Comparative Politics 1POL1010

Lecture 4

28th October 2004, 3-4pm

Classifications of Political Systems and Comparing Governments

Essay Deadlines 2004/05

Formative Essay – Tuesday 16th

November 2004

Summative Essay 1 – Thursday 3rd

February 2005

Summative Essay 2 – Tuesday 26th

April 2005

Lecture Plan

• Why Classify Political Systems?• Aristotle’s Classification• Aristotle’s Ideal Type• The 18th Century and the Development of

Constitutional Systems• The 20th Century and the ‘Three Worlds’

Typology• The Fall of the Three Worlds Typology• Regimes in the Modern World• Contemporary Regime Classification

Why Classify Political Systems?

• it is essential to boosting our understanding of politics and governments

• to facilitate evaluation of political systems

Aristotle’s Classification

• Democracy• Oligarchy• Tyranny

Aristotle formulated his classification byasking two questions:• who rules?• who benefits from the rule?

Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government

Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

Monarchy Aristocracy Polity

Aristotle’s Ideal Type

• Tyranny was the worst form of government possible – as it reduced citizens to slaves.

• Monarchy and Aristocracy were impractical systems – as they were based on a willingness to put the interests of the community before the rulers own.

• Polity – rule by the many for the interests of all, was accepted by A as being the most practicable form of systems

• The ideal type of political system was one which had elements of both democracy and aristocracy – mixed constitution which left government in the hands of the middle classes.

18th Century and the Development of Constitutional Systems

Three specific political systems – ensure that

Aristotle’s classification was outdated:• Constitutional republicanism established in the

USA via the War of Independence (1775-1783)• Democratic radicalism unleashed in France via

the French Revolution of 1789• Parliamentary government which emerged in

the UK

18th Century and the Development of Constitutional Systems (cont’d)

From the 18th century governments were

increasingly classified as:

• Monarchies or republics

• Autocratic or constitutional regimes

The 20th Century and the ‘Three Worlds’ Typology

During the 20th century these distinctionshave been sharpened further. Collapse of political systems post-WW2 led toThe ‘three’ worlds typology in the 1960s. The‘three worlds’ classification of political systemsdominated with systems seen as either:1. a capitalist ‘first world’2. a communist ‘second world’3. a developing ‘third world’

The 20th Century and the ‘Three Worlds’ Typology (cont’d)

The three-world classification had economic, ideological, political and strategicdimensions:Economic1. Industrialised regimes were ‘first’ in economic

terms2. Communist regimes were capable only of

satisfying their population’s most basic needs3. Less developed countries of the third world – were

third in the sense that they were economically dependent

The 20th Century and the ‘Three Worlds’ Typology (cont’d)

Ideological

First world vs. second world

Capitalism vs. Communism

The Fall of the ‘Three’ Worlds Typology

• The 1970s and the emergence of the ‘fourth’ world

• Democratisation in Latin America

• Fukuyama – ‘the end of history’ (1989) and the triumph of western liberal democracy

Regimes of the Modern World

Criteria for a new typology• Who rules?• How is compliance assured?• Is government centralised or fragmented?• How is power acquired?• What is the balance between state and

individual?• How is economic life organised?• Is the regime stable?

Contemporary Regime Classification

• constitutional-institutional approach – distinction between presidential / parliamentary, federal / unitary

• structural-functional approach – developed out of systems theory which was prominent in the 1950s and 1960s

• economic-ideological approach – again a system approach which focuses upon the level of material development in a country and also its broader ideological orientation

Contemporary Regime Classification

It is by virtue of the systems approaches thatfive regime types can finally be delineated,regime types which are fit for contemporaryworld we live in:• Western Polyarchies• Post-Communist Regimes• East Asia Regimes• Islamic Regimes• Military Regimes

Western Polyarchies The term polyarchy was first coined by Robert

Dahl and Charles Lindblom in their 1953 book

Politics, Economics and Welfare

Polyarchical regimes have two essential

features:• relatively high tolerance of opposition – seen

as a means to check the power of government• it ensures that participation in politics should

be open and responsive to the public

Polyarchies in Practice

Arend Lijphart distinguished between twotypes of Western polyarchy – ‘majority’democracies and ‘consensus’ democracies(1984, 1990).

Majority democracies include – Westminstermodel, UK, NZ, Australia, Canada, Israeland India

Majority Democracies

Majoritarian Systems are often marked by:

• Single-party government

• A two-party system

• Simple plurality or first past the post voting system

• Unitary or centralised government

• An uncodified constitution

Consensus Democracies

In contrast to the majority systems above,consensus or pluralist western polyarchiesare characterised by the diffusion of powerthroughout the governmental and partysystems – e.g. USA

Consociational democracies – Netherlands,Belgium, Austria and Switzerland

Consensus Democracies

Consensual (Pluralistic, Consociational) Systemsare often marked by:• Coalition governments• A separation of powers between executive and

assembly• A multiparty system• Proportional representation voting system• Federalism / devolution• Constitution and bill of rights

Terminology

Preference for the Term Polyarchy over

Democracy

The reason that the word ‘polyarchy’ is viewed

as being preferable to liberal democracy is two-

fold:

• it avoids the normative implications of LD

• the term realises the reality that very often regimes fall short of the goal of democracy

Postcommunist Regimes

The collapse of communist regimes ofeastern Europe between 1989-1991 openeda whole process of democratisation thatdrew heavily upon the western liberalDemocratic model.Two central features of this democratisationprocess, the need for:• Multiparty systems• Market-based economic reforms

East Asian Regimes

In the second half of the 20th century theworld’s economic focus has shifted from theWest to the East. Eastern Polyarchies:• These systems are focussed more around

economic than political goals • This is broad support for ‘strong’ government

and state • Support and heavy identification with the

leader – Confucian stress on loyalty

Islamic Regimes

Two ways of coming into being:1. those states where the existing political

order has been overtly challenged – Iranian revolution of 1979. Similar stories in Sudan and Pakistan

2. cases where regimes have been deliberately constructed along Islamic lines – e.g. Saudi Arabia which has been Islamic since its inception in 1932.

Military Regimes

This last regime classification is one inwhich the system is dependent upon the useof military power and coercion.Two different categories that we can placethese in:• Classical form is the military junta • Military-backed personalised

dictatorship

Bibliography

Aristotle Politics Oxford: Clarendon PressDahl, R. and Lindblom, C. (1953) Politics,Economics and Welfare New York, NY:Harper and Row.Fukuyama, F. (1989) ‘The End of History?’ in TheNational Interest Summer.Hobbes, T. [1651] (1968) Leviathan Penguin.Lijphart, A. (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarianand Consensus Government in Twenty-One CountriesWorld Bank (1985) World Bank Development Report 1985Washington, DC: World Bank.