Political system

In political science, a political system means the type of political organization that can be recognized, observed or otherwise declared by a state.[1]

It defines the process for making official government decisions. It usually comprizes the governmental legal and economic system, social and cultural system, and other state and government specific systems. However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the questions of who should have authority and what the government influence on its people and economy should be.

The major types of political systems are democracies, monarchies, and authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.[2]

Definition

According to David Easton, "A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society".[3]

Sociological and socioanthropological classification

Social anthropologists generally recognize four kinds of political systems, two of which are uncentralized and two of which are centralized.[4]

Uncentralized systems
- Band society
  - Small family group, no larger than an extended family or clan; it has been defined as consisting of no more than 30 to 50 individuals.
  - A band can cease to exist if only a small group walks out.
- Tribe
  - Generally larger, consisting of many families. Tribes have more social institutions, such as a chief or elders.
  - More permanent than bands. Many tribes are sub-divided into bands.
Centralized governments
- Chiefdom
  - More complex than a tribe or a band society, and less complex than a state or a civilization
  - Characterized by pervasive inequality and centralization of authority.
  - A single lineage/family of the elite class becomes the ruling elite of the chiefdom
  - Complex chiefdoms have two or even three tiers of political hierarchy.
  - "An autonomous political unit comprising a number of villages or communities under the permanent control of a paramount chief"[5]
- Sovereign state
  - A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.
Supranational political systems
- Supranational political systems are created by independent nations to reach a common goal or gain strength from forming an alliance.
Empires
- Empires are widespread states or communities under a single rule. They are characterized by the ruler's desire for unanimous religious affiliation or posing as a threat to other empires in times of war. Empires - such as the Romans, or British - often made considerable progress in ways of democratic structures, creating and building city infrastructures, and maintaining civility within the diverse communities. Because of the intricate organization of the empires, they were often able to hold a large majority of power on a universal level.
Leagues
- Leagues are international organizations composed of states coming together for a single common purpose. In this way, leagues are different from empires, as they only seek to fulfill a single goal. Often leagues are formed on the brink of a military or economic downfall. Meetings and hearings are conducted in a neutral location with representatives of all involved nations present.

Social political science

The sociological interest in political systems is figuring out who holds power within the relationship between the government and its people and how the government’s power is used. According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there a three main types of political systems today: democracies, totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes (with hybrid regimes).[6][7] Another modern classification system includes monarchies as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three.[8] Scholars generally refer to a dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.[9][10][6][11]

Democracy

Democracy (From Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratía, dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[12]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy"). Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries, but over time more and more of a democratic country's inhabitants have generally been included. Cornerstones of democracy include freedom of assembly, association, property rights, freedom of religion and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.[13] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[13] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[14][15] States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have some times been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states.[16][17][18]

Totalitarian

Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power is often held by autocrats, such as dictators (totalitarian dictatorship) and absolute monarchs, who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry.[19] By 1950, the term and concept of totalitarianism entered mainstream Western political discourse. Furthermore this era also saw anti-communist and McCarthyist political movements intensify and use the concept of totalitarianism as a tool to convert pre-World War II anti-fascism into Cold War anti-communism.[20][21][22][23][24]

Monarchy

A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The political legitimacy and authority of the monarch may vary from restricted and largely symbolic (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), and can expand across the domains of the executive, legislative, and judicial.

The succession of monarchs in many cases has been hereditical, often building dynastic periods. However, elective and self-proclaimed monarchies have also happened. Aristocrats, though not inherent to monarchies, often serve as the pool of persons to draw the monarch from and fill the constituting institutions (e.g. diet and court), giving many monarchies oligarchic elements.

References

"Political system | Types, Components, Functions, & Facts | Britannica".
"14.2 Types of Political Systems". 8 April 2016.
Easton, David. (1971). The political system : an inquiry into the state of political science. Knopf. OCLC 470276419.
Haviland, W.A. (2003). Anthropology: Tenth Edition. Wadsworth:Belmont, CA.
Carneiro, Robert L. (2011). "The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State". In Jones, Grant D.; Kautz, Robert R. (eds.). The Transition to Statehood in the New World. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–79. ISBN 978-0-521-17269-1.
Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
Ginny Garcia-Alexander; Hyeyoung Woo; Matthew J. Carlson (3 November 2017). Social Foundations of Behavior for the Health Sciences. Springer. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-3-319-64950-4. OCLC 1013825392.
Allan Todd; Sally Waller (10 September 2015). Allan Todd; Sally Waller (eds.). History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 Authoritarian States (20th Century). Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2.
Ezrow & Frantz 2011, pp. 14–17.
Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies. 23 (3): 599–620. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868. JSTOR 157386. S2CID 144333167.
"Democracy". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
Furio Cerutti (2017). Conceptualizing Politics: An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 17. Political scientists have outlined elaborated typologies of authoritarianism, from which it is not easy to draw a generally accepted definition; it seems that its main features are the non-acceptance of conflict and plurality as normal elements of politics, the will to preserve the status quo and prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power, and lastly, the erosion of the rule of law, the division of powers, and democratic voting procedures.
Natasha M. Ezrow & Erica Frantz (2011). Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. Continuum. p. 17.
Brian Lai; Dan Slater (2006). "Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950–1992". American Journal of Political Science. 50 (1): 113–126. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00173.x. JSTOR 3694260.
Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Problems of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353. ISBN 978-0-521-88252-1.
Diamond, Larry (2002). "Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 21–35. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0025. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 154815836.
Gunitsky, Seva (2015). "Lost in the Gray Zone: Competing Measures of Democracy in the Former Soviet Republics". Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316161555.006. SSRN 2506195.
Conquest, Robert (1999). Reflections on a Ravaged Century. p. 74. ISBN 0393048187.
Siegel, Achim (1998). The Totalitarian Paradigm After the End of Communism: Towards a Theoretical Reassessment (hardback ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 200. ISBN 978-9042005525. 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.
Guilhot, Nicholas (2005). The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and International Order (hardcover ed.). New York City, New York: Columbia University Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0231131247. 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 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.
Reisch, George A. (2005). How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge University Press. pp. 153–154. ISBN 978-0521546898.
Defty, Brook (2007). "2. Launching the New Propaganda Policy, 1948. 3. Building a Concerted Counter-offensive: Co-operation with other powers. 4. Close and Continuous Liaison: British and American co-operation, 1950–51. 5. A Global Propaganda Offensive: Churchill and the revival of political warfare". Britain, America and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945–1953: The Information Research Department (1st paperback ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0714683614.
Caute, David (2010). Politics and the Novel during the Cold War. Transaction Publishers. pp. 95–99. ISBN 978-1412831369. Archived from the original on 2021-04-14. Retrieved 2020-11-22.

