Political system, the set of
formal legal institutions that constitute a “government” or a “state.” This is the definition adopted by
many studies of the legal or constitutional arrangements of advanced political
orders. More broadly defined, however, the term comprehends actual as well as
prescribed forms of political behaviour, not only the legal organization of the
state but also the reality of how the state
functions. Still more broadly defined, the political system is seen as a set of
“processes of interaction” or as a subsystem of the social system interacting
with other nonpolitical subsystems, such as the economic system.A political system is a system of politics and government. It is usually compared to the legal
system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems. However, this is a very simplified view of a much more
complex system of categories involving the views: who should have authority,
how religious questions should be handled, and what the government's influence
on its people and economy should be.
Political
Science is a discipline in itself, because the variety of political systems
that are present on our world, or which have been present in the past, is as
widely varying as chemical elements or subatomic particles. Worse, for the
political scientist, these systems are not governed by laws of nature that are
unchanging, but by humans who, by nature, change constantly.
This
page, then, cannot be an exhaustive study of various political systems.
However, the major points can be addressed and the most common variants
described. Students of politics can take the information presented here and use
it as a basis for research into more focused topics.
One
of the problems in the creation of a topic like Political Systems is this: what
framework does one use to present the topic? Should it be a survey of political
theory, reaching back to the Greeks and Romans, and pulling in Hobbes,
Montesquieu, Marx, and Paine? Should it describe past political systems like
the U.S. under the Articles
of Confederation, or France under monarchy, or Sparta's democratic
oligarchy? Should it look at modern democracies and contrast their details?
Anarchy
Anarchy is the complete lack of political systems. In a way, it is the state of nature, where there are no rules and the strongest have power over the weakest. Though nations might devolve into anarchy following internal strife or natural disaster, anarchy cannot be sustained. At a minimum, an anarchic nation will produce a tyrannical leader, and some sense of order eventually develops.
Anarchy is the complete lack of political systems. In a way, it is the state of nature, where there are no rules and the strongest have power over the weakest. Though nations might devolve into anarchy following internal strife or natural disaster, anarchy cannot be sustained. At a minimum, an anarchic nation will produce a tyrannical leader, and some sense of order eventually develops.
Dictatorship
In a dictatorship, one person has absolute power. Though there is typically a military and a bureaucracy in such a nation, and though there are typically laws to dictate everyday goings-on, the dictator has complete discretion. Typically, the dictator takes on, or assumes, an aura of a deity, or a cult of personality emerges. Examples include Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and Kim's North Korea. Dictatorial systems are often based on military power, and the term "military dictatorship" is used.
In a dictatorship, one person has absolute power. Though there is typically a military and a bureaucracy in such a nation, and though there are typically laws to dictate everyday goings-on, the dictator has complete discretion. Typically, the dictator takes on, or assumes, an aura of a deity, or a cult of personality emerges. Examples include Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and Kim's North Korea. Dictatorial systems are often based on military power, and the term "military dictatorship" is used.
Autocracy
An autocracy is the same as a dictatorship — but the term is often used to convey something less sinister than "dictatorship" implies. An autocrat may have less a cult of personality than a dictator has.
An autocracy is the same as a dictatorship — but the term is often used to convey something less sinister than "dictatorship" implies. An autocrat may have less a cult of personality than a dictator has.
Oligarchy
An oligarchy is, literally, rule by a few. Oligarchies are often the evolution of dictatorships from rule by a single person to rule by a small group of people. Examples include England in 1215, when the King was forced by nobles to sign the Magna Carta, or South Africa following the alliance of the English- and Afrikaans-speaking elite.
An oligarchy is, literally, rule by a few. Oligarchies are often the evolution of dictatorships from rule by a single person to rule by a small group of people. Examples include England in 1215, when the King was forced by nobles to sign the Magna Carta, or South Africa following the alliance of the English- and Afrikaans-speaking elite.
Theocracy
A theocracy is an oligarchy based on religion — the group is ruled by the group's spiritual leaders. Religion is a powerful human phenomenon, and religious leaders can often exert great influence over the group's actions. Examples include many modern Islamic states, such as Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Puritan Massachusetts.
A theocracy is an oligarchy based on religion — the group is ruled by the group's spiritual leaders. Religion is a powerful human phenomenon, and religious leaders can often exert great influence over the group's actions. Examples include many modern Islamic states, such as Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Puritan Massachusetts.
