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.
Social political scienceEdit
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). Another modern classification system includes monarchies as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three. Scholars generally refer to a dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.
A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The political legitimacy and authority of the monarch may vary from restricted and largely symbolic (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), and can expand across the domains of the executive, legislative, and judicial.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 combine 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. Although these regimes experience civil unrest they maybe 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.The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy. 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), from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[b] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.
Sociological and socioanthropological classificationEdit
Social anthropologists generally recognize four kinds of political systems, two of which are uncentralized and two of which are centralized.
- Uncentralized systems
- Band society
- Small family group, no larger than an extended family or clan; it has been defined as consisting of no more than 30 to 50 individuals.
- A band can cease to exist if only a small group walks out.
- Generally larger, consisting of many families. Tribes have more social institutions, such as a chief or elders.
- More permanent than bands. Many tribes are sub-divided into bands.
- Band society
- Centralized governments
- More complex than a tribe or a band society, and less complex than a state or a civilization
- Characterized by pervasive inequality and centralization of authority.
- A single lineage/family of the elite class becomes the ruling elite of the chiefdom
- Complex chiefdoms have two or even three tiers of political hierarchy.
- "An autonomous political unit comprising a number of villages or communities under the permanent control of a paramount chief"
- Sovereign state
- 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.
- Supranational political systems
- Supranational political systems are created by independent nations to reach a common goal or gain strength from forming an alliance.
- 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 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.
- Scholars uses a variety of terms to encompass the "greyzones” between full autocracies and full democracies such as competitive authoritarianism or hybrid authoritarianism or electoral authoritarianism or delegative democracy or illiberal democracy or guided democracy or liberal autocracy or semi-democracy or deficient democracy or defective democracy or hybrid democracy.
- "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." Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.
- "Political system | Types, Components, Functions, & Facts | Britannica".
- "14.2 Types of Political Systems". 8 April 2016.
- Easton, David. (1971). The political system : an inquiry into the state of political science. Knopf. OCLC 470276419.
- Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
- Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
- Ginny Garcia-Alexander; Hyeyoung Woo; Matthew J. Carlson (3 November 2017). Social Foundations of Behavior for the Health Sciences. Springer. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-3-319-64950-4. OCLC 1013825392.
- Allan Todd; Sally Waller (10 September 2015). Allan Todd; Sally Waller (eds.). History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 Authoritarian States (20th Century). Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2.
- Ezrow & Frantz 2011, pp. 14–17. sfn error: no target: CITEREFEzrowFrantz2011 (help)
- Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies. 23 (3): 599–620. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868. JSTOR 157386. S2CID 144333167.
- "Democracy". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
- Kalu N. Kalu (12 July 2019). A Functional Theory of Government, Law, and Institutions. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 161–. ISBN 978-1-4985-8703-7. OCLC 1105988740.
- Furio Cerutti (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.
- Natasha M. Ezrow & Erica Frantz (2011). Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. Continuum. p. 17.
- Brian Lai; Dan Slater (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. JSTOR 3694260.
- Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Problems of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353. ISBN 978-0-521-88252-1.
- Diamond, Larry (2002). "Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 21–35. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0025. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 154815836.
- Gunitsky, Seva (2015). "Lost in the Gray Zone: Competing Measures of Democracy in the Former Soviet Republics". Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316161555.006. SSRN 2506195.
- Conquest, Robert (1999). Reflections on a Ravaged Century. p. 74. ISBN 0393048187.
- Siegel, Achim (1998). The Totalitarian Paradigm After the End of Communism: Towards a Theoretical Reassessment (hardback ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 200. ISBN 978-9042005525.
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. ISBN 978-0231131247.
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. ISBN 978-0521546898.
- 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. ISBN 978-0714683614.
- Caute, David (2010). Politics and the Novel during the Cold War. Transaction Publishers. pp. 95–99. ISBN 978-1412831369. Archived from the original on 2021-04-14. Retrieved 2020-11-22.
- "Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity". European Consortium for Political Research. 2019-09-07. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
- Urribarri, Raul A. Sanchez (2011). "Courts between Democracy and Hybrid Authoritarianism: Evidence from the Venezuelan Supreme Court". Law & Social Inquiry. Wiley. 36 (4): 854–884. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2011.01253.x. ISSN 0897-6546. JSTOR 41349660. S2CID 232400805. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
- Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29). "Electoral Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
- "What is Hybrid Democracy?". Digital Society School. 2022-05-19. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
- Zinecker, Heidrun (2009). "Regime-Hybridity in Developing Countries: Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions". International Studies Review. [Oxford University Press, Wiley, The International Studies Association]. 11 (2): 302–331. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00850.x. ISSN 1521-9488. JSTOR 40389063. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
- "Index". Dem-Dec. 2017-09-23. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
- 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. ISSN 0192-5121.
- "Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships?". How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. 2018. pp. 129–153. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.006. ISBN 9781316336182.
- Riaz, Ali (2019). "What Is a Hybrid Regime?". Voting in a Hybrid Regime. Politics of South Asia. Singapore: Springer Singapore. pp. 9–19. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7956-7_2. ISBN 978-981-13-7955-0. ISSN 2523-8345. S2CID 198088445.
- Schmotz, Alexander (2019-02-13). "Hybrid Regimes". The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation. Oxford University Press. pp. 521–525. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0053. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1.
- Morlino, Leonardo (2011-11-01). "Are There Hybrid Regimes?". Changes for DemocracyActors, Structures, Processes. Oxford University Press. pp. 48–69. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572533.003.0004. ISBN 978-0-19-957253-3.
- 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.
- Croissant, A.; Kailitz, S.; Koellner, P.; Wurster, S. (2015). Comparing autocracies in the early Twenty-first Century: Volume 1: Unpacking Autocracies - Explaining Similarity and Difference. Taylor & Francis. p. 212. ISBN 978-1-317-70018-0. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022.
- Carothers, Christopher (2018). "The Surprising Instability of Competitive Authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy. 29 (4): 129–135. doi:10.1353/jod.2018.0068. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 158234306.
- Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (2002). "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy. Project Muse. 13 (2): 51–65. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0026. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 6711009.
- "Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War". Department of Political Science. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
- "Hybrid Regimes". obo.
- 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. ISSN 2183-2463.
- "Home - IDEA Global State of Democracy Report". International IDEA. Retrieved Nov 26, 2022.
- Hameed, Dr. Muntasser Majeed (Jun 30, 2022). "Hybrid regimes: An Overview". IPRI Journal. Islamabad Policy Research Institute - IPRI. 22 (1): 1–24. doi:10.31945/iprij.220101. ISSN 1684-9787. S2CID 251173436.
- Schedler, Andreas (Aug 1, 2013). "Shaping the Authoritarian Arena". The Politics of Uncertainty. Oxford University Press. pp. 54–75. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199680320.003.0003. ISBN 978-0-19-968032-0.
- Brooker, P. (2013). Non-Democratic Regimes. Comparative Government and Politics. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 222. ISBN 978-1-137-38253-5. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022.
- 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. ISBN 978-0-521-17269-1.
- Douglas V. Verney (15 April 2013). The Analysis of Political Systems. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-03477-1.
- Almond, Gabriel A., et al. Comparative Politics Today: A World View (Seventh Edition). 2000. ISBN 0-316-03497-5.
- 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.
- Topic guide on political systems at Governance and Social Development Resource Centre