Major Governments

For Under-Graduate Students of All Indian Universities

and Autonomous Colleges

MAJOR GOVERNMENTS

Political Systems of U.K., U.S.A., Russia, Switzerland, France and China

V.

II

, [ '#"':';

Jl

;; 2004,GhaiK.K.

Seventh Revised Edition

2013

TYPESETTING AT

(GHAI-l 3-MAJOR-GOVT)

Gautam Graphic Printers Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar

ISBN 978-93-272-2907-3

PRINTED IN INDIA

Ajit Printing Press, Delhi

and Published by Mrs. Usha Raj Kumar for Kafyani Publishers, New Delhi-110 002.

( PREFACE

SEVENTII EdmoN

I have the pleasure to present the thoroughly revised and updated Sixth edition of Major Governments. All the components of the Political Systems of six countries (UK, USA, Russia, France, Switzerland and China) have been analysed and compared in a systematic and comprehensive way. Latest facts have been added and the style of presentation has been modified to enable the students to quickly grasp all the basic facts and features.

I am sure; the book will continue to receive the patronage of the teachers and students.

I place on record my heartfelt thanks for M/s Kalyani Publishers for undertaking the publication of this edition and ensuring its release well in time.

Suggestions for improvement are solicited from teachers and students.

2013K.K. GHAI

ChaptersTopicsPages

1.COMPARATIVE POLITICS : INTRODUCTION1-15

2.CLASSIFICATION OF STATES AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS16-35

3.LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC, AUTHOTARIAN AND

TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS36-48

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

THE UNITED KINGDOM

1.BRITISH POLITICAL SYSTEM : LEGACY AND TRADITION3-16

2.BRITISH POLITICAL SYSTEM:17-37

(i) Nature of the Constitution (ii) Salient Features (iii) Conventions

3.BRITISH MONARCHY: THE KING AND THE CROWN38-50 Monarchy, Crown, Survival of Monarchy

4.BRITISH EXECUTIVE :51-80

(i) Parliamentary Government

(ii) The Cabinet (iii) The Prime Minister (iv) British Civil Service

5.THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT :81-120

(i) Sovereignty of Br. Parliament

(ii) House of Lords

(iii) House of Commons

(iv) The Supreme Court of UK and Other Courts Rule of Law

6.RULE OF LAW AND BRITISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM121-12

7.BRITISH POLITICAL PARTIES, PRESSURE

GROUPS AND POLITICAL PROCESS129-150

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

3-10 11-34

1.POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE USA : LEGACY AND TRADITION

2.THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM :

(i) Salient Features

(ii) Conventions

(iii) Method of Amendment

(iv) Sources and Evolution

35-40 41-73

74-106

107-119

120-138

(v) Separation of Powers

3.THE US FEDERAL SYSTEM

4.THE US EXECUTIVE :

(i) The Presidential Form

(ii) The President (iii) The Presidential Cabinet (iv) The Vice-President

5.THE US CONGRESS :

(i) House of Representatives (ii) Senate

6.THE US SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM Federal Courts The Supreme Court Judicial Review

7.US POLITICAL PARTIES, INTEREST GROUPS AND THE ELECTION SYSTEM

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

RUSSIA

1.COLLAPSE OF USER AND BIRTH OF RUSSIA CONSSITUTION

OF THE RUSSIAN SALIEN

FEATURES3-14

2.FUNDAMENTALS OF THE RUSSIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM15-17

3.RUSSIAN BILL OF RIGHTS18-24

4.THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION25-30

5.PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION31-36

6.GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA; COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

AND THE CHAIRMAN OF GOVERNMENT37-^0

7.RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT: THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY41-46

8.THE RUSSIAN JUDICIARY: THE CONSITTUIONAL COURT, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT OF ARBITRATION47-50

9.RUSSIAN POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTIONS51-52

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

FRANCE

1.FRENCH CONSTITUTIONALISM'3-17

2.THE FRENCH PRESIDENT18-28

3.THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS &

PRIME MINISTERS29-37

4.THE FRENCH PARLIAMENTS : NATIONAL ASSEMBLY & SENATE 38-51

5.FRENCH JUDICIARY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL52-59

6.FRENCH PARTY SYSTEM, PRESSURE GROUPS AND

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL60-65

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

SWITZERLAND

1.SWISS POLITICAL SYSTEM : INTRODUCTION

LEGACY AND POLITICAL TRADITION3-15

2.SWISS BILL OF RIGHTS : BASIC CIVIL AND SOCIAL

RIGHTS OF CITIZENS16-20

3.THE SWISS FEDERATION21-33

4.THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT34-47

(i) The Senate

(ii) The House of Representatives

5.SWISS PLURAL EXECUTIVE :

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT/FEDERAL COUNCIL48-60

6.SWISS JUDICIARY : THE FEDERAL COURT61-69

7.SWISS DIRECT DEMOCRACY70-78

8.SWISS POLITICAL PARTIES, PRESSURE GROUPS

AND ELECTIONS79-89

Htn

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA

1.THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION AND

REVOLUTIONARY LEGACY3-11

2.CONSTITUTIONALISM SINCE 1949 AND

THE.CONSTITUTION OF 198212-27

3.NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS

AND ITS STANDING COMMITTEE28-35

4.THE PRESIDENT, STATE COUNCIL & PREMIER OF CHINA36-43

5.CHINESE JUDICIAL SYSTEM : PEOPLES COURTS

AND PEOPLES PROCURATORATES44-47

6.PARTY SYSTEM, POLITICS OF MASS CAMPAIGNS

AND POLITICS OF REFORMS48-64

7.PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY :

ROLE IN CHINESE POLITICAL SYSTEM65-68

QUESTION BANK

COMPARATIVE

GOVERNMENT/POLITICS :

INTRODUCTION

Comparative Politics is as old as Political Science. Aristotle, the father of Political Science, used comparative method for comprehending and analysing principles, issues and problems of Greek City States of his times. He used the knowledge gained for building his theory of politics. Following Aristotle, several political thinkers began using the comparative method for analysing and presenting their views and conclusion about politics. Thus, it can be legitimately observed that comparative politics had its origin with Aristotle. Harry Eckstein has rightly observed : "Comparative Politics has a particular right to claim Aristotle as an ancestor because of the primacy he assigned to politics among the sciences and because the problems he raised and the methods he used are similar to those still current in political studies."

In contemporary times, Comparative Politics stands recognised as a primary and essential dimension of the study of Politics. A large number of political scientists even regard it as an autonomous discipline because of its vast scope and importance for a comprehensive understanding of politics in all societies. The comparative approach has emerged as a very useful and highly popular approach for the study of Politics. Comparative study of Political Systems forms an integral part of the study of Politics.

Evolution of Comparative Politics

Since times very ancient, Comparative Politics has been a very popular and useful subject of study within the broad ambit of Political Science. Aristotle observed the working of 158 constitutions and used the knowledge for answering such questions as : Which is an ideal state ? Which can be the best practicable state? Which is the best constitution? Aristotle's path was followed by his admirers, and the tradition still continues. It can be stated with certainty that right from the days of Aristotle, comparative study of political institutions, governments and processes has been developing as a major and popular area of investigation with a large number of political scientists. After Aristotle, several political thinkersCicero, Polybius, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, J.S. Mill, Bagehot and others, used the comparative method in a highly productive way.

In the 20th century, the ancient tradition received a systematic use and development at the hands of a large number of political scientists, particularly, Ogg, Zink, Munro, C.F. Strong, Herman Finer, Almond, Powell, Blonde!, A.R. Ball, Colelman, David Apter, S

2COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

Finer and others. In the Western world, Comparative Politics came to be regarded as an autonomous discipline. Several scholars of the Third World countries (New States) got engaged in Comparative Politics studies and the exercise still continues. Comparative Politics continues to be a very popular area of study. The increase in the number of sovereign independent states has made the task more interesting as well as challenging.

In fact, in contemporary times, the importance of Comparative Politics has increased tremendously. The existence of 193 political systems and some non-state political entities in the world has greatly enlarged the scope of Comparative Politics. The need to build a scientific theory of politics and the potential of Comparative Method to serve this end has been mainly responsible for its increased importance.

