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.
According to David Easton, "A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society".[3]. Political system refers broadly to the process by which laws are made and public resources allocated in a society, and to the relationships among those involved in making these decisions.[4]
Parliamentary constitutional monarchies which have a separate head of government but where royalty holds significant executive and/or legislative power
Countries where constitutional provisions for government have been suspended (e.g. military juntas)
Countries that do not fit any of the above systems (e.g. provisional governments/unclear political situations)
No government
1 This map was compiled according to the Wikipedia list of countries by system of government. See there for sources. 2 This map presents only the de jure form of government, and not the de facto degree of democracy. Some countries which are de jure republics are de facto authoritarian regimes. For a measure of the degree of democracy in countries around the world, see the Democracy Index.
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).[5][6] Another modern classification system includes monarchies as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three.[7] Scholars generally refer to a dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.[8][9][5][10]
Authoritarianism is a political system 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.[12][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 IIanti-fascism into Cold Waranti-communism.[20][21][22][23][24]
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.
A hybrid regime[a] is a mixed type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one (or vice versa).[b] Hybrid regimes are categorized as a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections.[b] Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states.[40][31][41] Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time.[b] There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.[42][43]
The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy.[44] Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature of democratic institutions (elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast government point of view and the opposition in parliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others),[45] from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[b][46][47] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.[48][49]
Sociological and socioanthropological classification
Social anthropologists generally recognize four kinds of political systems, two of which are uncentralized and two of which are centralized.[50]
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.
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.
^ abcd "Some scholars argue that deficient democracies and deficient autocracies can be seen as examples of hybrid regimes, whereas others argue that hybrid regimes combine characteristics of both democratic and autocratic regimes."[26] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39]
^ abCerutti, Furio (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.
^Ezrow, Natasha M.; Frantz, Erica (2011). Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. Continuum. p. 17.
^Lai, Brian; Slater, Dan (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. JSTOR3694260.
^Siegel, Achim (1998). The Totalitarian Paradigm After the End of Communism: Towards a Theoretical Reassessment (hardback ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 200. ISBN978-9042005525. 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. ISBN978-0231131247. 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. ISBN978-0521546898.
^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. ISBN978-0714683614.
^Göbel, Christian (2011). "Semiauthoritarianism". 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 258–266. doi:10.4135/9781412979351.n31. ISBN9781412969017.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location (link)
^Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29). "Electoral Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
^Подлесный, Д. В. (2016). Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
^Schulmann, Ekaterina. "Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation]. vedomosti.ru. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
^Mufti, Mariam (Jun 22, 2018). "What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?". Politics and Governance. Cogitatio. 6 (2): 112–119. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400. ISSN2183-2463. S2CID158943827.
^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. ISBN978-0-521-17269-1.
