Form of government

A form of government is a colloquial term that refers to the set of political institutions by which a state is organized in order to exert its powers over a political community ^* Kopstein and Lichbach, 2005 Note that this definition holds valid even if the government is illegitimate or if it is unsuccessful to exert its power. Regardless of its qualities, a failed government is still a form of government. Corporations can also be thought of having a "government" through the corporate bureaucracy. However, in this article only the organization of states is discussed.

Synonyms

The technical generic term is "regime type". "Form of government" and "system of government" are both colloquial regarding political classifications.

Theoretical Foundations

The theoretical and technical foundations for the study of such institutional forms is the specialty of a subfield of political science called comparative politics. (Lichbach and Zuckerman, 1997).

Since comparative politics is specialized, scholars lack wide-spread knowledge in all forms of government. There is a debate over whether or not comprehensive regime classification is possible due to its complexity. The traditional and most often used division between governments is a dichotomy (democracy vs. dictatorship (i.e. Moore, 1958) and not a typology. Although it would be useful to have an authoritative typology and update the politics of Aristotle), most scholars prefer to study and compare two or three regime types. Perhaps, the only exception would be those experts in comparative electoral systems. They use large databases and math to see which form of electoral system will produce the most stable, enduring and representative regime. (i.e. Taagepera and Matthew Shugart, 1989).

Most comparativists study particular institutions (see institutionalism). Some work on the relationships between regime type and those aspects that can qualify the form of government (i.e. nationalism, economic system). A current debate in comparative politics centers on the stability of presidential versus parliamentarian democracies (i.e. Shugart and Carey, 1992). Another common debate is whether or not democracy promotes development (Przeworsky et. al., 2000).

Other scholars, like experts on institutional engineering, design new regime types. For instance,Arend Lijphart devised a sophisticated institutional solution for democracy, called consociation. This type of democratic government allows deeply divided societies (culture, ethnicity, religion, ideology etc.) to feel represented under a single regime, in turn preventing conflict or secession. In sum, categorizing forms of government is complicated. Each political community is unique and works under a different power structure and social configuration. Therefore, there are almost as many forms of governments as there are societies.

Examples and Characteristics

In the light of the "incommensurable theory of regimes" stated above. Beyond mere typologies it is important to think about regime types by looking at the general attributes of the forms of government ^*:

Traditional (clan or kinship) or modern (bureaucracies)
Personalistic (North Korea) or impersonal (Germany)
Authoritarian (Zaire) or democratic (Belgium)
Elections (US), no elections (North Korea), hereditary (Brunei).
Direct (Mexico) or indirect elections (Electoral College in the US)
Secular (European Union) or non-secular (Iran)
Structure of the division of powers (UK) or absence of division of powers (Executive, Legislative, judiciary) (Peru under Fujimori).
Parliamentarian (Greece), Presidential (USA) or Monarchical (UK).
Number of people in the Executive power (Switzerland has 7, France 2, US 1).
Composition of the legislative power (autocratic, unicameral, bicameral)
Number of coalitions or party-appointed legislators in Assemblies
Federal (Argentina) vs. Unitary (France, China)
Rules of the electoral system:
1. plurality (most votes wins)- First past the post (U.K)
2. majoritarian (50% +1 vote wins)- run-off elections (Argentina)
3. supermajoritarian (usually from 55% to 75%) (60% cloture rule in the U.S. Senate, 55% independance vote for Montenegro)
4. unanimity - (100% votes wins) (Board of directors of a company)
Type of economic system
Prevalent ideologies and cultures
Strong institutional capacity (US) or weak capacity (Iraq)
Legitimate (South Africa) or not illegitimate (former communist Romania)
De facto (effective control) or De jure (nominal control of government).
Sovereign (US), semi-sovereign (Puerto Rico) not sovereign (Chechnya).

Other Empirical and Conceptual Problems

On the surface, identifying a form of government appears to be easy. Most would say that the United States is a democracy while the former Soviet Union was a dictatorship. However, as Kopstein and Lichbach (2005:4) argue, defining regimes is tricky. Defining a form of government is especially problematic when trying to identify those elements that are essential to that form. There appears to be a disparity between being able to identify a form of government and identifying the necessary characteristics of that form. For example, in trying to identify the essential characteristics of a democracy, one might say "elections." However, both citizens of the former Soviet Union and citizens of the United States voted for candidates to public office 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. And 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.

Several possible approaches exist that might help iron out the conceptual disparity between identifying a form of government and identifying its essential characteristics. One possible approach is to consider those characteristics which are necessary and sufficient to a form of government. Then, it could be said that "Elections are necessary, but not sufficient for democracies" or "Elections do not a democracy make."

Another possible approach is to further 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. However, the bipartisan nature of the United States political system is a side-effect of inherent shortcomings degrading a multi-party system into a two-party system and is not its intended design per se.

A system generally seen as a representative democracy (for instance Canada, India and the United States) may in fact also include measures providing for: a degree of direct democracy in the form of referenda; for deliberative democracy in the form of the extensive processes required for constitutional amendment.

A further complication is that a 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. Some examples are as follows:

Perhaps the most widely cited example of such a phenomenon is the communist movement. This is an example of where the resulting political systems may diverge from the original socio-economic ideologies from which they developed. This may mean that adherents of the ideologies are actually opposed to the political systems commonly associated with them. For example, activists describing themselves as Trotskyists or communists are often opposed to the communist states of the 20th century.

Islamism is also often included on a list of movements that have deep implications for the form of government. Indeed, many nations in the Islamic world use the term Islamic in the name of the state. However, these governments in practice exploit a range of different mechanisms of power (for example debt and appeals to nationalism). This means that there is no single form of government that could be described as “Islamic” government. Islam as a political movement is therefore better seen as a loose grouping of related political practices rather than a single, coherent political movement.

The basic principles of many other popular movements have deep implications for the form of government those movements support and would introduce if they came to power. For example, bioregional democracy is a pillar of green politics.

References

Bunce, Valerie. 2003. “Rethinking Recent Democratization: Lessons from the Postcommunist Experience.” World Politics 55(2):167-192.
Linz, Juan. 2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Linz, Juan, and Stepan, Alfred. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southernn Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Lichbach, Mark and Alan Zukerman, eds. 1997. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Luebbert, Gregory M. 1987. “Social Foundations of Political Order in Interwar Europe,” World Politics 39, 4.
Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Cambridge: Beacon Press, ch. 7-9.
Comparative politics : interests, identities, and institutions in a changing global order/edited by Jeffrey Kopstein, Mark Lichbach, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1970. Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism. Berkeley: University of California.
O’Donnell, Guillermo, Schmitter, Philippe C., and Whitehead, Laurence, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Przeworski, Adam. 1992. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael, Cheibub, Jose, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well Being in the World, 1950-1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shugart, Mathhew and John M. Carey, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics'', New York, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992.
Taagepera, Rein and Matthew Shugart. 1989. Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems, Yale Univ. Press.

External links

Forms of government | Government institutions | Political terms | Political systems

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Form of government