Chapter 7: Comparative Politics

What is comparative government?

Comparative government examines formal politics. This means that in comparative government the focus is on countries’ political institutions and constitutions. In this scenario, the studies concentrate on formal institutions like the legislature, executive, bureaucracy, and judiciary.

What is comparative politics?

Comparative politics is a subfield of political science that studies power and domestic politics among countries. Comparativists like to 1) develop broad theories; 2) make a general comparison of political systems as well as events; 3) explore various interests in comparative work which is based on understanding political events and systems. In general, comparative politics, the term “politics” holds a specific significance because it means giving dimension to the political as such – political action and activity, political procedure, political culture, and political power.

How does the scientific method work along with the comparative method?

Like all other social sciences, political science does not have a real lab experience. This does not mean that political scientists do not try to work toward a more scientific position in their studies. Here is the process:

Create a theory— “[T]heories help us explain and predict phenomena of interest and, in consequence, to make intelligent practical decisions.” Theories “are concerned with the how and why of empirical phenomena, not with what should be.”¹

Develop hypotheses—”A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a research problem, expressed in the form of a clearly relation between the independent and the dependent variables. […] A hypothesis is constructed and then tested. […] Researchers derive hypotheses either deductively from theories, inductively on the basis of direct observations, by using intuition, or by using a combination of these approaches.”²

Identify variables—“[C]oncepts are converted into variables. It is in the form of variables that our concepts appear in hypotheses and are tested. […] A variable is an empirical property that can take on two or more values.”³

Dependent variable—The dependent variable is the variable that the researcher seeks to explain.⁴

Independent variable—This is the explanatory variable. The independent variable is the value controlled by researchers.⁵

Choose between qualitative and quantitative studies—statistical studies tend to be large scale statistical studies while case studies use one or a few case studies generally studying a single political phenomenon. It is difficult to control for all variables because there is not a controlled environment like a laboratory. In either case, the studies are designed to produce reliable knowledge.

Democracy and Authoritarianism

Having briefly examined how the scientific method is used in comparative politics, the chapter now turns to a comparison of forms of governments – democratic and authoritarian. Democracy can be defined by its two Greek roots. Demos means “the people”; kratein is “to rule.”⁶ So democracy is understood as “rule by the people.” “Perhaps rule by the people can better be conceptualized with the notion of “self-government” because it provides a fundamental distinction from authoritarianism which relies on the idea of citizen obedience compelled through coercion.⁷ Comparativists certainly are concerned with the contrasts between democratic governments and authoritarian ones, but much effort is devoted to describing and explaining variations within the categories than between them. That is the approach taken in this chapter, which first examines democracies and then authoritarian regimes.

Democracies

Democracies may be categorized in a variety of ways. For instance, studying democracies allows for this brief division: 1) social democracies; 2) participatory democracy; 3) substantive democracy; and 4) liberal democracies.

Social democracies gained strength as a response to the two world wars; and the need to create a system that allows for political, social, civil, and economic rights. Many of the Western European countries are considered social democracies. Economic life in social democracies is regulated.

Participatory democracy is included in various political systems. This type of democracy moves beyond institutions and electoral processes. Participatory democracy demands that citizens actively participate in national and local politics, in activities like protests, workers reforms, civil rights reforms, etc.

Substantive democracy allows individuals to hold elected officials accountable by calling, inquiring about actions and legislation, and mandating that elected officials take positions that align with their constituents publicly.

Liberal democracy allows for political and civil rights that can be limited at times, such as in the cases of apartheid South Africa and the United States. In general, liberal democracies are more institutional in their practicing of democratic principles. Liberal democracies acknowledge limited social and economic rights. In most liberal democracies, individual freedoms are recognized along with competitive electoral systems of government.

Another way to differentiate among democracies is by observing legislative-executive relations. Using that criteria, three types of democratic systems have been identified: parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential. Each will be described beginning with the parliamentary system.

