5mm

COMPARATIVE
GOVERNMENT

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

AND POLITICS
B.A. (PROGRAMME) POLITICAL SCIENCE
SEMESTER-IV
MINOR PAPER
DSC-7

READING NOTES
MINOR PAPER (DSC-7)

20CUS01304
 SYLLABUS
Comparative Government and Politics
Syllabus Mapping

Unit I: The Nature, Scope and Methods of Comparative Political Unit 1: The Nature, Scope and Methods of
Analysis Comparative Political Analysis
(Pages 1-14)

Unit II: Classifications of Political Systems Unit 2: Classifications of Political System

(a) Parliamentary and Presidential (a) Parliamentary and Presidential
(b) Federal and Unitary (Pages 15-29)
(b) Federal and Unitary
(Pages 31-44)

Unit III: Electoral Systems Unit 3: Electoral Systems First Past the Post,
First Past the Post, Proportional Representation and Mixed Proportional Representation and
Systems Mixed Systems
(Pages 45-57)

Unit IV: Party Systems Unit 4: Party System One Party, BI-Party and
Single-Party, BI-Party and Multi-Party Systems Multi Party Systems
(Pages 59-69)

Unit V: Structures of Power in Society Unit 5: Structures of Power in Society Classical

Classical Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Pluralism and Theory of Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Pluralism and
Ruling Class Theory of the Ruling Class
(Pages 71-81)

Unit VI: Comparing Regimes Unit 6: Comparing Regimes Democratic,

Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and Security Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and
Regimes Security Regimes
(Pages 83-96)
 Comparative Government and Politics

Sl. No. Title Writer

Unit-I The Nature, Scope and Methods of Abhishek Choudhary
Comparative Political Analysis
Unit-II Classifications of Political System
(a) Parliamentary and Presidential Dr. Rahul Chimurkar
(b) Federal and Unitary Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh
Unit-III Electoral Systems Neha Singh
First Past the Post, Proportional
Representation and Mixed Systems
Unit-IV Party System Neha Singh
One Party, Bi-Party and Multi Party Systems
Unit-V Structures of Power in Society Dr. Shakit Pradayani
Classical Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Rout
Pluralism and Theory of Ruling Class
Unit-VI Comparing Regimes J.S. Pathak
Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism
and Security Regimes

Printed at: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Plot 20/4, Site-IV, Industrial Area Sahibabad, Ghaziabad - 201 010 (4000 Copies)
Comparative Government and Politics

CONTENTS
UNIT 1 THE NATURE, SCOPE AND METHODS OF COMPARATIVE
POLITICALANALYSIS 1-14

1.1 Learning Objectives

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Why Compare?
1.4 Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
1.4.1 Nature of Comparative Politics
1.4.2 Scope of Comparative Politics
1.5 Methods of Comparison
1.6 Conclusion
1.7 Practice Questions
1.8 References

UNIT 2 CLASSIFICATIONS OF POLITICAL SYSTEM

(A) PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL 15-29

2.1 Learning Objectives

2.2 Introduction
2.3 Parliamentary System
2.4 Presidential System
2.5 Democracy in United States and Britain
2.6 British Parliamentary System
2.6.1 Supremacy of the Parliament
2.6.2 Constitutional Monarchy
2.6.3 Unitary system
2.6.4 Multi-party system
2.7 US Presidential System
2.7.1 Written Constitution
 Comparative Government and Politics

2.7.2 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

2.7.3 Federal System
2.7.4 Presidential Form of government
2.7.5 Bicameral Legislature
2.8 Conclusion
2.9 Practice Questions
2.10 References

(B) FEDERAL AND UNITARY 31-44

2.1 Learning Objectives

2.2 Introduction
2.3 What is Government?
2.4 Major forms of Government
2.4.1 Unitary Government
2.4.2 Federal Government
2.5 An Analysis
2.6 Conclusion
2.7 Practice Questions
2.8 References

UNIT 3 ELECTORAL SYSTEMS FIRST PAST THE POST, PROPORTIONAL

REPRESENTATION AND MIXED SYSTEMS 45-57

3.1 Learning Objectives

3.2 Introduction
3.3 Principles of the Electoral Systems
3.3.1 First Past the Post
3.3.2 Advantages of FPTP
3.3.3 Disadvantages of FPTP
Comparative Government and Politics

3.4 Proportional Representation

3.4.1 Advantages
3.4.2 Disadvantages
3.5 Mixed System
3.5.1 Advantages
3.5.2 Disadvantages
3.6 Trends in the Electoral System
3.7 Conclusion
3.8 Practice Questions
3.9 References

UNIT 4 PARTY SYSTEM ONE PARTY, BI-PARTY AND

MULTI PARTY SYSTEMS 59-69

4.1 Learning Objectives

4.2 Introduction
4.3 Functions of the Political Party
4.4 Types of Political Parties
4.5 One Party System
4.5.1 Advantages of One-Party System
4.5.2 Disadvantages of One-Party System
4.6 Two Party System
4.6.1 Contrast of the Two-Party System with the Multiparty System and One-Party System:
4.6.2 Advantages of the Two-Party System
4.6.3 Disadvantages of the Two-Party System
4.7 Multi-Party System
4.7.1 Advantages of the Multi-Party System
4.7.2 Disadvantages of the Multi-Party System
4.8 Conclusion
4.9 Practice Questions
4.10 References
 Comparative Government and Politics

UNIT 5 STRUCTURES OF POWER IN SOCIETY CLASSICAL

ELITIST THEORY, POWER ELITES, PLURALISM AND
THEORY OF THE RULING CLASS 71-81

5.1 Learning Objectives

5.2 Introduction
5.3 Meaning of Elite Theory
5.4 Power Structure and Elite
5.5 Authority and Legitimacy
5.5.1 Traditional Authority
5.6 Classical Elite Theory
5.7 Pareto and Mosca on Elite Theory
5.8 Robert Michels, James Burnham & Charles W. Mills on Elite
5.9 Critical Evaluation on Elite Theory
5.10 Conclusion
5.11 Practice Questions
5.12 References

UNIT 6 COMPARING REGIMES DEMOCRATIC, AUTHORITARIAN,

WELFARE, POPULISM AND SECURITY REGIMES 83-96

6.1 Learning Objectives

6.2 Introduction
6.3 Understanding the Nature of Political Regimes: Its Challenges and Objectives
6.4 Basis of Classification: From Number of Rulers and Nature of Authority Exercised
6.5 Democratic Regimes: Nature and Characteristics
6.6 Authoritarian Regimes: Nature and Characteristics
6.7 Conclusion
6.8 Practice Questions
6.9 References
The Nature, Scope and Methods of Comparative Political Analysis

UNIT 1 NOTES

THE NATURE, SCOPE AND METHODS OF

COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS
Abhishek Choudhary

Structure
1.1 Learning Objectives
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Why Compare?
1.4 Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
1.4.1 Nature of Comparative Politics
1.4.2 Scope of Comparative Politics
1.5 Methods of Comparison
1.6 Conclusion
1.7 Practice Questions
1.8 References

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 The Chapter will provide the insights about the nature and scope of Comparative
Political Analysis
 The Chapter will discuss the reasons to compare along with different methods
of doing Comparative Political Analysis

1.2 INTRODUCTION

The chapter has two-fold objective. First, it provides an overview of the sub-discipline
of comparative politics and seeks to examine its nature and scope. Second, it provides
an understanding about the rationale for comparing and explains the methods of
comparison.

Self-Instructional
Material 1
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES Before examining these, it would be pertinent to understand what comparative

politics means.
Scholars have understood comparative politics as one of the three main subfields
of political science, the other two being political theory and international relations.
Comparative politics has been defined in several ways. Some prominent definitions
worth attention are as follows:
Jean Blondel (1999) defines comparative politics as being concerned with
“simultaneous or successive examination of two or more political systems”. For Hague,
Harrop and Mc Comrick (2016: 12), comparative politics is the “systematic study of
government and politics in different countries, designed to better understand them by
drawing out their contrasts and similarities.” However, comparative politics is more
than just identifying similarities and differences. Comparison allows one to go beyond
“identifying similarities and differences” to “ultimately study political phenomena in a
larger framework of relationships” (Mohanty 1975). This approach helps in deepening
ones understanding of given political phenomenon and therefore allows one to be in a
position to have a better explanation, it deepens our understanding and broaden the
levels of answering and explaining political phenomena.

1.3 WHY COMPARE?

Comparing two or more things is a natural attribute of human behaviour. Whether one
has to choose the subject to study after schools, whether one has to buy clothes,
phones or any other thing, there are constantly involved in comparison. Politics is an
even more important and an ever evolving domain that requires comparison to equate,
differentiate and assess various phenomena.
Todd Landman (2008) has identified four reasons for comparison: contextual
description, classification,hypothesis-testing and prediction.
(i) Contextual description—It allows political scientists to know what other
countries are like (Landman 2008). This has been the primary objective
of comparative politics wherein the focus is on ‘describing the political
phenomena and events of a particular country, or group of countries’
(Landman 2008: 5). It is important as it provides an outside observer to
make sense of a system not entirely known to him/her. This aspect is

Self-Instructional
2 Material
The Nature, Scope and Methods of Comparative Political Analysis

closer to the first tradition and provides the comparativists with detailed NOTES
information about a political system. While some critics assert that single-
country studies cannot be truly considered comparative, there are benefits
of studying a particular country or a group of countries. For instance, a
detailed analysis of political system of United Kingdom provides us with
the information about benefits and limitations of parliamentary system.
This can help us assess other cases where similar or opposite systems
exist.
(ii) Classification—It implies simplifying and organizing information so that it
can be easily observed and categorized (Landman 2008: 5-6). Classification
allows grouping of categories that are not same but have some level of
similarity. For example, let us assume who countries where one has a
Parliamentary system while the other has a Presidential system. Both have
very different set of rules. But both can be ‘classified’ as democracies.
Thus, the world of politics is made less complex through classification
(Landman 2008: 4).
One of the earliest known comparativists, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), used
the same logic while classifying 158 city-states into six categories: monarchy,
aristocracy, polity, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Based on the
‘number of those who rule’ and the forms as good or corrupt, Aristotle’s
classification can be summarised through the following table:
Those who rule
One Few Many
Good Monarchy Aristocracy Polity
Form of Rule (kingship)
Corrupt Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy (mob rule)

Source: Todd Landman (2008), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction,
New York: Routledge.
In similar way, one of the most prominent work on comparative social
revolution, Theda Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions: A
Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China (1979) provides
a classificatory analysis of role of state structures, international forces, and
class relations. She uses this to explain and analyse the French Revolution,
the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution.

Self-Instructional
Material 3
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES (iii) Hypothesis-testing—After describing and classifying information, the next

logical step is to understand the factors that explains what has been
described and classified. This aspect has been called as ‘hypothesis testing’
and implies the search for factors so that better theories could be built.
This aspect is closer to the second tradition of comparative politics which
is focussed on analysis and seeks to establish relation among variables.
Comparative research is a focus on analytical relationships among variables
validated by social science, a focus that is modified by differences in the
context in which we observe and measure those variables. Arend Lijphart
claims that comparison helps in testing “hypothesized empirical relationships
among variables” (Lijphart 1971). Comparative analysis also leads to
accumulation of more information that helps in having a better and more
complete explanatory theory. Thus, comparing nations and testing theories
contributes to the development of a wider information base and enhances
global knowledge.
(iv) Prediction—Comparison of countries and the generalizations based on
such comparison allows one to ‘predict’ likely outcomes. The likely
outcomes in other countries that are not included in the original comparison
can be made based on a robust theory. Also, prediction can be made
about outcomes in the future on the basis of certain factors and conditions.
Predictability is an excellent attribute of a good theory and it is asserted
that a ‘good theory’ is able to predict outcomes with better accuracy.
Other than these four reasons, comparison provides us perspective to understand
the less known political systems. It also helps to understand differences in outcome in
different socio-political settings. It also helps in understanding as to why countries
develop the way they do and why they are ruled the way they are.
Hague, Harrop and McComrick (2016) identify two major purposes of
comparative politics:
a) It broadens one’s understanding of the political world
b) It helps in predicting political outcomes
Arguing on similar lines, Newton and Van Deth (2010) provide three important
reasons for studying comparative politics:
a) One cannot understand one’s own country without knowledge of others

Self-Instructional
4 Material
The Nature, Scope and Methods of Comparative Political Analysis

b) One cannot understand other countries without knowing the background, NOTES
institutions and history of other countries
c) One cannot arrive at valid generalisations about government and politics
without the comparative method.
Thus, it can be argued that describing, analysing, predicting and generalizing are
four major attributes of comparative politics that makes it an important aspect of
broader political analysis.

1.4 NATURE AND SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE

POLITICS

A major definitional aspect relates to the question: what is to be compared? On one

hand, if two things are entirely different, there is no point of comparison. On the other
hand, if two things are entirely same, comparison would not be useful either.
One important aspect is to specify “functional equivalence” between concepts
or indicators (Dogan and Pelassy, 1990). This aspect is based on two major ideas.
First is the idea that “different structures may perform the same function”. The second
is that the same structure “may perform several different functions”(Dogan and Pelassy,
1990). By arguing in favour of functional equivalence, it is asserted that instead of
looking at institutional similarity, one can assess the roles and functions performed by
various institutions within and outside the politics. This idea has been championed by
scholars who fall under the category of ‘functionalists’. In simple terms, it is the
performance of ‘functions’ and the role played by different organs of the society that
matters. This may include non-political institutions as well. No institution can be attributed
to a single function exclusively. Similarly, no institution can be limited to a single function
too. For instance, the military may perform roles much more than that of securing the
borders in some states. Or, the function of the president may vary drastically in two
different countries.

1.4.1 Nature of Comparative Politics

Daniel Caramani (2011) seeks to provide answer to “what” is being compared in

comparative politics. He argues that “national political systems” are the main cases

Self-Instructional
Material 5
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES that are compared as they happen to be the most important political units in world
politics. However, they are “not the only cases” that are analysed by comparative
politics (Caramani 2011: 5). For instance, comparative politics can analyse “sub-
national regional political systems” like the states or regions of India. or, they can
analyse “supranational units” like:-
a) regions (comprising more than one country, like West Asia).
b) political systems of empires (like Roman, Ottoman, Mughal, etc.).
c) international or regional organizations (like SAARC, EU, NATO, etc).
d) types of political systems (democratic versus authoritarian, etc.) (Caramani
2011: 5).
Comparative political analysis can also compare “single elements or
components”. This may include a comparison of party systems, electoral systems,
structures of various institutions, policies, etc.
In general terms, comparative politics seeks to analyse and compare the political
systems operating in various societies. It also compares units within and beyond states.
With its focus on comparison and analysis, it takes into account political activity, political
processes as well as political power in various political systems.
The discipline of comparative politics has three traditions (Caramani, 2011):
1. Oriented towards the study of single countries
2. Methodological
3. Analytical
The first tradition is oriented towards the study of single countries. It follows the
initial inclination of American comparativists who focused on the study of political
systems outside of the US. This tradition reflects the Anglo-Saxon dominance over the
subject and studied foreign countries as ‘others’. This tradition often focusses on
countries in isolation without actually engaging in comparison. It is limited to providing
detailed description of a single case. Despite the criticism of this tradition, major
contributions in the field of comparative politics stem from detailed descriptive study
of single countries.
The second tradition seeks to establish rules and standards for comparison. It
focusses on ways in which a better reservoir of comparative information, explanation
and prediction can be created. Understood in this sense, comparative method is a

Self-Instructional
6 Material
The Nature, Scope and Methods of Comparative Political Analysis

“method of discovering empirical relationships among variables” (Lijphart 1971). Thus, NOTES
‘comparative method’ is one of the traditions within comparative politics that is different
from descriptive and analytical traditions. By focusing on rules and standards, this
tradition provides starting point for analysis of countries or groups of countries.
The third tradition is analytical and provides a combination of empirical description
with method. Most of the work that now a days are categorised as ‘works of
comparative politics’ falls under this tradition. Comparative studies of political parties,
regime types, social movements, etc. in two or more countries are a few examples of
this body of literature. The works are mainly concerned with identifying and explaining
“differences and similarities between countries” and their “institutions, actors, and
processes” by using the method of “systematic comparison” of common phenomenon
(Caramani 2011: 4).
Comparative Politics as a
1.4.2 Scope of Comparative Politics subject has changed over time
but faces criticism. One major
criticism is that it is Eurocentric—
The scope of Comparative Politics essentially deals with the gradual evolution of the meaning it sees Western
countries as the best model and
discipline and changing ambit of the discipline, from the initial phase up to now. The compares all others against
discipline of comparative politics has been criticised on different levels. It has been them. This creates a bias, where
the West is seen as the "self"
considered as Eurocentric implying that the ‘western model’ is seen as better than the (good/normal) and others as the
rest of the world. This sort of parochialism leads to the perpetuation of the hegemonic "other" (lesser/different). Even
modern approaches in
nature of a particular system. This further leads to the ‘self’ versus ‘other’ bias. Due to comparative politics often
unknowingly continue this bias,
this, the ‘self’ gets defined in relation to the ‘other’. The first tradition mentioned making Western systems look
above is subjected to this criticism. Even the third tradition succumbs to this Eurocentric superior..

bias and the ‘non-west’ is compared in a manner that presents the west as better and
superior.
Roy C. Macridis (1955) in his seminal essay identified certain limitations of the Roy C. Macridis (1955) criticized
traditional approach. First, it has been called as ‘essentially noncomparative’ implying the traditional approach in
comparative politics for being
that the reference point is the institutional structure of a given country. It has been weak. He said it is not truly
comparative because it often
alleged that single case study is being passed as a comparative study. He further alleged focuses on just one country's
that the traditional approach is more descriptive and less analytical. This criticism institutions and presents it as
comparison. He also said it is
stems from the fact that the historical and legalistic approaches have their limitations. more descriptive than analytical—
The historical approach focusses on studying the “origins and growth” of certain it just tells what happened
(history) or what the law says
institutions (Macridis 1955: 17). In doing so, it does not make any effort towards (legal study), but doesn’t explain
why or how things happen. These
evolving any analytical scheme. Thus, the focus stays limited on the chronology of methods don’t give a general
events within a country and the chosen institution of that country. The legalistic approach framework to compare countries
properly.

Self-Instructional
Material 7
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES focusses primarily on the study of powers of different branches of the government. It
does not try to analyse the factors that shape particular forms of power in specific
ways. Thus, they fail to provide any “general frame of reference” that can be used in a
truly comparative sense (Macridis 1955: 18).
Roy C. Macridis gave more
criticisms of the traditional Second, Macridis considers the traditional approach as ‘essentially parochial’.
approach:
1. He called it **parochial**, This critique is related to the undue focus on institutions of Western European countries.
meaning it focused too much on Such a focus significantly limited the scope of comparative politics and rendered other
**Western European institutions**
and ignored other types of regime types as less important. Third, Macridis called the approach as ‘essentially
governments.
2. He said it was **static**, static’. This implied that comparative politics ignored the ever changing factors that
meaning it didn’t consider how leads to change and growth. Finally, he called the approach as ‘essentially monographic’
political systems **change and
evolve** over time. implying that the study remained focussed on political institutions of a given system. It
3. He also said it was
**monographic**, meaning it
meant that focus of comparativists remained on individual case studies. This critique is
focused too much on **single case close to the critique that considers comparative politics as descriptive and as lacking
studies** and not on broader
comparisons. systematic formulation.
Overall, he believed the traditional
approach was **too narrow, Neera Chandoke (1996) builds up on Macridis’ critique and traces the crisis of
outdated, and not analytical comparative politics. First, the disciple faced a general attack on grand theorization. It
enough**.
was questioned for removing issues from contextual specificities. It further was accused
Neera Chandoke added to Macridis’ of over generalised regularities. The discipline was considered as reductionist. It was
criticism by pointing out three main
problems in comparative politics:
searching for simple variables for the sake of comparison. It ‘reduced’ complex
1. **Too much focus on grand phenomenon of politics to simple variables that could be compared with ease. The
theories** that ignored specific
contexts, making the subject **too second indication of crisis stems from the ethnocentric nature of the discipline and
general and simplified**
(reductionist).
focus on studying the ‘other’ - other societies, other regime types, and other institutions.
2. It was **ethnocentric**, meaning The third reason for the crisis of comparative politics is the crisis of nation-state itself.
it mostly studied and judged **other
societies** from a Western The usual category of comparison, the state, faced challenges due to external forces
viewpoint. as well as internal autonomy movements.
3. The **nation-state**, which was
the main unit of comparison, itself A set of problems faced by comparative analysis relates to the methodological
became unstable due to **global
pressures and internal dimension. There is often a criticism against any case study for having a “selection
movements**, creating a crisis in
the discipline.
bias” (Landman 2008). The choice of countries to do a comparative study might be
based on the bias of the comparativist. Another problem relates to the emphasis on a
“behavioural approach”. The behavioural approach in social science in general and
comparative politics in particular related to tendency to explain social phenomenon
using scientific methods. It was asserted by the behaviouralists that social reality can
be observed, quantified and generalised. Behaviouralists use methods of sampling,
survey, interview, and statistical analysis to explain social realities.

