4.2 Types of Political Systems: Learning Objectives

4.
2 Types of Political Systems
LEA RN I N G OB J ECTI VES
1. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of representative democracy.
2. Explain why authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more unstable politically than
democracies and monarchies.
Various states and governments obviously exist around the world. In this context, state means the
political unit within which power and authority reside. This unit can be a whole nation or a
subdivision within a nation. Thus the nations of the world are sometimes referred to as states (or
nation-states), as are subdivisions within a nation, such as California, New York, and Texas in the
United States. Government means the group of persons who direct the political affairs of a state, but
it can also mean the type of rule by which a state is run. Another term for this second meaning of
government is political system, which we will use here along with government. The type of
government under which people live has fundamental implications for their freedom, their welfare,
and even their lives. Accordingly we briefly review the major political systems in the world today.
Democracy
The type of government with which we are most familiar is democracy, or a political
system in which citizens govern themselves either directly or indirectly. The
term democracy comes from Greek and means “rule of the people.” In Lincoln’s stirring
words from the Gettysburg Address, democracy is “government of the people, by the
people, for the people.” In direct (or pure) democracies, people make their own
decisions about the policies and distribution of resources that affect them directly. An
example of such a democracy in action is the New England town meeting, where the
residents of a town meet once a year and vote on budgetary and other matters. However,
such direct democracies are impractical when the number of people gets beyond a few
hundred. Representative democracies are thus much more common. In these types of
democracies, people elect officials to represent them in legislative votes on matters
affecting the population.
Representative democracy is more practical than direct democracy in a society of any

significant size, but political scientists cite another advantage of representative
democracy. At least in theory, it ensures that the individuals who govern a society and in
other ways help a society function are the individuals who have the appropriate talents,
skills, and knowledge to do so. In this way of thinking, the masses of people are, overall,
too uninformed, too uneducated, and too uninterested to run a society themselves.
Representative democracy thus allows for “the cream to rise to the top” so that the
people who actually govern a society are the most qualified to perform this essential task
(Seward, 2010).Seward, M. (2010). The representative claim. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. Although this argument has much merit, it is also true that many of
the individuals who do get elected to office turn out to be ineffective and/or corrupt.
Regardless of our political orientations, Americans can think of many politicians to
whom these labels apply, from presidents down to local officials. As we discuss
in Chapter 14 "Politics and Government", Section 14.4 "Politics in the United States" in
relation to political lobbying, elected officials may also be unduly influenced by
campaign contributions from corporations and other special-interest groups. To the
extent this influence occurs, representative democracy falls short of the ideals
proclaimed by political theorists.
The defining feature of representative democracy is voting in elections. When the United
States was established more than 230 years ago, most of the world’s governments were
monarchies or other authoritarian regimes (discussed shortly). Like the colonists,
people in these nations chafed under arbitrary power. The example of the American
Revolution and the stirring words of its Declaration of Independence helped inspire the
French Revolution of 1789 and other revolutions since, as people around the world have
died in order to win the right to vote and to have political freedom.
Democracies are certainly not perfect. Their decision-making process can be quite slow
and inefficient; as just mentioned, decisions may be made for special interests and not
“for the people”; and, as we have seen in earlier chapters, pervasive inequalities of social
class, race and ethnicity, gender, and age can exist. Moreover, in not all democracies
have all people enjoyed the right to vote. In the United States, for example, African
Americans could not vote until after the Civil War, with the passage of the 15th
Amendment in 1870, and women did not win the right to vote until 1920, with the
passage of the 19th Amendment.
In addition to generally enjoying the right to vote, people in democracies also have more
freedom than those in other types of governments. Figure 14.1 "Freedom Around the
World (Based on Extent of Political Rights and Civil Liberties)" depicts the nations of
the world according to the extent of their political rights and civil liberties. The freest
nations are found in North America, Western Europe, and certain other parts of the
world, while the least free lie in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Figure 14.1 Freedom Around the World (Based on Extent of Political Rights and Civil Liberties)
Source: Adapted from Freedom House. (2010). Map of freedom in the world. Retrieved
from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010.
Monarchy
Monarchy is a political system in which power resides in a single family that rules from
one generation to the next generation. The power the family enjoys is traditional
authority, and many monarchs command respect because their subjects bestow this
type of authority on them. Other monarchs, however, have ensured respect through
arbitrary power and even terror. Royal families still rule today, but their power has
declined from centuries ago. Today the Queen of England holds a largely ceremonial
position, but her predecessors on the throne wielded much more power.
Queen Elizabeth II of England holds a largely ceremonial position, but earlier English
monarchs held much more power.
Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Elisabeth_II.JPG.
This example reflects a historical change in types of monarchies from absolute