Parliamentary System

Most Americans are not familiar with parliamentary systems, one of the oldest forms of democracy. In the United States, one of the elements of the democracy is the concept of separation of powers. A parliamentary system, however, is characterized by “the fusion of powers” (sometimes referred to as “the connection of powers”) Great Britain, the world’s oldest parliamentary system, has an executive, known as the Prime Minister. They are elected by the political party that wins the most seats in the lower house (House of Commons) of the legislature (Parliament). Separation of powers is not a primary concern of parliamentary systems.

Citizens vote for members of parliament (MPs). This vote is a vote for the party to gain more seats in the legislature. The more seats a political party wins, the closer the party is to elect the country’s Prime Minister. The executive branch is a product of 1) how well the political party does in an election to gain a majority of the popular vote; or 2) how well political parties form coalitions to get a majority in parliament to then select the prime minister.

The Prime Minister (PM) is elected from the legislative body. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party as well as the head of government. As the head of government, the Prime Minister appoints the cabinet members. These ministers will head the various bureaucracies as well as foreign affairs. While members of parliament can call for a “vote of no confidence” and thus force the Prime Minister to resign if a majority in parliament chooses a vote of no confidence, the Prime Minister can call to dissolve the parliament. There is a balance of power in a parliamentary system. Theresa May received an unsuccessful vote of no confidence in January of 2019. There were not enough votes to remove her and the cabinet from power. Interestingly enough, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party came to power in 1979, because of a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister James Callaghan of the governing Labour Party.

In most parliamentary systems the PM is a powerful position. However, in a coalition government the PM has less power. In a coalition government, cabinet positions come from the political parties that formed the coalition including that of the PM. The opposition in parliament offers its objections and debate on legislation or other actions by ministers and by the PM. They have a voice in parliament. Today the media is also an outlet for the opposition to voice its disapproval and to reach the public. In parliamentary systems, some legislatures are unicameral and others are bicameral. In Britain, there is the House of Lords (the upper chamber) and the House of Commons (the lower chamber).⁸ The House of Lords continues to suffer from decreased power and even relevance in governing. The House of Commons has more governing power, and it is there that the bulk of the legislative agenda takes shape. Sweden has a parliamentary system, with a unicameral legislature (Riksdag).⁹ In the Swedish system coalition governments have been typical in the last several elections. In both Britain and Sweden, the head of state is the monarch. Both countries are considered to have a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. Other examples of parliamentary systems are:

There are many countries that function with a parliamentary system, and each must be studied independently. Each country is unique. Parliamentary systems are more effective forms of government than presidential systems, particularly in legislative output.

Presidential Systems

Generally, presidential systems offer clear separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary branches. The constitutions in presidential systems offer specific powers to each branch of government as well as checks and balances. Presidential systems offer independent elections for the executive branch (President) and for the legislature (Congress or Assembly, etc.). One of the most studied presidential systems is the United States. Presidents in the United States are indirectly elected by an Electoral College while in Chile the president is elected directly by the voters in a “majority runoff with a 50 percent threshold.”¹¹ In most presidential systems it is difficult to remove a president from office; the method used is impeachment. Presidential powers vary, but in presidential systems most legislatures have a great deal of power. Formal and informal powers of a president influence how successful the president is. Formal powers are established in the countries’ constitutions, such as in Article II of the United States Constitution. Chile is in flux as a referendum passed in October of 2020: “With over 99% of the votes counted so far, about 78% had approved the option of a fresh charter to replace one drafted in 1980 under the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet.”¹² This means that a new constitution is being written which will be presented to the voters for their approval in a referendum in 2022.