External links

Topic guide on political systems at Governance and Social Development Resource Centre

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] "Political system | Types, Components, Functions, & Facts | Britannica".

[2] "14.2 Types of Political Systems". 8 April 2016.

[3] Easton, David. (1971). The political system : an inquiry into the state of political science. Knopf. OCLC 470276419.

[4] Haviland, W.A. (2003). Anthropology: Tenth Edition. Wadsworth:Belmont, CA.

[5] Carneiro, Robert L. (2011). "The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State". In Jones, Grant D.; Kautz, Robert R. (eds.). The Transition to Statehood in the New World. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–79. ISBN 978-0-521-17269-1.

[LinzLinz2000-6] Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.

[Michie2014-7] Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.

[Garcia-AlexanderWooCarlson2017-8] Ginny Garcia-Alexander; Hyeyoung Woo; Matthew J. Carlson (3 November 2017). Social Foundations of Behavior for the Health Sciences. Springer. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-3-319-64950-4. OCLC 1013825392.

[ToddWaller2015-9] Allan Todd; Sally Waller (10 September 2015). Allan Todd; Sally Waller (eds.). History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 Authoritarian States (20th Century). Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2.

[FOOTNOTEEzrowFrantz201114–17-10] Ezrow & Frantz 2011, pp. 14–17.

[Sondrol-11] Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies. 23 (3): 599–620. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868. JSTOR 157386. S2CID 144333167.

[Democracy_Oxford-12] "Democracy". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 24 February 2021.

[Authoritarianism_Cerutti-13] Furio Cerutti (2017). Conceptualizing Politics: An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 17. Political scientists have outlined elaborated typologies of authoritarianism, from which it is not easy to draw a generally accepted definition; it seems that its main features are the non-acceptance of conflict and plurality as normal elements of politics, the will to preserve the status quo and prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power, and lastly, the erosion of the rule of law, the division of powers, and democratic voting procedures.

[Authoritarianism_EscrowFrantz-14] Natasha M. Ezrow & Erica Frantz (2011). Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. Continuum. p. 17.

[Authoritarianism_LaiSlater-15] Brian Lai; Dan Slater (2006). "Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950–1992". American Journal of Political Science. 50 (1): 113–126. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00173.x. JSTOR 3694260.

[16] Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Problems of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353. ISBN 978-0-521-88252-1.

[17] Diamond, Larry (2002). "Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 21–35. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0025. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 154815836.

[18] Gunitsky, Seva (2015). "Lost in the Gray Zone: Competing Measures of Democracy in the Former Soviet Republics". Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316161555.006. SSRN 2506195.

[Totalitarianism_reflections2-19] Conquest, Robert (1999). Reflections on a Ravaged Century. p. 74. ISBN 0393048187.

[Totalitarianism_siegel-20] Siegel, Achim (1998). The Totalitarian Paradigm After the End of Communism: Towards a Theoretical Reassessment (hardback ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 200. ISBN 978-9042005525. 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.

[Totalitarianism_guilhot-21] Guilhot, Nicholas (2005). The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and International Order (hardcover ed.). New York City, New York: Columbia University Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0231131247. 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 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.

[Totalitarianism_reisch-22] Reisch, George A. (2005). How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge University Press. pp. 153–154. ISBN 978-0521546898.

[Totalitarianism_defty-23] Defty, Brook (2007). "2. Launching the New Propaganda Policy, 1948. 3. Building a Concerted Counter-offensive: Co-operation with other powers. 4. Close and Continuous Liaison: British and American co-operation, 1950–51. 5. A Global Propaganda Offensive: Churchill and the revival of political warfare". Britain, America and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945–1953: The Information Research Department (1st paperback ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0714683614.

[Totalitarianism_caute-24] Caute, David (2010). Politics and the Novel during the Cold War. Transaction Publishers. pp. 95–99. ISBN 978-1412831369. Archived from the original on 2021-04-14. Retrieved 2020-11-22.