Monarchy
A monarchy is best described in the same way that a dictatorship is. One key difference is that dictatorship is used as a derisive term, and monarchy is seen as much more benign. Historically, however, kings and queens have been as brutal as many modern dictators. The major difference is the transfer of power. In a dictatorship, power is often not transferred at all — the death of the dictator signals the end of the dictatorship; or it is transferred to a hand-picked successor. Monarchies typically have much stricter, hereditary systems of succession, such that a monarch's first-born son is elevated to king upon the monarch's death. Past and present examples include Saudi Arabia, England, and Thailand.
A monarchy is best described in the same way that a dictatorship is. One key difference is that dictatorship is used as a derisive term, and monarchy is seen as much more benign. Historically, however, kings and queens have been as brutal as many modern dictators. The major difference is the transfer of power. In a dictatorship, power is often not transferred at all — the death of the dictator signals the end of the dictatorship; or it is transferred to a hand-picked successor. Monarchies typically have much stricter, hereditary systems of succession, such that a monarch's first-born son is elevated to king upon the monarch's death. Past and present examples include Saudi Arabia, England, and Thailand.
Democracy
Though the word "democracy" is used in many contexts today, strictly speaking, a democracy is a system where the people rule. Each decision that needs to be made is made by the people in toto. Such systems are tenable only in groups up to a certain size — when larger, debate and voting become lengthy and cumbersome.
Though the word "democracy" is used in many contexts today, strictly speaking, a democracy is a system where the people rule. Each decision that needs to be made is made by the people in toto. Such systems are tenable only in groups up to a certain size — when larger, debate and voting become lengthy and cumbersome.
Representative
democracy or Indirect democracy
As pure democracy quickly becomes unworkable, a variation on the form quickly evolved. In this system, representatives of large groups of people are selected and these representatives meet to conduct the government. The selection of representatives is typically via election, where a selection of candidates for the position are put before the people, and by majority vote, one of them is chosen. Several levels of indirection are possible as the system grows: for example, in the United States prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislators, which were chosen by the people.
As pure democracy quickly becomes unworkable, a variation on the form quickly evolved. In this system, representatives of large groups of people are selected and these representatives meet to conduct the government. The selection of representatives is typically via election, where a selection of candidates for the position are put before the people, and by majority vote, one of them is chosen. Several levels of indirection are possible as the system grows: for example, in the United States prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislators, which were chosen by the people.
Plutocracy
In a plutocracy, the ones with the most resources are the ones who rule. The most common place to see plutocracy in action is in emerging democracies, where the leaders look to wealthy citizens for guidance on governmental affairs. Such contacts do not necessarily have to approach plutocracy, but because of the human propensity for attraction to wealth and the human propensity for attraction to power, the combination of the two can, at a minimum, radiate plutocratic features.
In a plutocracy, the ones with the most resources are the ones who rule. The most common place to see plutocracy in action is in emerging democracies, where the leaders look to wealthy citizens for guidance on governmental affairs. Such contacts do not necessarily have to approach plutocracy, but because of the human propensity for attraction to wealth and the human propensity for attraction to power, the combination of the two can, at a minimum, radiate plutocratic features.
Aristocracy
In an aristocracy, the upper class of citizens, however that might be defined in any one society, holds the power. Heredity, or rule by right of birth, plays a large role in continuing power. Aristocracy is closely related to both plutocracy and monarchy. In a typical system, such as that of medieval England, one family from a group of aristocratic families rises above the rest, either through military conquest or agreement between the families.
In an aristocracy, the upper class of citizens, however that might be defined in any one society, holds the power. Heredity, or rule by right of birth, plays a large role in continuing power. Aristocracy is closely related to both plutocracy and monarchy. In a typical system, such as that of medieval England, one family from a group of aristocratic families rises above the rest, either through military conquest or agreement between the families.
Meritocracy
"Meritocracy" is a phrase that has some political baggage attached to it, not so much as a political system in itself, but as a modifier of another type of system. Colloquially, then, a meritocracy is a political system whereby the most deserving people lead. But it does have a more formal definition: where the leaders are chosen from the masses based on those who have achieved the most. "Achievement" is a vague term, and can be societally based, such as those who are the best educated, those with the most money or land, or those with the most fame; in this way, an aristocracy, plutocracy, or even a theocracy can be called a meritocracy.