In the 19th century, Comparative Politics studies {Popularly designated as Comparative Government) were used by the political scientists for arriving at correct and valid conclusions regarding the nature and organisation of state and government through a comparative study of organisation, powers and functions of various political institutions working in various states. The basic objective was to enquire into the historical and legal similarities and dissimilarities among the various forms of government and their political institutions for getting answer to two main questions : Which form of government was the best?, and Which types of political institutions were the best? Comparative study was regarded as the key to the understanding of politics and consequently the key to provide answers to these two question. A comparative normative-prescriptive study of political institutions was conducted for answering these questions. The features, merits, demerits, similarities and dissimilarities of political institutions were compared and an attempt was made to identify the best political institutions. This focus continued to remain popular up till the end of the 19th century.

In the 20th century, the study underwent revolutionary changes. The traditional focus (Comparative Governments) got replaced by a new direction. Now the study of actual behaviour of political institutions and political processes came to be the adopted as the main area of study. For this purpose, several new concepts and approaches were developed. The building of a scientific theory of politics through comparative studies of politics came to the objective.

The dissatisfaction with the traditional approach and scope of Comparative Government due to its lack of comprehensives in scope, unrealistic nature and unscientific methodology led to the birth of the need for developing a new science of Comparative Politics capable of explaining all phenomena of politics in all parts of the globe as well as for building a scientific theory of politics. The increased opportunity for comparative politics provided by the rise of several new political systems in Asia and Africa, and the increased necessity for building a scientific theory of politics capable of guiding the path of the organisation of political institutions in the new states, gave an added importance to the attempts at the development of the new science of Comparative Politics, Political Scientists now adopted Comprehensiveness, Realism, Precision and use of scientific methods as the new goals for the study of Comparative Politics.

With the passage of time, the experience and knowledge gained helped the development of Comparative Politics as a vitally important and popular subject of study. Several developments of the post-war era greatly revolutionised this area of study. Consequently, it

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

3

came to be regarded as an autonomous subject, of course, within the broad ambit of Political Science. The traditional objective of deciding the best forms of government came to be replaced by the objective of systematic and comparative politics studies for comprehensively, realistically and precisely analysing and explaining all the processes of politics. From a legal-institutional study Comparative Politics came to be transformed into a behavioural, process-oriented, functional and scientific study of all political systems in terms of their structures, functions, environments and development processes. This attempt continues even today and Comparative Politics continues to be a popular and highly productive area of the study of politics.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT: THE TRADITIONAL VIEW

Traditionally, the comparative study of politics stands entitled as Comparative Government and it includes the study of features and legal powers of political institutions existing in various states, particularly in the European states.

In simple words, Comparative Government can be defined as the study of state and other political institutions in terms of their legal powers, functions and positions on a comparative basis. "Study of powers, functions, positions and relative merits and demerits of political institutions is traditionally referred to as Comparative Government."

G.K. Roberts defines Comparative Government as "the study of states and their governmental institutions and processes on a comparative basis."

According to Jean Blondel, "Comparative Government involves a study of the patterns of national governments in the contemporary world."

While defining Comparative Government, Edward Freeman writes "it is comparative analysis of the various forms of government and diverse political institutions." "By comparative government I mean comparative study of political institutions and forms of government."

REVIEW OF CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT

Let us discuss the various characteristics of the traditional approach, which have been discussed by Prof. R.C. Macridis.

1.Essentially Non-comparative The vast majority of publications in the field of

comparative government deal either with one country or with parallel descriptions of the

institutions of a number of countries. The majority of the texts illustrate the non-comparative

character of this approach.

2.Essentially Descriptive Studies Undoubtedly the description of political institutions is

vital for the understanding of the political process and that it leads to comparative study.

However mere description is not enough. Hardly ever can any real comparison between the

particularly institutions described. A reading, for instance, of one of the best texts,

"Governments of Continental Europe" edited by James T. Shotwell, reveals that as we pass

from France to Italy, Switzerland, Germany and the U.S.S.R., there is no common thread, no

criterion of why these particular countries were selected and no examination of the factors

that account for similarities and differences. The same generally applies to Frederic Oggs

and Harold Zink's "Modern Foreign Governments" and to Fritz M. Marx's "Foreign

Governments."

A

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

3.Historical-Legalistic-Institutional Approach There are two typical approaches in the descriptive study of political institutions. The first is historical and the second is legalistic. We trace the origin of the British parliamentary system to the Magna Carta and then study its development through successive historical accounts of the evolution of the French Parliament or the German Representative Assemblies which indicate similarities and differences. The second most prevalent approach is what we might call the legalistic approach. Mere, the student is exposed primarily to the study of the 'legal powers' of various branches of government and their relationships with reference to the existing constitutional and legal prescriptions. This is almost exclusively the study of what can be done or what cannot be done by various governmental agencies with reference to legal and constitutional provisions. Hence the traditional approach has been legalistic.

4.Essentially Parochial The great number of studies on foreign political systems have been addressed to the examination of Western European institutions. Accessibility of the countries studied, relative ease of overcoming language barriers, and the availability of official documents and other source materials, as well as cultural affinities, account for this fact. The traditional approach has been parochial because it has concentrated only upon European political systems.

5.Essential Static In general, the traditional approach has been ignoring the dynamic factors that account for growth and change. It has concentrated on what we have called political anatomy. After the evolutionary premises of some of the original works in the nineteenth century were abandoned, students of political institutions apparently lost all interest in the formulation of other countries in the light of which change could be comparatively studied.

6.Essentially Monographic The most important studies of foreign political systems, apart from the basic texts, have taken the form of monographs that have concentrated on the study of political institutions of one system or on the discussion of a particular institution in different systems. Works such as those by John Marriott, Arthur Keith, Joseph Bartheiemy, James Bryce, Ivor Jennings, Harold Laski, A.V. Dicey, Frank Goodnow, W.A. Robson, Abbott L. Lowell, Woodrow Wilson, and several others were addressed generally to only one country or to a particular institutional development within one country.

In other words, the main characteristics of Comparative Government have been

(1)Emphasis upon the study of political institutions of various countries.

(2)Main focus on the study of major constitutions of the world.

(3)Emphasis upon the study of powers and functions of various political institutions working in different states.

(4)Legal Instutionalism i.e. formal study of the organisation and powers, description of the features of the constitutions and political institutions, and legal powers of political institutions, form the basic contents of Comparative Government study.

(5)Building a theory of ideal political institutions constituted the objective.

With all these features, Comparative Government remained a very popular area of study unto the 1st quarter of the 20th century. Thereafter, a large number of political scientists got greatly dissatisfied with its narrow scope, unscientific methodology, formal legalistic-institutional istic and normative approach. They revolted against it and came forward to adopt comprehensiveness, realism, precision and scientific study of the processes of politics as their new goals. Their efforts came to be designated as Comparative Politics.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

5

COMPARATIVE POLITICS: CONTEMPORARY VIEW

All modern comparative politics studies are very essentially governed by the objective of understanding the processes of politics at work in all the political systems. For this purpose, the political scientists use several methods. As Macridis and Ward observe, "The ways of comparative politics are many. Comparison is like a guided tour of foreign lands. It shows that human beings living in different societies differ in their political behaviours. They differ in the political values they hold dear, in the ways in which they apprehend each other and the outside world, in the manner in which they solve similar problems.^ Though the study of comparative politics is very old, yet its importance has increased only in recent times.

In contemporary times, all the political scientists accept that for a proper understanding of all political systems, a comparative study of their structures and functions is essential.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS : MEANING AND DEFINITION

The study of comparative politics involves conscious comparisons in studying political experience, institutions, behaviour and processes of the systems of government in a comprehensive manner. It includes the study of even extra-constitutional agencies having their immediate connection, open or tacit, with formal governmental organs. It is, therefore, concerned with significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and in the patterns of political behaviour.

In simple words, we can say, Comparative Politics involves a comparative study of various political systems either as a whole or through a comparative analysis of their structures and functions.

