Korea also has a mission to the United Nations.

ECONOMY Over the past several decades, the Republic of Korea has achieved a remarkably high level of economic growth, which has allowed the country to rise from the rubble of the Korean War into the ranks of the Organization for Cooperation and Development (OECD). Today, South Korea is the United States' seventh-largest trading partner and is the 15th-largest economy in the world.

In the early 1960s, the government of Park Chung Hee instituted sweeping economic policy changes emphasizing exports and labor-intensive light industries, leading to rapid debt-financed industrial expansion. The government carried out a currency reform, strengthened financial institutions, and introduced flexible economic planning. In the 1970s Korea began directing fiscal and financial policies toward promoting heavy and chemical industries, consumer electronics, and automobiles. Manufacturing continued to grow rapidly in the 1980s and early 1990s.

In recent years, Korea's economy moved away from the centrally planned, government-directed investment model toward a more market-oriented one. South Korea bounced back from the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis with assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but its recovery was based largely on extensive financial reforms that restored stability to markets. These economic reforms, pushed by President Kim Dae-jung, helped Korea return to growth, with growth rates of 10% in 1999 and 9% in 2000. The slowing global economy and falling exports slowed growth to 3.3% in 2001, prompting consumer stimulus measures that led to 7.0% growth in 2002. Consumer overspending and rising household debt, along with external factors, slowed growth to near 3% again in 2003. Economic performance in 2004 improved to 4.6% due to an increase in exports, and remained at or above 4% in 2005, 2006, and 2007. With the onset of the global financial and economic crisis in the third quarter of 2008, annual GDP growth slowed to 2.3% in 2008 and just 0.2% in 2009.

Economists are concerned that South Korea's economic growth potential has fallen because of a rapidly aging population and structural problems that are becoming increasingly apparent. Foremost among these structural concerns are the rigidity of South Korea's labor regulations, the need for more constructive relations between management and workers, the country's underdeveloped financial markets, and a general lack of regulatory transparency. Korean policy makers are increasingly worried about diversion of corporate investment to China and other lower wage countries, and by Korea's falling foreign direct investment (FDI). President Lee Myung-bak was elected in December 2007 on a platform that promised to boost Korea's economic growth rate through deregulation, tax reform, increased FDI, labor reform, and free trade agreements (FTAs) with major markets. President Lee‘s economic agenda necessarily shifted in the final months of 2008 to dealing with the global economic crisis. In 2009, the economy responded well to a robust fiscal stimulus package and low interest rates.

North-South Economic Ties Two-way trade between North and South Korea, which was first legalized in 1988, rose to almost $1.82 billion in 2008 before declining sharply thereafter. Until recently, South Korea was North Korea's second-largest trading partner after China. Much of this trade was related to out-processing or assembly work undertaken by South Korean firms in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC). Much of the work done in North Korea has been funded by South Korea, but this assistance was halted in 2008 except for energy aid (heavy fuel oil) authorized under the Six-Party Talks. Many of these economic ties became important symbols of hope for the eventual reunification of the peninsula. For example, after the June 2000 North-South summit, the two Koreas reconnected their east and west coast railroads and roads where they cross the DMZ and improved these transportation routes. South Korean tour groups used the east coast road to travel from South Korea to Mt. Geumgang in North Korea beginning in 2003, although the R.O.K. suspended tours to Mt. Geumgang in July 2008 following the shooting death of a South Korean tourist by a D.P.R.K. soldier. Unfortunately, North-South economic ties were seriously damaged by escalating tensions following North Korea‘s torpedoing of the South Korean warship Cheonan in March 2010. In September 2010, South Korea suspended all inter-Korean trade with the exception of the Kaesong Industrial Complex. As of mid-November 2010, economic ties had not seen signs of revival.

FOREIGN RELATIONS South Korea joined the United Nations in August 1991 along with North Korea and is active in most UN specialized agencies and many international forums. South Korea has hosted major international events such as the 1988 Summer Olympics, the 2002 World Cup Soccer Tournament (co-hosted with Japan), and the 2002 Second Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies. In 2010, the country hosted the R.O.K.-Japan-China Trilateral Summit as well as the G-20 Seoul Summit. It will host the 2018 Winter Olympics.

Economic considerations have a high priority in Korean foreign policy. The R.O.K. seeks to build on its economic accomplishments to increase its regional and global role. It is a founding member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and chaired the organization in 2005.

The Republic of Korea maintains diplomatic relations with more than 170 countries and a broad network of trading relationships. The United States and Korea are allied by the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty. Korea and Japan coordinate closely on numerous issues. This includes consultations with the United States on North Korea policy.

Korean Peninsula: Reunification Efforts For almost 20 years after the 1950-53 Korean War, relations between North and South Korea were minimal and very strained. Official contact did not occur until 1971, beginning with Red Cross contacts and family reunification projects. In the early 1990s, relations between the two countries improved with the 1991 ―Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression and Exchanges and Cooperation between the South and the North,‖ since known as the ―Basic Agreement,‖ which acknowledged that reunification was the goal of both governments, and the 1992 ―Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.‖ However, divergent positions on the process of reunification and North Korean weapons programs, compounded by South Korea's tumultuous domestic politics and the 1994 death of North Korean leader Kim Il-sung, contributed to a cycle of warming and cooling of relations.

Relations improved again following the 1997 election of Kim Dae-jung. His "Sunshine Policy" of engagement with the D.P.R.K. set the stage for the historic June 2000 inter-Korean summit between President Kim and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. President Kim was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 for the policy, but the prize was somewhat tarnished by revelations of a $500 million dollar "payoff" to North Korea that immediately preceded the summit. Engagement continued during Roh Moo-hyun‘s presidency, but declined following the inauguration of President Lee Myung-bak in February 2008.