Comparative politics faces some **methodological problems**:

1. **Selection bias** – Researchers may choose countries for comparison based on their own preferences,
Self-Instructional
making the study unfair or one-sided.
8 Material
2. **Behavioural approach issues** – This method tries to study politics like a science using data, surveys,
and statistics. But critics say it **oversimplifies complex political realities** by trying to measure everything
and make general rules.
A clear example of these problems is seen in **Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba's** famous study *The Civic Culture* (1963). It was criticized for
being:

1. **Ethnocentric** – It favored **Western-style consensual democracy** (like the US) as the most stable, ignoring other systems.
2. **Biased** – It compared **Mexico** unfavorably with the **US** to show that liberal democracies are better than one-party systems.
3. **Behaviouralist** – It tried to **quantify political attitudes**, but critics say it ignored the **complex and changing nature of politics** in different
societies.

The Nature, Scope and Methods of Comparative Political Analysis

Example of these problems is the criticism levelled against the seminal work by NOTES
Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations (1963). The study was called ethnocentric as it favoured
consensual democracy as the most stable form. It is further pointed out that political
culture of Mexico was deliberately pitted against the political culture of the United
States to prove that liberal democracies (like the US) are better than one-party systems
(like Mexico during those years). The study was also called an attempt of behaviouralists
to quantify political orientations to categorize countries, ignoring the dynamic nature
and contextual specificities of socio-political relations.

1.5 METHODS OF COMPARISON

Kopstein and Lichbach (2005) have argued that focussing on ‘interests, identities, and
institutions’ are three ways that provide different paths of doing comparison. These
variables have an impact on how political systems operate. Some comparative politics thinkers
believe that **people act mainly
(a) Focus on Interest—Many comparativists thinkers focuses on the idea of interest. based on their own interests**.
For them, the material interest of people is what matter the most. People decide According to them, individuals or
groups make **rational decisions**
on the basis of rational calculations and organize politically in order to maximize to support or oppose a political
system based on what benefits
their interest. They support a regime type that ‘maximizes their life chances’ them the most. For example, if a
(Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). For instance,a group of people may organize regime helps improve their lives,
they will support it; if not, they
against a regime type or support it purely based on rational calculations. The might protest against it. This idea
is based on the belief that people
calculations are interest based and therefore, it may be possible that a particular always try to **maximize their life
regime type is supported in a particular society but the same may be opposed in chances** . However, only
focusing on interest can be
another social setting. However, an undue focus on interest may be misleading. misleading because in real life,
The next two paths downplay the relevance of interests and consider interest **people's choices are also
influenced by their identities or the
being shaped by identities or institutions. institutions around them**, not just
by personal gain.
(b) Focus on Identities—Some comparativists consider identity as the most
important factor. They argue that there are no objective interests and one’s
interest is defined by one’s identity. Two most common forms of identities are
religion and ethnicity (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). People or groups of people
define their interests in terms of their identity. A simple example could be religious
support to a theocratic regime. Another example could be the rise of caste
based or religion based parties in India where the support to a particular political
Some comparative politics scholars believe that **identity shapes people's interests and
political actions**. They argue that interests are not fixed or objective, but are defined by a Self-Instructional
person’s **identity**, such as **religion, ethnicity, caste, or gender**. For example, people may Material 9
support a religious government because of their faith, or vote for a political party based on their
caste or religion, as often seen in India. While some identities are **based on birth or place**,
modern societies also create **new identities**—like those formed around **gender rights or
environmental issues**. The **2020 US elections** showed how **old and new identities**
influence political choices and behavior.
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES party is based primarily on identity. While some identities are based on birth
and place, modern societies also generate newer identities. As an example,
organizing around gender and environmental issues results in the development
of newer identities. The 2020 US elections demonstrated the ways in which
Some scholars in comparative people’s decisions are influenced by the interaction between older and younger
politics believe that **institutions,
not just interests or identities, identities.
shape how a country functions**.
Institutions are the **rules, laws, (c) Focus on Institutions—The major understanding is that neither material interests,
and systems** that organize
political life—like elections, courts, nor identities determine how the politics of a country works. For them, the rules
and parliaments. These rules and procedures embedded in institutions dictate the way power operates and
**guide how power is used** and
how decisions are made. For countries work (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). Institutions shape the working
example, the **United States uses
a first-past-the-post** voting of a country either directly or indirectly. In particular, Democracies have a diverse
system, while **Germany uses and complex set of institutions that define how a country would shape up. For
proportional representation**. Both
are democracies, but their political example, the institutionalised electoral system of the United States is based on a
systems and cultures differ
because of these **institutional ‘first-past-the-post’ system. On the other hand, Germany has adopted the
differences**. Scholars who focus
on institutions believe that such
electoral system majorly imbibing Proportional Representation system. Both
differences explain why countries the countries are democratic but the political life and political culture of both
**function differently**, even when
they share similar goals. The idea democracies vary-and one major factor for this variation in the difference in
of **"functional equivalence"**
means that **different institutions
institutions. Comparativists who tend to focus on institutions, try to explain
can do the same job**, or the variation in outcomes on the basis of variation in institutions. The aspect of
**same institution can have
different effects** in different ‘functional equivalence’ is relevant here as same institutions may perform different
countries.
functions and different institutions may perform same functions.
Comparativists have proceeded in their task by focussing on one or a mix of the
three ways mentioned above. While one of the ‘ways’ may have its limitation, a mix of
more than one provides a broader understanding of the issues.
A different way to approach the question “how to compare” has been answered
by political philosopher James Stuart Mill. He provides five strategies for undertaking
comparison (Finn 2011):
a) Method of agreement: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are
compared to see what they have in common. That commonality is identified
as the cause.
b) Method of difference: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are
compared to see what they all do not have in common. If they have all but
one thing in common, that one thing is identified as the cause.

Method of Agreement – If different cases have the same outcome, look for what they all have in common; that may
be the cause.
Self-Instructional
10 Material Method of Difference – If one case has a different outcome from others but all things are the same except one, that
one difference is likely the cause.
Joint Method – Combines both agreement and difference to double-check the cause by looking at both common presence and common absence.

Method of Residues – Remove all known causes, and what remains is likely the unknown cause.

Method of Concomitant Variations – If two things change together, they may be related; like if one increases when the other increases, a connection is
likely.

The Nature, Scope and Methods of Comparative Political Analysis

c) Joint method of agreement and difference: A combination of the methods NOTES

of agreement and difference, the joint method looks for a single commonality
among two or more instances of an event, and the joint method looks for a
common absence of that possible cause.
d) Method of residues: all known causes of a complex set of events are
subtracted. What is leftover is said to be the cause.
e) Method of concomitant variations: correlations between varying events
are sought, that is, correspondence in variations between two sets of objects,
events, or data.
Of these, the ‘joint method of agreement and difference’ is relevant to comparative
politics as it combines the method of agreement and difference. It seeks to look for a
single commonality among two or more instances of an event and common absence of
a possible cause (Finn 2011). J.S. Mill’s ‘method of difference’ is also known as the
“most similar system design”. It is used in comparing similar cases having dependent
variables. His ‘method of similarity’ is also known as the “most different systems design”
(Black 1966). It is employed to compare dissimilar cases having independent variables.
However while comparing, one should be careful about what to compare and how to
compare. There is much greater value in comparing events and institutions that are in
situated in similar time frame than those that are widely separated in time. The
comparison of societies or smaller groups that are concerned with reasonably similar
problems is more likely to lead to satisfactory conclusions than comparisons between
societies existing many centuries apart (Black 1966).
Thus, comparative research designs can either focus on similarities or on
differences Daniel Caramani (2011) argues that it would not be correct to say that
comparative politics relies of a specific method. This is because different methods
could be employed based on the differences in number of cases chosen, type of data
analysis used and time period under study. Thus, the research method would depend
on question that the researcher is asking.
Another reason is that there can be different dimension under comparison.
Therefore, a single method will not be useful:
a) Spatial or cross-sectional, meaning that two political systems are
compared as a cross section. For example, comparison of federal systems
of India and Canada.

Self-Instructional
Material 11
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES b) Longitudinal, meaning that institutions and systems could be compared

across time. For example, comparison of the phase of congress system in
India with the phase of coalitional politics.
c) Functional or Cross-Organizational, meaning that the object of study
is not territorially different but can be within a given political system. For
example, comparison of government policies relating to expenditure on
military and education.

1.6 CONCLUSION

Comparative politics is a broad sub-discipline that involves various traditions, methods

and approaches. It includes description, analysis, prediction and generalization of political
activity. Comparative politics has been accused of being Eurocentric, parochial,
formalistic, and excessively descriptive. Despite these limitations and problems, scholars
have sought to find solution and enhance the ambit of comparative politics. It is important
to break the ethnocentric nature and situate the political processes in context. In this
regard, it is asserted that one needs to situate analysis in historical, cultural and
geographic contexts. It is important to note that over-generalization is a problematic
aspect of any theory. If one seeks to explain a political activity in complete abstraction,
it would be away from reality. If the study is only looking at specific situations, it loses
its relevance for broader context. Therefore, a shift towards middle-level of grounded
theory was advocated by scholars (Blondel 1981). The narrowing of the scope of
comparative political analysis also led to a focus on case-oriented studies. Against the
criticism that comparativists tend to universalize concepts, there was a renewed focus
on development of methods based on few cases. However, this approach was also
considered problematic as the hypothesis is not testable when there are several factors
at play. Despite these problems and narrowing of focus, comparative political analysis
remains a very important sub-discipline of political science. It provides insight into
contemporary national, regional and international politics by providing descriptive,
analytical and methodological frames of reference.

Self-Instructional
12 Material
The Nature, Scope and Methods of Comparative Political Analysis

NOTES
1.7 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. Explain the Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics.

2. What are the advantages of studying comparative politics? Explain.
3. Explain different methods of Comparison.

1.8 REFERENCES

 Black, C.E. (1966), The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in

Comparative History, New York: Harper and Row.
 Blondel, Jean (1981), The Discipline of Politics, Butterworths: London.
 Blondel, Jean (1999), “Then and Now: Comparative Politics”, Political
Studies, XLVII, pp. 152-160.
 Caramani, Daniele (2011), “Introduction to comparative politics”, in Daniele
Caramani (ed.) Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 Chandhoke, Neera (1996), “Limits of Comparative Political Analysis”,
Economic and Political Weekly, 31 (4): 2-8.
 Dogan, Mattei and Dominique Pelassy (1990) How to Compare Nations:
Strategies in Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Chatham, NJ: Chatham
House.
 Finn, V.K. (2011), “J.S. Mill’s inductive methods in artificial intelligence
systems. Part I”, Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 38: 385-
402.
 Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop and John McComrick (2016), Comparative
Government and Politics: An Introduction, 10th edition, London: Palgrave.
 Kopstein, J. and M. Lichbach, (eds.) (2005) Comparative Politics: Interests,
Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp.1-5; 16-36; 253-290.

Self-Instructional
Material 13
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES  Landman, Todd (2008), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An

Introduction, NewYork: Routledge.
 Lijphart, Arend (1971), “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method”,
The American Political Science Review, 65 (3): 682-693.
 Macridis, Roy C. (1955), “Major Characteristics of the Traditional
Approach”, in The Study of Comparative Politics, New York: Random House,
pp. 7-14.
 Mohanty, Manoranjan (1975), “Comparative Political Theory and Third
World Sensitivity”, Teaching Politics, 1&2.
 Newton, Kenneth and Jan W. Van Deth (2010), Foundations of Comparative
Politics, Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Self-Instructional
14 Material
Classifications of Political System (a) Parliamentary and Presidential

UNIT 2 NOTES

CLASSIFICATIONS OF POLITICAL SYSTEM

(A) PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL
Dr. Rahul Chimurkar
Lakshmibai College
University of Delhi

Structure
2.1 Learning Objectives
2.2 Introduction
2.3 Parliamentary System
2.4 Presidential System
2.5 Democracy in United States and Britain
2.6 British Parliamentary System
2.6.1 Supremacy of the Parliament
2.6.2 Constitutional Monarchy
2.6.3 Unitary system
2.6.4 Multi-party system
2.7 US Presidential System
2.7.1 Written Constitution
2.7.2 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
2.7.3 Federal System
2.7.4 Presidential Form of government
2.7.5 Bicameral Legislature
2.8 Conclusion
2.9 Practice Questions
2.10 References

2.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 Classification of Political Systems

 Distinctive Features of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems

Self-Instructional
Material 15
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
2.2 INTRODUCTION

The word ‘democracy’ has its roots in the words ‘demos, meaning people and kratien,
meaning ‘to rule’. The meaning attributed to the word ‘democracy’ has been constantly
evolving. . The Athenian democracy is considered to be a pioneering example of
democracy at work but is should be remembered that it was the government of a tiny
section of the people called Freemen which meant this was not a government by the
people since slaves, and women were not considered as citizens.. Athenian democracy
is also considered to be an example of direct democracy with people collectively
taking decisions which seems a farfetched idea in modern societies with large
populations. In its long journey spanning centuries after the Athenian experience the
meaning of democracy has widened and changed especially since the nineteenth century
with the extension of franchise, affirming civil liberties of citizens, curbing the authority
of the rulers etc. Amongst 193 countries in the world today, most of them are functioning
as liberal democracies. Liberal democracy means presence of responsible government,
rule of law, free and fair elections, political accountability etc. This implies that
democracy is usually run by the elected representatives or political executive who in
turn are accountable to the people. They make policy decisions and ensure its
implementation from the permanent executive or the bureaucracy. The political executive
forms the top tier of government. It directs the nation’s affairs, supervises the execution
of policy, mobilises support for its goals and offers crisis leadership.1 Countries with
different ecological settings like political culture, economy, population, social structure,
etc. have adopted different modes of democracy. Considering the relation between
executive and legislative, democratic from of governments could be classified into two
categories; Parliamentary form of government and Presidential form of government.

2.3 PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

Parliament derives from the French word ‘parle’ meaning ‘talk’ or ‘speak’. It refers to
a place where people discuss or deliberate about the affairs of a nation. In a broader
sense, it refers to all political systems which has got an assembly of representatives
elected by the people to govern the country. Two variants of Parliamentary democracies

Self-Instructional
16 Material
Classifications of Political System (a) Parliamentary and Presidential

could be found - Parliamentary republics and constitutional monarchies. In case of NOTES

Parliamentary republics, head of the state, that is, President indirectly elected but the
head of the government is directly elected by the people. For example, India, Germany,
Italy etc. In case of constitutional monarchies, head of the state is the monarch whereas
head of the government comes from the parliament. For example UK, Japan, Denmark
etc. Usually, the leader of the majority party is chosen as the Prime Minister, who then
chooses his own cabinet. The party in power is accountable to the lower house of the
Parliament and in case of no-confidence motion passed against them, they have to
resign. In contrast to this, in the Presidential system, the President is both the head of
the state and government, is directly chosen by the people. Ministers are chosen at the
discretion of the President. United States of America is an example of Presidential
form of Government.
The following are certain features of the Parliamentary system:
Nominal and real executive—The President or Monarch is the nominal/de
jure executive and Prime Minister is the real/de facto executive. The President or
Monarch is the head of the state and Prime Minister is the head of the government
who exercises most of the executive powers and responsible to the Parliament. As far
as distribution of powers between the two is concerned, it is defined by a written
Constitution in some countries like India while in England it is left to the operation of
various conventions.
Majority Party rule—The party securing the majority of seats in the lower
house of Parliament forms the government. The head of the state (President or Monarch)
appoints the head of the government i.e Prime Minister. He/she along with the council
of ministers makes critical policy decisions in the name of President or Monarch.
Whenever a piece of legislation is introduced by the ruling majority in the Parliament,
it is expected from each and every member of that party to vote in favour of that law.
Collective Responsibility—This is the significant principle of parliamentary
system. Ministry i.e council of ministers is collectively responsible to the lower house
of the Parliament. It has to get all its policies, decisions passed by the legislature in
order to remain in power. This means the government remains in power as long as it
enjoys the confidence of the house. They could be removed from the office by passing
a vote of no confidence.
Ministers are members of the both the legislature and executive—This
means there is no strict separation between the two. Executive emerges from legislature.

Self-Instructional
Material 17
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES The leader of the party enjoying majority in the Parliament becomes the Prime Minister.
In case of appointment of any non-member as Minister, he/she has to become the
member of either house of Parliament within a fixed period. The harmony between
executive and legislature plays a major role in ensuring stability in the Parliamentary
system.

2.4 PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

In Presidential system, head of the state and head of government is fused in a single
authority i.e the President. President appoints his own ministers or cabinet to administer
the country. Neither the legislature can remove him from office by passing a motion of
no-confidence nor can he dissolve the legislature before the expiry of its term. This
kind of system believes in strict separation of powers. Certain features of Presidential
system are:
1. There is no distinction between the nominal executive and real executive unlike
Parliamentary system. President is both the head of the state as well as of the
government. All actions are taken by him/her at his/her own judgement.
2. There is a clear separation of powers between legislature and executive in this
system. A member of an executive cannot be a member of the legislature. They
cannot participate in any proceedings of the legislature. Both the branches are
independent of one another.
3. The President runs the country with the help of his own appointed officials
called the cabinet. Members of the cabinet are responsible to him and hold
office at the pleasure of the President. Unlike Parliamentary system, ministers
are not responsible to the legislature for their actions. However, in countries like
USA, legislator may constitute some investigation committees to investigate the
functioning of various government departments.
4. In Parliamentary system, usually all ministers belong to the same political party
having majority in the Parliament. Only in cases of coalition governments where
no party secures a majority in the Parliament, the cabinet may consists of members
from different political parties. However, in Presidential system, there is no such
requirement. The President may appoint any person, whom he considers fit, to

Self-Instructional
18 Material
Classifications of Political System (a) Parliamentary and Presidential

any office. He can choose person from different political parties or men of NOTES
eminence and appoint them to run the country.

