Comparative Politics: McFaul and Uvin on Democracy and Ethnic Violence
This paper examines two works in comparative politics — Michael McFaul's "Transitions from Postcommunism" (2005) and Peter Uvin's "Ethnicity and Power in Burundi and Rwanda" (1999) — and evaluates how each author uses cross-country comparison to explain distinct political outcomes. McFaul analyzes Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia to identify the critical factors behind successful democratic transitions from authoritarianism. Uvin, by contrast, traces the historical roots of ethnic polarization in Rwanda and Burundi to explain diverging paths to mass violence. The paper compares their methodologies, assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each argument, and concludes that both scholars, despite studying opposite phenomena, share a common comparative approach aimed at informing future political understanding.
- Introduction: Comparison as a Political Science Method: Introduces McFaul and Uvin's shared comparative approach
- McFaul on Democratic Transitions in Post-Communist States: McFaul examines Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine's democratic breakthroughs
- Uvin on Ethnic Polarization in Rwanda and Burundi: Uvin investigates ethnic violence origins in two African states
- Methodology: Understanding the Present Through the Past: Both scholars use historical analysis to explain current outcomes
- Evaluating the Strength of McFaul's Argument: Assesses evidence and weaknesses in McFaul's transition factors
- Evaluating the Strength of Uvin's Argument: Evaluates Uvin's historical evidence and argumentative gaps
- Conclusion: The Common Purpose of Comparative Analysis: Synthesizes both scholars' shared comparative political purpose
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper establishes a clear tertium comparationis — both McFaul and Uvin use cross-country comparison to explain political outcomes — which gives the essay a unifying analytical thread despite the two authors studying entirely different phenomena.
- The writer balances symmetry and distinction: each author's methodology is described in parallel, which makes differences in approach (similarities vs. differences; patterns vs. historical analysis) easy to track.
- Specific textual evidence from both sources is cited throughout, grounding observations in the actual arguments of the scholars rather than broad paraphrase.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates parallel comparative analysis at the meta level — comparing how two scholars themselves use comparison. By placing McFaul and Uvin side by side, the author shows that finding similarities (McFaul) and finding differences (Uvin) are ultimately two expressions of the same comparative method, a point made explicit in the conclusion. This reflexive use of comparison is a sophisticated move for undergraduate political science writing.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a shared introduction situating both works, then devotes alternating sections to each scholar's research focus and methodology. A pair of evaluative sections assess the argumentative strengths and weaknesses of McFaul and Uvin respectively, drawing on specific claims and evidence from each text. The conclusion synthesizes the parallel analysis into a broader claim about the purpose and value of comparative politics as a discipline.
Introduction: Comparison as a Political Science Method
Comparative politics seeks to find the similarities and differences between countries in order to explain the causes and effects of political actions. In this way, even studies covering vastly different topics can have much in common. Peter Uvin, in his 1999 article "Ethnicity and Power in Burundi and Rwanda: Different Paths to Mass Violence," seeks an explanation for ethnic violence in Burundi and Rwanda and examines how both countries reached their level of violence resulting from political conflict. On an entirely different subject, Michael McFaul, in his 2005 article "Transitions from Postcommunism," looks for the common factors that lead to a transition from authoritarianism to democracy. In comparing post-communist regimes, he uses Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia as case studies, taking into account how each overcame authoritarian leadership.
While studying different topics in entirely different spheres of world politics, Uvin and McFaul have much in common. Both seek, through comparing events in countries that share a similar resulting action, to find the underlying reasons for it. For Uvin, the final action is ethnic and political violence; for McFaul, it is the advent of democracy. Regardless of their specific focus, both scholars consider the fundamental "building blocks" of politics in making claims that reach beyond mere historical evaluation. McFaul and Uvin are each successful in comparing the political actions of different regimes and countries to develop a better understanding of the past, in the hopes of creating a better understanding of the future.
McFaul on Democratic Transitions in Post-Communist States
McFaul examines post-communist states but focuses primarily on three countries that have successfully moved from authoritarianism to democracy. By focusing on Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine, McFaul is able to account specifically for the reasons these three countries can be considered more successful in their democratic politics than other post-communist states that have struggled to find their footing after the fall of communism. In his own words, McFaul's study is "seeking to learn lessons from the democratic breakthrough" (McFaul 17). This means that by using countries that have become democratic, McFaul can not only explain the reasons for their success through comparison, but can also use those reasons to gain insight into the future — helping to identify other potential democratic states, or, perhaps more importantly, helping to encourage the transition to democracy in the many countries still struggling to achieve it.
Works Cited
McFaul, Michael. "Transitions from Postcommunism." Journal of Democracy, Vol. 16 (2005): 5–19.
Uvin, Peter. "Ethnicity and Power in Burundi and Rwanda: Different Paths to Mass Violence." Comparative Politics, Vol. 31 (1999): 253–271.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.