Korean Peninsula: Nuclear Tensions and Recent Developments Relations worsened following North Korea‘s acknowledgement in October 2002 of a covert program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Following this acknowledgement, the United States, along with the People's Republic of China, proposed multilateral talks among the concerned parties to deal with this issue. At the urging of China and its neighbors, the D.P.R.K. agreed to meet with China and the United States in April 2003. In August of that year, the D.P.R.K. agreed to attend Six- Party Talks aimed at ending the North's pursuit of nuclear weapons that added the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Russia to the table. Two more rounds of Six-Party Talks between the United States, the Republic of Korea, Japan, China, and the D.P.R.K. were held in February and June of 2004. At the third round, the United States put forward a comprehensive proposal aimed at completely, verifiably, and irreversibly eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. A fourth round of talks was held in two sessions between July and September 2005.

A breakthrough for the Six-Party Talks came with the Joint Statement of Principles on September 19, 2005, in which, among other things, the D.P.R.K. committed to "abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards." The Joint Statement also committed the United States and other parties to certain actions as the D.P.R.K. denuclearized. In addition, the United States offered security assurances to North Korea, specifying that it had no nuclear weapons on R.O.K. territory and no intention to attack or invade the D.P.R.K. with nuclear or other weapons. Finally, the United States and the D.P.R.K., as well as the D.P.R.K. and Japan, agreed to undertake steps to normalize relations, subject to their respective bilateral policies.

However, following D.P.R.K. protests against U.S. Government money-laundering sanctions on D.P.R.K. funds held at Macao‘s Banco Delta Asia, the D.P.R.K. boycotted the Six-Party Talks during late 2005 and most of 2006. On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced a successful nuclear test, verified by the United States on October 11. In response, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), citing Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously adopted Resolution 1718, condemning North Korea's action and imposing sanctions on certain luxury goods and trade of military items, weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-related parts, and technology transfers.

The Six-Party Talks resumed in December 2006. Following a bilateral meeting between the United States and D.P.R.K. in Berlin in January 2007, yet another round of Six-Party Talks was held in February 2007. On February 13, 2007, the parties reached an agreement on "Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement" in which North Korea agreed to shut down and seal its Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility, and to invite back International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verification of these actions. The other five parties agreed to provide emergency energy assistance to North Korea in the amount of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the initial phase (within 60 days) and the equivalent of up to 950,000 tons of HFO in the next phase of North Korea's denuclearization. The six parties also established five working groups to form specific plans for implementing the Joint Statement in the following areas: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, normalization of D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations, normalization of D.P.R.K.-Japan relations, economic and energy cooperation, and a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. All parties agreed that the working groups would meet within 30 days of the agreement, which they did. The agreement also envisioned the directly-related parties negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum. As part of the initial actions, North Korea invited then- IAEA Director General ElBaradei to Pyongyang in early March for preliminary discussions on the return of the IAEA to the D.P.R.K. A sixth round of Six-Party Talks took place on March 19-23, 2007, in which the parties reported on the first meetings of the five working groups.

At the invitation of the D.P.R.K., Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang in June 2007 as part of ongoing consultations with the six parties on implementation of the Initial Actions agreement. After the Banco Delta Asia funds were released in July 2007, the D.P.R.K. shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility as well as an uncompleted reactor at Taechon, and IAEA personnel returned to the D.P.R.K. to monitor and verify the shut-down and to seal the facility. Concurrently, the R.O.K., China, United States, and Russia initiated deliveries of HFO and other energy-related assistance per the agreement. These four parties continued to provide shipments of HFO and other energy assistance as the D.P.R.K. implemented disablement steps during 2007 and 2008. All five working groups met in August and September 2007 to discuss detailed plans for implementation of the next phase of the Initial Actions agreement, and the D.P.R.K. invited a team of experts from the United States, China, and Russia to visit the Yongbyon nuclear facility in September 2007 to discuss specific steps that could be taken to disable the facility. The subsequent September 27-30 Six-Party plenary meeting resulted in the October 3, 2007 agreement on "Second-Phase Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement."

Under the terms of the October 3 agreement, the D.P.R.K. agreed to disable all existing nuclear facilities subject to abandonment under the September 2005 Joint Statement and the February 2007 agreement. The parties agreed to complete by December 31, 2007 a set of disablement actions for the three core facilities at Yongbyon: the 5-MW(e) Experimental Reactor, the Radiochemical Laboratory (Reprocessing Plant), and the Fresh Fuel Fabrication Plant. The D.P.R.K. also agreed to provide a complete and correct declaration of all its nuclear programs in accordance with the February 2007 agreement by December 31, 2007 and reaffirmed its commitment not to transfer nuclear materials, technology, or know-how.

In November 2007, the D.P.R.K. began to disable the three core facilities at Yongbyon and completed many of the agreed disablement actions by the end of the year. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang again in December 2007 as part of ongoing consultations on the implementation of Second- Phase actions and carried with him a letter from President George W. Bush to Kim Jong-il. While the D.P.R.K. missed the December 31 deadline to provide a complete and correct declaration, it belatedly delivered its declaration to the Chinese on June 26, 2008. The D.P.R.K. also imploded the cooling tower at the Yongbyon facility in late June 2008 in the presence of international media and U.S. Government officials. Following the D.P.R.K.'s progress on disablement and provision of a declaration, President Bush announced the lifting of the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) with respect to the D.P.R.K. and notified Congress of his administration's intent to rescind North Korea's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, a step which the Secretary of State followed through on in October 2008. However, efforts to move forward on verification steps soon met with D.P.R.K. resistance.

In April 2009, the D.P.R.K. launched a missile over the Sea of Japan, in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1718. The UNSC issued a statement condemning the launch and demanding that the D.P.R.K. refrain from further launches. The D.P.R.K. responded by withdrawing its active participation from the Six-Party Talks and demanding the expulsion of IAEA inspectors and U.S. technical experts who had been monitoring the Yongbyon nuclear site. From May to November 2009, the D.P.R.K. announced a number of nuclear tests and short-range ballistic missile launches, announcing in September 2009 that ―experimental uranium enrichment has been successfully conducted to enter into completion phase.‖ In June 2009, the UNSC adopted Resolution 1874, which expanded UNSCR 1718 to include a ban on arms transfers to and from the D.P.R.K., to call on states to inspect vessels in their territory when there are ―reasonable grounds‖ that banned cargo is on a ship. The United States appointed Ambassador Philip Goldberg as the U.S. Coordinator for Implementation of UNSCR 1874. In June, July, and August 2009, Ambassador Goldberg led delegations to China, the R.O.K., Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, , Russia, the U.A.E., and Egypt to encourage these states to implement sanctions in a way that would shed light on North Korean proliferation-related activities.