2.5 DEMOCRACY IN UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN

USA UK
Written and codified constitution Unwritten, constitution based on conventions
Republican Democracy Constitutional Monarchy
Federal system of government Unitary system of government
Presidential system Parliamentary system
Separation of powers Fuzzy separation of powers
Two party system Multi-party system

2.6 BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

The role of governments across the world is generally defined by the Constitution.
However, Britain is one country which doesn’t have any written Constitution. This
unwritten constitution of the Britain is a mixture of various acts of Parliament,
conventions, traditions and judicial pronouncements.2 Unlike other countries, British
Constitution was not drafted by any Constituent Assembly. Constitutional lawyer J.A.G
Griffith says, ‘The Constitution is what happens’.3 This means the formation of
Constitution is evolutionary and a never-ending process. Because of the unwritten
nature of the Constitution, it becomes the most flexible constitutions in the world.
Countries with a written constitution lay down detailed procedure for amending the
constitution in order to prevent the majority party to act in an unprecedented manner.
However, in Britain, the Parliament or ruling government can make any changes just
with a simple majority even on significant issues like abolition of House of Lords,
abolition of Monarchy etc. This is the reason we find the gradual transfer of power
from Monarch to Parliament and from Parliament to the cabinet, thereon to the Prime
Minister. The flexibility of the British Constitution is also because of the British people

Self-Instructional
Material 19
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES having faith in traditions and conventions. Except for one instance where attempt was
made to reform the House of Lords in mid-seventeenth century, no Parliament or
Prime Minister has even dared to change the constitution. There is a consensus among
all the stakeholders to abide by the rules of the political game and not alter the essence
of the British political system.

2.6.1 Supremacy of the Parliament

British Parliament is regarded as the mother of all political systems in the world. Because
of the absence of any written constitution, Parliament is considered as the supreme
authority. It is so powerful that it can do everything except, as Bagehot says, making a
man a woman and vice versa. With unbridled powers, it is in the words of Xord
Hailsham, an elective dictatorship implying the ability to make any law or make any
changes in the existing arrangements as long as it enjoys majority in House of Commons.
Even the judiciary does not have authority to question any law passed by the Parliament.
It rests on the notion of popular sovereignty where leaders are chosen by voters
through free and fair elections. It consists of the Crown, the House of Lords and
House of Commons. The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament.
There are 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) and each MP is elected from areas
called constituencies through general elections. These MPs belong to some or the
other political parties on whose ticket they are elected to the Parliament. Some MPs
may be independently elected as well. It is supreme law-making body. It makes laws
for the governance of the country. In case of ordinary bills, powers of both the Houses
seems to be equal in theory but in practice, power of House of Lords is restricted
since it can prevent any bill from getting passed for a period of one year only. Once
this duration is passed, the concurrence of the Lords is not required. In case of money
bills, House of Common has got more powers again since the House of Lords has to
pass the money bill within a period of one month. The upper house of Parliament is
known as House of Lords, consisting of approximately 800 members mostly life peers.
It plays a major role in making laws, holding government accountable and examining
public policies announced by the ruling government. Its power has got weakened over
the years because of the concentration of power in the House of Commons.
Being a Parliamentary democracy, the executive is responsible to the legislature.
Parliament exercises control over the executive through various mechanisms like

Self-Instructional
20 Material
Classifications of Political System (a) Parliamentary and Presidential

adjournment motion through which discussion takes place on a matter of public NOTES
importance, censure motion, no-confidence motion etc.
The party winning the majority of the seats in House of Commons forms the
government. The party choses someone as the leader of the party who then become
the Prime Minister. The Monarch appoints the Prime Minister (PM) who then appoints
his own team of ministers. He is often known as primus inter pares meaning first
among equals.4 In order to remain the PM, he must enjoy the confidence of his party.
He chooses his own cabinet which consists of senior ministers’ members of either
House of the Parliament. While appointing ministers, the Prime Minister considers
certain factors like competence, co-option for preventing internal rivalry within the
party and ensuring their consistent support to the government, representativeness etc.
The Ministers remains accountable to the Parliament for their acts of omission or
commission. They possess both the collective responsibility for the general policies
and individual responsibility for all the actions of the office or department under his
control. The notion of individual responsibility has lost its significance since it is the
Prime Minister who decides whether to defend the individual Minister for this action in
the Parliament or to ask him to resign before the issue is taken up in the Parliament.
The notion of Collective responsibility holds great significance in British Parliamentary
system. It means all ministers must swim or sink together. All MPs are expected to
support the government’s policies in the public realm irrespective of their personal
opinion on a particular matter or policy. In case any individual minister shows his
displeasure towards any policy of the government, he/she must resign. Collective
responsibility also means that the majority party must enjoy the confidence of House
of Commons otherwise it can be removed by passing a no-confidence motion.

2.6.2 Constitutional Monarchy

In countries with Constitutional supremacy, the power of the President is clearly stated
in the constitution. Britain is a unique case in point where powers of the Monarch are
not written anywhere and no act of Parliament has ever outlined the powers of the
Monarch. Before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Monarch possessed almost all the
powers. However, the process of democratisation has led to decline in its power and
transfer of powers to Prime Minister and House of Commons. Prime Minister became
the head of government assuming all powers and King or Crown remained the titular
head of the state.

Self-Instructional
Material 21
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES In theory, Crown has got all the powers. All executive actions of the government
are taken in the name of the Crown. The Crown appoints administrative and judicial
officers, holds supreme command over the defence forces, supervises the work of all
major executive agencies etc. In terms of legislative powers, Crown can summon or
prorogue the session of the Parliament or dissolve the House of Commons. All the bills
passed by the Parliament needs assent from the Crown in order to become an Act.
But in practice, the Crown has to act in accordance with the advice tendered by the
Council of Ministers headed by Prime Minister. Walter Bagehot, supporting the
Monarch, reflects upon three powers of the Monarch - right to be consulted, right to
encourage and right to warn. The Prime Minister keeps the Crown informed of all the
affairs of the administration, executive actions taken and the proceedings of the
Parliament. Despite the increase in the powers of the Parliament, Crown still holds an
influence in the British Parliamentary system. This is evident from what British people
say ‘while the sovereign is in the Buckingham palace, all is right with the realm.’

2.6.3 Unitary system

A unitary system is one where the whole power is concentrated in one unit and there is
no division of powers. If at all, some regional or local units need to be created for the
sake of administrative convenience, they can be created by the central government.
The central government wields all the power and it is in its discretion to devolve little
powers to the other subordinate units or not. These units do not enjoy any autonomy
or in other words, they exist at the mercy of the central government. Britain’s constitution
is unitary in nature. The central government placed at London assumes all the powers
and regional governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland drive their powers/
authority from the central government. The Scottish government and Scottish Parliament,
Welsh government and National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Executive and
Northern Ireland Assembly have been devolved certain powers by the central
government. The central government can, at any time, deprive these units of authority.
This implies the UK parliament enjoys absolute powers in terms of deciding the terms
and conditions for the regional units and ultimate power resides in the Central
Government.

Self-Instructional
22 Material
Classifications of Political System (a) Parliamentary and Presidential

2.6.4 Multi-party system NOTES

Political Parties are an indispensable part of any democratic political system. Two
party system prevailed in Britain since the 1930s. However, it does not rule out the
existence of the other parties. In addition to the presence of two major political parties
i.e Labour and Conservative party, the rise of the small or third parties has gained
prominence since the 1970s like Scottish Nationalist Party, Liberal Democrats, UK
Independence Party etc. However, these minor parties have not been able to garner
more than 1-2% of votes during the elections. While the Conservative party believes
in promoting the interest of the rich, aristocratic and affluent classes, supporting right
to property and minimal intervention of state, the Labour Party believes in promoting
the interest of the working class, establishing social equality and a welfare state. Despite
ideological differences between the two parties, both parties till late 1970s agreed
upon the major key social and economic policies like strong state, mixed economy,
maintenance of spring defence forces, employment etc. The period was also termed
as ‘era of consensus’. Post 1970s, with the emergence of Margaret Thatcher in 1979
as the leader of Conservative party, party reinvented itself by promoting neoliberal
strategies of development. Because of the successive defeats of Labour, it had also
undergone a change under the leadership of Tony Blair in 1997. Labour Party was
renamed as ‘New Labour’. It reframed its strategies in accordance with the changing
demands of the people and devised new strategies or principles to attract all sections
of the society. It propagated Pro-Europeanism, equality of opportunity, keeping public
spending under control etc.

2.7 US PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

Unlike Parliamentary form of government, Presidential form of government represents

the minority of democratic system in the world.5 In this system, President is directly
elected for a fixed term and has complete control over his cabinet. The head of the
state and head of government is fused in the Presidency. There is a clear separation of
powers in the US Presidential system. The US Constitution, adopted in Philadelphia
Convention in 1787 is the world’s oldest written constitution. It lays down a proper
structural framework within which the government operates. Following are the certain
features of the US presidential system:

Self-Instructional
Material 23
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES 2.7.1 Written Constitution

Like all other federal constitutions of the world, US has a written constitution. It is the
outcome of Philadelphia Convention of 1787. This Convention gave a constitution
having seven articles. Prominent among them pertain to the three organs of the
government- President as the executive, Congress as the legislature and Supreme
Court and other federal states as the Judiciary. The American Constitution is regarded
as most rigid in the world because of the lengthy and difficult process of amendment in
the constitution. A clear distinction has been made between an ordinary law and
constitutional law. A bill for amending the constitution could be brought either by calling
a special convention or by special majority of both houses of legislature. The former
i.e., a convention could be called with the ratification of two-thirds of the 50 states.
This process has never been used for bringing any amendment. The latter requires the
two-third vote of members of both houses of congress followed by the ratification by
three quarters of 50 state legislatures approving the proposed changes. Because of
this rigidity, only 27 amendments have taken place in US Constitution.

2.7.2 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

The doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances forms the coreof the
US presidential system. Power is clearly distributed between the three branches of
government i.e., Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Each organ has been given the
power by the constitution to perform specific functions and restricting their authority to
interfere in the jurisdiction of other organs. Article I of the Constitution says: ‘All
legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress.’ The executive branch is expected
to implement the laws passed by the legislature. The Judiciary is expected to interpret
the laws in accordance with the Constitution. The founding fathers were well aware of
the fact that each organ may try to compete for power and impose its will on the other
organs of governments. In order to prevent this, the framers of the constitution provided
the doctrine of ‘checks and balances’ alongside the separation of powers. The
constitution enabled each branch of government to keep a check on the other branches
in a harmonious manner. The legislative branch keeps a check on the executive power
though following ways: approving the treaties and certain appointments made by the
President, overriding the Presidential veto by passing the bill again by two-third majority
of both the houses, removing the president from the office through a process of

Self-Instructional
24 Material
Classifications of Political System (a) Parliamentary and Presidential

impeachment etc. The executive, in turn, can veto any legislation passed by the Congress, NOTES
can demand for a special session of the congress etc. The Judiciary too, by resorting
to its power of judicial review keeps a check on both President and the Congress. It
can examine the constitutionality of any of the lawsand declare them invalid if found
repugnant to any provisions of the Constitution. The congress also has the power to
determine the number of judges, their salaries and also their removal through the process
of impeachment. This institutional structure reflects the fact that both of these doctrines
are integral parts of the US political system.

2.7.3 Federal System

Elliot Burner defines federalism as a constitutional mechanism for dividing power

between different levels of government so that federating units can enjoy substantial
constitutionally guaranteed autonomy over certain policy areas while sharing power in
accordance with agreed rules over other areas. US is an example of an indestructible
union with indestructible states. Federal government is entrusted with the responsibility
pertaining to all matters of national importance and matters of local importance have
been given to the states. All residuary powers reside in the hands of state governments.

2.7.4 Presidential Form of Government

The US Constitution provides for a Presidential form of government. In this, President

is both the head of the state and head of the government. He is directly elected for a
term of four years and only in exceptional cases, could be removed by the Congress if
found guilty of treason or high crimes and misdemeanours. In the British Parliamentary
system, Prime Minister and his ministers must command majority in the legislature to
remain in office. However, in Presidential system, the President appoints his own
Cabinet, Ministers and may remove them at his/her own pleasure. Since the executive
and legislature are two separate branches of the government, the president and his
ministers cannot be the members of the legislature. Constitution vests the executive
powers in the office of the President. He enjoys enormous powers pertaining to the
appointment of the Ministers, federal judges, ambassadors; implementing the laws
passed by the congress etc. With respect to legislative powers, he has the power to
veto any bill passed by the Congress. The president is given 10 days time for giving
assent on the bill or send it back to Congress with certain suggestions. However, if the
Congress passes the same bill with two-thirds majority, it becomes a law then without

Self-Instructional
Material 25
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES even referring the bill to the President. He also possesses the power of Pocket veto
implying that in case of adjournment of Congress session within a period of 10 days
and President doesn’t take any action on the bill, then the bill is considered to be
invalid or killed. Talking about his judicial powers, the President can grant pardon,
reprieve or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence. He is also
commander-in-chief of the armed forces, appoints the officer of the armed forces
subject to ratification of the Senate but can remove at his will during the emergencies
or war times.
Comparing the position of US President and British Monarch, it seems they
both share similar powers in some respects but there are many fundamental differences
in their powers and roles. In both cases, administration is carried out in their names,
both are head of their respective states, both make important appointments, give assent
to the bill passes by their respective legislatures, possess the power to grant mercy
too. However, in case of Britain, everything is done by the Monarch on the aid and
advise of head of the government i.e., Prime Minister.
US President on the other hand has been granted sufficient powers to act on his
own individual judgement. In addition to the being the head of the state, he is also head
of the government, responsible for running the country in accordance with the
Constitution. He has the power to nominate his own ministers, send messages to the
congress, vetoes any bill passed by the Congress. These powers reflect the powerful
position of President as compared to British Monarch. Having said that, it needs to be
remembered that President is a party person elected for a term of four years but
position of Monarch is permanent, above politics reflecting the faith of the British
people in the institution.
While comparing the US President with the British Prime Minister, one can
observe that both enjoy significant powers in their respective states. Looking at the
administrative powers, it seems the US President is more powerful than the British
Prime Minister for the simple reason that ultimately the Prime Minister is responsible
to the house of Commons for all his actions. He has to enjoy the confidence of his
ministers or cabinet in order to remain in office. His government is always checked by
the Parliament through various mechanisms like censure motion, no-confidence motions
etc. All these restrict the executive position of Prime Ministers, whereas the US President
is free and independent of the legislative branch and can act on his own judgement in
all matters of administration. In the legislative domain, British Prime Minister is more
powerful than the US President because being the head of the government, he has the

Self-Instructional
26 Material
Classifications of Political System (a) Parliamentary and Presidential

discretion to determine the proceedings of the Parliament, can get any bills passed NOTES
owing to the majority enjoyed by him or his party in the Parliament. (For these reasons,
it is sometimes called as the Prime Ministerial government in Britain. On the other
hand, powers of US President are limited because his power of veto could be nullified
by the congress by passing the bill for the second time, his appointments of officers or
signing of a foreign treaty are subject to the ratification of the Senate. The British Prime
Minister is equally powerful in getting the budget passed in Parliament unlike the US
President whose budget may be subjected to a lot of changes and modifications by the
Congress. The US President enjoys more powers than the British Prime Minister in
granting pardon, reprieve, or amnesty. He is ultimately both the head of the state and
the government while the British Prime Minister is only the head of the government. In
a nutshell, it can be said that while the British Prime Minister does not reign but rules;
the US President rules as well as reigns.

2.7.5 Bicameral Legislature

Like Britain, US has a bicameral legislature: House of Representatives (lower house)

and Senate (Upper house). Together, they are known by the name ‘Congress.’ Unlike
other upper houses of the various democratic systems, Senate is considered to be the
most powerful upper house in the world. The House of Representatives consists of
435 members elected on the basis of demographic population with the condition of
having at least one member from each state. The composition of Senate reflects the
federal principle of equal representation of all states, each state having 2 seats, 100
seats in total, irrespective of the state population. Members of the lower house serve
for a period of two years and members of Senate are elected for a term of 6 years.
While the President contest elections on issues of National and International importance,
Senators and Representatives contest by seeking votes on issues of local and regional
importance. Congress has got the power to raise revenue, declare war, initiate the
process of impeachment against President, introduce and passing of the bill, having a
last say in the appointment of President and Vice-President in case of a tie in Electoral
College, controlling the finance of the country by passing the budget document etc.
Between the two houses of Congress, Senate is considered to be more powerful. It is
also considered to be the most powerful upper house in the world for multiple reasons.
The Constitution of USA vests all executive power in the hands of the President but it
also provided Senate, the upper house, some extraordinary powers to keep a check
on Presidential authority. All foreign treaties and appointments of judges, ambassadors

Self-Instructional
Material 27
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES by President must be ratified by the Senate. In case of passing of the bill by the
legislature, the power of Senate, unlike Britain’s House of Lords, remains significant.
Any bill passed by the House of Representatives must be passed by the Senate before
becoming an Act. In Britain, House of Lords could delay the bill only for a period of
one year. In case of USA, Senate can delay the bill or kill the bill for umpteen number
of times. Even in case of Money Bill, House of Lords could delay it only for one month
but Senate as the Upper House of Congress can delay it for indefinite period. Senate
also possesses the power of making changes in the money bill. In all matters,
concurrence of Senate is required. Senate also plays a pivotal role in impeachment
proceedings against the President or Vice President. Once charges are laid down by
the House of Representatives, it is the Senate that conducts the trial. It acts as the
highest court with Chief Justice of Supreme Court presiding over the trial. It can award
punishment if the charges are approved by the two-third majority in the Senate. All
these facts reflect the powerful position Senate enjoys as the Upper chamber unlike
other upper houses in the world.

2.8 CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the two democratic systems, it is pertinent to ask which one is best
system of governance. Advocates of Parliamentary systems point out features like
fusion of legislature and executive which is seen as being helpful in getting any of the
bills passed, preventing any deadlock situation between the two and accountability of
the executive to the legislature etc. In case of Presidential systems, one greatest advantage
it possesses is the stability of the government since executive and legislature are both
separate. President enjoys security of tenure with no fear of the fall of the government
and remain immune from the party politics. Presidential system has a clear advantage
over the Prime Ministers on matters of foreign policy. President can act unilaterally
during times of crisis; he can consult any one he wishes to and act in a decisive manner
unlike British Parliamentary system in which Prime Minister has to consult cabinet
ministers and foreign secretaries during the times of crisis. So, it can be seen that both
these systems have their own set of advantages as well as limitations. Both these
systems have been running successfully in different states and it is difficult to pronounce
any one as ‘best’ system of democracy. Choosing the ‘best’ system of government for

Self-Instructional
28 Material
Classifications of Political System (a) Parliamentary and Presidential

any country may depend on its political culture, historical, social and economic NOTES
circumstances.

2.9 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. Explain Parliamentary System and Presidential System.

2. Difference between the functioning democratic institutions in United States of
America and Britain.
3. What is meant by Supremacy of the Parliament? Explain.
4. Difference between One party system, Two party and Multi-party system.
5. Explain the doctrine of Separation of Powers and Checks & Balances.

2.10 REFERENCES

 Hague, Rodand and Harrop, Martin. Comparative Government and Politics:

An introduction 6th edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
 Aggarwal, Shivali. “Britain: Constitutional Development and Political Economy,”.
In Comparative government and Politics, edited by Pushpa Singh and Chetan
Sharma, New Delhi: Sage publications, 2019.
 Almond A. Gabriel, G. Bingham Powell Jr., Kaare Strom, Russell J. Dalton.
Comparative Politics Today: A World View. Second edition. New Delhi:
Pearson, 2007.
 O’Neil, Patrick, Essentials of Comparative Politics. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company 2010.

Self-Instructional
Material 29
Classifications of Political System (b) Federal and Unitary

(B) FEDERAL AND UNITARY NOTES

Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh

Structure
2.1 Learning Objectives
2.2 Introduction
2.3 What is Government?
2.4 Major forms of Government
2.4.1 Unitary Government
2.4.2 Federal Government
2.5 An Analysis
2.6 Conclusion
2.7 Practice Questions
2.8 References

2.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

In this lesson students can understand:

 The lesson would make the students understand about the federal and unitary
political system.
 It would elaborate and similarities between unitary and federal form of
government.

2.2 INTRODUCTION

Government is one of the important components to run the state, and its constituent
parts. It is government which performs major functions of the state. It makes laws and
policies to conduct the various affairs of state and daily life of the people. The government
has many forms as it has been mentioned by the Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Leacock etc.

