Lecture on Classifications of

Political Systems and Comparing

Governments
By
Mr. Revocatus B. Kabobe
Open University of Tanzania
revocatus.binomukama@out.ac.tz
+255 754 204 500
 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
Why Classify Political Systems?
• it is essential to boosting our
understanding of politics and
governments
• to facilitate evaluation of political systems
 Aristotle’s Classification
• Democracy
• Oligarchy
• Tyranny

Aristotle formulated his classification by

asking two questions:
• who rules?
• who benefits from the rule?
 Aristotle’s Six Forms of
Government

Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

Monarchy Aristocracy Polity

 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.
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Aristotle’s classification was outdated: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 (1775-1783)
• Democratic radicalism unleashed in France via
the French Revolution of 1789
• Parliamentary government which emerged in
the UK
 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
 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’
 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
 The 20th Century and the ‘Three
Worlds’ Typology (cont’d)
Ideological

First world vs. second world

Capitalism vs. Communism
 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
 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?
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 Postcommunist Regimes
The collapse of communist regimes of
eastern Europe between 1989-1991 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
 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
 Islamic Regimes
Two ways of coming into being:
1. those states where the existing political
order has been overtly challenged –
Iranian revolution of 1979. 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.
 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
 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.