In December 2009, Special Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth led an interagency delegation to Pyongyang for extensive talks that focused on the way to achieve verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The United States and North Korea agreed on the importance of the Six-Party Talks and the need to implement the 2005 Joint Statement, but did not agree on when and how the D.P.R.K. would return to denuclearization talks. As of November 2010, the Six-Party Talks had not resumed. Prospects for talks dimmed following the D.P.R.K.‘s sinking of the R.O.K. warship Cheonan on March 26, 2010, which killed 46 R.O.K. sailors. In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that the warship was sunk by a North Korean torpedo fired from a North Korean submarine, the D.P.R.K. has continued to deny responsibility for the attack. On November 23, North Korea hit Yeonpyeong Island with artillery, killing two civilians and wounding 13. This incident has increased complications and tensions between the North and South.

Peaceful resolution of the issues on the Korean Peninsula will only be possible if North Korea fundamentally changes its behavior. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called on North Korea to take concrete, irreversible denuclearization steps toward fulfillment of the 2005 Joint Statement, comply with international law including UNSCRs 1718 and 1874, cease provocative behaviors, and take steps to improve relations with its neighbors.

U.S.-KOREAN RELATIONS The United States believes that the question of peace and security on the Korean Peninsula is, first and foremost, a matter for the Korean people to decide.

Under the 1953 U.S.-R.O.K. Mutual Defense Treaty, the United States agreed to help the Republic of Korea defend itself against external aggression. In support of this commitment, the United States has maintained military personnel in Korea, including the Army's Second Infantry Division and several Air Force tactical squadrons. To coordinate operations between these units and the over 680,000-strong Korean armed forces, a Combined Forces Command (CFC) was established in 1978. The head of the CFC also serves as Commander of the United Nations Command (UNC) and U.S. Forces Korea (USFK). The current CFC commander is General Walter ―Skip‖ Sharp.

Several aspects of the U.S.-R.O.K. security relationship are changing as the U.S. moves from a leading to a supporting role. In 2004 an agreement was reached on the return of the Yongsan base in Seoul--as well as a number of other U.S. bases--to the R.O.K. and the eventual relocation of all U.S. forces to south of the Han River. Those movements are expected to be completed by 2016. In addition, the U.S. and R.O.K. agreed to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Korea to 25,000 by 2008, but a subsequent agreement by the U.S. and R.O.K. presidents in 2008 has now capped that number at 28,500, with no further troop reductions planned. The U.S. and R.O.K. have also agreed to transfer wartime operational control to the R.O.K. military on December 1, 2015.

As Korea's economy has developed, trade and investment ties have become an increasingly important aspect of the U.S.-R.O.K. relationship. Korea is the United States' seventh-largest trading partner (ranking ahead of larger economies such as , Italy, and India), and there are significant flows of manufactured goods, agricultural products, services and technology between the two countries. Major American firms have long been major investors in Korea, while Korea's leading firms have begun to make significant investments in the United States. The implementation of structural reforms contained in the IMF's 1998 program for Korea improved access to the Korean market and improved trade relations between the United States and Korea. Building on that improvement, the United States and Korea launched negotiations on the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) on February 2, 2006. On June 30, 2007, the United States and Korea signed a comprehensive FTA that would eliminate virtually all barriers to trade and investment between the two countries. Tariffs on 95% of trade between the two countries were to be eliminated within 3 years of implementation, with virtually all the remaining tariffs to be removed within 10 years of implementation; the FTA's chapters addressed non-tariff measures in investment, intellectual property, services, competition policy, and other areas. In December 2010, President Barack Obama announced the successful resolution of outstanding issues in the agreement, which would eliminate tariffs on over 95% of industrial and consumer goods within 5 years; the agreement is currently awaiting ratification. The KORUS FTA is the largest free trade agreement Korea has ever signed, the largest free trade agreement for the United States since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992, and the United States‘ first FTA with a major Asian economy. Economists have projected that the FTA will generate billions of dollars in increased trade and investment between the United States and the Republic of Korea, and boost economic growth and job creation in both countries.

Principal U.S. Embassy Officials Ambassador--D. Kathleen Stephens Deputy Chief of Mission--Mark Tokola Counselor for Political Affairs--James Wayman Counselor for Economic Affairs--Gregory Burton Counselor for Management Affairs--Mary Martinez Counselor for Public Affairs--Patrick Linehan Consul General--Cynthia Sharpe Counselor for Commercial Affairs--James Sullivan Counselor for Agricultural Affairs--Kathryn Ting Chief, Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group, Korea (JUSMAG-K)--Col. Ha Dong Chin

Defense Attache--Col. Kevin Madden Drug Enforcement Administration, Special Agent in Charge--Edward Fiocchi Open Source Center, Seoul Bureau Chief--Kristen Patel DHS-Citizenship and Immigration Services--Kenneth Sherman DHS-Immigration and Customs Enforcement Attache--Jeffrey Deal

The U.S. Embassy in South Korea is located at 32 Sejong-no, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110- 710. The contact information for the U.S. Embassy is: American Embassy-Seoul, Unit 15550, APO AP 96205-5550 (tel.: 82-2-397-4114; fax: 82-2-738-8845). The U.S. Agricultural Trade Office (ATO) is located at 146-1, Susong-dong, Jongno-gu, Leema Bldg., Rm. 303, Seoul 110-140 (fax: 82-2-720-7921). The U.S. Export Development Office/U.S. Trade Center can

Additional Resources The following general country guides are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402:

Library of Congress. North Korea: A Country Study. 1994. Library of Congress. South Korea: A Country Study. 1992. Department of State. The Record on Korean Unification 1943-1960. 1961. Department of the Army. Communist North Korea: A Bibliographic Survey. 1971.