Self-Instructional
Material 31
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES Plato has mentioned three folds of classification—perfect state, imperfect state and
state of ignorance. Whereas Aristotle has classified the forms of government on the
basis numbers with sovereign power and the aim of government. According to him the
best government is which, work for the interest of people. It became perverted when
the government work for their interest. Polybius classified the government into three
forms monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.
Leacock’s classification of government is generally accepted. He said there are
two major forms of government, despotic and democratic. A despotic or a dictatorship
government means where the will of one person prevails, whereas the democratic
government means the will of people prevails and sovereignty lies in the hands of
people rather than one person. If we try to do the classification of modern form
government, it can be formed on the basis of social, economic, philosophical and
historical factors. We can observe that democracy in contemporary era have different
shades—Britain, USA, France, India, Canada, Germany, South Africa.

2.3 WHAT IS GOVERNMENT

The term Government comes from the term govern, which stands for ‘to rule, guide,
govern and direct. The term has historical root. It is commonly describing the government
is Monarchy, Oligarchy and democracy. All these terms have roots in the Greek.
There is no universal definition of government. According to the Merriam-Webster
dictionary government stands for ‘the body of persons that constitutes the governing
authority of a political unit or organization: such as officials comprising the governing
body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency’. Britannica
dictionary has defined the government as ‘the political system by which a country or
community is administered and regulated’. On the other hand according to Blackwell
dictionary has defined as ‘The government’ usually refers to the rulers, that group of
people who are in charge of the state at a particular time.
On the basis of various meaning, it can be said that the term government
represents a form of system which exercise control over a society through law and
order. At the same time, it can be it can be a way of exercising power. Government
exists to operate the various elements of state. As it has been mentioned by the Soltau
that government means ‘all those individuals, institutions, and mean which help in

Self-Instructional
32 Material
Classifications of Political System (b) Federal and Unitary

expressing the will of the state and give it concreate shape’. In another words Garner NOTES
has said that ‘government is a collective name for agency or organisation through
which the will of the state is formulated, expressed and realised’. C.F Strong has
mentioned ‘if we want to make and enforce the law the state must have sovereignty,
without this state couldn’t exist.’iv
The term government mostly used in four ways. The way as body which is
charged with the sense of responsibility to govern. Another way as a machinery or
engine of state. It is a state’s machinery with out this state could not exist. Thus, the
government is an important organ of the state and it is vested with the rights to exercise
sovereign power over the people of the state. To perform these functions the government
can be divided into three organs—Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. The primary
function of the legislature is to perform the function of law making for the state and
people. The executive main function is to enforce the law. The major function of the
government is run the state, make rules and laws for the state, decision making and
policy formulation Whereas the judiciary major function is to interpret the application
of laws to specific cases.

2.4 MAJOR FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

In contemporary era there are majorly two forms of government i.e., Unitary and
Federal. The formation of these two forms of government is based on the model of
division and concentration of power and the relationship between the Union and State
or local bodies, government. The country like India, USA, South Africa, Canada,
Australia has federal system. Whereas the country like Britain, Japan, Italy, and France
has adopted unitary structure of government.

2.4.1 Unitary Government

Unitary government is a form of government under which all the powers lie in the
hands of one central government. The major power is concentrated in the hands of
central government and local or state government given required powers to perform
the basic activities. The local or state government perform the functions as per the

Self-Instructional
Material 33
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES central government. It can be said that the local government operates only the way
which directed by the central government. The power and the role of local government
depends on the wishes of central government. As it has been mentioned by the Dicey
under unitary form of government ‘the habitual exercise of supreme legislative authorities
by one central power’. The central government have the only power to make the law
for entire state and enforce the law either by self or transfer to the local authorities. The
main features of the unitary government are;
(a) Power in the hands of Central Government: In the unitary form of government
all the power concentrate in the hands of central government. The provincial or
local units draw their power and authority from the central government and are
responsible to it for the exercise of that authority. As it can be seen in the case of
Britain the power lies in the hands of central government i.e., Prime Minister,
same as in the case of France all the powers are kept in the hands of president.
The law-making authority is not available to any other body or the institution
except that the power transferred and delegated by the central government to
the state or local government. In France according to 1958 constitution the
central government is having all the powers and responsibility to define and
implement the nation’s policy. The parliament has only the power the make and
pass the law. The France president also head of the state and head of the
executive, supreme commander of military and determined the policy after the
consultation with council of ministers.
(b) Flexible Constitution: The constitution of a country with unitary government
can have written or unwritten. In most of the unitary government, it has been
found that it possesses a flexible constitution. The flexible constitution is very
useful for any country especially to the developing country because it gives
great chances to update and change the written/unwritten rules according to the
demand and the condition. It does not hinder progress due to its adaptability. At
the same time, it protects the basic principles of the constitution, as it can noticed
from Britain’s unwritten constitution. Furthermore, it has been noticed that in a
unitary system the units do not possess a separate entity.
(c) Centralised Rules and regulations: In the unitary government the power is
centralised in the hands of central government. Thus, it is not required to distribute
the power between centre and state government. Due to this, the written rules
and constitution is also not required to divide the powers and allocate the

Self-Instructional
34 Material
Classifications of Political System (b) Federal and Unitary

functioning. The written rules can be written like France and unwritten like Britain NOTES
accordance to the people. The Britain has a unitary form of government hence,
both Houses of Parliament—the House of Commons and House of Lords have
the power to make law for the whole country.
(d) Local or state government follows the guidelines of central government:
As all the powers are in the hands of central government, it can do all the things
as per its own choice and interest. There is no interference from the local
government, whose duty is only to follow the instructions of the centre. The
administrative and other departmental works are done by local government as
per the direction made by central government, for example in Britain the Prime
Minister and Council of minister gives the directions to the local body to do the
work as more efficient manner.
(e) Flexible and easy to adapt environment: In unitary government, due to power
stays in the hands of central government, it helps the government and
administration to take the decision according to changing time. The central
government is not dependent on the assent of the local government, for example
at the time of Covid-19 France, Britain government and administration has
taken extraordinary decision. In unitary government the central government have
the power to amend the constitution according to need and requirement. As it
has been mentioned by the E.B.Schulz, ‘the principal advantage of unitary
government is its flexibility and the matter of distributing powers on the territorial
basis.’
(f) Uniform Administration: In the unitary government the power vested in the
Centre government, that is based on the principle of centralisation of power. In
such political system the hegemony of decision-making power and function lies
in the hands of central administration. According to C.F. Strong under the unitary
system the supremacy lies in the central parliament. The status of central
parliament governs all the people like the British House of Commons passes all
the laws and govern the local bodies. Moreover, centralisation of power is also
the core idea in unitary government. In such a system, the local governments
dependent on the central government. It is subordinate to the central government
in all the aspects.
In contemporary era, China is the best example of unitary government. The
Constitution of China (1982) has introduced the unitary form of government. The

Self-Instructional
Material 35
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES National People’s Congress (NPC) is the highest authority of the country. It is house
which not only makes the law for whole country but also controls the government. The
NPC does the major work, one hand it creates and interprets the law on the other
hand it has significant formal authority over the executive and judicial branches.

2.4.2 Federal Government

A federal state represents several sovereign states combine together and form a big
state or on the other hand when a big state reorganises itself divide into several state
under one umbrella. As Dicey has said ‘A federal state is intended to reconcile national
unity and power with the maintenance of state rights.’ A federal state is a union of
states as it has been mentioned the article 1 of the Indian Constitution that India is a
union of states. It was USA who has initiated the federal form of government in late
18th century, which was drafted in 1789 constitution. The Canada has adopted the
federal model of United States of America (USA). Later on, many other countries
followed and adopted the federal system. In India the roots of federal system evolved
through the Government of India act, 1935. Under this act, the devolution of power
between union and states or provinces has introduced. Hence during the formation of
Indian Constitution, the constitution makers have identified the ethnic and cultural
diversity to adopt the federal system. After the independence India was divided into
565 princely states and most of the states organised on the basis of linguistic and
ethnicity background. It is quite clear that various kinds of federal government have
different degrees of power distribution and sharing.
The federal state and government are a product of two kinds of forces—
centripetal and centrifugal. Centripetal means when independent states agree to join
hands to create a new state, the Australia and USA is the best example of such federal
state. On the other hand, centrifugal means when unitary government transform into
federal government. Under this system, the unit demand a large measure of autonomy
which can be only provided in federal state. India is a very good example of centrifugal
federal state. The federal structure is a kind of demand from different regional units to
put balance between national unity and regional autonomy.
In a federal system, the written and unwritten constitution performs major role.
In the federal state the relationship between centre and unit defines in terms of
constitution. In such situation it plays pivotal role to define the power and functions of
centre and the state i.e., unit. The distinct feature of the federal government is division

Self-Instructional
36 Material
Classifications of Political System (b) Federal and Unitary

of power between central government and several state governments. In USA the NOTES
sovereignty lies in its constitution. If any new law passed by the centre or state, it tries
to match with constitution. It should not violate the basic principles of constitution. In
unitary feature centre can pass any law to protect and promote the interest of people
but in federal state, all the law tries to see the interest of states along with the people.
The main features of the federal government are:
(a) Delegation and distribution of power: In a federal state, the government
comprises at least at two or more levels in a given territory. All of them
perform activity through some common institutions and the power given
to them in a shared basis. It can be said that in a federal government the
powers distributed and delegated between the centre and state (units)
and many other local governments too. It is one of the most essential
features of the federal government. In federal state, the constitution which
works as a sovereign over the both central and state government. For
example, in America, the central government have some power which is
different from those 50 state powers. Both centre and state work on their
defined spheres of functions. The central government work on the area
related to national importance, which is related to the nation as well as
people, for example, the foreign affairs, diplomacy, trade, international
negotiations and treaties etc. whereas, the state and local government
works related to state affairs like local and state level issues of education
health, sanitation road etc. As it has been mentioned in the Canada’s
constitutional Acts, 1867 to 1982 about the direct taxation within province,
property and civil rights, administration of civil/criminal justice, education
and natural resources.
(b) Written and Rigid constitution: In federal government, the power is
distributed and divided between the central and state government. Thus,
at this situation it become essential and binding to define the powers in a
written and enacted constitution. The written document can only give the
effective distribution and division of power. The unwritten constitution may
generate and bring some misunderstandings, confusion and disagreements
between the central and state governments. As it can be observed in the
case of USA, India and Canada have written constitution.
In the federal system of government, it has been said that the written
constitution is rigid. It is due to protect the nature of federal structure. The

Self-Instructional
Material 37
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES central and state government together have the power to amend the written
constitution. Moreover, it is due to maintain the stability and nature of
federal state. Under this mutual consent between centre and state, the
method follows to amend the any part of constitution related to federal
structure require special majority i.e., 2/3rd majority. For example, in
America, if there is any amendment in the constitution required by the
government related to the federal structure. The amendment follows two
stages, at the first stage it requires 2/3rd majority of both the houses (Senate
and House of representative) or the convention called by the congress on
the demand made by 2/3rd members of the state assembly. At the second
stage, the passed amendment either approved by the 3/4th state legislatures
or by special convention in 3/4th of the state. It is only after passing through
both the stages the amendment incorporated in the constitution.
(c) Anchoring role of Judiciary: Judiciary plays pioneering role to protect
and promote the federal nature of state. It is judiciary which protects and
interprets the constitution. In India and USA, the judiciary utilises the power
of judicial review over the laws of centre and state government. The
judiciary not only interpret or protect the constitution but also solves the
dispute between centre and state or state or state affairs like in India the
Supreme Court have solved the issues related to river.
In federal state, there is always various issues evolves like, the boundary,
resources, powers, actions etc. In such situation, the role judiciary very
important to solve the disputes between centre and state. As it has been
mentioned by the J. S. Mill ‘the constitutional authority of central and
regional government alike should be precisely and clearly defined but the
power to decide between them in any case of dispute should not reside in
either of the government, or in any functionary subject to it, but in an
umpire independent in both.’ In this regard, it can be found that the Judiciary
performs key role in USA, Canada, and India.
(d) Dual Administration and Citizenship: A federal state featured by the
dual administration—at the centre government for the people of federation
and other at the level of state government. The nature of functioning of
administration at the centre and state level government is totally independent
but it also works as a mutual support basis on the subject of national
interest. For example, during Covid-19 the USA, Canada and India central

Self-Instructional
38 Material
Classifications of Political System (b) Federal and Unitary

and state government worked in cooperation with each other is NOTES

incorporating to overcome from this global pandemic. In the federal
structure of the government the citizens have to follow two sets of laws—
central laws and the state laws.
Moreover, in federal government each person gets individual citizenship
of state and centre. In other words, it can be said that people of federal
state get double citizenship—one is common union citizenship of whole
nation and another is the state as unit of which the person is resident. For
example, in Australia, America and Canada the dual citizenship can be
found. In USA the people enjoy the citizenship of USA as well as the
state. In our state, Bharat, we follow single citizenship norm.
(e) Bicameral legislature: In a federal state, In the federal countries the power
always allocated in its constituent parts or units. The constituent parts are
empowered by the sharing of power. Thus, to decentralise the power
most of federal countries witness the dual legislature. In one house—the
people of central government are given representation to centre, while the
other house represented by the units of the federation. The USA and
Canada, have bicameral legislature. In USA the Senate i.e., Upper House
represents the states whereas the house of representative represent centre.
In USA, the people of the state have been given equal representation in
the house of representation and the 50 states have been given equal
representation.
(f) Equality to all the unit states: The federal system of government follows
one key principle to treat all the state or units as equal basis. It never gives
special or extra preference to any state on the basis of its size, population,
resources etc. It is due to this requirement all the states given equal seats
in one or two houses of the central legislature for example, in America
Senate all state represented by two members either the state is large in
size or population. As K. C Wheare mentioned that the framers of
federation must ensure that all the units can maintain their independence
within the sphere allotted to them and work the federation. Principally, it
can be said that the federal government takes neutral or middle path between
the centre and the unit affairs. The system is supported by the method of
distribution of power between the central and state governments.

Self-Instructional
Material 39
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES The America’s political system has witnessed many changes in its federal
character. The initial nature of America’s federalism was based on the model of dual
federalism i.e., based on the principles of equality between the centre and state. It
was only till the starting of second world war 1939 and 1940s. After some time, the
nature of America’s federalism changed in to the model of cooperative federalism. In
this federalism, the America has started regulating the economy in the model of give
and take. In contemporary era, the nature of American federalism is mixed with dual
and cooperative federalism i.e., the centre and state government neither fully free nor
subordinate. It is quite clear that the larger geographical area and cosmopolitan culture
have mostly adopted the federal form of government. It is basically to represent all the
region and community people. But some state like India have adopted the federal
system to adopt both the things the larger geographical area along with to represent
the voices of the diversity.
In recent year there is trend to adopt more federal system in the world—it is
due to provide autonomy to the regions and achieved rapid development and security.
Moreover, in the contemporary world the nature of federal states has been changed
from dual federalism to cooperative federalism. In cooperative federalism the both
centre and unit government trying to complement each other and work on mutual
support basis. It is clearly visible in terms of America and India.

2.5 AN ANALYSIS

In the contemporary world, almost all the countries have adopted the democratic form
of government. In which most of the states have followed either the unitary or the
federal form of government. If we can do the analysis of both the forms of government,
we may find some merits and demerits are there. It can be understood under different
points, these are:
(a) Centralisation versus Decentralisation: When we see both the unitary and
federal form of government, it can be easily noticed that the major difference
between these two forms of the government is the distribution of power i.e.,
centralised and decentralised power system. The unitary form of government
follows the principle of delegation of power from top to bottom for example the
Spain or the Britain have delegated the power to different autonomous agencies

Self-Instructional
40 Material
Classifications of Political System (b) Federal and Unitary

to function the various activities of government. It established a one point that NOTES
the lower units are dependent on the upper authority and at last the centre
power. This represents the single power is taking the decision.
However, in the federal form of government the power is decentralised. It means
the decision-making process it not dependent on one centralised person or
institution, but the power lies in the hands of multiple political actors. The subunits
are capable enough to take the decision by self rather than taking permission
from centre like the unitary form of government. This centralised and decentralised
system can be easily understood through Britain, Spain and France where the
decision is taken by one person or the institution. On the other hand, in federal
government like America, Canada, and India the decisions are being taken at
several other unit ends rather than only from the centre.
(b) Stable and powerful government: If we analyse and compare the unitary and
federal form of government it can noticed that the unitary government is more
strong and powerful in compare to federal government regarding to take the
decision and policy making. There are chances that the unitary government can
turn into a totalitarian of dictatorship. It is due to the power, which is kept in the
hands of centre and there is no check on the activities of government. There are
high chances of misuse of power. In Pakistan many times military overtaken the
government and established the military government.
Sometimes division of power between the centre and state create deadlock
between both. The central government find difficulty to implement the policies,
programs and the decisions without support from the state government. On the
other hand, state government also find the difficulty to implement the schemes
and policies with support from the central government. As Gettlell has said that
the proper adjustment for the central government is always source of problem
its majorly due to some sectional and local fractions are always present in the
state.
(c) The nature of constitution: The Constitution have very important aspect in
democracy and in the Unitary or the federal form of government. In unitary
form of government, the constitution is flexible. It is easy to amend by the central
government. Whereas, in the federal form of government the constitution is rigid
and not easy to do amend that is due to maintain the equitable relationship
between the centre and state. As we can see the America’s constitutional

Self-Instructional
Material 41
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES amendment and Britain’s constitutional amendment. It can be easily noticed that
USA has witnessed only few constitutional amendments whereas, the Britain
has experienced many constitutional amendments.
(d) Administration and governance: The administration plays very important role
in both the forms—unitary and federal government. In unitary government,
administration is flexible. The flexible constitution ensures to fulfil the demands
and need of the people according changing time. The unitary system also adapts
the situation according to the social needs and environment. It is due to the
system that provides for the creation of a powerful central government with full
discretion to use its power and amend the constitution according to the
requirement. As it has been mentioned by the Gettell that unitary system for its
uniformity and freedom from repetition, wastefulness and extravagance. But the
unitary government is suitable only for the small or homogeneous states. For
large state where multicultural system where multiple language, religion, and
regional diversity. In such situation, federal form will be the suitable government.
In the unitary system, due to the existence of single executive and legislature for
the whole state makes dominance of administration of administration by the
bureaucracy.
(e) Conflict and the Stability in the state: A strong desire for the unity among the
people is the first and prior condition for the formation and success of federal
government. Thus, the idea of ‘unity in diversity’ is become hall mark for the
successful federal government. The diverse interest of the federal units create
conflict with the unit and national interest. Many times, it creates conflict and
unhealthy competition between the regions. For example, the regional loyalties,
racial, linguistic and religious issues.
The unitary government is suitable for small and single identity in terms of language,
culture and ethnicity. For large state like India, USA, China, Russia or multi-cultural
state like India it’s not suitable as government is located in centre and face the problem
related to state as a national basis. Due to its concentration on the central issue, it fails
to satisfy the issues and needs of local people. Apart from this, the local government
don’t have much power and administrative agencies to solve the local problems.

Self-Instructional
42 Material
Classifications of Political System (b) Federal and Unitary

NOTES
2.6 CONCLUSION

In early modern phase the world has seen the emergence of monarchies and dictatorship
regimes. But after the American, Glorious and French revolution the one-man rule has
been replaced by the democratic form of government. This democratic form of
government has seen two kinds of system one is more centralised as unitary system
and another is decentralised as federal system. Now, all the forms of government—
unitary or federal government trying to protect and promote the voices of individual
with the model of good governance. Both the forms of government have their own
positive and negative points. It’s the nature of state which decides the best form of
government—unitary or federal. In modern world, most of the countries are trying the
mixed model like unitary feature with the federal government—unitarian federalism.
For example, India according to constitution Article 1 India is ‘union of states’ but in
practice it is more quasi federal—the centre is more powerful than the states. It’s due
to power providing to the central government to take the national decision whereas
autonomy to the states to solve the local issues. Along with this it has been found that
most of federal form of government evolved in large geographical area along with the
cultural, linguistic and ethnicity diversity.
The principle of ‘unity in diversity’ or the ‘union with autonomy’ in actual practice
is always source of individual identity and protection to units in the system of federal
government. Federal system is most suitable system for the large state in terms of size,
population and diversity—it protects and promotes the interest of people in terms of
language, culture, religion, race and the class. The centre cannot be powerful and
strong without cooperation and support from local or state government. Thus, most of
the modern states are trying cooperative and centralised federal system for providing
goods and services to people and federation as whole.

