Download
1 / 25
260 likes | 475 Vues
Governments, Systems and Regimes. Traditional Systems of Classification. What is being classified? Why such classifications have been undertaken?. What is Government?.
E N D
Traditional Systems of Classification • What is being classified? • Why such classifications have been undertaken?
What is Government? • Government is any mechanism through which ordered rule is maintained, its central feature being ability to make collective decisions and enforce them. • In popular use, government refers just to the highest level of political appointments: the presidents, prime ministers and cabinet members at the apex of power. • In a wider sense government consists of all organizations charged with reaching and implementing decisions for community.
A political system or regime is also commonly known as a political system, is a “system of rule”. • It is a broader term that encompasses not only the mechanisms of government and institutions of the state, but also the structures and processes through which these interact with the larger society.
First main difference between government and regime is how they are changed, in terms of how a government i.e. Conservative, moves on to another i.e. Labour. And how a regime i.e. Monarchy moves on to Democracy. • Furthermore governments compared to regime are much more easily changed, because this is decided or done during elections, where as regimes on the other hand can only be changed once there has been a military intervention.
Why Classify Political Systems? • Classification is an important tool to understand politics and government. • Therefore classification is a device for making the process of comparison more methodological and systematic. • We do classification to facilitate evaluation rather than analysis.
But all systems of classification have their drawbacks: • There is a danger of simplification. • A related problem is a possible failure to see that a phenomenon may have different meanings in different contexts. • Comparative analysis hampered by the constant danger of ethnocentrism. • Value biases tend to intrude into the classification process. • All system classifications have the drawback that they are necessarily state-bound.
Classical Typologies • One of the earliest attempts to classify forms of government was undertaken by Aristotle who analyzed the 158 Greek city-states. • In his view, governments can be categorized on the basis of two questions: • Who rules? Government could be placed in the hands of a single individual, a small group, or the many. • Who benefits from rule? Government could be conducted either in the selfish interests of the rulers or for the benefit of the entire community.
The Aristotelian system was developed by Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin. • They argued that principle of sovereignty has been the basis for all stable political regimes. • According to Bodin absolutism was the most defensible of regimes, because it established a sovereign who makes law but it is not bound by those laws. • In his book Leviathan, Hobbes described sovereignty as a monopoly of coercive power, implying that the sovereign was entirely unconstrained.
These ideas were revised by Lock and Montesquieu who advocated constitutional government. • In his book “Two Treatises of Government”, Locke advocated a system of limited government to protect natural rights such as the rights of life, liberty and property. • Montesquieu, in his book “The Spirit of the Laws” tried to develop a “scientific” study of human society. • He proposed a system of checks and balances in the form of a “separation of powers” between the executive, legislative and judicial institutions.
With the rise of sovereign nation-state, evolution of liberal-constitutional- democratic state, formation of American federation during eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, etc. the old classification of political regimes lost its relevance. • The new modes of classification which emerged were based upon the nature of constitution, concentration or distribution of power within the state, relation of the executive with the legislature, nature and extent of civil liberties, degree of Public participation or the role of ideology.
In the context of sovereign state and its structures, attempts have been made by innumerable writers to classify the political organizations from time to time. For example, Jellenick, a German writer classified political regimes into two broad categories: monarchical and republican.
Burgess presented his classification based upon four distinct principles and tried to place several forms of government into those categories. The four principles and the forms of government were: • 1) Identity or non identity with state and government- primary and representative, • 2) Tenure of executive- hereditary or elective • 3) Relationship between executive and legislature-parliamentary or presidential, and • 4) Concentration and distribution of power- unitary and federal.
From the above models of classification, we can draw certain conclusions: • Firstly, although numerous models have been identified, there is no consensus on a universal and scientific classification. • Secondly, all identified models are based upon the institutions of state, government and its organs such as legislature, executive and judiciary, constitution, law, and political organization. The socio-economic, historical and cultural factors affecting the political system were not taken into consideration. • Thirdly, and most importantly, these classifications were exclusively influenced by the type of state institutions which developed in Europe and America.
The political systems of Asia, Africa or Latin America were completely ignored. It was only after the Second World War, when these countries got independence from the colonial rule, it was found that their political systems could not be accommodated within the above models. Hence the need was felt to create new models of classification.
S.E. Finer evolved certain new basis for his mode of classification. According to him, in all the political systems, the essence is that a few rule over the many i.e. those who formulate policies and implement them are very few. In this context, he talks about three types of political systems: • i)Liberal-democratic • ii) Totalitarian system, • iii)Autocracies and oligarchies.
Jean Blondel provides a triple basis for his model of classification of political systems: • i) Nature of political system, • ii) Social philosophy and policies, and • iii)Political ideology and the autonomy of the sub-systems.
On this basis, he classifies two types of political system under each category: • a) Monarchy and Democracy, • b) Traditional and Modern, and • c) Liberal and Totalitarian.
Almond and Powell have also given a triple classification of political systems based upon structural differences and functions, and cultural secularization. They are: • a) Primitive, • b) Traditional, and • c) Modern.
The modern classification was primarily based upon liberal democratic governments as developed in Europe and North America during nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, after the Second World War, new types of political regimes emerged.
During the Cold War three worlds approach gained popularity. According to this view the world could be divided into three blocks: • A capitalist first world • A socialist second world and • A developing third world
Regimes of the Modern World • After the Cold War there is a need for new system of classification but there is no consensus on the criteria. • Among the parameters most commonly used are the following: • Who rules? • How is compliance achieved? • Is government power centralized or fragmented?
How is government power acquired or transferred? • What is the balance between the state and the individual? • What is the level of material development? • How is economic life organized? • How stable is a regime?
Five regime types can be identified in the modern world: • Western polyarchies • New Democracies • Eat Asian Regimes • Islamic Regimes • Military Regimes