Internet Resources on North and South Korea The following sites are provided to give an indication of Internet sites on Korea. The Department of State does not endorse unofficial publications, including Internet sites.

R.O.K. Embassy--http://www.koreaembassyusa.org/ Korea Society--http://www.koreasociety.org/; links to academic and other sites. Nautilus Institute--http://www.nautilus.org/; produced by the Nautilus Institute in California, and includes press roundup Monday through Friday. Joongang Daily--http://joongangdaily.joins.com/; South Korean English-language newspaper. Korea Herald--http://www.koreaherald.com/; South Korean English-language newspaper. Korea Times--http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/; South Korean English-language newspaper. (North) Korean Central News Agency--http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

TRAVEL AND BUSINESS INFORMATION Travel Alerts, Travel Warnings, Trip Registration The U.S. Department of State's Consular Information Program advises Americans traveling and residing abroad through Country Specific Information, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings. Country Specific Information exists for all countries and includes information on entry and exit requirements, currency regulations, health conditions, safety and security, crime, political disturbances, and the addresses of the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Travel Alerts are issued to disseminate information quickly about terrorist threats and other relatively short-term conditions overseas that pose significant risks to the security of American travelers. Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid travel to a certain country because the situation is dangerous or unstable.

For the latest security information, Americans living and traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet web site at http://travel.state.gov, where current Worldwide Caution, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings can be found. The travel.state.gov website also includes information about passports, tips for planning a safe trip abroad and more. More travel-related information also is available at http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Travel/International.shtml.

The Department's Smart Traveler app for U.S. travelers going abroad provides easy access to the frequently updated official country information, travel alerts, travel warnings, maps, U.S. embassy locations, and more that appear on the travel.state.gov site. Travelers can also set up e-tineraries to keep track of arrival and departure dates and make notes about upcoming trips. The app is compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad (requires iOS 4.0 or later).

The Department of State encourages all U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad to enroll in the State Department's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). A link to the registration page is also available through the Department's Smart Traveler app. U.S. citizens without internet access can enroll directly at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. By enrolling, you make your presence and whereabouts known in case it is necessary to contact you in an emergency and so you can receive up-to-date information on security conditions.

Emergency information concerning Americans traveling abroad may be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the U.S. and Canada or the regular toll line 1-202-501-4444 for callers outside the U.S. and Canada.

Passports The National Passport Information Center (NPIC) is the U.S. Department of State's single, centralized public contact center for U.S. passport information. Telephone: 1-877-4-USA- PPT (1-877-487-2778); TDD/TTY: 1-888-874-7793. Passport information is available 24 hours, 7 days a week. You may speak with a representative Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., Eastern Time, excluding federal holidays. Health Information Travelers can check the latest health information with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. A hotline at 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) and a web site at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/default.aspx give the most recent health advisories, immunization recommendations or requirements, and advice on food and drinking water safety for regions and countries. The CDC publication "Health Information for International Travel" can be found at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/contentYellowBook.aspx.

More Electronic Information Department of State Web Site. Available on the Internet at http://www.state.gov, the Department of State web site provides timely, global access to official U.S. foreign policy information, including more Background Notes, the Department's daily press briefings along with the directory of key officers of Foreign Service posts and more. The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) provides security information and regional news that impact U.S. companies working abroad through its website http://www.osac.gov

Export.gov provides a portal to all export-related assistance and market information offered by the federal government and provides trade leads, free export counseling, help with the export process, and more.

Mobile Sources. Background Notes are available on mobile devices at http://m.state.gov/mc36882.htm, or use the QR code below.

In addition, a mobile version of the Department's http://www.state.gov website is available at http://m.state.gov, or use the QR code below. Included on this site are Top Stories, remarks and speeches by Secretary Clinton, Daily Press Briefings, Country Information, and more.

Background Note: Portugal

Official Name: Portuguese Republic

PROFILE

Geography Area: 92,391 sq. km.; includes continental Portugal, the Azores (2,333 sq. km.) and Madeira Islands (828 sq. km.); slightly smaller than the State of Indiana; located in Europe's southwest corner bordered by Spain (North and East, 1,214 km.) and the Atlantic Ocean (West and South, 1,793 km.). Major cities: Lisbon (capital, metropolitan area pop. 2.1 million); Porto (metropolitan area pop. 1.9 million). Terrain: Mountainous in the north; rolling plains in the central and southern regions. Climate: Maritime temperate (Atlantic-Mediterranean); average annual temperature is 61°F. Temperatures may drop into the low 30s (°F) at night during the coldest months, with daytime highs in the 50s and 60s. The remainder of the year is normally sunny with minimal rainfall. Days are pleasant, with temperatures seldom exceeding 95°F, except in the southern interior of the country; afternoons and evenings are breezy, with nighttime temperatures in the 60s and low 70s; May-October (dry and warm), November-April (cool with rain and wind in the north, mild in the south).

People Nationality: Noun and adjective--Portuguese (singular and plural). Population (2011 est.): 10.6 million. Ages 0 to 14 years--1.6 million (male 830,611; female 789,194). Ages 15 to 24 years--1.2 million (male 609,177; female 585,072). Ages 25 to 64 years--5.9 million (male 2,917,633; female 3,013,120). Ages 65 years and over--1.9 million (male 787,967; female 1,099,715). Population density: 114 per sq. km. (44 per sq. mi.). Annual population growth rate (2008 est.): 0.8%. Ethnic groups: Homogeneous Mediterranean stock with small minority groups from Africa (Angola, , Mozambique), South America (Brazil), and Eastern Europe (, Romania). Religion: Roman Catholic 92%, Protestant 4%, atheists 3%, others 1%. Language: Portuguese. Education: Years compulsory--12. Literacy (2008)--94.9%. Health (2010): Birth rate--9.5/1,000 (1.07 male/female). Death rate--10.0/1,000. Infant mortality rate--2.5/1,000. Life expectancy--79.2 years. Work force (2010): 5.57 million. Government and services (59.8%); industry and manufacturing (28.5%); agriculture and fishing (11.7%).