2.7 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q.1. Examine unitary system. Elaborate how unitary system working in UK.
Q.2. What do you understand by federal system? Examine the significance of
federation in the context of territorial division of power.

Self-Instructional
Material 43
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES Q.3. What is federalism? Explain the division of power system in India in compare to
Canada.
Q.4. Compare and contrast various aspects of federalism in India and USA.

2.8 REFERENCES

 Merriam-Webster, 2021 accessed from https://www.merriam-webster.com/

dictionary/ government
 Brogan, Hugh (2021), Government, accessed from https://www.britannica.com/
topic/government.
 Bealey, Frank (1999) Government, The Blackwell Dictionary of Political
Science: A User’s Guide to Its Terms, Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, P-147
 Strong C F (1972), Modern Political Constitutions; An Introduction to the
Comparative Study of Their History and Existing Form, New York: Macmillan
Company.
 Schulz, E.B (1961), “The Essentials of Governments”, prentice Hall: London
 Dicey, A. V (1915), “Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution”,
Macmillan Publication: London.
 Mill, J. S (2008), “Considerations on Representative Government”, Ingram
short title: London
 Gettell (2015), “Readings in Political Science”, Arkose Press: Warsaw
 Jackson, Robert J (2006), “Politics in Canada”, Longman Pub Group:
Toronto.
 Friedrich J Carl. (1968), “Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice”,
Praeger: New York.
 Xi Baldi, Brunetta (1999), “Beyond the Federal-Unitary Dichotomy”,
University of California: Barkely
 Xii G. Sawer (1976), “Modern Federalism”, Pitman Publication: London
 Xiii A. Stepan (2001), “Arguing Comparative Politics”, Oxford University
Press: Oxford

Self-Instructional
44 Material
Electoral Systems First Past the Post, Proportional Representation and Mixed Systems

UNIT 3 NOTES

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS FIRST PAST THE POST,

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND
MIXED SYSTEMS
Neha Singh
Research Scholar, JNU

Structure
3.1 Learning Objectives
3.2 Introduction
3.3 Principles of the Electoral Systems
3.3.1 First Past the Post
3.3.2 Advantages of FPTP
3.3.3 Disadvantages of FPTP
3.4 Proportional Representation
3.4.1 Advantages
3.4.2 Disadvantages
3.5 Mixed System
3.5.1 Advantages
3.5.2 Disadvantages
3.6 Trends in the Electoral System
3.7 Conclusion
3.8 Practice Questions
3.9 References

3.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 The lesson would elaborate on various principles of the electoral system, their
advantages and disadvantages.
 It would also make the student understand about various trends of electoral
system across globe.

Self-Instructional
Material 45
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
3.2 INTRODUCTION

The electoral system holds great significance as it sets parameter of elections and
referendums and determine how their results should be declared. According to Gallagher,
electoral system is the set of rules and regulations, that define structures, how votes
are cast at election and how these votes are then converted into seats.6 These rules
and regulations govern all the aspects of the process of voting, when shall the elections
be held, who are eligible to vote, and other related factors that affect/influence the
electoral outcome. In other words, an electoral system is a process by which the votes
can be converted into elected representatives. This way it establishes important legislative
decisions. “Electoral systems have to be based on Constitutional Law and other
Legislation. As we have said, the design of electoral systems determines the ways
in which votes are turned into public offices. In other words, such a design
determines how voting affects political representation. That’s why an electoral
system’s regulation begins at the constitutional level, and continues at the legislative
one.”7 There are three main elements of any electoral system. “ballot structure
comprising of (how and ‘for what’ a vote is cast); constituency structure consisting of
(whether, and how, the electorate is divided into territorially defined constituencies),
and the electoral formula including (an assembly election, a method of translating votes
into seats).”8
The choice of the type of the electoral system remains one of the key important
determinants of the future of the political life of the state concerned. Once such electoral
system has been chosen, remains constant. It remains a fundamental political process
that involves evolution of the state machineries, political actors, interests of the
citizens. It is an evolving process. Some electoral systems aim at electing a single
winner to the position such as Prime Minister, President, Governor while other
electoral systems target bringing out of multiple winners like members of the
Parliament, board of directors etc. Hence, there are many kinds of electoral systems
such as First Past the Post System, Proportional Representation, Mixed systems.
This chapter shall discuss these types of electoral systems in details. But
prior to unravelling these types of electoral systems, it becomes important to
understand the guiding principles behind the electoral systems.

Self-Instructional
46 Material
Electoral Systems First Past the Post, Proportional Representation and Mixed Systems

NOTES
3.3 PRINCIPLES OF THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

Any electoral system aims at establishing a stable system with efficiency, efficacy
and effectiveness. It may have coherent coalitions but the stronger political parties
remain few. Any kind of electoral systems like proportional representation or the
first past the post system, the common guiding principles are:
 Representation—Primarily, the objective of an electoral system is the
convert the votes into seats that is expressed by the will of the voters
represented through the casting of the votes. Factors such as geographic
representation, ideology/political representation design the suitable electoral
system.
 Transparency—Transparency holds importance to avoid any confusion
and distrust between the political parties and the candidates. If one looks at
the choice of electoral system of any state, one shall find that transparency
remained one of the key ingredients for the culmination of the electoral
system. Also, the process of review or reform in the electoral system requires
greater transparency to make the process more legitimate.
 Inclusiveness—The process of elections includes fair, legitimate and
widespread outreach to the voters. It tries to ensure that through the inclusive
voting rights the system is easily understood and easily accessed polling
stations are installed. Inclusivity also includes more participation by the voters.
These principles of electoral system can be very well found in various types
of the electoral system. The various kinds of electoral system are as follows:

3.3.1 First Past the Post (FPTP)

First past the post system, also popularly known as winner take all systems or the
simple majority voting method is the simple form of plurality or the majority system
that uses the single member districts and the candidate centric voting. The winner
elected is the person who wins may not be required to get majority i.e. (50%+)
votes so long as he gets larger number of votes than compared to other candidates.
This system largely depends upon the single member constituencies. It allows the
voters to cast only one vote on their ballots. “According to Duverger’a law, the

Self-Instructional
Material 47
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES first past the post system also encourages the growth of relatively stable political
systems dominated by two major parties.”9 The FPTP system is claimed to be
simple in design and highlight defined geographic areas and governability. This
system is used in the direct Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies elections
in India. It is also seen in Britain. The advantages of FPTP are as follows:

3.3.2 Advantages of FPTP

 The FPTP provides a clear choice to the voters between the two major
parties. The disadvantages of the third and minority parties fragment the
votes and sway/wither away the voters. Hence FPTP provides a clear choice
to the voters.
 It brings out a single party government as a winner. This in turn removes the
restriction of minority coalition partners where power is bargained between
the coalition partners.
 It even gives an opportunity for the popular independent candidates to come
out as a winner. This opportunity is particularly important for the development
of the party systems where family, clan, kinship play strong variables in
influencing the electoral systems.
 It allows the voters to choose people rather than being influenced by the
parties. This way the voters can access the performances of the individual
candidates rather than just relying on the list of candidates given by the
party.
 It establishes a link between constituencies and respective representatives
that further produces a legislature of representatives of geographical areas.
Geographic accountability is much necessary in the agrarian and developing
societies.
 It even makes the opposition very strong. With the strong single party
government coming to power, opposition is entrusted with the responsibility
of critical check to balance out any abuse of power.
However, there are also many flip sides to the FPTP system.

Self-Instructional
48 Material
Electoral Systems First Past the Post, Proportional Representation and Mixed Systems

3.3.3 Disadvantages of FPTP NOTES

 The greatest critique of FPTP system is that it excludes the smaller and fair
representation. “In the 1993 federal election in Canada, the Progressive
Conservatives won 16 per cent of the votes but only 0.7 per cent of the
seats, and in the 1998 general election in Lesotho, the Basotho National
Party won 24 per cent of the votes but only 1 per cent of the seats. This is
a pattern which is repeated time and time again under FPTP.”10
 It thus, opens the avenues for the broadly accepted candidate. The
representatives from the minority clan has bleak chances of winning. As
such FPTP system is non integrative in approach. There remains very less
chances of a black candidate to win in the districts of UK or USA where
there are strong evidences of racial minorities.
 It encourages the development/growth of the political parties that are based
upon clan, ethnicity and region that attract majority of the population. Their
policies and campaigns are influenced by the majority faiths and belief
patterns. In countries like Malawai and Kenya the parties work on majority
culture that is concentrated geographically. There are little incentives to
appeal to those who are geographically outside and do not support the
majority culture.
 As such the FPTP system remains unresponsive to the changes in the public
opinions. It is geographically concentrated and goes by the majoritarian/
universal belief and faith of the voters. It overlooks or ignores the alternative
opinions. “In some democracies under FPTP, a fall from 60 per cent to 40
per cent of a party’s share of the popular vote nationally can result in a fall
from 80 per cent to 60 per cent in the number of seats held, which does not
affect its overall dominant position. Unless sufficient seats are highly
competitive, the system can be insensitive to swings in public opinion.”11
 “Finally, FPTP systems are dependent on the drawing of electoral boundaries.
All electoral boundaries have political consequences: there is no technical
process to produce a single ‘correct answer’ independently of political or
other considerations. Boundary delimitation may require substantial time
and resources if the results are to be accepted as legitimate. There may also
be pressure to manipulate boundaries by gerrymandering or

Self-Instructional
Material 49
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES malapportionment. This was particularly apparent in the Kenyan elections

of 1993 when huge disparities between the sizes of electoral districts—the
largest had 23 times the number of voters the smallest had—contributed to
the ruling Kenyan African National Union party’s winning a large majority in
the legislature with only 30 per cent of the popular vote.”12
The electoral changes and the inception of the smaller parties are now trying to
replace the FPTP system with that of the proportional representation. According to
Curtice13, the FPTP is based upon two principles—the Duverger law and the cube
law. Duverger law argues that the FPTP system focuses upon the two-party system
while ignoring the minority parties. Cube law focuses upon the discrimination practiced
under FPTP system where the smaller parties are given little margin. According to
Curtice, “FPTP discourages people from voting because a majority electoral system
discounts votes given to smaller parties, even if people vote for their chosen party if it
is a small party then it is in fact helping one of the two largest parties without bias to win
because as mentioned before, the party that reaches the benchmark first governs the
country.”14

3.4 PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (PR)

The proportional representation comes as an alternative to the FPTP system where

the system proportionately is distributed in the elected body. The Proportional
Representation (PR) system comprises of the multiple voting districts to fill a single
seat through the proportional method. In this method the voters through the single
transferrable votes are used for multiple member districts where a candidate although
is casting a single vote each but ranks the individual candidate in order of his preference.
Unlike the FPTP system, the proportional representation system believes that it is
impossible to divide a single seat proportionally in an occasion hence the PR system
stresses upon List PR and Single Transferable Vote (STV). Under the STV the voters
rank the candidates in a multi member districts. This way the system seeks to create
representative body that highlight overall distribution of support of the public for all the
political parties. Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Italy are few countries who
have adopted the proportional representation.

Self-Instructional
50 Material
Electoral Systems First Past the Post, Proportional Representation and Mixed Systems

The proportional representation unlike the FPTP system accommodates diversity. NOTES
“Proponents maintain that the plurality system can produce unrepresentative, minority
governments, such as in the United Kingdom, where the two major parties governed
the country for the last three decades of the 20th century with little more than 40
percent of the votes. The proportional system also is suggested as a means of redressing
the possible anomaly arising under majority or plurality systems whereby a party may
win more seats with fewer popular votes than its opponents, as occurred in the British
elections of 1951 and February 1974.”15
It even accommodates changed/alternative opinion to the majority beliefs. This
system is best suited to the democracies having deep societal cleavages. It produces
representative legislature. There are several other advantages of the Proportional
representation system that makes it quite significant.

3.4.1 Advantages

 The PR system reduces the seat bonuses for the larger parties and the small
parties are equally given an opportunity for the minority parties as well.
 The PR system actually facilitates minority parties’ representation. This way
irrespective of the fact that to whom the vote is going it creates a situation where
a single party system cannot win all the seats, thereby making the system
integrative and accommodating of different ideologies.
 This way it emphasises upon the continuity and stability of the system. The
example of Western European experiences with the PR system suggests that
unlike FPTP where ideologies are polarised, the PR system makes it coherent
in the decision-making process. It makes the decision making more inclusive
and cross sectional in the society.

3.4.2 Disadvantages

The PR system is primarily criticised as it leads to coalition governments and fragmented

party system.
 The fragmented party system can lead to the destabilisation as there shall be
always tussle between in a coalition government over bargaining the power.
Israel and Italy are good examples where we see how due to shift in the coalition
government lead to unstability.

Self-Instructional
Material 51
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES  The coalition government is incapable of carrying out the coherent policy making.
They are exposed to the danger of conflicts post policy making which could
lead to further factions.
 The smaller parties under the PR system get disproportionately larger amount
of power while the bigger parties may be forced to form the coalition government.
This way the PR system might be harsher to the bigger party.
 The coalition government generally make the policies there remains little clarity
to the voters as well. As such there is a requirement of education and training of
the voters and the poll workers. It has been believed that the Weimar Germany
failed due to the PR electoral system.

3.5 MIXED SYSTEM

“A mixed electoral system is an electoral system that combines a plurality/majoritarian

voting system with an element of proportional representation (PR).”16 In the FPTP
system one finds the feature of the plurality/majoritarian concept while in the PR system
one can observe the use of party list PR the most. What makes the mixed system very
significant is the fact that the voter here can hire both the plurality/majoritarian and PR
aspects of the electoral system. “MMP generally produces proportional election
outcomes, meaning that a political party which wins n% of the vote will receive
roughy n% of the seats. Parallel voting tends to produce semi-proportional outcomes:
more proportional than a plurality/majoritarian system but less proportional than a PR
electoral system. Both parallel voting and MMP feature two tiers of
elected representatives: one associated with the plurality/majoritarian component and
one associated with PR. It is not necessary, however, for a mixed system to have
multiple electoral tiers.”17
The MMP system tries to compensate the disproportionality existing in the district
seats. “For example, if one party wins 10 per cent of the vote nationally but no
district seats, then it will be awarded enough seats from the PR lists to bring its
representation up to 10 per cent of the seats in the legislature. Voters may get two
separate choices, as in Germany and New Zealand. Alternatively, voters may

Self-Instructional
52 Material
Electoral Systems First Past the Post, Proportional Representation and Mixed Systems

make only one choice, with the party totals being derived from the totals for the NOTES
individual district candidates. The proportion of seats allocated according to the
two elements of the system vary from country to country. Lesotho’s post-conflict
electoral system, adopted in 2002, contains 80 FPTP seats and 40 compensatory
ones while Germany elects 299 candidates under each system.”18
There are various types of the MMPs:
 Parallel Voting—The parallel voting system comprises of the mixed
non compensatory system. It is two-tier in nature. The first tier comprises
of the single member district representative elected by the means of plural/
majority method as practiced under FPTP. The second tier comprises
of the regional or the larger representative elected through the method
of separate proportional method like that of the party list PR. Countries
like Japan, South Korea, Russia are few examples.
 Mixed Member Proportional—The MMP like parallel voting
comprises of one tier of district representatives like the FPTP system
and the other tier of regional large representation like the PR list. It aims
at correcting the disproportionate systems. Countries like Germany, New
Zealand have adopted this system.
 Alternative Vote Plus—This system is like the additional member system
but it is significant owing to the alternative vote method. This system was
proposed by Jenkins Commission as an alternative to the FPTP system.19 It
was adopted by the Parliament of UK.
 Scorporo—It is a two-tier mixed system that strikes resemblance to MMP
system. The single member district tier partially addresses the disproportionate
in the vote transfer mechanism at the single member district tier. This system
was adopted by Italy from 1993 to 2005 and is also used by Hungary in
contemporary times.
 Majority Bonus—This system of majority bonus has also been referred as
the unconventional mixed system. The majority bonus helps in popular party
alliance helping the majority of the seats with the minority of the votes. This
is quite similar to the plural or the majoritarian system practiced in countries
like Greece, Italy from 2006 to 2013.20

Self-Instructional
Material 53
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES  Dual Member Proportional—DMP system is mixed compensatory very

similar to that of MMP except that of the plurality system. The PR seats are
dedicated to the two seat districts. Dual Member Proportional system was
used as an alternative to the FPTP system in the Canadian elections.
The Mixed system enjoys several advantages than compared to the PR
system.

3.5.1 Advantages

 It removes the issue of false majorities.

 It reduces or lessens the issue the problem of wastage of the votes by providing
for representatives for third and fourth parties. This also further reduces the
issue of lack of support across the country.
 It establishes link/connect between the geographical territory and representative
of the local area.
 It also enhances the quality of the constituency work.

3.5.2 Disadvantages

 The granting of representation to the smaller parties creates two types of MPs
which have no direct link of representation of the constituencies.
 It increases the scope of party control as the decision about the electorates.
 It complicates the ballots and discourages the voting process.
 It could be expensive to conduct an election than FPTP or PR system.

3.6 TRENDS IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Earlier the electoral system was mainly based on the principle of plurality. However,
during the 19th century the majority system gradually became more popular and widely
accepted. In the early 20th century with the expansion of the right to vote, the

Self-Instructional
54 Material
Electoral Systems First Past the Post, Proportional Representation and Mixed Systems

proportional representation list system was popular. This method was adopted to NOTES
ensure that no one group like that of the working-class socialist group would come out
as majority. Later, the proportional representation electoral system made curious entry
in democracies. British Parliament was the first country to adopt it. Ireland and Tasmania
have adopted the proportional representation but sans the Single Transferable Voting
process. Even the Australian Upper houses adopted the single transferable vote in
1949. The second half of the 20th century saw the revival in the electoral system that
observed the demand in the change, reform and experimentation in the system. The
Communist parts of Eastern Europe saw creation of new democracies. This altered
their electoral system. Countries like New Zealand saw flux in the adoption of PR
from plurality. Italy and Japan moved to complicated mixed system. The recent trend
has seen a sharp rise in the proportional electoral arrangements. Also, the mixed electoral
system is adopted popularly so as to take advantages of more than one type of electoral
family.

3.7 CONCLUSION

There are diverse rationales behind the different kinds of the electoral system. But the
electoral system should be inclusive in nature. It should represent diverse people.
Also, any electoral system should also be responsive to the demands of the voters.
The voters need to educate themselves to endorse changes in the electoral system
through referendums. This shall make the electoral system more effective and efficient.

3.8 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. Explain various principles of the Electoral Systems.

2. Discuss the advantages and disadvantage of FPTP system.
3. Examine the difference between proportional and mixed representation electoral
system.

Self-Instructional
Material 55
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
3.9 REFERENCES

 Hague, Rodand and Harrop, Martin. Comparative Government and Politics:

An introduction 6th edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
 Aggarwal, Shivali. “Britain: Constitutional Development and Political Economy,”.
In Comparative government and Politics, edited by Pushpa Singh and Chetan
Sharma, New Delhi: Sage publications, 2019.
 Almond A. Gabriel, G. Bingham Powell Jr., Kaare Strom, Russell J. Dalton.
Comparative Politics Today: A World View. Second edition. New Delhi:
Pearson, 2007.
 O’Neil, Patrick, Essentials of Comparative Politics. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company 2010.