monarchies to constitutional monarchies (Finer, 1997).Finer, S. E. (1997). The history
of government from the earliest times. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press. In absolute monarchies, the royal family claims a divine right to rule and
exercises considerable power over their kingdom. Absolute monarchies were common in
both ancient (e.g., Egypt) and medieval (e.g., England and China) times. In reality, the
power of many absolute monarchs was not totally absolute, as kings and queens had to
keep in mind the needs and desires of other powerful parties, including the clergy and
nobility. Over time, absolute monarchies gave way to constitutional monarchies. In
these monarchies, the royal family serves a symbolic and ceremonial role and enjoys
little, if any, real power. Instead the executive and legislative branches of government—
the prime minister and parliament in several nations—run the government, even if the
royal family continues to command admiration and respect. Constitutional monarchies
exist today in several nations, including Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Spain, and
Sweden.
Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism
Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are general terms for nondemocratic political

systems ruled by an individual or a group of individuals who are not freely elected by
their populations and who often exercise arbitrary power. To be more
specific, authoritarianism refers to political systems in which an individual or a group of
individuals holds power, restricts or prohibits popular participation in governance, and
represses dissent. Totalitarianism refers to political systems that include all the features
of authoritarianism but are even more repressive as they try to regulate and control all
aspects of citizens’ lives and fortunes. People can be imprisoned for deviating from
acceptable practices or may even be killed if they dissent in the mildest of ways. The
purple nations in Figure 14.1 "Freedom Around the World (Based on Extent of Political
Rights and Civil Liberties)" are mostly totalitarian regimes, and the orange ones are
authoritarian regimes.
Compared to democracies and monarchies, authoritarian and totalitarian governments

are more unstable politically. The major reason for this is that these governments enjoy
no legitimate authority. Instead their power rests on fear and repression. The
populations of these governments do not willingly lend their obedience to their leaders
and realize that their leaders are treating them very poorly; for both these reasons, they
are more likely than populations in democratic states to want to rebel. Sometimes they
do rebel, and if the rebellion becomes sufficiently massive and widespread, a revolution
occurs. In contrast, populations in democratic states usually perceive that they are
treated more or less fairly and, further, that they can change things they do not like
through the electoral process. Seeing no need for revolution, they do not revolt.
Since World War II, which helped make the United States an international power, the
United States has opposed some authoritarian and totalitarian regimes while supporting
others. The Cold War pitted the United States and its allies against Communist nations,
primarily the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and North Korea. But at the same time the
United States opposed these authoritarian governments, it supported many others,
including those in Chile, Guatemala, and South Vietnam, that repressed and even
murdered their own citizens who dared to engage in the kind of dissent constitutionally
protected in the United States (Sullivan, 2008).Sullivan, M. (2008). American
adventurism abroad: Invasions, interventions, and regime changes since World War
II (Rev. and expanded ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Earlier in U.S. history, the federal
and state governments repressed dissent by passing legislation that prohibited criticism
of World War I and then by imprisoning citizens who criticized that war (Goldstein,
2001).Goldstein, R. J. (2001). Political repression in modern America from 1870 to
1976 (Rev. ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. During the 1960s and 1970s, the
FBI, the CIA, and other federal agencies spied on tens of thousands of citizens who
engaged in dissent protected by the First Amendment (Cunningham,
2004).Cunningham, D. (2004). There’s something happening here: The new left, the
Klan, and FBI counterintelligence. Berkeley: University of California Press. While the
United States remains a beacon of freedom and hope to much of the world’s peoples, its
own support for repression in the recent and more distant past suggests that eternal
vigilance is needed to ensure that “liberty and justice for all” is not just an empty slogan.

4.2 Types of Political Systems: Learning Objectives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.2 Types of Political Systems: Learning Objectives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

2 Types of Political Systems

LEA RN I N G OB J ECTI VES

1. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of representative democracy.

democracies and monarchies.

Representative democracy is more practical than direct democracy in a society of any

This example reflects a historical change in types of monarchies from absolute

Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are general terms for nondemocratic political

Compared to democracies and monarchies, authoritarian and totalitarian governments

You might also like