"Meritocracy" is a phrase that has some political baggage attached to it, not so much as a political system in itself, but as a modifier of another type of system. Colloquially, then, a meritocracy is a political system whereby the most deserving people lead. But it does have a more formal definition: where the leaders are chosen from the masses based on those who have achieved the most. "Achievement" is a vague term, and can be societally based, such as those who are the best educated, those with the most money or land, or those with the most fame; in this way, an aristocracy, plutocracy, or even a theocracy can be called a meritocracy.
Stratocracy
A stratocracy is a government run directly by the military; stratocracies are more commonly known as military dictatorships. There have been relatively few pure stratocracies over time, though there have been many nations with a strong military but with (at least nominal) civilian rule. See "The Military" below.
A stratocracy is a government run directly by the military; stratocracies are more commonly known as military dictatorships. There have been relatively few pure stratocracies over time, though there have been many nations with a strong military but with (at least nominal) civilian rule. See "The Military" below.
Cleptocracy
A cleptocracy is generally a more specific description of a dictatorship: literally, a cleptocracy is a government sustained by stealing. As such, the circle of power must necessarily be a small one. The rulers and his or her inner circle steal national resources or the profits thereof (such as diamonds or oil); use foreign aid for personal gain; and use the national treasury to further personal aims. Because such actions would rarely be tolerated by an informed public, the press is often complicit or government-run and democratic features like elections are for show or are nonexistent.
A cleptocracy is generally a more specific description of a dictatorship: literally, a cleptocracy is a government sustained by stealing. As such, the circle of power must necessarily be a small one. The rulers and his or her inner circle steal national resources or the profits thereof (such as diamonds or oil); use foreign aid for personal gain; and use the national treasury to further personal aims. Because such actions would rarely be tolerated by an informed public, the press is often complicit or government-run and democratic features like elections are for show or are nonexistent.
Corpocracy
Following a 2010 Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United v Federal Election Commission), this term began to appear in the popular media. The decision dictated that campaign contribution limits on corporate donors were unconstitutional, and it was feared that a subsequent increase of corporate funding would lead to members of Congress being "owned" by sponsoring companies. Such members of Congress would then be more interested in furthering the interests of the corporations than of the people.
Following a 2010 Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United v Federal Election Commission), this term began to appear in the popular media. The decision dictated that campaign contribution limits on corporate donors were unconstitutional, and it was feared that a subsequent increase of corporate funding would lead to members of Congress being "owned" by sponsoring companies. Such members of Congress would then be more interested in furthering the interests of the corporations than of the people.
Regardless
of the type of system used by any nation or society, there is a very typical
and well-used set of divisions in governments. These are characterized by five
groups: the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the military, and the
church. In some systems, one or more of these divisions is not present — some
dictatorships will have no legislature, for example, and the United States has
no state church. The remainder of this page will look at each division in a
general sense, and the role of the division.
The
Executive Branch
Generally
speaking, the executive branch of government executes the laws created by the
legislative branch, though this general rule is modified in some political
systems. For example, in a totalitarian dictatorship, there may be no
legislature, and hence the executive also makes laws.
The
executive branch is sometimes divided into two parts, a head-of-state and a
chief executive. The head-of-state is the person, or group, that represents the
nation to other nations. The chief executive is responsible for all those roles
of the executive that are not handled by the head-of-state. The power held by
these two positions is not consistent. In Britain, for example, the
head-of-state is the monarch, who has little actual power over the executive
branch. The Prime Minister is the chief executive and holds a great deal of
power. In France, the President is the head-of-state and has a great deal of
power over the executive. The Prime Minister has been likened to a junior
partner in the executive.
The
Israeli President is elected by the Knesset and is largely ceremonial, much
like Britain's monarch. The Prime Minister holds the bulk of the power. In
Russia, the roles are again reversed, with the President holding the bulk of
the power and the Prime Minister being a junior partner. In the United States,
the President is both the head-of-state and the chief executive.
While
the head-of-state is almost always a single person, the chief executive has
sometimes been a group, or committee, or people.
The
method for choosing the executive varies greatly. In some cases, such as in
Britain, the head-of-state is a hereditary monarch and the chief executive is
the Prime Minister of the Parliament. The people, then, have no choice in the
head-of-state and only a small segment of the population have a choice of the
Prime Minister (the Prime Minister is chosen from all the Members of Parliament
from the majority party — each MP is elected in a local election). In Israel,
the President is chosen by the Knesset and the Prime Minister is a Member of
the Knesset. In the United States, the President is elected, indirectly through
the Electoral
College, by the people.