Some popular definitions of Comparative Politics:

"Comparative Politics is the study of the forms of political organisations, their

properties, correlations, variations and modes of change."M. G. Smith

"Government is not the sole concern of students of comparative politics. Comparative

Politics, no doubt, has to be concerned with the government structure, but at the same time,

it has to take note of: (i) society, historical heritage and geographic and resouces endowed,

its social and economic organisations, its ideologies and value systems, and its political

style; and (ii) its parties, interests and leadership structure."Macridis and Ward

"Comparative Politics is the study of patterns of national governments in the

contemporary world." The term patterns of government refers to the 3 parts of study (i)

government structure, (ii) behaviour i.e. the study of how a particular political structure or

in titutio mfafa, and (iii) the laws."Jean Blondel

"Comparative Politics is concerned with significant regularities, similarities and

differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviour."M. Curtis

"Comparative politics is identification and interpretation of factors in the whole social

order which appear to affect whatever political functions and their institutions which have

been identified and listed for comparison."Braibante

Comparative Politics involves a comparative study of not only the institutional and

6COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

mechanistic arrangements of government but also an empirical and scientific analysis of non-institutional and non-political determinants of political behaviour such as the pattern of culture or the socio-economic environment within which the political systems operate. Empirical study of political processes, structures and functions forms the core of Comparative Politics studies. Its aim is to build a scientific theory of politics capable of explaining all phenomena of politics.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS : NATURE/FEATURES

Comparative Politics seeks to analyse and compare the political systems operating in

.various societies. In doing so, it takes into account all the three connotations of politics:

political activity, political process and political power.

yThe political activity consists of all the activities involved in conflict-resolution or in the

cstruggle for power. Since the basic means of conflict-resolution is the authoritative allocation

cof values, it involves an analysis of the process by which the authoritative values are made

fand implemented in all societies. In this sense, politics stands for political process. It involves

Ithe study of all formal as well as non-formal structures, the governmental and non

governmental structures through which the political process gets operationalised. The

f.political process receives information and signals from the environment and then transforms

pthese signals and information into authoritative values. Finally, politics being a struggle for

npower or a process of conflict-resolution through the use of legitimate power, involves a

irstudy of power or power relations in society. Lasswell describes Politics as the process of

c- II. Nature of Amending Process

Basis

Difficult Method of Amendment

Flexible Constitution

Easy Method of Amendment

Despotic Government

. Relationship between the Legislature & Executive

Executive is superior to Legislature

(i) Executive is subordinate to Legislature Parliamentary Government

(ii) Executive and Legislature are coordinate in Power Presidential Government

2. Leacock's Classification of States and Governments

Stephen Leacock has suggested a classification of states and governments which includes all the existing forms of governments. His classification scheme can be shown in the tabular form as below.

Modern States

Despotic

Democratic

Limited Monarchy

i

1

Republic

Unitary

Federal

Unitary

Federal

II I1 I1 I1

Presidential

Parlia-Presid- Parlia-Presid- Parlia-Presiden- Parlia-

mentaryential mentaryentialmentarytialmentary

Despotic state is one in which sovereign power is concentrated in the hands of one person who rules according to his will. Democratic state is one in which sovereign power resides with the people who exercise it either directly or indirectly through their elected representatives. A Democratic state can be either a Limited Monarchy i.e. a state ruled by a king with nominal powers, or a Republic i.e. a state headed by an elected head of state for a

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENJ/POLITICS_: INTRODUCTION _____23

fixed term. Each of these two types can be either a unitary or a federal state. Description of unitary and federal system is the same as given by Marriot. Each of these two can be either a parliamentary or a presidential form. In the case of former, the executive is responsible to the legislature, while in the latter it is not.

Let us try to classify some of the states on the model suggested by Leacock. India is a democratic (indirect) republic and a federal polity with a parliamentary form of government. England is a Democracy (indirect), limited monarchy, and a unitary state with a parliamentary form. So is the case of Japan. The USA is a democratic (indirect) republic, and a federal polity with Presidential System. China is a democratic (Communist/ Socialist/Proletarian) republic with a unitary structure and a parliamentary type of government. Several western scholars, however, place China, and in fact, all other communist states under the head Despotic States (Single Party dictatorship/rule). France is a democratic (indirect) republic and unitary state with a parliamentary-presidential mixed form of government. Switzerland is a democratic (Direct Democracy) republic with a federal system and parliamentary type of government.

R. W. Brewster suggests a modern classificatory scheme on a three fold basis :

(1)On the basis of source of ultimate legal powerAutocratic, Aristocratic and Democratic states.

(2)On the basis of method of selecting and controlling the actual chief executive Parliamentary and Presidential governments.

(3)On the basis of method of establishing geographical divisions of governing authorityUnitary and Federal.

A Modern Classification Scheme Suggested by CF Strong

CF Strong agrees with most of other writers that the states can be classified only on the basis of the structural differences in their governmental organisations. He suggests five bases for classification of states in terms of their constitutions :

I. The nature of the State to which the constitution applies II. The nature of the constitution itself

III.The nature of the Legislature

IV.The nature of the Executive

V. The nature of Judiciary

I. On the first basis i.e. the nature of the state to which the constitution applies, the Strong makes a classification between : Unitary and Federal States.

The Unitary State : i.e. state with a single central government possessing all the powers in which the local governments depend and operate in accordance with the will of the central government. There is a single legislature, single executive and a single judiciary for the whole state. The UK, France, Belgium and China are unitary states.

A Federal state is one in which a number of coordinate states unite to form a single soverign state. In it, a division of powers is made between one central government and several states (federating units) governments and each exercises powers in the area demarcated for it by a written, rigid and supreme constitution. The USA, Canada, and Australia are federal states. India is basically a federation but with some unitary features.

24

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

COMPARATIVE GOVERNS

II. On the second basis i.e. the nature of the constitution itself, a distinction can be made between states with written or unwritten constitutions and the states with Rigid and Flexible constitutions. When the constitution of a state is specifically written in the form of a book it is called a state will a written constitution e.g. constitution of India, USA, France, Switzerland, Japan and several others. However, if the constitution is not written and stands scattered in several documents charters and statutes, it is called an unwritten constitution. The UK has an unwritten constitution.

When the constitution of a state can be easily amended, it is called a state with a flexible constitution and when the procedure of amendment of a constitution is very difficult it called a state with a rigid constitution. In Britain the constitution is very flexible. It can be amended by simple law-making by the Br. Parliament. In the USA the constitution is very rigid. It can be amended only when the US Congress passes an amendment by a 2/3rd majority in each of its two houses and then it secures ratification by at least 3/4th of the states of the US Federation. Indian constitution is partly rigid and partly flexible. Some of its provisions can be amended by a 2/3rd majority of the two houses of Union Parliament with the concurrence (ratification) of at least one-half of the states of Indian Union, while several other provisions can be amended only by an act of Union Parliament passed with a 2/3rd majority in each House.

-

CF STRONG'S : CLASSIFICATION OF MODERN STATES

Ground of DivisionFirst TypeSecond Type

I. The Nature of the State to which the Constitution appliesUnitary

Federal or Quasi-Federal

II. The nature of the Constitution itselfFlexible (Not necessarily unwritten)Rigid (Not necessarily fully written)

III The nature of the Legislature(/) Adult SuffrageQualified Adult Suffrage

Single member constituencyMultimember Constituency

(it) Non-elective second chamberElective or partially elective Second Chamber.

(Hi) Direct popular checksAbsence of such checks

IV. The nature of the ExecutiveParliamentaryNon-Parliamentary or Presidential

V. The nature of the JudiciarySubject to the Rule of Law (in Common Law States)Under Administrative Law (in Prerogative States)

III. On the third basis, i.e. the nature of the legislature, a distinction can be made between a bi-cameral legislature i.e. legislature with two houses, and a unicameral legislature i.e. a legislature with a single house. It can also be done on the basis as to whether both the houses are elected or not, or whether one house (the upper houses) is hereditary or nominated, permanent or a quasi-permanent house or not. In the USA, both the houses of the legislature (US Congress) are directly elected houses. In the United Kingdom, while the upper house the House of Lords is a nominated-hereditary house, the lower housethe House of

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

25

Commons is a directly elected house. In India, while the Lok Sabha is a directly elected house, the Rajya Sabha is an indirectly elected house.

IV.On the fourth basis i.e. the nature of Executive, a distinction is made between the

Parliamentary Executive and Presidential Executive. In the former, the executive is closely

related to the legislature. It is constituted by the majority party in the legislature, and

ministers continue to be legislators as well as heads of executive departments. Further the

Executive is directly and continuously responsible before the legislature for all its work. The

legislature can remove the executive by passing a wote of no-confidence and the executive

can get the legislature dissolved for getting a new mandate from the people.

Non-Parliamentary Executive or the Presidential Executive i? totally separate from and independent of the legislature. It is not responsible to the legislature. It has a stable and fixed tenure, and similar is the case of the legislature. In other words, there is iparatipn of powers between the legislature and the executive. Both are coordinate in their organisation and working.

