Responses to Questions

Responses to Questions

Question One: What is Prebendalism and How it Differs from Patronage

Prebendalism means how agents of a state assume and undermine authority. The assumption made is often for personal benefits as they expect to gain something out of it. In other words, to better understand the term, shouzhangs are commonly used as the best example, whereby they expect their mishus to utilize their positions as the second in command in the acquisition of wealth through misappropriation of funds. Corruption exists among the mishus and their shouzhangs, whereby, shouzhang, who is the boss, expects mishu, the secretary, to cover him when they engage in crime and other illicit behaviors for personal gains.

The distinction between prebendalism and patronage is based on whether the behavior is acceptable or not. The former is acceptable, whereas the latter is illegal because no rules are to be assumed in the process of acquiring wealth when one follows the legal channels. A perfect illustration of patronage is evident in Vladimir’s Russian government, whereby the public officials embezzled funds entrusted to them for development.

Question Two: The Tradition Mishu and Shouzhang Relationship in Chinese politics

The foreign word is probably a problem to many, but while loosely translated to English, it simply means the relationship between a secretary and a boss. Mishus and shouzhangs are codependent in the places of work. For the relationship to work out, understanding between the two has to be cultivated by getting to learn each other’s characters. Shouzhangs depend on their mishus to get their work quickly done at work while keeping their comfort into consideration. For their excellent work, shouzhangs, in turn, give their mishus recommendations based on their competence. The relationship cannot work with mistrust since the mishus are assigned tasks that require them to deal with sensitive information that could cause havoc when leaked to the wrong people.

Often, shouzhangs do not trust strangers to fill in the positions of their secretary. They tend to turn to family members to take the positions since they are bound by blood or marriage and can, therefore, confide in each other without fear of betrayal. As much as they prefer family members, the criteria for getting the job still holds. Qualifications are needed from the part of the mishu because they carry out tasks such as handling of all the documents, receiving guests, controlling the information conveyed to the boss as well as organizational practice skills around the office. Misconceptions in the society claim that the position is demeaning. That is contrary to what is right. The mishu is often the second in command because, in the absence of the shouzhang, they can decide on their behalf.

Question Three: How the Mishu-Shouzhang Relationship Changed Since the Economy Opened Up in the 1970s

The economic variables that changed in the 1970s necessitated dependency on the personal relationship. The relationship that was initially only used by those in higher ranks was employed more and more because of the sudden wave of improved economics. The economics were exposed out there, making the relationship a formidable force that would commit corruption. The corruption can be in many forms, whether through illegal dealings, nepotism, and corruption in places of work.

Decentralization is also to blame for the corruption experienced. The mishus are at the center of crimes because they are employed at every level of the government. An example of a case of corruption than a mishu assisted in is the secretary of the former Governor of Hebei province, who stole millions of government funds and was sentenced to death for his misgivings. The mishu’s power became formidable and a force to reckon.

Question Four: Clan Political Model Used in the Explanation of the Post-Soviet Development and Its Flaws

Formal institutions did not explain in totality the economic and political changes that took place. Neopatrimonialism was adopted post the Soviet Union for political development as it entailed the fusion of both the olden and new ways. The traditional customs of the clan system and legal institutions, the president, and parliament, were brought together.

The system was, however, flawed in that an assumption was made that the traditional groups, clans, were a group of people united by kinship ties. They assumed that the clan system would not be of help, and it was not cultivated, eventually leading to the demise of the system. The elites were also at fault as the thought they were more important than the rest of the people, therefore, creating nationalism in the republics, which led to the fall of the Soviet Union. They also misused the word clan to mean people with family relations as opposed to the meaning that would have been used that a clan is a group of people who are brought together by their similar economic and political ideologies and not based on tribes.

Question Five: Mode that Isaac Utilizes to Explain What Transpired in Kazakhstan After the Failure of the Soviet Union

Many challenges were experienced after Kazakhstan broke away from the Soviet Union. The constitution that existed gave the president considerable power over the parliament, making it impossible for the parliament to be able to impeach the president. As much as the president had control over the parliament, the parliament had more control when it came to making changes to the constitution as well as approving the budget without involving the president. During these times, a body, the Supreme Soviet, was created for making important decisions regarding the state. The body’s role was different in comparison to during the soviet [period since it became the genesis of all laws.

Later on, pluralism emerged; the country became a multi-party state after it was evident that the country was lagging in comparison to other republics that were under the Soviet Union. The president, Nazarbayev, counteracted the pluralism by creating his political party, the Social Party of Kazakhstan, which later withdrew its support for the president. Nazarbayev devised a plan whereby he used patronage to dissolve the parliament. After the dissolution of parliament, democratization was dropped, and authoritarianism adopted.