“An overwhelming majority of 79% also voted in favour of the new constitution being drawn up by a body which will be 100% elected by a popular vote rather than one which would have been made up by 50% of members of Congress.”¹³

Semi-Presidential systems

Semi-presidential systems are the newest of the three systems of government and they are very diverse in rights, duties, and responsibilities of the executive branch. The key feature of a semi-presidential system is that the president is directly elected via popular ballot, and the prime minister is elected by the legislature, most likely a parliament. This system is increasingly popular. The success or the failure of this system is based on how well the constitution identifies and separates the dual powers of the executive. The PM generally has legislative functions more focused on domestic policy, and the president is more focused on constitutional issues, foreign policy, and emergency domestic events such as natural disasters. French semi-presidentialism is unique and one of the most studied.¹⁵ Semi-presidentialism in France produced the concept of “cohabitation.” This happens when the PM and the president emerge from different political parties. In the French case, the PM is appointed by the president even if they are from different political parties. François Mitterand, one of the most iconic French presidents (1981-1995), a socialist, appointed Jacques Chirac (1986-1988) as Prime Minister in 1986 because Rally for the Republic (a Gaullist conservative party) won the most legislative seats in that election. To govern effectively, the socialist president and the conservative PM had to exercise cohabitation strategies of compromise and power sharing. Other countries have different models of semi-presidential systems. In Portugal, the cohabitation strategy works as long as power sharing is in place as the current dual executive demonstrates. António Costa, PM from the Socialist Party, was elected by a coalition government from the parliament, The Assembleia da República.¹⁶ The President is elected by popular vote, President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa is a conservative from the Social Democratic Party.¹⁷ Cohabitation between these two executives has been particularly successful during the COVID-19 pandemic and in managing financial issues with the Portuguese credit with the European Union (EU). Finland offers another example of a semi-presidential system. In 2019, voters elected one of the youngest group of women to form a coalition government. The PM along with the other coalition parties have a younger generation of women heading the Finnish government.¹⁸ PM Sanna Marin was elected from the Social Democratic Party of Finland, a historically center left party.¹⁹ The president of Finland is Sauli Niinistö, an independent who was re-elected in 2018.²⁰ As constitutionally required, Niinistö was reelected by an absolute majority, over 62% of the vote, and thus, avoided a runoff election.²¹

Political Parties and Electoral Systems

In the description of all three democratic systems, the reader no doubt has noticed features that are common to all three aside from legislatures and executives. Preeminent among them would be political parties and electoral systems. Both play prominent roles in all democracies. A political party is “any political group that presents at elections, and is capable of placing through elections, candidates for public office.”²² Electoral systems are “formal, legal mechanisms that translates votes into control over political offices and shares of political power.”²³ It is to those subjects that this chapter now turns.

Political Parties

Contrary to other organizations, political parties seek to gain control of government by promoting candidates who win elections. Political parties have hierarchical organizations and seek candidates who can and who want to win elections. In democracies, political parties have long and complicated histories in both the western and the non-western worlds. There are both strong and weak political parties. Political parties promote political action and participation. Voters choose parties that best identify with their interests. In democracies, identity politics has expanded into political party choices. For comparative purposes, political parties have been classified on several criteria. For instance, parties can be classified based on membership. They may be large, mass based and essentially allow anyone to join for any reason or they may be smaller, cadre parties where membership is limited. Another way to distinguish political parties is by their type of appeal; they may be ideological or non-ideological. Ideological parties “tend to be narrowly based parties with very specific interests and voter appeal.”²⁴ The opposite of an ideological party would be catch-all parties, “ones which focus above all on maximizing votes; their platforms become like large vats filled with as many popular ideas and promises as possible.”²⁵

Different kinds of political parties in the same country leads to the subject of party systems. One of the most common classification schemes is the number of parties found in a country.²⁶. Typical categories are one-party, one party-dominant, two-party, and multi-party systems. One-party systems would be those in which only one political party exits and governs. These systems typically are found in nondemocratic countries. The Soviet Union and communist regimes in Eastern Europe were examples of one-party systems. China and Cuba are current examples.