India, UK, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Australia have Parliamentary Executives. The USA

has a Presidential Executive.'

V.On the fifth basis i.e. nature of the Judiciary, CF Strong suggests a distinction

between states which follow the Rule of Law, (under which the ordinary citizens and civil

servants are equally under the jurisdiction and protection of common law courts), and the

states which have a system of Administrative Law which lays down a special way of trying

the cases involving civil servants. Rule of Law is a feature of the British Political System

while France has a system of Administrative Law.

Classification of States : Views of Dr. Appodoroi

Dr. A. Appodoroi, one of the leading contemporary Indian political scientists, in his book 'The Substance of Polities', suggests a classification which incorporates the ideas of Bryce, Marriot, Strong and Lindsay. He has tabulated his scheme as follows :

Basis of DivisionAB

I1The conception regarding the Sphere of the StateLibera!Totalitarian

(a)Communist

(b)Fascist

IIThe Nature of Political Organisation

2.The Nature of the StateUnitaryFederal

3.The Nature of the ConstitutionFlexibleRigid

4.The Nature of Electorate(/) Adult suffrage (if) Single member Constituency(i) Restricted suffrage (//) Multi-member Constituency

5.The Nature of LegislatureBicameral

(a) Elective or partially

elective second chamberUnicameral

26

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

COMPARATIVE

GOVERN!

(b) Non-elective second chamber

6.The Nature of ExecutiveParliamentaryNon-parl iamentary

7.The Nature of JudiciaryRule of LawAdministrative Law

Democratic States

Clarifying the scheme, Dr. Appodoroi offers three explanations :

() The classification is based on two major bases : I. The conception regarding the sphere of the state, whether liberal or totalitarian. The life of the people in liberal states has a quality of its own, different not only in degree but also in kind from that of the people in totalitarian states. The totalitarian states in themselves fall into two typesthe communist and the fascist, the former abolishing and the latter retaining private capital. II. The nature of political organisation. Under this heading three differentials are noteworthy, viz. the nature of the state (unitary or federal) ; the nature of the constitution (flexible or rigid) ; and the structure of government (the electorate, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary). () It should not be assumed that a state which comes under A in respect of I comes also under A in respect of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Thus the USA is a Liberal state (1); but is not a unitary state (2) ; her constitution is not a flexible one (3) ; and her executive is not a parliamentary one (6). f) Since the scheme adopts seven bases of classification, it is necessary to deal with each state seven times in order to place it properly. For Example : Britain liberal, unitary state, flexible constitution, adult suffrage and single member constituency, bicameral legislature with a non-elective second chamber, parliamentary executive and the rule of law. The USAliberal, federal state, rigid constitution, adult suffrage and single member constituency, bicameral legislature with elective second chamber, presidential executive and the rule of law. This scheme, though lengthy with seven variables, can help us to classify most of the modern states. It can be adopted as a very useful scheme.

On the average, however, we can adopt the classificatory scheme suggested by Stephen Leacock as the best practicable scheme.

The models of mixed forms of Government can be : Federation with a Unitarian spirit or a Federal State with some Unitary features, A Parliamentary Government with some features of Presidential Form or a Presidential Government with some features of Parliamentary Form. Switzerland & France have mixed forms form of governmentMixture of Parliamentary and Presidential Forms. In India there is a mixture of Federal and Unitary forms.

In contemporary times, States are also classified on the basis of the developmental levels of their economies.

In other words, the modern states can also be classified as Developed states and Developing states. Rich and technologically advanced states are called Developed states. All | the Developed States together constitute the two Developed worlds. The poor and underdeveloped states are called Developing states. All the developing states are together known as the Third World.

Lfoeral

(viii) Dev:

All the the post-] have becnl

authoritarian7 Several TH developing

A large share in world j independent colonialism i.e. states have been World states are i

(ix) Problem of

The developir their constitutions have been rej establish and mat-democratic fe development have

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION27

Modern States

I

Authoritarian States

Totalitarian States

Democratic States

Liberal Democracy

MilitaryCivil

Dictatorship Dictatorship

Communist Fascist

Autocracy/Dictatorship

Modern Governments

r

Unitary

I

Ei iKKl

I

Mixed Forms

Parliamentary Presidential

Parliamentary Presidential Mixed Forms

Mixed Forms

DEVELOPED STATES AND DEVELOPING STATES

(viii) Developing States

All the new sovereign states [(i.e. states which became sovereign independent states in the post-1945 period of the 20th century) are known as Developing states. Some of these have been real democratic polities where as others have facade democracies or veiled authoritarian systems and some of these are being ruled by military dictators or coup leaders. Several Third World states have been experiencing coups and counter coups. All the developing states are characterised by socio-economic under-development.

A large portion (72) of world population lives in developing states. However, their share in world income and resources continues to be low. These are politically sovereign independent states but economically these continue to be dependenta situation of neo-colonialism i.e. political independence along with economic dependence. The Third World states have been trying to throw away the chains of Neo-colonialism. Most of the Third World states are non-aligned states.

(ix) Problem of Classification of Governments in Developing Countries.

The developing countries have, mostly, democratic constitutions. However working of their constitutions have not been fully democratic. Some developing countries like Pakistan have been repeatedly living under military dictatorships. In such states the military dictators establish and maintain unreal democracies or facade democracies i.e. dictatorship veiled with democratic features. Widespread illiteracy, ignorance and socio-economic underdevelopment have been the main reasons behind such a situation. Further, in several

28COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

developing countries, political instability has been continuously present. Coups and counter coups frequently characterise their political systems. These features always act as a big hindrance in the way of classification of government in such states.

Modern States

Developed States (The two Developed Worlds)

High Gross Domestic Product (High GDP)

High GDP per capita

High level of Industrial Development

High level of Technological

Advancement

Surplus production of goods

High standard of living of the people

Producers and exporters of manufactured goods

High level of Agricultural development

Agriculture is an Industry

Surplus Wealth, Donors of Foreign Aid

-> Mostly European-American States

-Developing States or

The Third World

New independent sovereign states

-Living with the legancies of

imperialism-colonialism

Low GDP

Low GDP per capita

Low level of Industrial and

technological development

Dependence on Agriculture

Dependence on Foreign Aid

Commodity producers and

sellers of raw materials

Faced with socio-economic

problems

Almost all are Non-aligned states

Living under Neo-colonial control of the former imperial powers

Struggling to secure their rights and interests in this era of Neo-colonialism and globalisation.

Developing democracies Mostly Asian, African & Latin American States

First Developed World

Developed States with Liberal Democracies Competitive-Capitalist Economies. Champions of Free Trade

Second Developed World (Former socialist

states) originally with centralized command

economies and authoritarian political systems

now working on the basis of the principles of economic-political

liberalisation, Liberalism, Privalisation, Political

Pluralism and Democratisation

The presence of democratic constitutions working under dictatorial or authoritarian regimes or neo-democratic systems creates the problem of classifying these political systems. Theoretically, these are democratic political systems but are reality these work as dictatorships or authoritarian political systems. Such states can be, at best, described as developing democratic political systems.

(ix) The Developed States

The developed states together constitute the two Developed Worlds. (1) First Developed Worldthe rich and developed states with capitalist economies and liberal democratic political systems. Canada, USA, Japan, Western European States and Australia together constitute the First Developed World. (/'/') Second Developed World consists of mostly the former socialist states of Eastern Europe and Russia, which are less developed than the states

CO/^PACTIVE GOVERNMENJ/POLITICS_: INTRODUCTION __29

of the First World but more developed than the states of the Third World. Previously, these used to have socialist economies-i.e. centralised command economies and were totally opposed to capitalist or competitive economies. However, since 1990s, these have been also adopting the principles of liberalisation, market economy, competition, free trade, openness and social and political pluralism.

CLASSIFICATION OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Several modern political scientists regard the classifications of states and governments, traditional and modern, as inadequate and not really useful because these do not take into account the actual processes of politics in various states. To classify states merely on the basis of governmental political institutions or on the basis of the nature of the amending process of the constitution or on any other similar narrow basis, cannot lead us to a realistic and comprehensive classification. Any judgement based on the institutional features or legal relationships is bound to produce a formal and unrealistic classfication of states/governments. What is needed is a broad basis, a realistic focus and a precise judgement about the typology and actual working of political systems which are at work in various states. For this purpose, the need is to take into account the nature of the political process (politics) which take place in every state. In other words, the classification is to be done by taking into consideration the real nature and activities of the political systems and not on the basis of formal governmental institutions or nature of constitutions and the like. Most of the modern political scientists have now fully realised the importance of this necessity and hence have come out with several classifications of political systems.