Terms
vary. Monarchs generally hold life terms. Members of parliaments hold maximum
terms, though votes of no confidence in parliament can force new elections
sooner. Other executives hold their positions for a fixed term, such as in the
United States. In dictatorial systems, terms are for life.
The
Legislative Branch
Generally
speaking, the legislative branch makes the laws. Legislatures usually consist
of many members chosen by the people of the country. There are several basic
models of legislature that have been and are used in the world.
The
most prevalent system is the parliamentary system. In this type of system, the
nation is broken up into small units, divided variously by geography,
ethnicity, or population. Each unit elects one or more members of parliament
from a slate of candidates. After election day, the party with the majority of
members becomes the Majority Party and chooses the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
If no party has a majority, parties negotiate divisions of power and form
coalitions. Once a coalition is established, the government is formed.
Coalitions are often fragile, as the majority voice in the coalition can offend
the minority (or minorities) and cause members of the coalition to abandon the
coalition. Parliamentary legislatures remain in power for a fixed term or until
a vote of no confidence is taken and the majority loses the vote.
In
another type of parliamentary setup, there are no political divisions —
national elections are held and people vote for a single party. When the votes
are counted, seats in the parliament are given on a percentage basis to each
party. The party then decides who to appoint to each seat it is apportioned. In
this type of system, minority voices are more likely to be heard and coalition
governments more likely to be formed (in a districted system, is it possible
for one party to win 50-percent-plus-one of all districts and acquire 100
percent of the seats in parliament; in a national election system, this cannot
happen).
In
a system like that of the United States, members of the legislature hold their
office for a certain fixed term. After elections, a majority party is
determined, but there is no such thing as a vote of no confidence. Though
parties play a major role in the selection of legislative leaders, individual
members of the legislature are free to vote however they wish without fear of
bringing down the government as in a parliamentary system.
Another
common system involves a legislature composed of one party. Such systems are
common in communist nations, so examples include the USSR's Supreme Soviet and
China's National People's Congress. Though dissent is generally allowed in such
a system, the decisions of the party are rubber-stamped by the legislature.
Legislatures
can have one house (unicameral) or two houses (bicameral). A 1973 survey found
that nations with a legislature were nearly evenly divided between unicameral
and bicameral. The role of the two houses vary from one nation to another. In
the United States, the two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate,
have roughly equal powers, and legislation passed by one house must be passed
by the other to become law (in many systems, the executive must also approve of
any legislation passed by the legislature). In Britain, the House of Commons is
an elected body with the majority of the power; the House of Lords can amend
and delay bills passed by the House of Commons, but may not cancel them. The
House of Lords has no power over taxation.
The
Judicial Branch
Generally,
the judicial branch interprets the laws of the nation. Because of the nature of
law enforcement, the judicial branch often has the largest membership. In the
United States, for example, there is one executive (two, if the Vice President
is counted), 535 legislators, and thousands of federal judges.
The
structure of the judiciary varies greatly from one nation to another, based on
the legal tradition. The most familiar may be that of the United States, where
there is a Supreme Court that is the final court of appeals in the nation.
Below the Supreme Court are a series of inferior courts, starting with the
federal court where most cases are heard, and several levels of appeals courts.
Britain has a similar setup, but the House of Lords is the court of final
appeal.
Israel
has several judicial systems — the secular system is divided into general law
courts and tribunals. The general court has a Supreme Court, district courts,
and magistrates. Personal matters, such as marriage and divorce disputes, are
handled by religious courts. There are four systems of religious court; Jewish,
Christian, Muslim, and Druze.
Selection
of judges is another point of comparison. Generally, the selection process is
divided between appointed and elected. Appointed judges are thought to be free
from political pressure, and thus are able to best represent the people and the
law. Elected judges are thought to best represent the will of the people. Terms
vary from life to several years, in both systems of selection.
Other
judicial concepts vary from nation to nation. For example, in the United
States, each state maintains its own judicial system separate, but related to,
the national judiciary. Concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" or
"guilty until proven innocent" vary, and does the concept of the jury
trial. These concepts are highly tied to the legal tradition of each nation.
The
Military
Almost
every society in known history has or has had a military structure. It is a
constant in human history that societies will fight over resources, and to
fight effectively requires a trained class of persons — soldiers.
In
some nations, the military is a dictatorship, and the head of government is a
military officer. This is in contrast to other dictatorships where the military
is completely subservient to the ruler. In Hitler's Germany, for example, the
military was a strong tool of the Nazi Party, but Germany was not run by the
military. The same can be said for the United States which, since World War II
has maintained a very strong military, but where the military has no actual
power in the government. In the case of the United States, the military is an
institution of the Executive, and not a separate branch of government. A lack
of power does not mean a lack of influence, though. In the United States,
politicians vie for military spending in their districts, and the prosecution
of war can lead to serious changes in the economy and in public opinion.
