Ordinarily, it appears easy to identify a form of government through institutions. For example, many people would infer that the United States of America is a federal republic while the defunct Soviet Union was a totalitarian state.
However, defining a form of government is especially problematic when trying to identify those elements that are essential to that form. There is a world of difference between the ability to identify a form of government and identifying the necessary characteristics of that form of government. For example, in trying to identify the essential characteristics of a democracy, one might say "elections", “party system”, “judicial independence”, etc.
However, it may be noted that the authorities in both the former Soviet Union of the United States of America lay claims to some of these elements because citizens voted for candidates to public offices in their respective states. The problem with such a comparison is that most people are not likely to accept it because it does not comport with their sense of reality. Since most people are not going to accept an evaluation that makes the former Soviet Union as democratic as the United States, the usefulness of the concept is undermined.
Therefore, in political science, it has long been a goal to create a typology or nomenclature of polities, as typologies of political systems are not obvious, especially in the comparative politics and international relations (Lewellen, T. C., 2003). One approach is to elaborate on the nature of the characteristics found within each regime. In the example of the United States and the Soviet Union, both did conduct elections, and yet one important difference between these two regimes is that the USSR had a single-party system, with all other parties being outlawed. In contrast, the United States effectively has a bipartisan system with political parties being regulated, but not forbidden. In addition, most Westminster democracies such as the United Kingdom or countries in the Commonwealth of Nations usually have at least three major parties. A system generally seen as a representative democracy
(for instance Canada, India and the United States) may also include measures providing for a degree of direct democracy in the form of referenda and for deliberative democracy in the form of the extensive processes required for constitutional amendment.
Another complication is that a huge number of political systems originate as socio-economic movements and are then carried into governments by specific parties naming themselves after those movements. Experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves.
Analyse classification of government by institution
CONCLUSION
From the foregoing, it has been established, from the study of the present and past governments in a society, that we should be in a position to explain, through inductive process, principles regarding the organization of government, its structure and workings in different states or societies, especially after careful study of differences and similarities between them. Some scholars prefer the term ‘classification of the forms of government’ on the ground that the ‘form of States’ is same as the form of government. However, we consider that States differ not only in their forms of government but in their stated goals (e.g. totalitarian vs. democratic States) and in their very nature (e.g. unitary vs. federal States), yet the term ‘the classification of States’ seems preferable (Appadorai, 1975).
SUMMARY
A political system is a system of politics and government that could be compared to the legal system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems but it is different from them in some respects. Political system could be defined on a spectrum from left, e.g. communism and to the right, e.g. capitalism. However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the views about who should have authority, how religious questions should be handled and what the government's control should be on its people and economy.
Therefore, in political science, it has long been a goal to create a typology or nomenclature of polities, as typologies of political systems are not obvious, especially in the comparative politics and international relations (Lewellen, T. C., 2003). One approach is to elaborate on the nature of the characteristics found within each regime. In the example of the United States and the Soviet Union, both did conduct elections, and yet one important difference between these two regimes is that the USSR had a single-party system, with all other parties being outlawed. In contrast, the United States effectively has a bipartisan system with political parties being regulated, but not forbidden. In addition, most Westminster democracies such as the United Kingdom or countries in the Commonwealth of Nations usually have at least three major parties. A system generally seen as a representative democracy
(for instance Canada, India and the United States) may also include measures providing for a degree of direct democracy in the form of referenda and for deliberative democracy in the form of the extensive processes required for constitutional amendment.
Another complication is that a huge number of political systems originate as socio-economic movements and are then carried into governments by specific parties naming themselves after those movements. Experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves.
Self-Assessment Exercise (SAE) 3.3
Analyse classification of government by institution
CONCLUSION
From the foregoing, it has been established, from the study of the present and past governments in a society, that we should be in a position to explain, through inductive process, principles regarding the organization of government, its structure and workings in different states or societies, especially after careful study of differences and similarities between them. Some scholars prefer the term ‘classification of the forms of government’ on the ground that the ‘form of States’ is same as the form of government. However, we consider that States differ not only in their forms of government but in their stated goals (e.g. totalitarian vs. democratic States) and in their very nature (e.g. unitary vs. federal States), yet the term ‘the classification of States’ seems preferable (Appadorai, 1975).
SUMMARY
A political system is a system of politics and government that could be compared to the legal system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems but it is different from them in some respects. Political system could be defined on a spectrum from left, e.g. communism and to the right, e.g. capitalism. However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the views about who should have authority, how religious questions should be handled and what the government's control should be on its people and economy.
TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENTS (TMAs)
1. Critically examine various views of classification of government.
2. Examine the factors determining typologies of government
3. Analyse classification of government by institutions
1. Critically examine various views of classification of government.
2. Examine the factors determining typologies of government
3. Analyse classification of government by institutions
Social Plugin