Government Type: Republic. Constitution: Effective April 25, 1976; revised 1982, 1989, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2004, and 2005. Branches: Executive--president (), Council of State (presidential advisory body), prime minister (head of government), Council of Ministers. Legislative--unicameral Assembly of the Republic (230 deputies): PS=74, PSD=108, PCP=14, CDS/PP=24, BE=8, PEV=2. Judicial--Supreme Court, District Courts, Appeals Courts, Constitutional Tribunal. Major political parties: Socialist Party (PS); Social Democratic Party (PSD); Portuguese Communist Party (PCP); Popular Party (CDS/PP); Left Bloc (BE); Green Party (PEV). Administrative subdivisions: 18 districts (Lisbon, Leiria, Santarem, Setubal, Beja, Faro, Evora, Portalegre, Castelo Branco, Guarda, Coimbra, Aveiro, Viseu, Braganca, Vila Real, Porto, Braga, Viana do Castelo); 2 autonomous island regions (the Azores and Madeira).

Economy GDP (2010 est.): €160.3 billion (approx. $208 billion). Annual growth rate (2010 est.): 0.91%. Per capita GDP (2010 est.): €18,453 (approx. $23,965). Avg. inflation rate (2010 est.): 1.2%. Services (75.4% gross value added): Wholesale and retail trade; hotels and tourism; restaurants; transport, storage and communication; real estate; banking and finance; repair; government, civil, and public sectors. Industry (22.3% gross value added): Textiles, clothing, footwear, wood and cork, paper, chemicals, auto-parts manufacturing, base metals, dairy products, wine and other foods, porcelain and ceramics; glassware, technology; telecommunications. Agriculture (2.3% gross value added): Livestock, crops, fish. Trade (2010): Exports--€36.8 billion (approx. $28.3 billion): machinery and tools 14.9%; textile materials, clothing and footwear 13.7%; vehicles and other transport materials 12.4%; wood, cork, paper and wood pulp 9.2%; other 49.8%. Imports--€55 billion (approx. $42.3 billion): machinery and tools 16.3%; oil products 14.7%; vehicles and other transport material 14.1%; chemical products 10%; agricultural products 9.5%; other 35%. Export partners--Spain (26.6%); Germany (13.9%); France (11.8%); United Kingdom (5.5%); Angola (5.2%); Netherlands (3.8%); Italy (3.8%); United States (3.6%); Belgium (2.9%); Brazil (1.2%); other (22%). EU 27 (74%). Import partners--Spain (31.2%); Germany (13.9%); France (7.3%); Italy (5.7%); Netherlands (5.1%); United Kingdom (3.8%); Belgium (2.9%); China (2.8%); Nigeria (2.4%); Brazil (1.8%); other (23.1%). EU 27 (75.6%). U.S. trade with Portugal (2010): Exports--$1 billion: transportation equipment (21.9%); computer and electronic products (15.2%); agricultural products (7.7%); machinery (7.5%); all others (47.7%). Imports--$2.1 billion: mineral fuels, oils (28.5%); transportation equipment (10.2%); wood products (7.9%); paper (6.6%); all others (46.8%). Foreign direct investment (FDI, 2010): Incoming FDI by industry--wholesale and retail 39.3%; manufacturing 24.4%; financial and insurance activities 18.2%; information and communication activities 5.6%; consultancy, scientific, and technical activities 3.1%; real estate 1.2%; construction 1%; electricity, gas, water 0.6%; other 6.6%. Incoming FDI by country in euros (total €35 billion; approx. $26.9 billion)--Germany 18.3%; France 16.7%; United Kingdom 13.8%; Spain 13.6%; Netherlands 10.3%; Luxembourg 7%; Brazil 5.5%; Switzerland 5.2%; Belgium 2.4%; Ireland 1.8%; other 5.4%. Portuguese FDI abroad by country in euros (total €6.8 billion; approx. $5.2 billion)--Luxembourg 18.5%; Brazil 17.1%; Spain 13.5%; Netherlands 12.1%; Angola 3.3%; Poland 3.2%; United States 2.7%; United Kingdom 1.9%; Romania 1.5%; France 1.3%; other 24.9%. Exchange rate: (2009) U.S. $1 = 0.74 EUR (€); (2010) U.S. $1 =0.77 EUR.

HISTORY Portugal is one of the oldest states in Europe. It traces its modern history to A.D. 1140 when, following a 9-year rebellion against the King of Leon-Castile, Afonso Henriques, the Count of Portugal, became the country's first king, Afonso I. Afonso and his successors expanded their territory southward, capturing Lisbon from the Moors in 1147. The approximate present-day boundaries were secured in 1249 by Afonso III.

By 1337, Portuguese explorers had reached the Canary Islands. Inspired by Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460), explorers such as Vasco da Gama, Bartolomeu Dias, and Pedro Alvares Cabral made explorations from Brazil to India and Japan. Portugal eventually became a massive colonial empire with vast territories in Africa (Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, Bissau, Sao Tome) and Latin America (Brazil), and outposts in the Far East (East Timor, Macau, Goa).

Dynastic disputes led in 1580 to the succession of Philip II of Spain to the Portuguese throne. A revolt ended Spanish in 1640, and the House of Braganca was established as Portugal's ruling family, lasting until the establishment of the Portuguese Republic in 1910.

During the next 16 years, intense political rivalries and economic instability undermined newly established democratic institutions. Responding to pressing economic problems, a military government, which had taken power in 1926, named a prominent university economist, Antonio Salazar, as finance minister in 1928 and prime minister in 1932. For the next 42 years, Salazar and his successor, Marcelo Caetano (appointed prime minister in 1968), ruled Portugal as an authoritarian "corporate" state. Unlike most other European countries, Portugal remained neutral in World War II. It was a charter member of NATO, joining in 1949.