Endnotes

1. For details please see Michal Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (ed), The Politics of
Electoral Systems, Oxford University Press, (2006), UK
2. https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/lf/lfb/lfb01#_edn3 accessed as on 2nd
October, 2020
3. N J Smelser and P B Baltes, International Encyclopedia of Social Science
and Behavioural Science, (2001)
4. Maurice Duverger, Political parties, their organization and activity in the
modern state, Oxford press, (1964), UK
5. https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd01/esd01a/default Accessed as
on 6th October, 2020
6. Ibid
7. Ibid
8. John Curtice, ‘So What Went Wrong with the Electoral System? The 2010
Election Result and the Debate About Electoral Reform,’ in Parliamentary
Affairs, Volume 63, Issue 4, 2010

Self-Instructional
56 Material
Electoral Systems First Past the Post, Proportional Representation and Mixed Systems

9. Ibid NOTES
10. https://www.britannica.com/topic/proportional-representation accessed as on
8th October, 2020
11. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook,
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, (2005)
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_electoral_system#:~:text
=A%20mixed%20electoral%20system%20is,based%20on%20party%
20list%20PR. Accessed as on 11th October, 2020
13. https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd01/esd01a/default, Op cit
Accessed as on 6th October, 2020
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_(UK) accessed as on 11th
October, 2020
15. Camille Bedock& Nicolas Sauger, ‘Electoral Systems with a Majority Bonus
as Unconventional Mixed Systems,’ Representation, Volume 50 Issue1, (2014),
pp 99–12.

Self-Instructional
Material 57
Party System One Party, BI-Party and Multi Party Systems

UNIT 4 NOTES

PARTY SYSTEM ONE PARTY, BI-PARTY AND

MULTI PARTY SYSTEMS
Neha Singh
Research Scholar, JNU

Structure
4.1 Learning Objectives
4.2 Introduction
4.3 Functions of the Political Party
4.4 Types of Political Parties
4.5 One Party System
4.5.1 Advantages of One-Party System
4.5.2 Disadvantages of One-Party System
4.6 Two Party System
4.6.1 Contrast of the Two-Party System with the Multiparty System and
One-Party System:
4.6.2 Advantages of the Two-Party System
4.6.3 Disadvantages of the Two-Party System
4.7 Multi-Party System
4.7.1 Advantages of the Multi-Party System
4.7.2 Disadvantages of the Multi-Party System
4.8 Conclusion
4.9 Practice Questions
4.10 References

4.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

In this lesson student will be able to understand:-

 Functions of the Political Party
 One party system and its advantages and disadvantages

Self-Instructional
Material 59
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES  Two Party System and its advantages and disadvantages

 Multi party system and its advantages and disadvantages

4.2 INTRODUCTION

The political party in a system is primarily a group of people who come together to
contest elections so as to hold power through forming government via contesting
elections. This way the people intend to represent the common interests of the people
based on same ideology, issues, and others. The political parties mobilise the voters
too to support common interest, goals, ideology and issues. The parties fix the political
agenda and policies and persuade people by claiming how they are going to meet the
common interests of the people through their policies articulated by their political parties.
The political parties thus define representation of the people.21The competition between
the political parties in the elections creates a pressure on them to perform better than
the other party. This way the political party in power and the opposition in competition
with each other also have checks and balance system. The concept of party system
was designed by European scholars. Thinkers such as James Bryce, Moisey
Ostrogorsky read how the party system expanded over the democracies in the world.
In broad sense, the political party represents the voice of the people communicated to
the government to make policies. Giovanni Sartori classified number of political parties.
These classifications are based on various components. Broadly, all the political parties
have three components:
 Leaders—Any political party cannot exist without a leader. Leader puts forward
the agenda of the party, ideology of the party system in front of the voters and
tries to connect with them. In several cases thinkers such as Max Weber have
observed that good and charismatic personalities have led to the formation or
rise of the party system. Narendra Modi of BJP in India is the recent example to
highlight how the charismatic leadership can change the course of the party
system in the state.
 Active Members—The active members of the political party aid in the articulation
and stimulation of party’s ideology amongst the common masses. Many times,
it is also observed that these active members irrespective of their personal

Self-Instructional
60 Material
Party System One Party, BI-Party and Multi Party Systems

developments prefer to work for the development of the party system. NOTES
Communist Party of China for example has active members who continuously
work hard to keep the ideology of the party active and relevant in the country.
 Followers—The followers of the party system are the biggest supporters of
the party system. They believe in the ideology of the party system and expect its
reflections in the implementation of policies and agendas of the parties.
Without these three components the existence of any political parties is difficult.
These components aid the political parties in carrying out the activities.

4.3 FUNCTIONS OF THE POLITICAL PARTY

 The prime function of the political party is to contest elections by placing the
candidates.
 In USA, the candidates of the political party are selected by the members and
supporters of the party.
 On the other hand, in countries like India, the party leaders choose the candidates.
 Every political party has different policies and programmes. The voters are
given choice to opt in accordance the policies and programmes.
 In a democratic set up the group of people with the similar ideological beliefs
form a political party. These political parties form a direction to the policies to
be adopted by them when forming the government.
 The political parties that fail to form the government form the opposition who
maintain the checks and balance system on the ruling party and try to make the
public aware about the pros and cons of the policies.
 The political parties form/shape the opinion of the public. This way it even aids
in creating the pressure groups that enforces the government to make the policies
for the advantage of the larger people.
 Since the political parties work for the welfare schemes, the local political parties
serve as a bridge between the citizen and government officer.

Self-Instructional
Material 61
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
4.4 TYPES OF POLITICAL PARTIES

There are three main types of party systems. This chapter shall be discussing these types of
party systems in details. Such classification or typology of political parties is not just merely
based upon the number of political parties within a particular state but also highlights a
distinctive feature of the three systems. The two-party system and the multiparty system
represent the organised political conflict in a pluralistic society. It also highlights the democratic
apparatus. On the other hand, the single party system operates in a system where the
political conflict is not welcomed. They do not present the ideology of opposition. The
chapter shall now discuss the one-party system in details.

4.5 ONE PARTY SYSTEM

The one-party system is also popularly known as single party system. Under this system
the single political party that forms the government is usually based upon the constitution of
the state.22 The other parties which come into existence in the system are either permitted
limited participation in electoral processes or the termed as outlawed. The de facto single
party system also expresses the dominance of single party. It nominally allows the other
parties to exist. But very effectively, expresses itself through various methods and techniques.
It claims for the unity of nation as it provides umbrella shield for the polity of the state. For
example, in Soviet Union it is believed that the multiple parties represent the class struggle.
So, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represent the people. Similarly, in People’s
Republic of China under the United Front express how the opposition parties are allowed
as allied parties to exist with the dominant party. It becomes important to understand the
circumstances wherein the single party system or the one-party system exists:
 An ideology forms the basis of the single party system in a state. Marxism Leninism
and international solidarity in countries such as Soviet Union is a good example to
show how it forms a circumstance to aid these parties to exist.
 Extending on the above argument the nationalist ideology also plays an important
role in the one-party dominance. The Nazi party in Germany and the fascist ideology
under Mussolini in Italy are vital examples to prove the argument.

Self-Instructional
62 Material
Party System One Party, BI-Party and Multi Party Systems

 The wake of independence from the yoke of colonial rule also observed dominant NOTES
role in the call for liberation and independence.
The one-party system however is considered to be authoritarian in nature to such an
extent that many times it converts itself into a totalitarian. But one has to keep in mind that
all authoritarian states may not operate under the one-party rule. Examples of absolute
monarchies and the military dictatorships make the existence of any political party as illegal.

4.5.1 Advantages of One-Party System

 One-party system is often appreciated for taking the quick decisions.

 Since the single party implements the policies unopposed it leads to stable political
growth.
 It does not allow the wastage of resources, money and time on political campaigns.
But the one-party system has been criticised on many grounds.

4.5.2 Disadvantages of One-Party System

 The one-party system lacks participation of people making it less integrative in

approach.
 People as voters have no choice at the election.
 Very often the minority section of the state is neglected. They remain excluded
from the mainstream welfare policies.
 Since the government is dictatorial in nature, it lacks responsiveness and
accountability to the citizens of the country.
The above disadvantages of the one-party system create a search for an
alternative approach.

4.6 TWO PARTY SYSTEM

Differing from the one-party system, the two-party system observes a shift in the
power from one hand to two dominant major parties. Out of the two parties, the party
that enjoys the majority support forms the governing party while the party with minority

Self-Instructional
Material 63
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES support forms the opposition party. Across the world, the two-party system has been
identified differently. In countries like United States, Malta, Zimbabwe, the two party
defines an arrangement where the elected officials belong to either of the two majority
parties. There is little scope for the third party. The third party in the two-party system
set up rarely wins any seat in the legislature. Thinkers such as Maurice Duverger,
William H Riker, Jeffrey D Sachs establish a strong correlation between voting
arrangements and number of party in a system. As such in this set up the winner takes
it all factor seems to work/influence the election rules. According to Duverger’s law23,
the two-party system is an organic product of the winner take all voting system.
However, in countries with parliamentary systems such as United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, the term two party system indicates an arrangement where inspite of the
two-parties, the third party also gets an opportunity to win seats in the elections. Here,
the multitude of lesser or smaller parties influence the electoral system in varying degrees
and even the elect officials belonging to these parties. Many commonwealth countries
based on the Westminster system enjoy the parliamentary democracy. Here, the
majority party forms the government, minority party forms the opposition while the
third parties many times forms the coalitions. In rare circumstances, hung parliament
arises. Thus, there is not a sharp demarcation between a two-party system and a
multi-party system. To help understand the difference the next part of the chapter shall
highlight the difference between the one-party system, two party system and the
multiparty system.

4.6.1 Contrast of the Two-Party System with the Multiparty System and
One-Party System:

At first the two-party system shall be contrasted with the multiparty system.
Two-Party System with the Multiparty system
 The multiparty system comprises of the effective number of parties that is greater
than two and lesser than five while the two-party system comprises of the two
dominant parties.
 Under the multiparty system, the coalition can control the government while
under the two-party system the coalition government is rarely formed.

Self-Instructional
64 Material
Party System One Party, BI-Party and Multi Party Systems

The Two-party system shall be now contrasted with the Multi-party system. NOTES
Two-Party System with the One-party system
 In the one-party system, only single party is legally recognised. The presence of
other alternate parties is restricted. The single party like that of the Communist
Party of China or Communist Party of Cuba wields power. While under the
two-party system there exists shifts between two dominant parties.

4.6.2 Advantages of the Two-Party System

 Many thinkers suggest that the two-party system encourage centrism and find
common goals that appeal to the larger electorate.
 It is a simpler governing system with lesser fractions that focuses on political
stability.
 Unlike the hung parliament in the multi-party system, the two-party system is
more preferred. Also, it provides fewer voting choices it is easier to understand.
 The non-governing party forms a strong opposition that keeps a strict vigilance
on the governing party.

4.6.3 Disadvantages of the Two-Party System

 The two-party system is criticised for being less competitive and giving voters
fewer choice.
 The two-party system is often criticised to encourage partisanship instead of
inter party compromise.
 Ross Perot believe that the two-party system fails to voice the matters addressed
by the two-majority party.

4.7 MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM

The multi-party system forms the basis of politicisation of new issues. It aims at avoiding
of polarisation of issues like that of the two-party system. It also opens up for ideological
innovation for public agendas, inclusive political institutions etc. In the multi-party system,

Self-Instructional
Material 65
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES multiple political parties exist in the political spectrum who compete with each other to
control the government. The multiparty system is often observed in the parliamentary
system over the presidential system. It is far common in countries that have proportional
representation over the first past the post elections. All the political parties under this
system have reasonable chance to form the government. The proportional system has
range of representatives. Countries like India, Germany, New Zealand have the
multiparty system. It also opens a space to form coalitions while attaching legitimate
mandate.
Unlike the one-party system the multi-party system encourages multiple, political
identities. “A two-party system requires voters to align themselves in large blocs,
sometimes so large that they cannot agree on any overarching principles. Some theories
argue that this allows centrists to gain control. On the other hand, if there are multiple
major parties, each with less than a majority of the vote, the parties are strongly motivated
to work together to form working governments. This also promotes centrism, as well
as promoting coalition-building skills while discouraging polarization.”24

4.7.1 Advantages of the Multi-Party System

The Multi-Party system has several benefits.

 It truly represents the various identities in a plural society by giving opportunity
to various ideologies to come up and form the government.
 It gives several options to the voters.
 It is inclusive in nature.
 The multi-party system is very transparent in nature as it is integrative in nature
and responsive to the needs of various spectre of the society.
 Unlike the One-party system and two-party system, the multi-party system
ensures healthy competition and leaves no space for the dictatorship. This way
the multi-party system is democratic in nature.
 The multiparty system is more responsive to bringing the shift in the public opinion.
However, inspite of the advantages of the multi-party system, there are several
demerits of the system.

Self-Instructional
66 Material
Party System One Party, BI-Party and Multi Party Systems

4.7.2 Disadvantages of the Multi-Party System NOTES

 Many times, the multi-party system leads to coalition government that is instable
for the longer run. Often the countries with the multiparty system observes a
hung parliament.
 It is often messy as the presence of multiple identities may lead to difficulty in
formation of the policies. The process of policy implementation may lead to
various deliberations and discussions within the party.
 It may lead to corruption as there are plural identities existing in the system with
various ideologies, as such there lacks transparency.
 The presence of linguistic or regional parties may lead to concentration of the
development of the particular region. As such the larger nation may get ignored.

4.8 CONCLUSION

The party system represents the set of choices provided to the voters/electorates.
According to R Michael Alvarez and Jonathan Nagler25, the party system is mostly
defined by the policy design. Also, the historical development of the party system in
the state offers a strong base in defining the kind of party system in the state. However,
according to Rajni Kothari26, the recent occurences like rise of the civil society restricting
the role of the political parties and giving the common voters more indulgences in the
political arena can call for change in the party system. Secondly, the old models of the
political parties like that based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy
is gradually diminishing by the rise of new alliances with rising ideologies across the
globe like that on saving the environment, anti-corruption etc. the new parties forming
are now focusing upon the developmental strategies and demand greater accountability,
responsiveness and people’s participation. These changing dynamics are calling for
the changes in the party systems.
Still one cannot deny the fact the party system represents the voice of the common
man. It is the duty of the political party to convert those needs/demands/voices into
policy. Under the two-party system, the governing party tries to integrate those demands
by implementing policies while one as an opposition party creates a pressure on the

Self-Instructional
Material 67
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES governing party to integrate those demands in the policies. The multiparty system is
often applauded for its integrative nature. Thus, we see that different party systems
hold its own significance. Any change in the type of party system shall definitely represent
the change in demand/voice of the people which at large should be welcoming for the
political stability.

4.9 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. What are the main function of Political Theory.

2. Discuss various types of party system.
3. Examine various difference between one, two and multiple party system.
4. Critically explain advantage and disadvantage of one party system.

4.10 REFERENCES

 Boix Carles and Susan C. Stokes (2011), in Overview of comparative politics,

in Robert E. Goodin(ed.) Oxford Handbook of Political Science.
 Gandhi, Jennifer and Adam Przeworski. 2007. “Authoritarian Institutions
and the Survival of Autocrats.” Comparative Political Studies 40, no. 11
(November): 1279-1301.
 Gillin, L. J (1919), “Origins of Democracy”, American Journal of Sociology,
24(6):704- 714.
 Heywood, Andrew (1997), Politics, Macmillan, London.
 Hilmer, D, Jefferey (2011), ‘Modern Democratic Thought’, in Ishiyama, J. T.
and Breuning, M. (eds.) 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Book.
Los Angeles, Sage: 605-614.
 Juan J. Linz. 2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder:
Lynne Reiner, pp. 1-63.
 Siaroff, Alan. (2013). Comparing Political Regimes- A Thematic Introduction
to Comparative Politics. Toronto, University of Toronto.

Self-Instructional
68 Material
Party System One Party, BI-Party and Multi Party Systems

Endnots NOTES

1. Muirhead, Russell & Nancy L.Rosenblum, ‘The Political Theory of Parties

and Partisanship: Catching up,’ Annual Review of Political Science, Volume
23, (2020), pp 95–110
2. Please see William Roberts Clark, Matt Golder & Sona Nadenichek Golder,
Principles of Comparative Politics, Sage publications, ((2012), US.
3. Maurice Duverger, Political parties: their organization and activity in the
modern state. Internet Archive. Methuen, (1964), London, p. 217.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-party_system#:~:text=A%20multi
%2Dparty%20system%20is,offices%2C%20separately%20or%20in%
20coalition.&text=In%20these%20countries%2C%20usually%20no,a
%20parliamentary%20majority%20by%20itself. Accessed as on 26th October,
2020
5. R Michael Alvarez and Jonathan Nagler, ‘Party System Compactness:
Measurement and Consequences, Political Analysis,’ Winter 2004, Volume
12, Issue No 1, published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the
Society for Political Methodology, p 47
6. Rajni Kothari, ‘Elections without Party System,’ Economic and Political
Weekly, April 20-27, (1996), Volume 31, No. 16/17, p. 1004

Self-Instructional
Material 69
Structures of Power in Society Classical Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Pluralism ...

UNIT 5 NOTES

STRUCTURES OF POWER IN SOCIETY CLASSICAL

ELITIST THEORY, POWER ELITES, PLURALISM
AND THEORY OF THE RULING CLASS
Dr. Shakit Pradayani Rout

Structure
5.1 Learning Objectives
5.2 Introduction
5.3 Meaning of Elite Theory
5.4 Power Structure and Elite
5.5 Authority and Legitimacy
5.5.1 Traditional Authority
5.6 Classical Elite Theory
5.7 Pareto and Mosca on Elite Theory
5.8 Robert Michels, James Burnham & Charles W. Mills on Elite
5.9 Critical Evaluation on Elite Theory
5.10 Conclusion
5.11 Practice Questions
5.12 References

5.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 After completing this lesson, the students would understand the meaning and
nature of the elite i.e. existing power structure in the society.
 They will also know about classical elite theory, the power elite, and the theory
of the ruling class.
 It will help the students understand the idea of pluralism in a democratic set-up.

Self-Instructional
Material 71
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
5.2 INTRODUCTION

The word elite can be referred to as the commodities of excellence. Political elite can
be understood as those persons who sit at the top of political activities and hold
positions, above others by their superior qualities. It is a name given to a group that
emerged in every walk of life, to a position of leadership and influence at every social
level. In other words, the elite consists of those successful people who rise to the top
in every occupation and stratum of society. In the beginning, the concept of the elite is
evaluated and studied by sociologists. The concept later became part of the study of
political science. In the lesson, we will discuss the political elite as a concept and its
interconnectedness to the power structure in the society. The lesson will try to understand
the classical elite theory, and attributes of the governing elite and look at various trends
in how the circulation of the elite is taking place.