One-party dominant systems are those in which several parties compete for power, but one always wins. These parties have legislative majorities, and prime ministers and presidents come from those parties. Historical examples are India, Japan, and Mexico. India’s Congress Party governed from independence until the early 1980s. Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ruled the country from the early twentieth century revolution until recently. Japan’s Liberal Party dominated politics after WWII until the 1990s. A current example is South Africa with the African National Congress as the dominant party.

Two-party systems are those in which numerous parties may compete in elections, but only two have any realistic chance of winning enough elective offices to control the government. With its Democratic and Republican parties, the United States is an example of this system. A variation of the two-party system is what has been dubbed the two-and-a-half party system. In this system, the two major parties are relatively equal in strength, and to form a government one of them will enter a coalition with a small party. Recent examples of this would be the British Conservative Party’s 2017 coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party, a small party in Northern Ireland, and Germany’s Christian Democrats coalescing with the small Free Democratic Party.

Multi-party systems are those in which numerous parties compete in elections and rarely does any single party win enough elective offices to control the government. This situation results in coalition governments consisting of two and often more parties. Italy is a classic example of a multi-party system. The current governing coalition consists of at least four political parties.

No discussion of political parties would be complete without an examination of electoral systems. Political parties are defined in terms of their relationship to elections, and as the reader probably suspects, elections are not conducted the same in every democracy.

Electoral systems

The globe’s two dominant electoral systems are the single-member-plurality system (SMP) and proportional representation (PR). The SMP has two major characteristics: (1) one person represents a district and (2) winners are determined by plurality (whoever gets the most votes). The two major characteristics of PR are (1) multi-member districts (more than one person represents a district) and (2) winners in each district are determined by the percent of the vote captured by each political party.

In general, the SMP is associated with a two-party system, and PR is closely related to multiparty systems. To understand the relationship, consider the following two examples.

Party A wins the election and the seat with a 40% plurality. If this scenario continues over time, the smaller parties (C and D) might well disappear. Another possibility is the creation of two equal coalitions – Party BC and Party AD. In either case the number of effective parties has been reduced.

In this scenario, all four parties that contested the election in the district won at least one seat. This makes the disappearance of any of these parties unlikely. Similarly, the likelihood of an electoral coalition is reduced until after the election. Thus, PR encourages more effective parties; small parties can still win elections and gain representation in the legislature.

Varieties of the SMP and PR exist. A plurality is not enough in all SMP systems. In French presidential elections as well as those to the National Assembly (lower house of the French legislature), if no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast in the first round, there is a second-round runoff between the top two vote recipients. Runoff elections with the intent of securing an eventual majority winner are also common in some elections in the southern states of the United States. Had it not been for the necessity of securing a majority in the two runoff elections in Georgia for the U.S. Senate, Republicans would have won one of the seats in November of 2020 with a plurality and would have been in control of the U.S. Senate. The majority requirement, however necessitated the two run-off elections in January of 2021 both of which were won by the Democratic Party giving it control of the Senate.

Three interesting varieties of PR are the closed party-list, the open party list, and ranked choice voting (RCV). The closed party list is a ranking of candidates by the political party. If ten candidates are being elected, and Party A’s share of the vote entitles it to four seats the first four names on the party’s list are declared elected. The other variety, the open party list, is used by most European democracies. This variation allows the voters to rank the candidates. If Party A is entitled to four seats, the top four names of the list will be elected, but it is a list the order of which is determined by the voters. The second variation of PR is problematic for party unity because it can lead to competition among candidates of the same party.²⁷

RCV, known among political scientists as “the single transferrable vote,” also involves the ranking of candidates by the voters, but the ranking is inter-party, not intra-party as in the open party list. Assume 100,000 voters cast ballots in a multi-member district in which 4 representatives are to be elected. The first step is to determine how many votes are needed to win. The formula in this scenario is number of votes cast divided by number of seats plus one: 100,000/(4 +1) or 20,000 votes. 20,000 votes are needed for election. Assume six candidates are seeking election. The voters rank the candidates one through six, one being their most preferred candidate and six being their least preferred candidate. If any candidate wins 20,000 votes or more, they are elected. If a candidate is elected with more than 20,000 votes the excess of 20,000 votes are transferred to the second choice on the ballots. If none of the remaining candidates has 20,000 votes or more, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and her second place votes are distributed among the remaining candidates (not to those who have the required 20,000 votes). The process repeats itself until four candidates are elected. An advantage of this electoral system is a reduction in the number of wasted votes, votes that are cast for individuals who fail to get elected. ²⁸