In the early 1960s, wars against independence movements in Portugal's African territories began to drain labor and wealth from Portugal. Professional dissatisfaction within the military, coupled with a growing sense of the futility of the African conflicts, led to the formation of the clandestine "Armed Forces Movement" in 1973.

The downfall of the Portuguese corporate state came on April 25, 1974, when the Armed Forces Movement seized power in a nearly bloodless coup and established a provisional military government.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS Portugal moved from authoritarian rule to parliamentary democracy following the 1974 military coup against Marcelo Caetano, whose rule embodied a continuation of the long- running dictatorship of Antonio Salazar. After a period of instability and communist agitation, Portugal ratified a new constitution in 1976. Subsequent revisions of the constitution placed the military under strict civilian control; trimmed the powers of the president; and laid the groundwork for a stable, pluralistic liberal democracy, as well as privatization of nationalized firms and the government-owned media. Portugal joined the European Union (EU) in 1986 and has moved toward greater political and economic integration with Europe ever since.

The four main branches of the national government are the presidency, the prime minister and Council of Ministers (the government), the Assembly of the Republic (the parliament), and the judiciary. The president, elected to a 5-year term by direct, , also is commander in chief of the armed forces. Presidential powers include confirming the prime minister and Council of Ministers; dismissing the prime minister; dissolving the assembly to call early elections; vetoing legislation, which may be overridden by the assembly; and declaring a state of war or siege. The Council of State, a presidential advisory body, is composed of six senior civilian officers, former presidents elected under the 1976 constitution, five members chosen by the assembly, and five selected by the president.

The government is headed by the prime minister, who is nominated by the assembly for confirmation by the president. The prime minister then names the Council of Ministers. A new government is required to present its governing platform to the assembly for approval.

The Assembly of the Republic is a unicameral body composed of 230 deputies. Elected by universal suffrage according to a system of proportional representation, deputies serve terms of office of 4 years, unless the president dissolves the assembly and calls for new elections. The national Supreme Court is the court of last appeal. Military, administrative, and fiscal courts are designated as separate court categories. A nine-member Constitutional Tribunal reviews the constitutionality of legislation.

The Azores and Madeira Islands have constitutionally mandated autonomous status. A regional autonomy statute promulgated in 1980 established the Government of the Autonomous Region of the Azores; the Government of the Autonomous Region of Madeira operates under a provisional autonomy statute in effect since 1976. Continental Portugal is divided into 18 districts, each headed by a governor appointed by the Minister of Internal Administration.

Current Administration Socialist Party (PS) Prime Minister Jose resigned in March 2011 after his minority government‘s austerity plan was rejected by the parliament. Rising unemployment and unsustainable public sector deficits led his caretaker government to seek a May 2011 EU/International Monetary Fund bailout agreement. Social Democratic Party (PSD) Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho‘s government took office following June 5, 2011 parliamentary elections. Since then, the new government has been largely preoccupied with the implementation of broad austerity measures pursuant to the agreement.

Social Democrat Anibal Cavaco Silva, a center-right candidate and former prime minister (1985-1995), won the Portuguese presidential election on January 22, 2006 with 50.6% of the vote, becoming Portugal‘s first center-right head of state in 3 decades. He was re-elected on January 23, 2011 with 53% of the vote and was sworn in on March 9, 2011.

Principal Government Officials President of the Portuguese Republic--Anibal Cavaco Silva Prime Minister--Pedro Passos Coelho

Minister of State and Finance--Vitor Gaspar Minister of State and Foreign Affairs--Paulo Portas Minister of National Defense--Jose Pedro Aguiar Branco Minister of Internal Administration--Miguel Macedo Minister of Justice--Paula Teixeira da Cruz Minister of Parliamentary Affairs--Miguel Relvas Minister of Economy and Labor--Alvaro Santos Pereira Minister of Agriculture, Oceans, Environment and Territorial Administration--Assuncao Cristas Minister of Health--Paulo Macedo Minister of Education and Science--Nuno Crato Minister of Solidarity and Social Security--Pedro Mota Soares

President of the Government of the Autonomous Region of the Azores--Carlos Cesar President of the Government of the Autonomous Region of Madeira--Alberto Joao Jardim Ambassador to the United States--Nuno Brito

Portugal maintains an embassy in the United States at 2012 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036; tel. 1-202-350-5400; fax 1-202-462-3726 and consulates general in New York City, Boston, San Francisco, and Newark, NJ; consulates in Providence, RI and New Bedford, MA; and honorary consulates in Honolulu, Los Angeles, Houston, New Orleans, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, San Juan, and Waterbury, CT. The Portuguese National Tourist Office in the United States is located at 590 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10036 (tel: 1-212-354-4403).

ECONOMY The Portuguese economy experienced boosts when Portugal joined the European Union in 1986 and the European Monetary Union (EMU) in 1999. In recent years, however, it suffered from sluggish to negative growth, a ballooning budget deficit, and low productivity and competitiveness, which, exacerbated by the onset of the euro zone debt crisis, led to record- high spreads on sovereign debt and downgrades in credit ratings. On May 3, 2011, Portugal‘s Socialist caretaker government reached agreement with the European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF)--―the troika‖--on a €78 billion (approx. $111 billion), 3-year bailout package that required Portugal to implement comprehensive austerity measures, including privatization of state-owned enterprises and measures to reform its labor market and justice sector. The package was approved by EU and euro zone finance ministers in mid-May. The new PSD-led government of Prime Minister Coelho took office in June 2011. The troika has given the Portuguese Government high marks for its implementation of the agreement, while identifying gaps and areas for improvement. Although workers have organized protests and strikes to oppose austerity measures, demonstrations have been relatively nonviolent. Nevertheless, Portugal‘s economic future depends heavily on wider euro zone developments.