Before discussing the classification or typology of political systems given by eminent modern political scientists, it is worthwhile to remember that a Political System is taken to mean a system of interactions through which authoritative values (laws, rules, decisions and the like) are made and implemented in a society. Robert Dahl defines it as "a persistent pattern of human relationships involving to a significant extent power, rule, authority or controF. A political system is constituted by all interactions which are patterned and through which the struggle for power takes place in every society. It is the totality of political interactions through which binding laws policies and decisions are made and implemented in the society. Political System is the power system of society in the sense that it alone exercises power in the society.

CLASSFICATION OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS : VIEWS OF SHILLS, ALMOND AND S.E. FINER

I. Edward Shills Classification of Political Systems

In his book "Political Development in New States" Edward Shills suggests a five fold classification of political systems :

1. Political Democracy. The components of the political systems of this category are: (1) regime of a civilian rule through representative institutions, (2) important position of the legislature, (3) political enjoyment of liberties by the people, (4) periodic assessment by the people (competitive elections), (5) rule of law, (6) functioning of all the branches of the government within the framework of the constitution, (7) definite and fixed term of government, (8) independence of judiciary, (9) high degree of legitimacy of the political

30COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

institutions, (10) intelligent leadership with high credibility, and (11) trained and well organised bureaucracy.

2.Tutelary Democracy. Such a political system retains all the institutions of political democracy but adapts them in the direction of a greater preponderance of the executive. This system is characterised by (1) dependence on modernisation, (2) a powerful executive, (3) limitations on press and representative institutions, and (4) control of the elites over the masses.

3.Modernising Oligarchies. This type of political system is characterised by a well organised elite which is "clique-like in structure", and a "relatively closed group" watchful over new members or aspirants. It is ruled either by a military group or a civilian junta. Its main features are : (1) lack of interest in political democracy, (2) rule of a military or civilian clique, (3) weak position of the legislature, (4) unreal and farcical elections, (5) lack of opposition, (6) efficient and modernised bureaucracy, (7) lack of independent judiciary, and (8) stability in appearance but inner hollowness.

4.Totalitarian Oligarchies. Such political systems are characterised by a "monolithic ideology" and a "strong well- disciplined party" which is the "custodian of the ideology" and is led by a "highly coherent elite." In these, "no other party or opposition is tolerated". The party rules and completely "dispenses with representative institutions except for "acclaiming for ceremonial purposes." There is no rule of law, no independent judiciary and the highest law is the decision of the party. In other words, its main features are : (1) glory of the ruling elite, (2) democratic cloak, (3) lack of real rights and liberties of the people, (4) supreme regard for ideology i.e. official ideology, (5) monolithic position of the party of the rulers, (6) identity between party and government, (7) lack of political participation of the people, and (8) absence of both rule of law and independence of judiciary.

5.Traditional Oligarchies. In this type of political system, there is a "firm dynastic constitution buttressed by traditional religious beliefs." "Kinship" or "a constitution of kinship and choice of the qualified" is the basis of the rule of the rulers. All decision-making is done by the "palace of the ruler'. Its main features are : (1) importance of "royal/rulers and blood relationships", (2) lack of modernised bureaucracy, (3) respect for traditions, (4) parochial and traditional culture, and (5) weak government since it is an instrument in the hands of the feudal lords, the clergy, and the rich.

Shill's classification is comprehensive but is based on values and standards drawn from western political systems.

II. ALMOND'S CLASSIFICATION OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Almond and Powell have suggested a comprehensive classification of Political Systems based on two criteria :

(I) Structural Differentiation i.e., the development and proliferation of specialised structures for the performance of specific functions or roles.

(II) Cultural Secularisation i.e., the growth of rational, analytical and empirical criteria in decision-making.

On these two bases, they offer a three fold broad classification of political systems :

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION31

(1)Systems with intermittent political structures-in which there is a minimum of structural differentiation and a concomitant diffused and parochial political culture.

(2)Systems with differentiated governmental political structures characterised by a participant political culture.

(3)Systems with differentiated political infrastructures characterised by civic political culture.

Within these three broad categories, they have specified several specific categories of political system. The whole scheme is as given in the chart.

ALMOND AND POWELLS' Classification of Political Systems

I

Primitive SystemsTraditional Systems with

with Intermittent Political Structures

and

Parochial Political

Cultures

Modern Systems

Differentiated Political

Infrastructures

Differentiated Governmental

Political Structures

and

Subject Political

Cultures

A

Primitive Boards

Segmentary Systems

C

Pyramidal Systems

A

Patrimonial

Systems

B

Centralised

Bureaucratic

Systems

C

Feudual Political Systems

Secularised City States :

Limited Differentiation

B

Mobilized

Modern systems,

High Differentiation

and Secularisation

123

Democratic SystemsAuthoritarian SystemsPre-mobilisied Modern Systems

The classification offered by Almonds and Powell is very comprehensive and covers all political systems. However, it is a very lengthy scheme.

III. S.E. FINER'S CLASSIFICATION OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS

S.E. Finer, in his book "Comparative Government" has given a classificatory scheme which is quite comprehensive, relatively simple and takes into account the empirical realities of politics in various states. For his classificatory scheme, Finer identifies and depends upon three criteria :

(a)How far are the masses or the public involved in or excluded from the governing process? This is the participant-exclusion dimension;

(b)How far the masses or the public obey their rulers out of commitment or how far out of fear? This is the coercion- persuasion dimension;

(c)How far are the arrangements designed to cause the rulers to reflect the actual and current values of the masses or the public or how far may they disregard these for the sake of continuity and future values ? This is the order- representativeness dimension.

On each of the three dimensions, S.E. Finer classifies political systems in several categories.

(a) Under the first dimension i.e., the participate- exclusion dimension. Finer classifies political systems on the basis as to whether the mass of the people extensively participates in

32

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

COMPARATIVE

the system or stands excluded from it. In developed democratic systems, like the USA, the UK, and Switzerland, the political participation of the people is very high and effective whereas in less democratic or developing system, it is limited. In non-democratic totalitarian authoritarian system, it is negligible.

(b)Under the second dimension i.e. coercion-persuasion dimension, Finer seeks to

classify political systems on the basis as to whether the rulers use coercion or persuasion for

securing people's obedience or use a mixture of persuasion and coercion or persuasion for

securing people's obedience or they use coercion for this purpose. He sub-divides this

dimension into four parts: (1) Coercion (Fear), (2) Manipulation (Deference), (3)

Regimentation (Sentiments), and (4) Persuasion/Bargaining (Cognition) interests.

(c)The third dimension i.e. the order-representativeness dimension, is used by Finer to

classify political systems on the basis whether the rules reflect the present goals or disregard

these for the sake of continuity and future values. "The qualities expected of government are

by no means simple. On the contrary, they form a complex of requirements which are

mutually inconsistent and so the composition of this complex tends to differ from one society

to another. The organs of government do not simply represent or reproduce the consciously

expressed values of the public....A government does not simply represent, for the public will

also expect it to provide continuity and they are also expected to show foresight." So each

government has to take care of the present as well as future goals, represent as well as lead

the people. It has to maintain order and rule as well as act as representative of the people. In

some political systems, there is a large amount of sub-group autonomy whereas in others,

there is sub-group dependence. Representativeness demands turn-over of rulers but many

rulers in practice trample upon the representative principle and build personal or collective

(group) despotism ; they discount the present goals for the sake of future goals.

On the basis of these three dimensions and by relating one with the other dimension, S.E. Finer offers a six fold classification:

(1)Military Regimes. Based on coercion, lacking in sub- group autonomy, having either high or moderate sub-group dependency e.g., Military Regime of Myanmar.

(2)Dynastic Regimes. Based on manipulation (deference) e.g., Saudi Arabia.

(3)Facade Democracies. Democratic in form but oligarchic in reality, show of

representativeness, persuasion and participation but in reality dependence upon

manipulation, exclusion, coercion and other future goals.

(4)Quasi-Democracies. Having varying degrees of representativeness but living under

the hegemony of a single party.

