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".[6]. 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.[7]
Republics with an executive president or directory elected by or nominated by the legislature that may or may not be subject to parliamentary confidence
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)
Overseas possessions, colonies, and places without governments
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 or V-Dem Democracy indices.
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).[3][8] Another modern classification system includes monarchies as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three.[4] Scholars generally refer to a dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.[9][10][3][11]
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.[15][16] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[16] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[17][18] States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have some times been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states.[19][20][21]
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.[22]
The succession of monarchs in many cases has been hereditical, often building dynastic periods. However, elective and self-proclaimed monarchies have also been established throughout history.[24]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 type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one (or vice versa).[b] Hybrid regimes are categorized as having 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.[42][31][43] 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.[44][45]
The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy.[46] 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),[47] from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[b][48][49] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.[50][51]
Sociological and socioanthropological classification
Social anthropologists generally recognize four kinds of political systems, two of which are uncentralized and two of which are centralized.[52]
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 consisting of people of different ethnicities under a single rule. Empires - such as the Romans, or British - often made considerable progress in ways of political 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][40][41]
^ 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.
^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. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
^"Index". Dem-Dec. 2017-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-11-21. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
^Sönmez, Hakan (2020-09-30). "Democratic Backsliding or Stabilization?". Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science. International Association for Political Science Students. 46: 54–78. doi:10.22151/politikon.46.3. ISSN2414-6633. S2CID224846248.
^Ekman, Joakim (2009). "Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes". International Political Science Review. SAGE Publications. 30 (1): 7–31. doi:10.1177/0192512108097054. ISSN0192-5121. S2CID145077481.
^Подлесный, Д. В. (2016). Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
^Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014). "Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation]. vedomosti.ru. Archived from the original on 2019-07-30. 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.
Politics portal
