1. Comparative Politics 1 POL1010
Lecture 4
28th October 2004, 3-4pm
Classifications of Political Systems and Comparing Governments

2. Essay Deadlines 2004/05 Formative Essay – Tuesday 16th November 2004
Summative Essay 1 – Thursday 3rd
February 2005
Summative Essay 2 – Tuesday 26th
April 2005

3. 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

4. Why Classify Political Systems?
it is essential to boosting our understanding of politics and governments
to facilitate evaluation of political systems

5. Aristotle’s Classification
Democracy
Oligarchy
Tyranny
Aristotle formulated his classification by
asking two questions:
who rules?
who benefits from the rule?

6. Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government
Tyranny
Oligarchy
Democracy
Monarchy
Aristocracy
Polity

7. 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.

8. 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Aristotle’s classification was outdated: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 ( )
Democratic radicalism unleashed in France via the French Revolution of 1789
Parliamentary government which emerged in the UK

9. 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

10. 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’

11. 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

12. The 20th Century and the ‘Three Worlds’ Typology (cont’d)
Ideological
First world vs. second world
Capitalism vs. Communism

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Postcommunist Regimes
The collapse of communist regimes of
eastern Europe between 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

24. 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

25. Islamic Regimes Two ways of coming into being:
1. those states where the existing political order has been overtly challenged – Iranian revolution of 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.

26. 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

27. 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.