(5)Totalitarian Regimes. These rely on regimentation and are characterised by hegemonic party control.

(6)Liberal Democracies. These have a high level of extensive popular participation, depend mostly on persuasion, are characterised by a high degree of representativeness and sub- group autonomy.

S.E. Finer's classification is indeed very comprehensive but ignores the importance of the forms of government-Parliamentary, Presidential, Unitary and Federal, as a variable for the classification of systems.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

33

The Best Classif icatory Scheme of Political Systems

In fact, the task of classifying political systems is so complex that no single scheme can really serve the entire need. Classification done by Almonds and Powell and S.E. Finer can be regarded as two of the best classificatory schemes, though not without inadequacies. By combining the views of several political scientists and by combining the attempts at the classification of states and governments, we can attempt to arrive at a generally acceptable and nearly complete classificatory scheme.

Political Systems can be classified into three specific categories. Liberal Democratic, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political Systems.

Governments can be classified into four Main Categories- Parliamentary, Presidential, Unitary and Federal.

A combined classificatory scheme can be given below :

POLITICAL SYSTEMS

ii

LIBERAL DEMOCRATICTOTALITARIANAUTHORITARIAN

1 i

FEDERALUNITARY COMMUNIST FASCIST MODERNISING TRDITIONAL

/

PARLIAMENTARY PRESIDENTIAL /CIVILIANMILITARY

PARLIAMENTARY PRESIDENTIAL

A Brief Description of Modern States

(i) Democratic State

In such a state the people are sovereign. They elect their representatives freely, who form the government of the state. The government is continuously responsive and responsible to public opinion. It holds office for a fixed term. The people can at any time change their government through elections. Free and fair elections are regularly held and all the adult citizens of the state (Voters) participate in these elections.

A Democratic state grants and guarantees all the rights and freedoms to its people. It tries to provide them all the necessary conditions for their self-development. It believes in the ideology of liberalism and carries out all its functions for the welfare and development of its people. Independence of judiciary, rule of law and the presence of an elected, representative, responsive, responsible accountable and transparent government are its hall marks.

(ii) Totalitarian State

In such a state, the rulers rule by force and manipulations. They impose their will upon the people. The state laws bind all aspects of the life of the citizens. No respect is paid to the rights and freedoms of the people. State is regarded as the end and the people as the means.

34

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

There is a total concentration of powers in the hands of the rulersa small ruling group or the party of the ruler. The government is neither really elected by the people nor is really responsive and responsible to public opinion.

A totalitarian state can be either a fascist state as it existed under Mussolini in Italy in the inter-war years or a Nazi state as existed in Germany under Hitler during inter-war period or a communist state which existed in the erstwhile USSR. A totalitarian state always uses an ideology to justify its policies, one of which is to exercise full control over the people in all areas of their activities. Rule of the rulers and not rule of law is practised.

(iii) Authoritarian State

An Authoritarian state is one in which : (i) the executive is excessively powerful and is not really responsible to the people; (ii) the legislature enjoys a secondary position and is dominated by the executive; (iii) people enjoy only limited rights and freedoms; (iv) the government is formed by a revolutionary group, civilian group or a military junta; (v) the government maintains a control over the mass media ; (vi) opposition is kept under control; (vii)change of rulers always involves the use of force or domination; and (viii) people have little role in influencing the policies of government. The state experiences coups, revolutions and forcible over-throw of rulers from time to time. Modernisation is used as a cloak to cover the high handed policies and actions of the ruling group which is alway dominated by a powerful leaderthe dictator. Pakistan lived under a military dictatorship between October 1999 to March 2008. The military General Musharraf, continued to be President of Pakistan a centre of power even after the installation of an elected governments. The People of Pakistan have been now trying to run a democratic government with an elected President as well as an elected representative government. However, the path continues to be difficult.

(iv) Unitary Government

In this form of government, all the powers of governance are vested by the constitution of the state in the hands of one single central government. The local governments derive their powers from the the central government. There is centralisation of powers in the hands of the central government. However, it should not be taken to mean that a Unitary Government is not democratic. It is a form of organisation of government based on the principle of creating a single government for the whole state. It is a democratic state when the state has a democratic government (As in the United Kingdom), or an authoritarian state when its government is not democratic (as in China).

(v) Federal Government

In this form of government, all the powers of the state are divided between one central government and several state (Provincial) governments through a written, rigid and supreme constitution. The central government exercises all the powers which are given to it by the constitution. Each state or provincial government exercises in its area, the powers given to it by the constitution. Each government enjoys autonomy to work in its own area. The USA, Canada Switzerland & Australia are Federations. The Constitution of India describes the state as a Union of states. Indian constitution has the features of a federation and is also characterised by a unitary spirit.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

35

(vi) Parliamentary Government

In such a government, the legislative and executive organs are closely related, the members of the legislature (Majority group/party) form the real executive, and the latter (Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers) is responsible before the legislature. Responsibility of the executive to the legislature is the hall mark of a Parliamentary form of Government. It is often referred to as a system of responsible government. The Head of state is a nominal constitutional head of state. Parliamentary government is at work in India, UK, Canada. Austrialia and some other states.

(vii) Presidential Government

This form of government is organised on the basis of the principles of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances. The legislature and executive are kept separatethe members of one can not be members of the other. Each works independently and is not responsible to the other. Both are directly responsible to the people. The head of the state is also the head of the government. Each organ of the government exercises some checking powers over the other two organs. Presidential government is at work in the USA.

' ifl i

LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC AUTHOTARIAN AND

TOTALITARIAN POLTIICAL SYSTEMS

Totalitarian and Authoritarian States are the two veritable opposites of the Democratic States. These two types of states have been at work in several countries of the world. During the inter-war years (1919-1939) these remained so popular that in one of his speeches Mussolini observed : "If the 19th century was an age of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, the twentieth is to be a century of authority, collectivism and totalitarian state." Mussolini's prediction did not prove to be correct, yet no one can deny that nearly l/3rd of the population of the world even today continues to live under Totalitarian or Authoritarian political systems. Between October 1999 to March 2008, Pakistan remained under an authoritartian military rule. Iraq under Saddam Hussian was a totalitarian state. Myanmar has been living with an authoritarian government for the last five decades.

Totalitarian and Authoritarian states have a large number of similarities and the difference between them is that of degree and not of kind. Both involve a system of government in which the executive dominates the legislature and judiciary, and the people enjoy only limited rights and freedoms.

I. TOTALITARIAN STATE I MEANING

Totalitarian state is one in which the state has full control over the whole life of the individual. No part of his life is beyond the control of the state. The totalitarian state claims jurisdiction over the whole of man's life. If the Bible teaches that "we live, move, and have our being in God", totalitarianism teaches that "we live, move and have our being in State." In it "the individual's life is not his own. It is a trust given to him by the state to be used in the service of the state." Totalitarian State declares itself to be omnipotent and infallible. In practice it means the all-powerfulness and infallibility of the ruler of the state.

In the words of Finer, "Totalitarian state is the veritable contradictory of the liberal democratic type of government. The scope and authority of government is not limited, but just the reverse is total."

While discussing the meaning of Totalitarian State Asirvatham observes : '7/i current political literature, the term 'totalitarian state' is used in contrast with the term "liberal democratic state."

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

37

Explaining the meaning of a totalitarian state, the Foreign Policy Association of America defines it as one "which embraces all the activities of individuals and subordinates them to national (ruler's) ends.' It is a state of truly sovereign authority which dominates all the spheres of the country." It practises a cult of state worship. Authority of the state is unlimited. The individuals are the components of the state and they have to think, live and act as the state wishes them to do so.

In simple words, a totalitarian state is one which controls the whole life of the society. In it, the rulers have unlimited powers and are not responsible before the people. State worship is practiced. Force and fear are the sanctions behind the laws of the state (wishes of the rulers). Total centralisation of all powers in the hands of the ruler of the state and his party are its hall marks.

The totalitarian state has been known to us by different names: Bonapartism in France, Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany or as some say Communism in China and other communist states. The key characteristic of a totalitarian state is its solid opposition to any institutional division of power. There is full centralisation of powers and authority of state in the hands of a single ruler or a group or a party.

Western political scientists hold that there are two types of Totalitarian States :

(i) The Radical Totalitarian States i.e., Communist States, i.e. states ruled by all powerful and centralised communist parties and

(/'/) The Conservative Totalitarian States i.e., Fascist and Nazi States i.e. states ruled by single dominant parties of the rulers.

