It defines the process for making official
government decisions. It usually comprizes the governmental
legal and
economic system,
social and
cultural system, and other state and government specific systems. However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the questions of who should have authority and what the government influence on its people and economy should be.
According to
David Easton, "A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society".[6] Political system refers broadly to the process by which laws are made and public resources allocated in a society, and to the relationships among those involved in making these decisions.[7]
The sociological interest in political systems is figuring out who holds power within the relationship between the government and its people and how the government’s power is used. According to
Yale professor
Juan José Linz there a three main types of political systems today:
democracies,
totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two,
authoritarian regimes (with
hybrid regimes).[3][8] Another modern classification system includes
monarchies as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three.[4] Scholars generally refer to a
dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.[9][10][3][11]
Democracy (from
Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία,
romanized: dēmokratía, dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule')[12] is a system of
government in which state power is vested in
the people or the
general population of a state.[13] Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections.[14][15]
Totalitarianism is a political system and a
form of government that prohibits opposition political parties, disregards and outlaws the political claims of individual and group opposition to the state, and controls the
public sphere and the
private sphere of society. In the field of
political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, wherein all
socio-political power is held by a dictator, who also controls the national politics and the peoples of the nation with continual propaganda campaigns that are broadcast by state-controlled and by friendly private
mass communications media.[23]
The
succession of monarchs has mostly been
hereditary, often building
dynasties. However,
elective and
self-proclaimed monarchies have also often occurred throughout history.[25]Aristocrats, though not inherent to monarchies, often serve as the pool of persons from which the monarch is chosen, and to fill the constituting institutions (e.g.
diet and
court), giving many monarchies
oligarchic elements.
A
hybrid regime[a] is a type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete
democratic transition from an
authoritarian regime to a
democratic one (or vice versa).[b] Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of
autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold
political repressions and regular
elections.[b] Hybrid regimes are commonly found in
developing countries with abundant natural resources such as
petro-states.[43][33][44] Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time.[b] There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the
Cold War.[45][46]
The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of
autocracy or
democracy.[47] Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature of
democratic institutions (elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast the government point of view and the opposition in
parliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others),[48] from which it is concluded that
democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[b][49] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full
dictatorship.[50][51]
Sociological and socioanthropological classification
Social anthropologists generally recognize four kinds of political systems, two of which are uncentralized and two of which are centralized.[52]
A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.
Empires are widespread states consisting of people of different ethnicities under a single rule. Empires - such as the Romans, or British - often made considerable progress in ways of political structures, creating and building city infrastructures, and maintaining civility within the diverse communities. Because of the intricate organization of the empires, they were often able to hold a large majority of power on a universal level.
Leagues
Leagues are international organizations composed of states coming together for a single common purpose. In this way, leagues are different from empires, as they only seek to fulfill a single goal. Often leagues are formed on the brink of a military or economic downfall. Meetings and hearings are conducted in a neutral location with representatives of all involved nations present.
^
abcd "Some scholars argue that deficient democracies and deficient autocracies can be seen as examples of hybrid regimes, whereas others argue that hybrid regimes combine characteristics of both democratic and autocratic regimes."[28] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
^
abCerutti, Furio (2017). Conceptualizing Politics: An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 17. Political scientists have outlined elaborated typologies of authoritarianism, from which it is not easy to draw a generally accepted definition; it seems that its main features are the non-acceptance of conflict and plurality as normal elements of politics, the will to preserve the status quo and prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power, and lastly, the erosion of the rule of law, the division of powers, and democratic voting procedures.
^Ezrow, Natasha M.; Frantz, Erica (2011). Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders.
Continuum. p. 17.
^Lai, Brian; Slater, Dan (2006). "Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950–1992". American Journal of Political Science. 50 (1): 113–126.
doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00173.x.
JSTOR3694260.
^Göbel, Christian (2011). "Semiauthoritarianism". 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 258–266.
doi:
10.4135/9781412979351.n31.
ISBN9781412969017.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
^Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29).
"Electoral Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
^Подлесный, Д. В. (2016).
Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164.
Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
^Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014).
"Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation]. Ведомости.
Archived from the original on 2019-07-30. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
^Haviland, W.A. (2003). Anthropology: Tenth Edition. Wadsworth:Belmont, CA.
^Carneiro, Robert L. (2011).
"The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State". In Jones, Grant D.; Kautz, Robert R. (eds.). The Transition to Statehood in the New World. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–79.
ISBN978-0-521-17269-1.