Before the economic crisis, Portugal's membership in the EU had contributed to stable economic growth, largely through increased trade fostered by Portugal‘s low labor costs and an influx of EU funds for infrastructure improvements. Portugal's subsequent entry into the EMU brought exchange rate stability, lower inflation, and lower interest rates. Falling interest rates, in turn, lowered the cost of public debt and helped the country achieve its fiscal targets. Until 2001, average annual growth rates consistently exceeded those of the EU average. However, a dramatic increase in private sector loans led to a serious external imbalance, with large capital account deficits that year. De-leveraging by Portuguese banks to meet the June 2011 EU requirement to increase core tier-one capital ratios above 9% has caused bank lending to tighten.

The Government of Portugal managed to keep the budget deficit under 3% in accordance with the euro zone's Stability and Growth Pact during 2002-2004. However, in 2005 Portugal‘s budget deficit surged to a high of 5.9%. Subsequently, the government undertook efforts to bring the budget situation under control. In 2006, the government reduced the deficit to 4.1%, mainly through revenue-generating measures, including increased collection enforcement and higher taxes. The 2007 budget further reduced the deficit to 3.1% of GDP, through spending cuts and structural reforms. In 2009, however, the budget deficit soared to 10.1% of GDP as a result of a more than 11% drop in tax revenue. Portugal‘s public debt reached 93% of GDP in 2010, with a projected increase to 97.3% of GDP in 2011.

Helped in part by a wider EU recovery, the Portuguese economy grew by 2.74% in 2007, up from 1.4% the previous year. But a slowing regional economy saw the Portuguese economy contract by 0.35% in 2008 and by 2.1% in 2009. Although GDP grew 0.91% in 2010, it contracted 1.6% in 2011 and is projected to contract 3.2% in 2012 as a result of higher taxes and public wage cuts introduced under the government‘s austerity program.

Unemployment is expected to rise in coming years and reach 12.5% in 2011, 13.8% in 2012, and 14.2% in 2013, up from 7.6% in 2008, 9.5% in 2009, and 10.8% in 2010.

The service sector, which includes public service, wholesale and retail trade, tourism, real estate, and banking and finance, is now Portugal's largest employer, having overtaken the traditionally predominant manufacturing and agriculture sectors since the country joined the EU in 1986. EU expansion into Eastern Europe has negated Portugal's historically competitive advantage of relatively low labor costs, particularly in the manufacturing and agriculture sectors. Since 2009, governments have been working to change Portugal's economic development model from one based on public consumption and public investment to one focused on exports, private investment, and development of the high-tech sector.

Due to weak economic growth, Portugal has lost ground relative to the rest of the EU since 2002. Portugal's 2010 per capita GDP stood at 80 Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) compared to the EU-27 average of 100 PPS, leaving the country in last place among its Western European counterparts after accounting for price differences (but ahead of EU‘s newest members). Now among the weaker economies in the EU, and the third euro zone member (after Greece and Ireland) to request a bailout, Portugal aims to reduce its budget deficit to 5.9% (from 9.1% in 2010) of GDP in 2011, 4.5% in 2012, and 3% in 2013. In accordance with the terms of its bailout agreement, Portugal has until 2014 to bring its budget deficit back below the mandated 3% euro zone limit. In 2010, the government implemented a series of austerity measures, including cutting public sector wages, reducing attrition replacement hiring, decreasing pension benefits for early government retirement, and increasing taxes. The government‘s 2012 budget, considered the most demanding in 30 years, includes salary cuts for public sector employees, benefit cuts, and tax hikes. The government seeks to impose fiscal discipline and further reduce its deficit over the next 3 years through structural reform measures, as agreed upon with the EU and IMF.

FOREIGN RELATIONS Portugal has been a significant beneficiary of European Union funding and is a strong proponent of European integration.

Portugal has consistently supported EU expansion, including entry talks with . Of Portugal‘s three foreign policy priorities (EU, transatlantic ties, Lusophone states), the EU is the most important. EU policies and regulations increasingly direct Portuguese law and policy, and Portuguese foreign policy is increasingly influenced by a need for EU consensus. Portugal is a member of the ―Schengen‖ passport-free zone.

Portugal joined the United Nations in 1955 and holds a non-permanent Security Council seat for 2011-2012, having previously served on the Council in 1979-80 and 1997-98. Portugal is an active participant in UN organizations, and is seeking a seat on the Human Rights Council for 2014-2017. Portuguese forces participate in many UN operations, including Congo, Guinea, , and Timor-Leste.

Portugal is a founding member of NATO; it is an active member of the alliance, and Portuguese forces participate in NATO operations in and Kosovo. Portugal hosted the 2010 NATO Summit.

Portugal is a key member of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP), an organization headquartered in Lisbon intended to unite Lusophone nations and discuss promoting the as well as political and economic linkages. Portugal is also a member of the Community of Democracies (CD) and has participated in a series of Ibero-American summits. Portugal was a strong advocate of independence for Timor-Leste, a former Portuguese colony, and has provided troops and money to Timor-Leste in close cooperation with the United States, Asian allies, and the United Nations.

U.S.-PORTUGUESE RELATIONS Bilateral ties date from the earliest years of the United States. Following the Revolutionary War, Portugal was among the first countries to recognize the United States. On February 21, 1791, President George Washington opened formal diplomatic relations, naming Col. David Humphreys as U.S. minister. The oldest continuously-operating U.S. Consulate in the world, since 1795, is in Ponta Delgada on the island of Sao Miguel in the Azores.

Contributing to the strong ties between the United States and Portugal are the sizable Portuguese communities in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, California, and Hawaii. The latest census estimates that 1.3 million individuals living in the United States are of Portuguese ancestry, with a large percentage coming from the Azores. There are about 20,000 Americans living in Portugal.

