Comparative Politics 1 POL1010

Comparative Politics 1POL1010 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

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the Development of Constitutional Systems Three specific political systems – ensure that Aristotle’s classification was outdated: • Constitutional republicanism established in the USA via the War of Independence (1775-1783) • Democratic radicalism unleashed in France via the French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 two- fold: • 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.

Comparative Politics 1 POL1010