5.3 MEANING OF ELITE THEORY

Let us understand who the elites are. The elite is the microscopic minority who usually
exercises control over any political social power structure. Whether it is primitive or
modern, democratic, or totalitarian society everywhere you can final a group of people
usually a ‘chosen few’ who rule the society. The political philosophers from time to
time have recommended having a special clean to rule. They prescribed some attributes
to hold for the positive i.e. education, intelligence, virtues. According to elite theory,
society is split between the majority and the ruling minority, with the latter always
holding political power—the ability to make decisions that are binding on the entire
society. The goal of elite theory is to provide a scientific explanation for the fact that, in
every society, a minority holds the majority of the social, economic, intellectual, and
cultural resources, which they use to exert control over the rest of the population,
regardless of when or where these resources are concentrated.
Every philosopher who proposed the concept of the “elite”—from Plato to
Rousseau—had certain characteristics. The British theory has its roots in the ideas
and writings of Plato, but it is further developed in the writings of Gaetano Mosca and
Pareto. Thus, the “elites” continue to hold the majority of the power in society. The

Self-Instructional
72 Material
Structures of Power in Society Classical Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Pluralism ...

term “elite theory” describes a theory that aims to explain the composition and function NOTES
of organisations where decision-making authority is concentrated.
The thesis of men’s inequality and their intellectual aptitude is supported by the
elite theorist. Therefore, the elites are the selected group within the general populace,
having risen to prominence through a combination of brilliance, charm, economic and
natural resource management, or even physical prowess.
A small group of people known as the elites often make all significant choices
and see to it that the populace carries them out and obeys them. To control all of
society’s resources, they need social respect, prestige, rank, positions, and nationality.
and make an effort to divide and assign resources to the general populace. Elites are
those who hold positions of leadership in influential groups and movements, as noted
by Higley and Bruton in 2006. As such, they can consistently and sustainably influence
political outcomes (Lopez: 3). Thus, there are various types of elites:
- Business elite/Economic elite
- Ruling elite
- Religion elite
- Elites among Mechanics
- Corporate Elites
The political elite are those who came to prominence in the political field by
their role and positions in politics. In a democratic political system, political, economic
and cultural elites are being recruited openly and fairly manner. Recruited from different
social strata based on rationality, merit and charisma.

5.4 POWER STRUCTURE & ELITE

In politics, power is the currency. It is the ability to effect the desired change. Just as
money permits the efficient flow of goods and services through an economy, so power
enables collective decisions to be made and enforced. Without power, a government
would be as useless as a car without an engine. It is the key political resource that
enables rulers both to serve and to exploit their subjects (Hague & Harrop, 2007: 10-
11). Thus, elites are those who uses powers over most of the people.

Self-Instructional
Material 73
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES We can locate power across society. It sometimes lies win the head of the
family, with Sarpanch with the university administration with the spiritual guru. Power
is sometimes formal & and sometimes informal. Hannah Arendt defined power as ‘not
just the ability to act but the ability to act in concert.’ (1966, p. 44) While defining
power Arendt views power and violence as enemies rather than siblings she said that
power and violence are opposite, where the one rules, the other is absent. Violence
can destroy power; it is currently incapable of creating it. (1966, p. 56)
Power consists of the ability to persuade a person or group of people to do the
same work without their consent. In Dahl’s famous definition (1951), power is a matter
of getting people to do what they would not otherwise have done. Note that the
underlying view of power here assumes conflict rather than consensus (ibid, 11).

5.5 AUTHORITY & LEGITIMACY

There is a strong relationship between elites, power structure and the process of
legitimization. Max Weber elaborated on the three different types of authority in his
noted work.

5.5.1 Traditional authority

Max Weber’s first type, traditional authority, is based on ‘piety for what, allegedly or
presumably has always existed (1923, p. 296) (ibid 11). Traditional rulers do not need
to justify their position, rather, obedience. For example, Monarchs rule because they
always have done so. To demand any justification would itself constitute a challenge to
traditional authority. Such arrangements are like structures of patriarchy- the father’s
or the oldest man’s authority within the family. For Weber, charismatic authority is
another form and one that contrasts sharply with authority based on tradition. In contrast,
to the foundation of traditional allegiance in the past, charismatic authority spurns history.
The charismatic prophet looks forward, convincing followers that the promised land is
within reach. Because they motivate their flowers, such leaders are followed. who
credit their saviour with exceptional and even supernatural qualities. (p. 11) The third
& and final type of authority is the legal & and rational one. Rational-legal authority is
expressed when a leader can make decisions based on prescribed laws, rules and
regulations prescribed by the Constitution. The hallmark of this type of authority is

Self-Instructional
74 Material
Structures of Power in Society Classical Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Pluralism ...

stability and efficiency. This type of authority power is vested in a particular rationale, NOTES
system and ideology and not necessarily in the person who implements the specific of
that doctrine.
Here obedience is owed to rules rather than individuals, resulting in a government
based on regulations, not tradition or charisma. In Germany, it is often described as
Rechtsstaat: a state based on law. In Britain, It is referred to as Niti, the Indian legal
system.
Weber's Classification of Authority Illustration
Traditional Basis Custom and the established way Monarchy
of doing things
Charismatic Intense commitment to the leader and Many Revolutionary
his message Leaders
Legal Rational Rules and procedures the office, not the Bureaucracy
person
Source: Weber (1922) (ibid 12)

5.6 CLASSICAL ELITE THEORY

Great attention has been paid in the last few years to the contraposition between
people and the elite, perceived as the fundamental character of the populist discourse.
Within this frame of reference, both the people and elite express a conception of the
univocal will and the homogeneous interest of two collective bodies. To better understand
the polysemic term “elite”, it’s necessary to distinguish between two different uses of
the term. The first comes from the Latin word eligere, i.e. fit to be chosen and is used
to express a positive meaning. This meaning is popularised by the works of Vilfredo
Pareto who also used, as a synonym of the elite, the term” aristocrazia”, aristocracy,
referred to as the “best”. This meaning was refused by Gaetano Mosca, who found
the definition of the ruling class” more proper because the elite implied a eulogy of the
ruling class that, in many cases, it does not deserve. The second use of the word is
currently the most common and refers, in a neutral way, to every institution, organization,
and association that has elites in its structure.

Self-Instructional
Material 75
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES The first period of development of “Elite Theory” could be placed in the late
19th and early 20th centuries. Even if elitism was not a new topic- back in the eighteenth
century, there were precursors such as Saint Simon, Comte, Tocqueville, and Taine
who used the main concept of elite or managerial class to explain the major historical
and political transformations of society. The Italian school of Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo
Pareto, and Robert Michel, also known as the “Machiavellian School”, started this
new strand of study, focusing not only on the assumption that every society is
characterized by an asymmetric distribution of political power but investigating who
holds the power, how. On that basis, how, the power can move from one small group
to another?
The core of classical elitism is the notion of the inevitability of elites in any type
of government. They say that society is necessarily elite-driven. In the elitist view,
elites could only be substituted by another set of elites, which means the majority of
the masses is necessarily ruled by the minority. Thus, elite theory assumes that anyone
but not everyone could eventually become a member of the elite strata.

5.7 PARETO AND MOSCA ON ELITE THEORY

Elite theories have held a significant place in Western intellectual discourse since the
early 1900s, drawing interest from global political scientists and sociologists. Particularly
intriguing to those studying power distribution, influence, and decision-making authority
in societies, the examination of elite theories has grown in prominence over the past
few decades, notably following World War II. The post-war era, marked by the
independence of numerous Afro-Asian nations, has brought an increased focus on the
rise of new elites as a central theme in scholarly research.
Pareto characterized the elite as a class consisting of individuals with the highest
standings in their respective fields. According to him, elites encompass those who
score the highest on scales measuring various social values like power, wealth, and
knowledge. He identified two distinct classes within the elite: the governing elite, involving
individuals directly or indirectly influential in government, and the non-government
elite, which includes the rest. Pareto divided the overall population into two strata - the
non-elite lower stratum and the elite higher stratum, further classified into governing
and non-governing elites. For Pareto, studying historical changes entails an examination

Self-Instructional
76 Material
Structures of Power in Society Classical Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Pluralism ...

of elites, emphasizing that understanding decisions among the elite is more crucial for NOTES
societal history than events involving the broader masses.
In his influential work, “The Rise and Fall of the Elites,” Pareto formulated
several laws, with the first two emphasizing that human action primarily stems from
sentiment rather than logical reasoning. Pareto’s psychological framework posits that
human actions result from a combination of “residues” (major motivations) and
“derivations” (external elaborations). He identified six residues as the primary motivations
for action.
i. Combination, or the propensity to create and take on novel experiences.
Stated differently, the ability to be as crafty as a fox
ii. Preservation Persistence, or the propensity to assemble, to solidify, and
to create security. To put it another way, to be strong, capable of fighting,
and possess lion-like qualities.
iii. Expressiveness, or the propensity to use symbols to represent emotions.
iv. Social skills and inclination to form groups.
v. Integration and the propensity to uphold a positive self-concept.
vi. Sex, the propensity to interpret social interactions in an amorous manner
(Bhusan:187).
The primary idea Pareto made was that the Elite maintain their position of power
by fusing the slyness of a fox with the tenacity of a lion. To remain in power the elite
combines the quality cunningness of a fox and the perseverance of a lion.
Mosca uses the term ‘elite’ in a very restricted sense. By elite, he means the
ruling class. In a quoted book: The Ruling Class, he writes: “In all societies – two
classes of people appear – a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class,
always less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys
the advantages that power brings. In contrast, the second, the more in numerous
classes, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less
legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent, and supplies the first, in appearances at
least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential
to the viability of the political organism”. Additionally, he stated that across nations, a
minority of influential individuals holds control over the administration of public affairs,
a situation where the majority may or may not acquiesce. Mosca observed that it is the
minorities who govern the majority, as opposed to the reverse scenario.

Self-Instructional
Material 77
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES The organized minority, being a cohesive group, follows a unified direction,
inevitably leading to its dominance over the unorganized majority. The larger the political
community, the more challenging it becomes for the majority to coordinate and
counteract the minority. Additionally, the ruling minorities distinguish themselves from
the masses by possessing specific characteristics, either through inherent material,
intellectual, or moral superiority or by inheriting these qualities from esteemed individuals
with significant influence. In ancient times, military prowess was crucial, while in
contemporary societies, wealth served as the gateway to the political class. These
attributes mutually reinforce each other, as wealth begets political power and vice
versa, establishing a connection between affluence and influence. Other avenues for
social influence include personal publicity, quality education, specialized training, high
positions in the church, public administration, and the military, all of which are more
readily accessible to the wealthy than to the less affluent. (ibid: 190)
Mosca further highlights that, whether officially recognized or not, political classes
commonly tendency to become hereditary. He links this phenomenon to the force of
inertia in physics, suggesting that political forces naturally gravitate towards stability.
As a result, specific families acquire the qualities required for occupying significant
offices and maintaining dominance over an extended period. Even in democratic electoral
processes, successful candidates often display hereditary characteristics. This explains
why, in English, French, and Italian parliaments, there is a frequent occurrence of
family ties among members, involving sons, grandsons, brothers, nephews, sons-in-
law, and even relatives of current or former members and deputies.
He also discussed the concept of the ‘circulation of elites,’ wherein the
composition of the political class changes, typically by enlisting new members from
lower societal strata. Occasionally, this process involves incorporating new social
groups, and in some instances, established elites may be entirely replaced by a ‘counter
elite,’ as seen in revolutions (Bhushan: 191).
Mosca adopts a restrained stance on the use of force and leans towards
advocating for change through persuasion. He recommends that governing elites
gradually adjust the political system to align with shifts in public opinion. In democratic
political systems, the power of persuasion offers a range of effective tools for negotiating
with the opposition.
He was also in favour of a multiplicity of social forces. He also introduced the
concept of sub-elites comprising civil servants, managers of industries, scientists and
scholars and treated them as a vital element in society(ibid).

Self-Instructional
78 Material
Structures of Power in Society Classical Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Pluralism ...

NOTES
5.8 ROBERT MICHELS, JAMES BURNHAM &
CHARLES W. MILLS ON ELITE

Robert Michels introduces another aspect of the elite phenomenon in his work ‘Political
Parties: A Sociological Study of Modern Democracy (1962).’ Michaels identifies two
factors that bring leaders or elites closer to power: organization and psychological
aspects. In terms of organization, he emphasizes that political parties campaigning for
power need to efficiently coordinate activities such as organizing votes, canvassing
supporters, providing information for speakers, fundraising, and managing the party’s
financial structure and legal standing. These activities require expertise and planning
that the masses may lack, resulting in elites controlling party funds and communication
channels.
Regarding psychological aspects, Michaels notes that a significant portion of
the population remains apathetic toward public matters. Leaders who remain
psychologically committed to addressing public needs can thus retain leadership positions
within the party system. Michaels conducts an in-depth study of European Socialist
political parties and trade unions, particularly focusing on the German Socialist Party.
He finds that despite parties committing to democracy and socialism, a few leaders
wield significant power, a concept he terms the ‘iron law of oligarchy.’
James Burnham’s theory of the elite, as presented in his book ‘The Managerial
Revolution (1941), shifts the focus to the real functional power held by managers
rather than political representatives or businessmen in terms of control and ownership.
Burnham agrees with Marx on the connection between control of production and
political power, social prestige, and wealth. However, he proposes a different explanation
for the decline of capitalism, suggesting that the capitalist ruling class was eventually
displaced by technically indispensable managerial elites.
Charles Wright Mills’ book ‘The Power Elite’ (1956) marks a turning point in
the study of political elites. Mills conducts a comprehensive empirical, historical, and
sociological analysis across political, military, economic, and institutional hierarchy’s
top posts. He concludes that American society is dominated by a power elite, which
makes significant decisions without being accountable to the people. The power elite
controls the mass media, manipulating public opinion and maintaining power through
flattery, deception, and entertainment.

Self-Instructional
Material 79
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
5.9 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ELITE THEORY

Elite theory opposes pluralism or the sharing of power with any socio-political group.
The pluralist perspective within elite theory contends that decision-making involves
many dimensions and dichotomies among the elite, with all participants sharing equal
status regardless of possession, power, or rights. Key pluralist thinkers include Robert
A. Dahl and Seymour Lipset. Dahl in his book Polyarchy(1971) systematizes the
pluralistic approach, emphasizing the politically autonomous nature of pluralist elite
groups. He explores the concept of polyarchy, where regular elections and recruitment
of new members prevent dictatorship and demagogic populism, fostering a state of
equilibrium. In the book, he mentioned democracy which can thrive better when citizens
are being considered as ‘political equals. Poliarchies are competitive regimes with a
responsive mechanism to initiate change through free and fair elections and the inclusion
of new elites to rule (p:8).

5.10 CONCLUSION

The contemporary society undergoing significant political and social change requires a
fresh theoretical perspective on the elite. While the law of elite circulation in democratic
societies typically occurs peacefully, variations exist globally regarding power structures,
elite involvement in resource distribution, and their participation in the policy process.
Political scientists must continually refine their understanding of elites to address the
challenges faced by democratic societies and promote responsible and responsive
governance.

5.11 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

(i) What is the social structure of power, and how do they influence the people in
society?
(ii) What do you understand about classical elite theory? Explain it.

Self-Instructional
80 Material
Structures of Power in Society Classical Elitist Theory, Power Elites, Pluralism ...

(iii) How does the power elite dominate over the masses in society, what are the NOTES
features of the power elite, and evaluate it?
(iv) What is pluralism? Discuss various dimensions of Pluralism given by Robert
Dahl.

5.12 REFERENCES

 Hague, Rod & Martin Harrop, Palgrave Macmillan (2007), Comparative govt.
& Politics: An Introduction 7th edition
 Bhushan, Vidya (2011), Comparative Politics, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors
(P) Ltd. New Delhi
 Bottomore, T. B.(1972) Sociology: A Guide To Problems And Literature (revised
edition), S. Chand & Company Ltd: New Delhi.
 Mariotti, Claudia (2020), Elite Theory, P. Harris et al(eds.), The Palgrave
Encyclopedia of Interest Groups, Lobbying and Public Affairs, http://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-13895-0_67-1
 Walker, Jeck L. (1966), A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy, The
American Political Science Review, Vol. 60, No.2(Jan), Pp 285-95,
www.jstor.org/stable/1953356
 Lopez, Matias (2013), Elite Theory, Sociopedia.isa, DOI:10.1177/
2056846013112
 Sharma, L.N(1977), The theories of Elites: Impact and Relevance, The Indian
Journal of Political Science, Jan-March, vol.38, No1, Pp 64-81, http://
www.jstor.org/stable/41854775

Self-Instructional
Material 81
Comparing Regimes Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and Security Regimes

UNIT 6 NOTES

COMPARING REGIMES DEMOCRATIC,

AUTHORITARIAN, WELFARE, POPULISM
AND SECURITY REGIMES
J.S. Pathak

Structure
6.1 Learning Objectives
6.2 Introduction
6.3 Understanding the Nature of Political Regimes: Its Challenges and Objectives
6.4 Basis of Classification: From Number of Rulers and Nature of Authority
Exercised
6.5 Democratic Regimes: Nature and Characteristics
6.6 Authoritarian Regimes: Nature and Characteristics
6.7 Conclusion
6.8 Practice Questions
6.9 References

6.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

In this lesson students will be able to understand:-

 Understanding the Nature of Political Regimes
 Basis of Classification
 Democratic Regimes
 Authoritarian Regimes

Self-Instructional
Material 83
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
6.2 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will look into the nature of Authoritarian and democratic regimes. However,
in order to compare and contrast the two, it is necessary to get a basic idea on the
different kinds of regimes and the basis of their classification briefly. It will enable us to
get an understanding of how different kinds of regimes have been established with
changing political, social and economic conditions. The first section of this chapter
would define, what is meant by the term state, government, political system and political
regime in the context of this chapter. Then the following section would highlight the
challenges of classification of regimes. This chapter would also discuss the basis of
classification that has been used to characterise political regimes. For, this purpose this
chapter will focus on the number of people ruling and the nature of power the state
holds in relation to its subjects and political institutions. Also, this chapter would throw
light on the difference between authoritarian and democratic regimes in greater detail,
by highlighting some of the most fundamental aspects of these regimes. So, by the end
of this chapter, we should be able to get a glimpse of the basis of classification of
regime types and understand in detail the nature of authoritarian and democratic regimes.
As we proceed to understand the nature of authoritarian and democratic regimes,
it is necessary to identify with a working definition of terms such as the state, government
and political regimes or political systems. We often use these terms interchangeably,
especially the term state with government and vice versa. However, let us discuss the
meaning of these terms briefly for or better understanding. The state could be defined
as an organised political community, with a definite territory, sovereignty and a
government. While the government is the agency that acts on behalf of the state. Political
regimes can be defined as “the formal and informal structure of state and governmental
roles and processes” (Siaroff 2013:2). It represents a set of processes, norms and
culture that determines how the government functions. It refers to the pattern of
interactions between the various institutions, structures, the government and the civil
society of the state.

Self-Instructional
84 Material
Comparing Regimes Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and Security Regimes

NOTES
6.3 UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF POLITICAL
REGIMES: ITS CHALLENGES AND OBJECTIVES

Understanding the nature of regimes has been a great challenge due to the changing
nature of parameters to characterise a regime and also the presence of too many
variables, to an extent where there may be overlapping. However, understanding the
nature of regimes is useful to understand how governments function, facilitate better
governance and ensure human rights.
The earliest tradition of investigating regimes could be traced to 4th Century
B.C. Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle have contributed greatly to the tradition of
studying regimes. In Plato’s scheme of classification, he assigns five different kinds of
regimes with Aristocracy as the most desirable form of government, followed by
timocracy, then oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. For, Plato democracy was not a
very desirable form of government, since it implied a state of rule by all, with ultimate
freedom, leading to order less society. Aristotle after studying 158 constitutions, classified
regimes into Monarchy, Aristocracy, Tranny, Oligarchy and Democracy and even he
considered democracy as the most perverted form of government.
The modern state and rise of the Westphalian state have introduced several
changes, how we look at a modern state. The emergence of liberal democratic states,
the constitution and the factors such as freedom of expression and speech, the spectrum
of political and social rights have greatly shaped the nature of regimes a country may
have. However, with the process of decolonisation and cold war politics in the nineteenth
and twentieth century, the modern classification of regime types was begun broadly to
be classified under democratic and authoritarian states. However, such classification
has been considered majorly Eurocentric and often overrides a tendency of privileging
the west. These classifications have failed to take into account the socio-political realities
of post-colonial Asian and African states.

