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?
Aristotles Classification
Aristotles 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
 Aristotles Classification
Democracy
Oligarchy
Tyranny

Aristotle formulated his classification by

asking two questions:
who rules?
who benefits from the rule?
 Aristotles Six Forms of
Government

Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

Monarchy Aristocracy Polity

 Aristotles 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
Aristotles classification was outdated: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 (contd)
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 (contd)
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 populations 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 (contd)
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
worlds 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.