I A. TOTALITARIAN STATE : FEATURES

Prof. Neumann specifies five elements of a totalitarian state :

(1) Against rule of law, it stands for rule of state police ; (2) It involves a total centralisation of power into the hands of the ruler of the state ; (3) There is only one political party the political party of the ruler ; (4) Against pluralistic society, it stands for total social control over individuals and a monoethical social system ; and (5) It is based on force and coercion. It acts through force for securing obedience of the people.

We can identify the following features of a totalitarian state :

(1)Totalitarian state is totally opposed to a democratic state.

(2)It is based on the concept of total centralisation of powers in the hands of the top ruler and his party.

(3)State is regarded as the end and individual as a means.

(4)The ideology of the ruler is the ideology of the state and all the people of the state have to accept it.

(5)People have little role in the decision-making. Decisions are made by the rulers and imposed upon the people.

(6)The basis of all state action is force. Force is used to command obedience and instill a fear among the people.

(7)No part of individual's life is outside state control.

38

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

(8)Rights of the people depend upon the wishes of the rulers. Only those rights are given which are considered good for the 'health of the state'.

(9)The struggle for power is kept confined to the ruling group. No dissent or opposition is tolerated.

(10)The ruler or his party is the government. The power of the government is exercised by the leaders of the ruling party irrespective of the fact whether they hold any position in the government or not.

(11)Totalitarian state stands for a monolithic society with one leader, one party, one ideology, one government and one rule.

(12)Through propaganda and officially sponsored mass movements, the rulers try to show their popularity and representativeness.

(13)Totalitarian state has no faith in internationalism. It regards war as an instrument of central importance and a means to progress and power.

(14)Press and means of mass media are owned and run by the state. Only that part of public opinion is projected which suits the rulers.

(15)Change of rulers is sudden and characterised by big, and often, violent changes in all policies.

(16)Totalitarianism glorifies the nation and upholds the idea of the state as a power system.

(17)The totalitarian state is exclusive. It does not believe in liberalism and sharing of power.

(18)There is lack of independent judiciary, and rule of the ruler and not rule of law is practiced.

(19)Totalitarian state embodies the cult of state worship. The rulers rule as the state. No difference is made between state, government, society and party.

(20)A totalitarian state is opposed to socio-economic-political pluralism.

In it, the constitution of the state is used as a cloak for legitimising the power of the ruler or rulers. Complete centralisation of authority, absence of an independent jurdicracy, and rule of rulers and not the rule of law, are its hallmarks.

Out of all these features, A.R. Ball in his book "Modern Politics and Government", specifies five most salient features a Totalitarian State :

(1)All aspects of individual and society activity are theoretically the political concern of the government.

(2)One party is politically and legally dominant. The party provides the only institutionalised basis for political competition, recruitment and opposition.

(3)There is an elaborate ideology which regulates all political activity within the state.

(4)The judiciary and the mass media are rigidly controlled by the government and civil liberties stand seriously curtailed.

(5)Totalitarian state emphasises constant mobolisation of the population for winning I mass support for the ruler, and for providing it with a democratic cloak. The regime I is legitimised by mobilised consent and participation (ureal) of the people.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNS

With all these featu They live by the rule o wield the power of the i

Authoritarian state j state. The states, writes and Totalitarian states b

"An authoritarian the hands of a few Le.t |

participate in few of the

"An Authoritarian i either by one person ort over whom control is en

IIA.J

In its content and ft difference between the tl people is not total but exi ideal but along with it so executive is excessively! power is in the hands 0 practised. Either Model) maintaining credibility. fti ends of the rulers. Myanj