The United States-Portugal defense relationship is strong and enduring. The current U.S.- Portugal Agreement on Cooperation and Defense (ACD) was signed in 1995; however, a U.S. military forward presence at Lajes Field, in the Azores, extends back to World War II. U.S. Air Forces Europe's 65 Air Base Wing, in close cooperation with the Portuguese Air Force, ensures that Lajes Field remains an important logistic hub for U.S. Transportation Command, U.S. European Command, and NATO Allies. Access to Lajes Field is a key component of U.S. European Command‘s engagement in Portugal. This access supports deployed U.S. forces throughout Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. U.S. missions supported by a presence at Lajes Field include counterterrorism, humanitarian, and combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Portugal values the transatlantic alliance and advocates within the European Union and NATO for strong European ties with the United States, particularly on defense and security issues. The Portuguese Government is open to greater cooperation with U.S. Africa Command to synchronize engagement efforts, and to enhance bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the U.S. on the African continent. Portugal hosted a NATO Joint Command Lisbon until June 2011, when NATO command structure reforms agreed at the 2010 Lisbon NATO Summit took effect. Also as part of the restructuring agreement, Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO (STRIKFORNATO) will be transferred from Italy to Portugal. This is NATO‘s premier maritime battle staff and the Alliance‘s primary link for integrating U.S. maritime forces into NATO operations.

U.S.-Portuguese trade is relatively small, with the United States exporting $1 billion worth of goods in 2010 and importing an estimated $2.1 billion. While total Portuguese trade has increased dramatically over the last 10 years, the U.S. percentage of Portugal's exports and imports has been growing at a slower rate. The Portuguese Government is seeking to increase technology and service exports, as well as traditional products (textiles and footwear) to the United States and is encouraging greater bilateral investment. U.S. firms play significant roles in the pharmaceutical, computer, and retail sectors in Portugal, but their involvement in the automotive manufacturing sector has declined in recent years.

Pursuant to the 1995 ACD, a U.S.-Portugal Standing Bilateral Commission meets semi- annually to review all aspects of the bilateral relationship, including defense cooperation, science and technology cooperation, bilateral trade and investment, cooperation in the Azores, justice and home affairs, political and diplomatic cooperation, and consular issues.

Principal U.S. Officials Ambassador--Allan J. Katz Deputy Chief of Mission--Lucy Tamlyn Political/Economic Affairs--Gabriel Escobar Consular Affairs--Christopher RichardManagement Affairs--Bruce Wilson Public Affairs--Virginia Staab Acting Regional Security Officer--David Groccia Commercial Affairs--Mark Russell Defense Attache--COL William Hampton Office of Defense Cooperation--Terry Dudley Principal Officer, Ponta Delgada--Rafael Perez

The U.S. Embassy is located at Avenida das Forcas Armadas, 1600-081 Lisbon, Portugal (tel.: +351-21-727-3300). The embassy homepage is: http://portugal.usembassy.gov. The Ponta Delgada consulate is located at Avenida Principe Monaco, 6-2 Frente, Ponta Delgada, 9500-237 Sao Miguel, Azores (tel.: +351-29-628-2216). The consulate homepage is: http://azores.usconsulate.gov/. The consular agent in Funchal, Madeira is Edgar Potter (tel.: +351-29-174-1088).

TRAVEL AND BUSINESS INFORMATION Travel Alerts, Travel Warnings, Trip Registration The U.S. Department of State's Consular Information Program advises Americans traveling and residing abroad through Country Specific Information, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings. Country Specific Information exists for all countries and includes information on entry and exit requirements, currency regulations, health conditions, safety and security, crime, political disturbances, and the addresses of the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Travel Alerts are issued to disseminate information quickly about terrorist threats and other relatively short-term conditions overseas that pose significant risks to the security of American travelers. Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid travel to a certain country because the situation is dangerous or unstable.

For the latest security information, Americans living and traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet web site at http://travel.state.gov, where current Worldwide Caution, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings can be found. The travel.state.gov website also includes information about passports, tips for planning a safe trip abroad and more. More travel-related information also is available at http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Travel/International.shtml.

The Department's Smart Traveler app for U.S. travelers going abroad provides easy access to the frequently updated official country information, travel alerts, travel warnings, maps, U.S. embassy locations, and more that appear on the travel.state.gov site. Travelers can also set up e-tineraries to keep track of arrival and departure dates and make notes about upcoming trips. The app is compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad (requires iOS 4.0 or later).

The Department of State encourages all U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad to enroll in the State Department's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). A link to the registration page is also available through the Department's Smart Traveler app. U.S. citizens without internet access can enroll directly at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. By enrolling, you make your presence and whereabouts known in case it is necessary to contact you in an emergency and so you can receive up-to-date information on security conditions. Emergency information concerning Americans traveling abroad may be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the U.S. and Canada or the regular toll line 1-202-501-4444 for callers outside the U.S. and Canada.

Passports The National Passport Information Center (NPIC) is the U.S. Department of State's single, centralized public contact center for U.S. passport information. Telephone: 1-877-4-USA- PPT (1-877-487-2778); TDD/TTY: 1-888-874-7793. Passport information is available 24 hours, 7 days a week. You may speak with a representative Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., Eastern Time, excluding federal holidays.

Health Information Travelers can check the latest health information with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. A hotline at 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) and a web site at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/default.aspx give the most recent health advisories, immunization recommendations or requirements, and advice on food and drinking water safety for regions and countries. The CDC publication "Health Information for International Travel" can be found at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/contentYellowBook.aspx.

More Electronic Information Department of State Web Site. Available on the Internet at http://www.state.gov, the Department of State web site provides timely, global access to official U.S. foreign policy information, including more Background Notes, the Department's daily press briefings along with the directory of key officers of Foreign Service posts and more. The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) provides security information and regional news that impact U.S. companies working abroad through its website http://www.osac.gov

Export.gov provides a portal to all export-related assistance and market information offered by the federal government and provides trade leads, free export counseling, help with the export process, and more.

Mobile Sources. Background Notes are available on mobile devices at http://m.state.gov/mc36882.htm, or use the QR code below.

In addition, a mobile version of the Department's http://www.state.gov website is available at http://m.state.gov, or use the QR code below. Included on this site are Top Stories, remarks and speeches by Secretary Clinton, Daily Press Briefings, Country Information, and more.