It defines the process for making officialgovernment decisions. It usually comprizes the governmentallegal andeconomic system,social andcultural 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.
Along with a basic sociological and socio-anthropological classification, political systems can be classified on a social-cultural axis relative to theliberal values prevalent in theWestern world, where the spectrum is represented as a continuum between political systems recognized asdemocracies,totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two,authoritarian regimes, with a variety ofhybrid regimes;[2][3] andmonarchies may be also included as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three.[4][5]
According toDavid 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 society, and to the relationships among those involved in making these decisions.[7]
Social anthropologists generally recognize several kinds of political systems, often differentiating between ones that they consider uncentralized and ones they consider centralized.[8]
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 fulfil 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.
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 toYale professorJuan José Linz, there are three main types of political systems today:democracies,totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two,authoritarian regimes (withhybrid regimes).[3][10] Another modern classification system includesmonarchies as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three.[4] Scholars generally refer to adictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.[11][12][3][13]
Totalitarianism is a political system and aform of government that prohibits opposition from political parties, disregards and outlaws the political claims of individual and group opposition to the state, and completely controls thepublic sphere and theprivate sphere of society. In the field ofpolitical science, totalitarianism is the extreme form ofauthoritarianism, wherein allpolitical power is held by a dictator. This figure controls the national politics and peoples of the nation with continual propaganda campaigns that are broadcast by state-controlled and state-aligned privatemass communications media.[27]
Amonarchy is a hereditaryform of government in which political power is legally passed on to the family members of themonarch, a head of state who rules for life.[28][29] While monarchs gain their power depending on specific succession laws, they can also gain their authority viaelection.[30]
Monarchies have historically been a common form of government. Nearly half of all independent states at the start of the 19th century were monarchies.[31] After reaching a peak in the middle of the 19th century, the proportion of monarchies in the world has steadily declined.[31] Republicsreplaced many monarchies, notably at the end ofWorld War I and World War II.[31][32][33]
Ahybrid regime[a] is a type of political system often created as a result of an incompletedemocratic transition from anauthoritarian regime to ademocratic one (or vice versa).[b] Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination ofautocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously holdpolitical repressions and regularelections. According to some definitions and measures, hybrid regimes are commonly found indeveloping countries with abundant natural resources such aspetro-states.[43][41][44] Although these regimes experiencecivil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time. There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of theCold War.[45][46]
The termhybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that oppose the dichotomy ofautocracy ordemocracy.[47] Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature ofdemocratic institutions (elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast the government point of view and the opposition inparliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others),[48] from which it is concluded thatdemocratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[49] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a fulldictatorship.[50][51]
^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.
^Cerutti, 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 thestatus 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. Retrieved2022-11-16.
_(cropped).svg)