Another interesting variation of the SMP and PR is a combination of the two. Both Germany and Russia elect members to the lower house of their national legislatures using both systems. Approximately one-half of the members of both legislatures are elected using the SMP and the other half are chosen by PR. In each country, the voters make two choices; they vote for a candidate (SMP) and they vote for a party (PR). The essential difference between the two is that Germany’s PR districts are the various states (länder) while Russia uses the entire nation as one election district for PR purposes.²⁹

Having examined the SMP and PR as well as their variation, a question can be raised. Do the differences matter when it comes to electoral outcomes? Additional differences between the SMP and PR are found in the consequences associated with each: wasted votes, fairness, democratic, and stability. Fewer votes are wasted with PR. In the example above, every political party won at least one seat; in other words, every vote cast resulted in the election of a candidate. With the SMP, however, only one party’s candidate was elected, so the rest of the votes for the other parties (60 percent in the example) could be considered “wasted.”

PR is fairer insofar as numerous viewpoints will be represented from the district as opposed to one in the SMP. PR could also be considered more democratic than the SMP. If the electorate is divided in its values and beliefs, the election results are an accurate reflection of those divisions. The SMP is more likely to result in an electoral majority than is PR, but that majority may be artificial because the voters are not being presented with viable alternatives.

When the issue of stability is raised, however, the SMP, in most circumstances outperforms PR. Assuming a normal distribution of voters, the two major parties will locate themselves where the voters are. One may be slightly left of center with the other being slightly right of center. The differences between the two parties will not be that great, and alternations of power ordinarily will not result in wide policy swings. Consider now how PR can work. The parties may vary significantly in ideology and policy preferences. With no party likely to win an absolute majority of seats in the legislature, the resulting coalition may prove ineffective and unstable. The coalition may be unable to provide solutions to problems because doing so may result in the collapse of the coalition as parties opposed to proposed policy solutions leave the government. An unusual, but interesting example is provided by Italy. Italy is a multi-party system and uses PR. In Italy’s seventy years as a post-WWII democracy, the country is in its sixty-fourth government. Israel is also a multi-party system that uses PR. From 17 September 2019 to 23 March 2021, four elections were needed before a coalition government could finally be produced.³⁰

The Judiciary

The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets laws made by the legislature. Supreme courts and courts of last appeal interpret the country’s constitution. Interpretation of law emerges from ancient Greece, ancient Roman jurists, and the Justinian code of law to name only of a few. While today the term judicial review is used more commonly, the practice is ancient. Judicial review is the process whereby a court decides if a law or an action of another branch of government contradicts that country’s constitution. Judicial review is most highly developed in democracies with independent judiciaries. Judicial independence means the ability of judges to do their job (decide cases) independent of political pressures. Judicial independence is found in varying degrees in democratic regimes; however, it is less certain in non-democracies.