A.R. Ball, uses thel following seven features/

(1)Important limy

parties and el

p(2)There is abser although racial? attempted polj/pp(3)The definition] a authoritarian]/pp(4)The political and obedien/pp(5)Civil liberties media is direct]/pp(6)The basis for modernising in Pakistan in Manipulation/pp /ppCOMPARATIVE GOVERNMENJ/POLITICS_: INTRODUCTION __39/ppWith all these features, the totalitarian state dominates all aspects of the life of the people. They live by the rule of the state which really means the rule of the person or persons who wield the power of the state at a particular time./ppII. AUTHORITARIAN STATE/ppAuthoritarian state is very near to a totalitarian state and is far away from a democratic state. The states, writes A.R. Ball, which do not fall between the two categories Democracy and Totalitarian states belong to the category of authoritarian state./pp"An authoritarian state is one in which all authority and power are concentrated in/ppthe hands ofafew i.e., the government whose rule is essentially not responsible. The people/ppparticipate in few of their decisions but are subject to all of them."C. H. Dillon/pp"An Authoritarian government is characterised by the possession of supreme authority/ppeither by one person or by a minority group which is in no way accountable to the people/ppover whom control is exercised."F. B. Schulz/ppIIA. AUTHORITARIAN STATE : FEATURES/ppIn its content and form an authoritarian state is very near to a totalitarian state. The difference between the two is one of degree and not of kind. In it, the state control over the people is not total but excessive. Limited openness is permitted. Centralisation is considered ideal but along with it some limited devolution or sharing of authority is also tolerated. The executive is excessively powerful and dominates other organs of the state. In such a state, the power is in the hands of a military dictator or a civilian junta. Manipulative politics is practised. Either Modernisation or Traditionalism is used to win popular support for maintaining credibility. Religion or an ideology is often used to secure support and serve the ends of the rulers. Myanmar and Gulf countries have been living with authoritarian systems./ppA.R. Ball, uses the term Autocratic state for an authoritarian state and specifies its following seven features :/pp(1)Important limitations are imposed on open political competition i.e., upon political parties and elections./pp(2)There is absence of a dominating political ideology such as communism or fascism, although racialism or fundamentalism and nationalism often provide some basis for attempted political uniformity./pp(3)The definition of what is "political" is more restricted in totalitarian system than in a authoritarian system./pp(4)The political rulers mostly use force and coercion to command political uniformity and obedience./pp(5)Civil liberties enjoy low priority and governmental control over judiciary and mass media is direct and considered justified in the interest of public good./pp(6)The basis for rule is found either in a traditional political elite or in a new modernising elite, often the army, which has seized power by a coup (As was done in Pakistan in October 1999) or as the result of a colonial war of independence. Manipulation and suppression is the basis of the power of the rulers./pp /pp40/pp /ppCOMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION/pp /pp(7) It is usually one group that monopolies political control in contrast to the pluralism of liberal democracies./ppWith these seven features, an authoritarian state is quite similar to a totalitarian state. Frequently, an authoritarian state gets transformed into a totalitarian state. When the state control over the life of the people is total, the system is totalitarian, when it is excessive, permitting limited liberty and political participation to the people, the system is authoritarian. Ideology is used by a totalitarian state to acquire, justify and exercise power upon the people. In authoritarian regimes power is maintained with the help of several ideological principles or even otherwise through the exercise of coercion camouflaged with constitutionalism. The executive enjoys a position of dominance in an authoritarian state./ppThe Authoritarian states stand further sub-classified by Almond and Powell into two . (1) Stabilisational Conservative Authoritarian Government, and (2) Modernising Authoritarian Government./ppA.R. Ball classifies these into two parts. Traditional Authoritarian Government and Modernising Authoritarian Government. The latter is further sub-divided into (i) Military Authoritarian Government (Military Dictatorship) and (ii) Civilian Authoritarian Government (Traditional Dictatorship or Non-Military Dictatorship)./ppTraditional authoritarian systems are characterised by the rule of a family or a group of Amirs or feudal lords. Modern authoritarian systems are ruled either by a military junta or clique or by a civilian group/jundli/clique/junta/clique./ppAuthoritarian states are ruled either by a small civillian group/junta or a military junta or by a family or by an Amir family. All such regimes can be placed under the heading Dictatorship./ppIIB. DICTATORSHIP : AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT/ppDictatorship is a form of government in which one ruler exercises unlimited or excessive authority. Its alternative name is Autocracy. In it, a person comes to power either through legal means as Hitler did, or by illegal means or a revolution, and begins exercising power in an 'illegal' and unlimited way. He rules by his will and is limited only by his own will. He is responsible to himself and not to the people./ppIn other words, 'Dictatorship means absolute rule of a single person who usurps power and exercises it in an autocratic way'. He is neither responsible nor accountable to the people or any other popular institution. He may or may not wear a crown, he may or may not proclaim as he deems fit but he always dominates all decision-making. He can use any ideology or an ideological principle to justify his rule. Sometimes, he gets himself elected as the President/Head of the state just as General Zia-ul-Haq and Gen Musharraf did after forcibly usurping power in Pakistan. This was done for projecting their rule as a rule based on wide-spread popular consent. A dictator uses 'election' as a means to camouflage his illegally captured authority as legitimate authority. He often uses an ideology or ideological principle to rule and project the 'legitimacy' of his rule which is in reality illegitimate. However, his power to rule actually depends upon his ability to use force and manipulations for maintaining himself in power./pp"Dictatorship is a government of one man who has not obtained his position by/pp /ppCOMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION/pp /pp41/pp /ppinheritance but by either force or consent (manipulated consent), or a combination of both/pp(coining into power by force and then securing popular consent through manipulated/ppelections) often by projecting himself as the only candidate for the office of the Head of the/ppState) or coming to power through legal means but establishing an/ppautocratic/authoritarian rule by trampling the opponents and establishing of personal/ppautocratic rule.Alfred Cobban/ppA dictator exercises an unlimited power of governance. He dominates all decision-making. In fact, laws reflect his will and they are made and enforced arbitrarily. All political authority emanates from his will and it is unlimited in scope. His authority is unrestrained by law and is exercised for a very long time i.e., so long as he lives or so long as he is not overthrown by another dictator or by a revolution or a coup. Arbitrary exercise of unlimited power is the main property of Dictatorship. General Franco of Spain was a dictator and so were Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar, Idi Amin, Ayub Khan Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf./ppIIC. FEATURES OF DICTATORSHIP/ppThe following can be identified as the key features of Dictatorship :/pp1.Dictatorship involves the rule of one person or one small group led by one person./pp2.The rulers come to power either by force or through manipulation i.e. by illegal means. However, when a duly elected person also begins using his powers arbitrarily by dominating and controlling all other centres of power, the system takes the form of an autocracy/dictatorship or an authoritarian system./pp3.The ruler rules by his will. His will is the law./pp4.The rule of a dictator is neither transparent nor accountable to the people or to popular institutions./pp5.Usually, Dictatorship is the product of militarism, directly or indirectly./pp6.Rule by force and domination is the eternal law of dictatorship./pp7.The ruler identifies the interests of the people with his own interests but describes his interests as national interests./pp8.The ideology of nationalism is used as a means for securing credibility for the interests of the ruler. In the name of the unity of the nation, the ruler exercises his power for putting his view of the social order into actual operation./pp9.Dictatorship does not make a distinction between state and government./pp10.Dictatorship as the rule of one person is totally opposed to democracy which stands/ppfor the rule of the people./pp11.A dictator tries to organise of his loyalists or 'the Junta' into a political party, and/ppoften rules the state with its help./pp12.Dictatorship pays little attention to the rights of the people but always places emphasis upon the duties of the people towards the state./pp13.The ruler exercises power for life or for as much time as he can. The change of rulership is, almost always, made through force or a revolution or a 'coup' against the ruler./pp /pp41/pp /ppCOMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION COMPARATIVE GOVER/pp /pp/p /pp/p/p/p /pp/p14.Dictatorship may have a number of governmental organisations for exercising power but each such organisation works under the ultimate authority and control of the dictator./pp15.The ruler uses war and aggression as means for diverting the attention of the people away from their domestic problems. He always tri:s to put down domestic discord with a firm hand and uses force in the name of the nation or any other such abstraction./ppOut of all these features, we can identify the following two as the hallmarks of dictatorship :/pp(a)Dictatorship makes a sharp distinction between the ruler and the ruled and gives all primacy to the former. Inequality between the ruler and the subjects is the very foundation of dictatorship. It involves a single person rule or a rule by a small group of rulers ! d by the most powerful person./pp(b)Dictatorship makes little distinction between state and government. The ruler, the autocrat or the dictator identifies himself with the supreme power of the state and has a monopoly over power and authority./ppIn simple words, it can be said that Dictatorship is the veritable opposite of Democracy. Democracy stands for popular sovereignty, representative and responsible government, and for the grant and guarantee of rights and freedoms to the people. Dictatorship (Autocracy or Authoritarian regime) stands for one man rule or junta rule characterised by the personal and authoritarian rule of the ruler who assumes and claims all power of the state and rules the people. A dictators can be totalitarian or authoritarian in approach and content. However, sometimes he tries to wear a cloak of democracy. In reality no dictatorship can ever be democratic. In can be, at best a 'facade democracy' or a 'sham democracy'./ppIID. DICTATORSHIP : CRITICAL EVALUATION/ppAs a form of government, Dictatorship has little to commend itself. It can claim that under it strong decisions can be taken and strongly implemented for securing reforms and the goals of socio-economic development. Further, that it alone can effectively meet emergencies which always require prompt decision-making and implementation. Because of centralisation of all authority in his hands the dictator can act decisively to meet emergencies./ppHowever, its critics, their number is very large, strongly criticise dictatorship as an anti-' liberal, anti-democratic, and anti-human system of rule. It is anti-liberal because it gives little place to the rights and freedoms of the people. It is anti-democratic because it stands for centralisation of all authority into a single hand and has no faith in the equality of all the people. It is based on force, suppression and domination. The ruler and 'his group' enjoy an all important superior position and rules the people. It is anti-human because it is based on force and domination and regards individuals as means and the regime as the end. It gives little importance to the rights and freedoms of the people./pp1.Dictatorship destroys individual rights and freedoms./pp2.It wrongly upholds that the state is the end and individual is the means./pp3.It glorifies force, war and aggression and pursues aggressive nationalism./pp4.Dictatorship always thinks in terms of expansionism, aggrandisement, war and imperialism in international relations./pp /ppCOMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION ______43/pp5.Dictatorship is in the long run always a source of instability and chaos. There is no system of peaceful change of the rulers. It is always characterised by a fear of revolution and has to live with periodic coups/revolutions and counter- revolutions./pp6.Dictatorship is opposed to the currently held and cherished values of democracy, decentralisation of authority, liberalism, liberalisation, sustainable development, human rights, peace and security./pp7.History gives ample evidence of the weaknesses and dangersofdictatorship.lt has not only been guilty of ruining the people of every state in which it 'flourished' in the past, but also of giving a big blow to international peace and security./ppAs a form of government, Dictatorship is despised by all. The people never really register progress and development under dictatorship. Their immediate gains, if any, always lay the foundations of a fractured future. The case of Pakistan is known to us. So has been the case of other dictatorship ruled states./ppTOTALITARIAN AND AUTHORITARIAN STATES : AN EVALUATION/ppThe totalitarian and authoritarian systems are adopted by the rulers because these are a source of several advantages : Strong government, stability and efficiency in administration rapid modernisation and development through forced mobilisation of resources, helpful in meeting emergencies, less expensive, and possibility of strong action in favour of eradication of social evils and others. These can produce quick results by the use of force, suppression coercion and manipulation. The rulers remain free from popular control and accountability./ppHowever, for the people at large, these states are highly exploitive and coercive states which in no way help them to really develop their personalities and to act in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. They enjoy little freedom and rights. They are reduced to a position of cogs in the wheels of state. Force and fear, violence and coercion, and manipulation and suppression characterise their living. These regimes almost always involve violent political changes in the form of coups, revolutions, counter coups and counter revolutions. These systems do not provide opportunities for peaceful and constitutional changes. These always face the problem of finding successors. The changes in leadership are always accompanied by big and revolutionary changes, tumults, disorders and violence./ppThe international community also has to bear the brunt of anti- internationalism and war-oriented aggressive policies pursued by the totalitarian/authoritarian rulers. Totalitarianism in the form of Fascism in Italy, and Nazism in Germany and the emergence of several dictatorial and authoritarian regimes during the inter-war years (1919-1939), were responsible for throwing the world into the pit of a very destructive war, the Second World War (1939-45)./ppNo doubt, through forced mobilisation of resources and use of coercion for getting things done, these regimes are often in a position to achieve some developmental goals. However, as Dr. Asirvatham writes, "The good which the totalitarian states have accomplished is nothing when compared with the price people have had to pay for it."/ppA.D. Lindsay objectively analyses the reasons as to why the people of the world oppose totalitarian and authoritarian regimes and support more heartily and willingly the liberal democratic regimes. He observes : "Democracy's fund