Self-Instructional
Material 85
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
6.4 BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION: FROM NUMBER
OF RULERS AND NATURE OF AUTHORITY
EXERCISED

Two major variables which have been employed to understand the nature of regimes
have been: the number of people ruling (who is ruling) and secondly how the ruling
body exercises power over the governed. In the case of the second criteria, power
has been a major basis of classification and a yardstick to investigate the nature of the
relationship the state may hold concerning its political institutions. The nature of the
relationship shared between the centre and the units determine whether the state is a
unitary or a federal state. Also, regimes may be classified based on the relationship the
executive and the legislative therefore it could be a parliamentary or a presidential
form of government.
A regime in which the source of power is highly centralised is called as a unitary
form of regime. On the other hand, a federal form of a regime, the power is distributed
amongst its provinces. The key features of a federal form of a government are as
follows: i) Written constitution ii) Independent judiciary iii) division of powers between
the centre and the states. Federations have come into existence as a result of written
agreements between states. It has a judiciary, to resolve disputes between the centre
and the states, or between the states. It also has a written constitution, which may be
rigid or flexible or a mix of both to ensure changes and the survival of the federation at
the same time. There is also a clear demarcation of powers between the centre and the
states so that each could exercise its jurisdiction on various subjects and sometimes
jointly on certain subjects often listed through a concurrent list. The Indian state is an
example of a federal state, with a written constitution, independent judiciary and clear
division of powers between the centre and the state. However, the Indian state is also
called as a federal state with a unitary bias, one could discuss the reasons why?
Before we proceed onto understanding the contemporary nature of regime types
let us look at how regimes may be classified based on the number of people who
executes political power.

Self-Instructional
86 Material
Comparing Regimes Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and Security Regimes

Type of Regime The number of people who rule and the nature of rule
NOTES

Monarchy It is a rule by one person. In such a kind of regime the monarch

is the head of the state. The nature of such regimes could vary
from constitutional; to symbolic to absolute monarchy (examples
may include Nepal, Jordan or medieval Europe, Britain)
Dictatorship One (examples may include Germany under Hitler’s and Italy
under Mussolini, or in the current times North Korea)
Oligarchy Rule by a few, often by the wealthy class. It is a kind of rule
where a certain class of people assumes rule over several aspects
of a regime (for instance South Africa under the apartheid regime)
Aristocracy Rule by few, such regimes are characterised by a rule by the
small ruling class. (examples of such regime types could be
ancient Greece)
Democracy Many (Examples of Democracy may include the United States
and India)

As we try to understand, what classifies as a Monarchical regime, which, may

range from constitutional monarchy to symbolic monarchy like in case of Britain to
absolute monarchy. A constitutional monarchy is a form of monarchy in which the rule
of the monarch is often determined by written laws and rules, based on the constitutional
provisions. Under such circumstances, the rule of the monarch may not be absolute.
Absolute monarchy, on the other hand, is more like an autocratic rule of the monarch,
which is not be regulated by any law, or custom or rule. In many constitutional
monarchies, the rule of the monarch is determined by the constitution and in many
instances, the position of the monarch is more a symbolic position, for instance in
Britain the position of the monarch is more symbolic than vested with real powers.
North Korea is often cited as an example of absolute monarchy, determined by
hereditary. Monarchy in both cases could be hereditary or elective or a combination
of both, however the nature of rule and how it may exercise its power and control over
the political and civil liberties of the population may vary. Instances of how countries
may have moved from the form of the monarchy to another may include Bhutan, which
moved from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy in 2003. Jordan and Kuwait
are other countries which have adopted constitutional monarchy, however, the amount
of power the monarch may continue to possess or exercise may still vary from one
country to another.

Self-Instructional
Material 87
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES Dictatorial regimes are the ones, in which political power is concentrated and
held by a leader, who could be referred to as the dictator. In such form of governments,
political pluralism and freedom of expression which is one of the most fundamental
aspects of civil liberties is restricted to maintain a stronghold of the dictator. When,
dictatorship tries to have complete control over all aspects of political, economic and
civil rights it may be characterised as a totalitarian state, which will be discussed
elaborately in the next sections of this chapter.
An oligarchy is a form of regime, in which the power is held is by a few groups
of people. These group of people may constitute the wealthy class, military or
economically more influential class of people. In many cases, oligarchies may be
hereditary or may not be hereditary. They also could be tyrannical and in some cases
not so. Since oligarchies consist of a rule by a few people, it could also be understood
as a rule by a minority. South Africa during the apartheid rule could be characterised
as a having an oligarchical rule, headed by a dominant racial group over the rest.
Aristocracy is a term that has been derived from a Greek word meaning rule of
the best. An aristocracy is a form of government in which a few rules, specifically the
ruling class, who are privileged to rule so. Plato and Aristotle believed that the state
should be governed by a group of few capable and the best class of citizens, who
would be selected through a very carefully drafted selection procedure. They often
contrasted Aristocracy which is a rule by a few (deserving candidates) over monarchy
which was the one of one. Interesting, the ancient Greek, considered aristocracy is as
a better form of government over hereditary monarchy since it did not correspond to
rule by the best. Plato and Aristotle considered Aristocracy better over democracy.
However, they did not consider aristocracy as a better form when it was corrupted in
the form of an oligarchy and considered worse than a corrupted form of Democracy
which they described as Mobocracy.
Next, after we have seen how we can classify regimes based on the number of
people who rules, we can classify regimes based on the government executes power
and holds power as mentioned below.
Type of Regime Its relationship with power and its execution

Totalitarian Absolute control over every aspect of life and governance

(examples may include Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
Greater German Reich)

Self-Instructional
88 Material
Comparing Regimes Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and Security Regimes

Autocratic Such a regime is also very controlling, however, it is less NOTES

controlling than a totalitarian regime (French empire under
Napoleon Bonaparte, Chile under Pinochet)
Authoritarian Such a regime is also very controlling, however, it is less
controlling than a totalitarian regime (some examples may include
People’s Republic of China, Jordan, Turkey)
Constitutional Under such regimes the amount of power exercised by the state
is controlled by rules that are laid out in the constitution and any
abuse of power is ensured by a system of check and balances.
Democracies Under such a regime the source of power lays with the people.
The elected representatives of the people are responsible for
exercising power on behalf of the people. Democracies may be
direct or indirect.

After we have understood the various existing kinds of regimes based on the
number of people ruling and its relationship with power, this section would specifically
deal in detail, the nature of authoritarian and democratic regimes.

6.5 DEMOCRATIC REGIMES: NATURE AND

CHARACTERISTICS

It refers to a political system characterised by the rule of the people. Democracy is

represented as a form of the regime in which people elect their representative. The
word Democracy comes from Greek Word Demos, meaning the people. It refers to
a kind of political rule, where the supreme power is vested with the people. In fact,
some of the earliest references for Democracy is traced to ancient Greece. For, instance
many of these ancient Greek city-states, had certain institutions in place which was
democratic in nature. In Athens a few could elect their representatives or officials,
thereby having an element of election and a system where rule by the majority was an
acceptable form of political process and it is considered due to the level of mass
participation by the masses (Heywood 2019:183). Both of these examples demonstrate
traces of democratic processes. Although, democracy at that time is not like the current
nature of democracy. The way we need to understand is the position of the individual
with regard to the community.

Self-Instructional
Material 89
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES Prevalence of democratic practices would be traced to the Indian subcontinent

as well with early social and political formations. Some of the prominent institutions
would be traced to 6.B.C, where a few people could exercise their participation
through the Sanga’s and Panchayats during the era of the Mahajanapads. However,
the nature of democracy then and the modern notions of democracy varies today.
As we begin to move away from the ancient period, we see that as the political,
cultural and economic changes begin to take place, so did the nature of state and
nature of political regimes. For instance, the nature of political regimes in the medieval
period was greatly influenced by the events such as the Renaissance in Europe and
eventually the treaty of Westphalia 1648 which that formalised the notion of a modern
state with territorial sovereignty as one of the fundamental aspects of a state (Heywood
2019: 124). Eventually, other many significant events in the United States such as the
passage of the Bill of Rights 1789 were landmark developments for the growth of
democratic ideals. The French revolution in 1798 too played a significant role, which
led to the establishment of the constitutional monarchy after abolishing the Ancient
regime, is considered to have laid some of the most fundamental aspects of modern
liberal democracy.
The 20th century was one of the most eventual periods in the context of the rise
of democratic regimes. The impact of the First World War with the victory of the Allies
was a period when democratic regimes received more legitimacy. However, the peace
between the interwar period and victory of the allies was short-lived, due rise and
popularity of authoritarian regimes. For instance, the rise of Nazism in Germany and
Mussolini in Italy, are some of the most striking examples of authoritarian regimes in
the 20th century. The cold war period too saw a period when the struggle between the
communist and the capitalist bloc influenced the nature of political regimes in many
countries. Also, other political developments such as the prominence of Stalinism in
Communist USSR, demonstrates how authoritarian states turned totalitarian in nature.
Having, mentioned that, the upcoming sections would provide a comparative analysis
of how the nature of authoritarian regime may differ from totalitarian regimes.
However, post-cold war, the dissolution of USSR, the decolonisation process
and civil rights movements, had impacted the gradual demise of non-democratic
regimes. Many former colonies of the imperial powers were to grant political autonomy/
sovereignty in lieu of cooperating with their war efforts of the imperial powers. For
instance, India was promised independence if India were to cooperate with Britain in
their war efforts against the axis powers. Representative governments started becoming

Self-Instructional
90 Material
Comparing Regimes Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and Security Regimes

more popular. Even today, many countries are making transitions concerning the nature NOTES
of political regimes they have. However, one of the greatest challenges of democracy
remain, that true democracy is a distant possibility. Appropriation of democracy by
vested interests and populist regimes have taken away the real essence of the objective
of a democratic political system.
The next section will discuss some of the major characteristics of a democratic
regime. The nature of a democratic regime is usually determined by the position of an
individual with respect to the community, civic and political rights.
When we speak of democracy in an everyday language, we refer to the rule of
majority as one of the basic principles of democracy, which implies the rule of the
people. Universal Adult Franchise and voting rights do constitute the core of any
democratic regime. However, majority rule does not naturally imply that a state may
be democratic. A true democracy, especially in countries with diverse ethnic and religious
composition has to ensure the concerns of the ethnic and religious minorities.
Political Pluralism is one of the most important aspects of a democratic regime.
In modern-day democracies and especially in states with a complex societal composition
and multiple institutions, political pluralism becomes a crucial characteristic of a well-
functioning democracy. One of the basic features of a democratic regime is the free
formulation of preferences through freedom of association, information and
communication (Linz 2000:58)
Democracies usually guarantee certain inalienable rights to its citizens. Freedom
of speech and expression, Religious and Cultural Freedom are some of the rights.
Political Freedom is another major characteristic of a democracy, which is
marked by the presence of civil liberties, mass participation, freedom of media and
press. Election of leaders either directly or indirectly is one of the core features of a
democratic regime.
Equality before the law and equal opportunities irrespective of caste, gender, or
religion is a fundamental feature of the modern democracies. For democracies to be
real there has to equality of opportunities in not just political, but social, educational
and economic sense (Gillin 1919: 704)
Economic freedom, the right to practice a profession of choice and absence of
absolute state control over economic activities have also been a part of liberal
democracies.

Self-Instructional
Material 91
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES Mass political mobilisation is a fundamental aspect of modern democracies since

representatives compete in elections for the purposes of governing (Boix and Stokes
2011:9).
Since political participation and freedom of expression may form a crucial feature
of democracies, therefore it is often marked by the presence of civil society groups.
However, it should also be noted that no democratic regime offers absolute
rights or political freedom. Often and at many instances rights as qualified in nature and
not absolute. For instance, one cannot hurt the sentiments of other communities in the
name of freedom of speech or make derogatory remarks against women. However, it
is also true that many at times a lot of these provisions in a democracy is
misappropriated. Alan Siaroff (2013: 117), identifies a few factors which make some
countries more democratic than others and they are political pluralism, level of economic
development, nature of development, the role of the military, population, homogeneity,
socio-cultural and regional factors too.
Democracies could be of two types, which are direct and indirect democracy.
In a direct democracy, people elect their representatives directly and govern directly,
for example, Switzerland. On the other hand, indirect democracy people elect their
representatives, so often called representative democracy. In representative
democracies, people elect their leaders indirectly and it is effective as long as the
relationship between the governed and the government is full-filing and reliable
(Heywood 2019:181). Representative democracies could be parliamentary,
presidential, liberal and illiberal too. Democracies may be characterised by a dominant
one-party system and also multi-party system. India has a representative form of
democracy, characterised by a phase with one-dominant party system in the immediate
post-independence days, and also with time saw an emergence of regional parties and
coalition politics. The American system has the feature of a two-party system with the
Republicans and the democrats. Britain can be characterised as having a multi-party
system, however since 1920 there have been two major parties, the labour party and
the conservative party have dominated politics. However, the one-party system is not
the same as a pure one-party system, which exits in countries like the Peoples Republic
of China. In a one-party dominant system, one party predominates over the rest,
whereas a pure one system is characterised by a single party, which is non-democratic
(Siaroff 2013:202)
We have discussed how different regimes differ from each other based on the
number of people who rule and the nature of power they wield over the political,

Self-Instructional
92 Material
Comparing Regimes Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and Security Regimes

economic, social and cultural sphere of the state and its subjects. By now it is already NOTES
evident that there is no strict categorisation of any regime as such, but only an identification
of some more prominent characteristics of these political systems. However,
democracies are also not without its pitfalls, often democracies have assumed
oligopolistic characteristics and also rivalries between political parties and opposition
creates disharmony too (Heywood 2019: 184). Also, there are different theories of
democratic thought which explore various forms of democracies such as pluralist,
liberal, substantive, deliberative (Hilmer 2011: 605-607).
A critical analysis of each of these regimes types, as in when we look at the
actual functioning of these political systems we may see that certain countries with a
democratic set up may not be as democratic as it may seem to be as enshrined in the
constitution. For instance, one of the major criticisms around democracy, apart from
Aristotle’s understanding of democracy as mobocracy is that it is a form of oligopolistic
form of government, in which a few rules over the entire state of affairs in the name of
the people.

6.6 AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES: NATURE AND

CHARACTERISTICS

Authoritarian regimes are characterised by governments which has a strong command

over power, often a centralised power structure. Such regimes are characterised by
limited political freedom. Under such regimes, political rights, freedom of religion and
political pluralism are very limited. Also, there may be overlapping of judicial, executive
and legislative functions of the state. Even today, many authoritarian regimes may have
features of a democratic system and a democratic system may have features of an
authoritarian regime. As, discussed earlier each of these regimes may have variations
and may often overlap with the characteristics of other regimes, however political
scientists have classified authoritarian regimes as oligarchic or autocratic, or rule by a
one-party or the military.
Alan Siaroff (2013:243-245), lists different kinds of authoritarian regimes which
may range from traditional, military, theocratic, to electoral authoritarianism. The
traditional authoritarian regimes are the ones that are based on a patron-client
relationship. Bureaucratic military apparatus is those which sustain themselves through

Self-Instructional
Material 93
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES and within the bureaucratic structure. Competitive authoritarian regimes are those
regimes which have democratic structures, but authoritarian in its functioning. Also, as
discussed in the previous sections, authoritarianism in its extreme form takes the shape
of a totalitarian state. Some of the fundamental characteristics of authoritarian regimes
are discussed in the section below.
Authoritarian regimes have a very controlled power structure; it usually has a
centralised power structure. It is not just political power which is centralised, even
economic power may be highly centralised. In authoritarian regimes or non-democratic
set up, a lot of the rules are left to the rulers to decide and not independent bodies
(Linz 2000: 59)
One of the core aspects of anAuthoritarian regime is that it lacks political pluralism.
Such regimes lack a spirit to accommodate any opposition or presence of alternate
institutions. Authoritarian regimes are less tolerant of diverse ethnic and religious
composition.
Most often, such regimes sustain on use of violence or coercion. Any non-
adherence to the dictates of state may invite very harsh punishments. Secret killings,
arrests become a common feature, for instance, Nazi Germany during Hitler’s reign
was based on an extensive spy and surveillance system and often resorted to force to
suppress any opposition or alternative thinking.
It is often marked by an indefinite rule by one political power, often maintaining
its position through abuse of power. Such leaders often come to power not necessarily
people elect them or grant consent but often occupy positions of power through coercion
and even populist propaganda. Such leaders remain in power by disseminating fake
information, with total control over mass media and freedom of speech. Therefore,
controlled media and freedom of the press is another feature of such regimes.
Authoritarian regimes are characterised by limited civil liberties and attempts
are made to control civil liberties.
Lack of mass mobilisation and mass participation in political affairs become a
dominant feature of many authoritarian regimes due to the use of severe coercion and
state repression.
History had examples of many authoritarian regimes, however, with the end of
second world war, many countries moved away from authoritarianism to democracy.
Factors such as the use of force or coercion alone have not been able to hold such

Self-Instructional
94 Material
Comparing Regimes Democratic, Authoritarian, Welfare, Populism and Security Regimes

regimes in power although it has been a crucial factor, for instance, Pol Pot was ousted NOTES
out of power after killing two million Cambodians (Gandhi and Przeworski 2: 2007).
Factors such as the end of decolonisation, end cold war, fall of Soviet acted as
a catalyst for the shift away from authoritarian regimes. Arab Spring in 2010 was
another event which began in Tunisia and spread to many countries such as Libya and
Egypt challenged the authoritarian regimes. However, even today we have many
authoritarian regimes such as North Korea and the Peoples Republic of China exist.

6.7 CONCLUSION

At the end, we need to understand that there is no strict mode of classification of

regime types. Political scientists have classified regimes on based on the nature of the
relationship between the ruler and the ruled, civil and political liberties, the relationship
between various organs of the government.
We have learnt that political regimes could be classified based on the number of
people ruling, such as Monarchy, Dictatorship, Aristocracy, Oligarchy to Democracy.
A monarchical rule may be constitutional, symbolic or autocratic. Then also based on
the nature of power its exercises which is authoritarianism, autocratic, totalitarianism,
constitutionalism and democracy. Accordingly, there may be different forms of
democracy based on the nature of the relationship shared between the executive and
the legislature and also the mode of participation; direct and indirect democracy.
We have discussed the characteristics of authoritarian and democratic regimes
as well. One of the most important aspects we need to keep in mind is the nuanced
difference between the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, although both may have
similar features as well.
The process of decolonisation, especially after the post-cold war has introduced
complex changes in many Asian and African countries, therefore new modes of
classification become a necessity for a more meaningful study of the various political
systems across the world.

Self-Instructional
Material 95
 Comparative Government and Politics

NOTES
6.8 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. Describe the understanding the Nature of Political Regimes and its Challenges.
2. Differentiate between Number of Rulers and Nature of Authority.
3. Critically analyse the Democratic Regimes.
4. Briefly explain Authoritarian Regimes.

6.9 REFERENCES

 Boix Carles and Susan C. Stokes (2011), in Overview of comparative politics,

in Robert E. Goodin(ed.) Oxford Handbook of Political Science.
 Gandhi, Jennifer and Adam Przeworski. 2007. “Authoritarian Institutions
and the Survival of Autocrats.” Comparative Political Studies 40, no. 11
(November): 1279-1301.
 Gillin, L. J (1919), “Origins of Democracy”, American Journal of Sociology,
24(6):704- 714.
 Heywood, Andrew (1997), Politics, Macmillan, London.
 Hilmer, D, Jefferey (2011), ‘Modern Democratic Thought’, in Ishiyama, J. T.
and Breuning, M. (eds.) 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Book.
Los Angeles, Sage: 605-614.
 Juan J. Linz. 2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder:
Lynne Reiner, pp. 1-63.
 Siaroff, Alan. (2013). Comparing Political Regimes- A Thematic Introduction
to Comparative Politics. Toronto, University of Toronto.

Self-Instructional
96 Material
 Notes
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
 Notes
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

20CUS01304
 5mm

COMPARATIVE
GOVERNMENT

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

AND POLITICS
B.A. (PROGRAMME) POLITICAL SCIENCE
SEMESTER-IV
MINOR PAPER
DSC-7

READING NOTES
MINOR PAPER (DSC-7)

20CUS01304