Forms of Government

5 Key excerpts on "Forms of Government"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Political Theory

  • G. C. Field(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter VI

  Forms of Government—DEMOCRACY

  10.4324/9781003165040-6

  FROM the consideration of the general conditions for the establishment of a sovereign power or ruling authority it is a natural transition to the consideration of the sovereign body itself and the forms that it can take. The different Forms of Government have been classified at various times in various different ways, some of which may be convenient in some contexts and others in others. In view of our own interests at the present time, it does not, perhaps, need any apology for starting with the consideration of the form of government known as Democracy and of other Forms of Government regarded as rivals or alternatives to this.

  In quite recent years considerable controversy has arisen about the proper use of the word ‘democracy’, and it has been applied to different Forms of Government which have little or nothing in common with each other. So much confusion has been engendered by these controversies that some people in despair have felt inclined to declare that the word is rapidly ceasing to have any precise meaning, and it has even been suggested that its use had better be abandoned altogether. But there is no reason to adopt such an extremely defeatist attitude. It ought to be possible to arrive at a reasonably clear notion of how we are going to use the term, without committing ourselves to dogmatic assertions about the ‘right use’ or the ‘real meaning’ of democracy. At least we can try to lay down conditions for the most convenient use, meaning by that the use which will be most successful in conveying a clear meaning from one person to another and in minimising possible confusions and misunderstandings.

  One obvious condition is that the use should be as uniform as possible. No doubt, there will always be the possibility of differences of opinion in detail, particularly at the margins of the extension of the term. But there can be no possible advantage in using the same term to indicate entirely different Forms of Government. Another desirable condition is that the use should be as stable as possible. That does not mean that it cannot be modified in course of time, extended, perhaps, in some directions and retracted in others. But any changes in the meaning or use of the term should have a recognisable continuity with the previous usage. There is nothing to be said for making deliberately a sharp change in the use of any term. As a matter of fact, the use of the term ‘democracy’ has shown a continuous development, always retaining a recognisable core of identity, from the ancient Greeks, who first invented it, down to the thinkers and writers of the nineteenth century, and their successors of the present day. It is this traditional use of the term which I propose to examine.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  General Theory of Law and State

  • Hans Kelsen(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  IV Forms of Government: Democracy and Autocracy A. Classification of Constitutions The central problem of political theory is the classification of govern-ments. From a juristic point of view, it is the distinction between different archetypes of constitutions. Hence, the problem may be presented also as the distinction between different forms of State. d. Monarchy and Republic The political theory of Antiquity distinguished three forms of State: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and modern theory has not gone beyond this trichotomy. The organization of the sovereign power is cited as the criterion of this classification. When the sovereign power of a community belongs to one individual, the government or the constitution is said to be monarchic. When the power belongs to several individuals, the constitution is called republican. A republic is an aristocracy or a democracy, depending upon whether the sovereign power belongs to a minority or a majority of the people. The number of individuals with whom the sovereign power rests is, however, a very superficial criterion of classification. The power of the State is, as we have seen, the validity and efficacy of the legal order. Aristotle had already described the State as áττá6ξις that is, as order *.The criterion by which a monarchical constitution is distinguished from a republican one, and an aristocratic constitution from a democratic one, is the way in which the constitution regulates the creation of the legal order. Essentially, a constitution (in the material sense) regulates only the creation of general legal norms by determining the organs and the procedure of legislation. If the constitution (in the formal sense) contains also stipulations concerning the highest organs of the administration and judiciary, it is because these, too, create legal norms. The classification of governments is, in reality, a classification of constitutions, the term being used in its material sense

