Comparative Politics 1
POL1010
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 by
asking 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Aristotle’s classification was outdated: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 distinctions
have been sharpened further.
Collapse of political systems post-WW2 led to
The ‘three’ worlds typology in the 1960s. The
‘three worlds’ classification of political systems
dominated 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 strategic
dimensions:
Economic
1. Industrialised regimes were ‘first’ in
economic terms
2. Communist regimes were capable only of
satisfying their population’s most basic needs
3. 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 that
five regime types can finally be delineated,
regime types which are fit for contemporary
world 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 two
types of Western polyarchy – ‘majority’
democracies and ‘consensus’ democracies
(1984, 1990).
Majority democracies include – Westminster
model, UK, NZ, Australia, Canada, Israel
and 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 polyarchies
are characterised by the diffusion of power
throughout the governmental and party
systems – e.g. USA
Consociational democracies – Netherlands,
Belgium, Austria and Switzerland
Consensus Democracies
Consensual (Pluralistic, Consociational) Systems
are 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 twofold:
• 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 of
eastern Europe between 1989-1991 opened
a whole process of democratisation that
drew heavily upon the western liberal
Democratic model.
Two central features of this democratisation
process, the need for:
• Multiparty systems
• Market-based economic reforms
East Asian Regimes
In the second half of the 20th century the
world’s economic focus has shifted from the
West 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 in
which the system is dependent upon the use
of military power and coercion.
Two different categories that we can place
these in:
• Classical form is the military junta
• Military-backed personalised
dictatorship
Bibliography
Aristotle Politics Oxford: Clarendon Press
Dahl, R. and Lindblom, C. (1953) Politics,
Economics and Welfare New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Fukuyama, F. (1989) ‘The End of History?’ in The
National Interest Summer.
Hobbes, T. [1651] (1968) Leviathan Penguin.
Lijphart, A. (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian
and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries
World Bank (1985) World Bank Development Report 1985
Washington, DC: World Bank.