Ancient
Sparta is a good example of a nation where the military was a distinct branch
of government — in fact, Aristotle said that Sparta was an unending
generalship. The militaristic nature of Sparta is generally overstated, though,
as there were some democratic institutions in place. However, most citizens
were expected to be soldiers — only those too weak to soldier were permitted to
be civilians.
Military
dictatorships are not uncommon even today. Some world leaders came to power as
the result of military coups. The leader may be a single person, such as
Libya's Colonel Moammar Al Qadhafi and Pakistan's General Pervez Musharaf, or a
junta, a committee, as in Myanmar (Burma). Other historical examples include
Argentina in the late 1970's and early 1980's, or Uganda under General Idi
Amin.
The
Church
In
some nations, the church has no role in government, as in the United States.
However, in other states, even those that are not theocracies, the church has a
great deal of influence. Note that it must be distinguished between a formal
national church and personal religious beliefs. While the United States has no
national church, individual leaders often look to their religious faith for
strength of answers. This is in contrast, however, to those nations where the
national church has a voice in the conduct of government. Such church
involvement in government is also known as clericalism.
The
most obvious place where church has a role in government is in the theocracy,
most often seen today in the Islamic state. In such a state, the leaders are
often religious clerics. Legal systems might adhere to Shariah, or Islamic law
as presented in the Koran. In Iran under the Ayatollah Khomeini, the
head-of-state was a cleric with broad powers; since his death, however,
executive power is held by the President, elected by the people. The
legislature, the Majlis, is elected by universal suffrage, but all legislative
actions must be approved by a Council of Guardians composed of clergy and
jurists. The Council judges the suitability of each presidential candidate and
of every candidate for seats in the Majlis.
In
Israel, Judaism is not the official religion, but its influence is seen
throughout its political structure. An example already given involves the
provision of different religious court systems. Judaic principles can be seen
in various places, such as the recognition of the Sabbath and the use of kosher
cooking in state kitchens. However, divisions within Judaism, between the
majority and the minority ultra orthodox and modern orthodox sects, have raised
issues of late as to where religion and government should come together and
where they should separate.
In
Britain, the Church of England has a role in government in several key ways.
The head-of-state is also the Supreme Governor of the Church, and appoints
archbishops, bishops, and deans on the advice of the Prime Minister. In
addition, 26 members of the House of Lords are the archbishops and bishops of
the Church. There are a few other notable differences between
political systems that should be mentioned, and which can be used to
characterize a nation's government.
First
is in the distribution of power. As nations grow larger, it is often desirable
to divide the nation into smaller units, such as provinces, as in Canada, or
states as in the United States or Brazil. With smaller nations, division is not
always necessary. With this division comes three typical systems for dividing
power. The first is the unitary system, where there is no actual division of
power. Unitary systems include Britain, France, and, oddly for its size, China.
The unitary system is by far the most common in the modern world. It is simple,
with only one level of government to contend with.
Many
larger nations, however, have adopted a federal system,
where the nation has certain powers, but smaller political divisions enjoy a
certain degree of autonomy and sovereignty. The United States is the classic
example, but Canada, Australia, Russia, and Brazil all also have federal
systems. Other nations not quite so large, such as Nigeria, Switzerland, India,
and Mexico, opted for federal systems to ease tensions in various ethnic,
linguistic, or regional groups within the nation.
The
last type of distribution is the confederation. There are no surviving
confederations today. In a confederation, the national government is very weak
compared to those of the internal political divisions. The United States under
the Articles of
Confederation is one example. Germany in the early 1800's, and Switzerland
through most of the 1800's also used confederal systems. Many consider the
European Community (EC) to be a confederal system, and over time, as more power
is assumed by the EC, it may evolve into a true confederacy.
REFERENCES
- Almond, Gabriel A., et al. Comparative Politics Today: A World View (Seventh Edition). 2000. ISBN 0-316-03497-5
June 25, 2011.
- Ferris, Kerry, and Jill Stein. The Real World An Introduction to Sociology. 3rd ed. New York City: W W Norton & Co, 2012. Print.
- "political system". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012.
Web. 02 Dec. 2012 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467746/political-system/36699/Confederations-and-federations>.