Rule of law is the principle that the equal application of law occurs at all levels of the society. In democratic societies, the adjudication of conflicts is through law with an independent judiciary. In non-democratic societies, the rule of law is known to be applied in an arbitrary manner. For the purpose of this chapter, there are three types of laws: 1) common law; 2) customary law; and 3) Shari’ah law. Common law emerges out of the British tradition. In the courts, judges use common law and past decisions (precedent) to decide the case before them. Customary law emerges from ancient Greek law, Roman law, the Justinian “The Digest,” and the Napoleonic code of law. Customary law, in particular the Napoleonic code, is important because it has modernized legal systems of law because of colonialism. Judges are expected to follow the law, i.e., interpret the law, and not rely as much on precedence. The final type of law, Shari’ah law, is complicated because interpretation and application are diverse. Shari’ah law has its history in Muslim religious practices and conventions as well as other regional tribal traditions. Shari’ah has its main source the Holy Qura’n (text dictated by the Holy Prophet Mohammed), the Hadith or the sayings of the Holy Prophet Mohammed, the Sunnah or the actions of the Holy Prophet Mohammed, and finally, fatwas or the rulings of Islamic scholars. In this legal tradition, Muslim jurists or judges interpret law and are called fuqaha’ (it is the plural of faqih). Fuqaha’ (Muslim jurists) have latitude in interpretation of Muslim jurisprudence and this produces a rule of law that has elements of unpredictability. In some countries, law is a mix of customary law and Shari’ah. This produces a complex legal system.

Criminal Justice

Democracies practice two different types of criminal justice, the adversarial ideal and the inquisitive system. The adversarial ideal has three major characteristics: (1) two adversaries present evidence before a judge; (2) a neutral judge whose role is to ensure due process; (3) and a jury determines guilt or innocence. The assumption of the adversarial ideal is “innocence until proven guilty,” and the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This system is most common among Anglo-American nations.³¹ The inquisitive system is characterized by prosecutors who seek the truth. Prosecutors are unlikely to bring a case to trial if the evidence is not substantial against the defendant. A second feature of the inquisitorial system is activist judges. Judges become involved in the interrogation of witnesses in the courtroom. A final characteristic of this system is the rare use of jury trials. Most cases are heard by a judge or a panel of judges. In the inquisitorial system the presumption is guilt, and the accused must prove their innocence.

Political Culture

The final subject to which the reader is introduced as the chapter transitions to undemocratic political systems is political culture, “a society’s norms for political activity.”³² These are the beliefs and values which guide the political behavior of any nation. Political culture has a profound influence on the ability of any society to resolve conflict. Widely shared beliefs and values provide an atmosphere that enhances the likelihood of peaceful resolution of differences within a society. Democracies typically are associated with competition and peace resolution to conflict. On the other hand, there are societies that have differences but lack an overarching set of beliefs. That situation renders collective, peaceful problem solving by community participation tenuous at best and often results in authoritarian governments for the sake of maintaining order.

Studies of political culture often raise the question of the presence of a democratic political culture. Using a concept developed by Almond and Verba developed in their classic The Civic Culture, this question can be raised: are democracies associated with a “civic culture,” one that values citizen participation in public affairs³³ whereas undemocratic political systems lack the values of a civic culture? An associated question relates to causality. Is the development of a democratic political culture a necessity for the emergence of democracy, or is a democratic political culture the logical byproduct of the presence of democratic institutions? Consider the case of Germany. Here is a case where democratic institutions preceded a supportive culture. Post-World War II, Germans were willing to give democracy a chance, but could not be counted upon to defend the nascent democracy in a time of crisis. Seventy years later, Germans have “a solid consensus on the basic values institutions, and processes of parliamentary democracy.”³⁴ The Great Depression of the 1930s is given a great deal of credit for the collapse of Germany’s interwar Weimar Republic, a democratic experiment. The Great Recession of 2008-2009, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, passed with “no significant impact on support for democratic values, processes, and institutions.”³⁵ The example of Germany is not intended to answer the issue of cause. What it illustrates is that political culture changes. For instance, is the failure of Russia to democratize after 1991 the product of centuries of authoritarian rule which produced an undemocratic culture which reformers simply could not overcome? In other words, is Russia doomed to an authoritarian future? That is a tempting explanation for Russia’s failure and prediction for its future. But more questions are raised than answered. If an authoritarian culture was so predominant in the country, from where did the pressures for democratic reform come? That question is not easily answered if the principle causal factor is a static political culture. As a matter of fact, how was the development of any democracy possible at all given the prevalence of authoritarian regimes throughout history? Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State, dismisses cultural explanations of failure to democratize as “a myth that has fallen to the reality of democracy’s universal appeal.”³⁶