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Cultural Anthropology

  An Applied Perspective

  • Gary Ferraro, Susan Andreatta(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  In addition to exploring all of these subjects, this chapter deals with the cultural arrangements by which societies maintain social order, minimize the chances of disruption, and cope with whatever disruptions do occur (Kurtz 2001; Lewellen 2003). Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-300 312 ■ CHAPTER 13 When most North Americans think of politics or political structure, a number of familiar images come to mind: ■ Political leaders such as presidents, governors, may-ors, or commissioners ■ Complex bureaucracies employing thousands of civil servants ■ Legislative bodies ranging from the smallest town council to the U.S. Congress ■ Formal judicial institutions that comprise munici-pal, state, and federal courts ■ Law enforcement bodies such as police depart-ments, National Guard units, and the armed forces ■ Political parties, nominating conventions, and secret ballot voting All of these are formal mechanisms that our own society uses for making and enforcing political decisions as well as coordinating and regulating people’s behavior. Some small-scale societies in the world have none of these things—no elected officials, legislatures, judges, formal elections, armies, or bureaucracies. We should not conclude from this, however, that such societies do not have some form of political organization, if by political organization we mean a set of customary procedures that accomplish decision making, conflict resolution, and social control. Types of Political Organization The term political organization refers to the way in which power is distributed within a society so as to control people’s behavior and maintain social order. All societies are organized politically, but the degree of specialization and the formal mechanisms vary consid-erably from one society to another. Societies differ in their political organization based on three important dimensions: 1.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Introduction to Sociology 3e

  • Tonja R. Conerly, San Jacinto College, Kathleen Holmes, Northern Essex Community College, Asha Lal Tamang, North Hennepin Community College(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Openstax

    (Publisher)

  Others grossly abuse their power. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, for instance, are heads of state who earned a reputation for leading through fear and intimidation. 17.2 • Forms of Government 505 FIGURE 17.8 Dictator Kim Jong-Il of North Korea was a charismatic leader of an absolute dictatorship. His followers responded emotionally to the death of their leader in 2011. (Credit: babeltrave/flickr) Democracy A democracy is a form of government that strives to provide all citizens with an equal voice, or vote, in determining state policy, regardless of their level of socioeconomic status. Another important fundamental of the democratic state is the establishment and governance of a just and comprehensive constitution that delineates the roles and responsibilities of leaders and citizens alike. Democracies, in general, ensure certain basic rights for their citizens. First and foremost, citizens are free to organize political parties and hold elections. Leaders, once elected, must abide by the terms of the given nation’s constitution and are limited in the powers they can exercise, as well as in the length of the duration of their terms. Most democratic societies also champion freedom of individual speech, the press, and assembly, and they prohibit unlawful imprisonment. Of course, even in a democratic society, the government constrains citizens' total freedom to act however they wish. A democratically elected government does this by passing laws and writing regulations that, at least ideally, reflect the will of the majority of its people. Although the United States champions the democratic ideology, it is not a “pure” democracy. In a purely democratic society, all citizens would vote on all proposed legislation, and this is not how laws are passed in the United States. There is a practical reason for this: a pure democracy would be hard to implement.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Democracy

  • Albert Weale(Author)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  24 2 Forms of Democratic Government Democracy, I have suggested, is a form of government in which public policy depends in a systematic, if sometimes indirect, way upon public opinion. However, even accepting this definition, there are various ways in which democracy can be thought of. Indeed, looking at the literature on democracy, it is clear that it reflects this diversity with classifications, categories and typologies in abundance. We read of pluralist democracy, radical democracy, liberal democracy, socialist democracy, deliberative democracy, elitist democracy, equilibrium democracy, cosmopolitan democracy, and so on (for a good discussion in this mode, see Held, 1996). It may seem that the task of a democratic theory is to identify which of these differing conceptions of democracy has the greatest claim to justification or is most defensible in intellectual terms. Why do we find the theory of democracy discussed in this way, and how should we deal with the problems that this proliferation of categories raises? It is not hard to see why there should be a proliferation of conceptions of democracy. First, democracy, whatever it is, is a complex phenom-enon, and it is bound to take a variety of forms. To understand and account for this complexity requires some typology to reduce the complexity and clarify thinking. Secondly, given the favourable con-notations the term ‘democracy’ often seems to possess, it is not sur-prising that many people from different ideological persuasions have wished to identify their preferred arrangement of political life with democracy as an ideal. Whatever the merits of liberalism, socialism, capitalism, republicanism, and so on, each ideology will receive con-siderable intellectual and moral support from its being associated with a plausible account of democracy. In consequence, ideas such as ‘lib-eral democracy’, ‘social democracy’, and so on are bound to flourish.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book