Culture changes, but that change typically occurs slowly. That is because of the impact of political socialization, the process by which a political system’s beliefs and values are transmitted from generation to generation. Another way to approach the subject of political culture is to view it as a process of learning what being a part of a country’s political life means. “The political socialization process encompasses the multiplicity of messages, conscious or unconscious, that individuals receive about how to think and act politically.”³⁷ Numerous institutions are associated with the intergenerational communication of political culture: family, schools, media, peers, churches, to name the more important ones. Another source of maintaining the political culture is the performance of the political system. As people have experiences with the political system, they are learning. In general, if a political system is functioning according to its promises, it will endure without significant change. If, however, its promises are not matched by performance, then changes in beliefs and values about it can be expected. All political systems are buffeted by challenges. Technological and associated economic developments are major sources of new beliefs and values which can result in significant social change and put pressure on existing political institutions to either adapt or be swept away in revolutionary upheavals. Either way, the political culture will be modified.

Authoritarian Regimes

Most of the features that have been described in democratic systems are not relevant in authoritarian systems. In authoritarian regimes or non-democracies, political parties generally are reduced to one ruling party along with a weak opposition with little to no access to power. In totalitarian regimes and in authoritarian regimes with weak institutions, the personality cult is more pervasive. In this case, the ruler is glorified and gains some divine characteristics, much like the Kim family³⁸ in the Republic of North Korea. Nevertheless, a variety of authoritarian systems can be found throughout the world: monarchy, military junta, bureaucratic authoritarian, theocracy, and hybrid regimes.

Monarchy

Monarchies like the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia continue to maintain power, while making insignificant changes in local elections³⁹ and allowing women to drive. The last issue continues to be a contested element of political and social life in Saudi Arabia. Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto ruler, continues to be a problematic figure in Saudi Arabian politics, yet showing all the signs of a charismatic and personalist leader. His alleged connection with the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 showed a crown prince sympathetic to the use of brutal violence to silence opposition.

Military Juntas

Military juntas are associated with what is known as a coup d’ etat. The military may decide to intervene suddenly in a nation to bring about an end to corruption in the government. Military rule typically lacks legitimacy. On February 1, 2021, the democratically elected semi-civilian government of Myanmar (formerly Burma) was toppled by a military coup.⁴⁰

Bureaucratic Authoritarianism

One of the problems with rule by the military is legitimacy. To enhance its legitimacy, the military may decide to share rule with the bureaucracy, hence bureaucratic authoritarianism. The so-called upper bourgeoisie (high ranking military officers and individuals in the upper echelon of the bureaucracy) provides the principle social base of this form of authoritarianism. Pragmatism rather than ideology is to be the basis of decision making. The main tasks of bureaucratic authoritarianism are “the restoration of ‘order’ by means of the political deactivation of the popular sector, on the one hand, and the “normalization” of the economy, on the other.”⁴¹

Hybrid Regimes

Traditional authoritarian regimes have seen a decline. Authoritarian leaders like Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea are examples of personalist leaders. These leaders use personal relationships to secure power from elites. They use charisma to maintain a connection with the population. These regimes are not often challenged because their leaders rule with fear and dogma while providing for minimum security for the general population. In general, most personalist types of regimes are associated with strong executives. Constitutions are weak as are most of the governing institutions, which do not have the power to exercise necessary checks and balances or even meaningful separation of powers.

In a post-Cold War world (1989), hybrid regimes have become somewhat popular in parts of the world, like Eastern Europe and the Middle East. This is important because new authoritarian regimes allow for limited electoral competition and for elections. Opposition is required in these new authoritarian regimes, but further democratization and modernization is nearly impossible. Economic progress is necessary, but it is done within the constraints of an authoritarian regime. Examples of this type of regime are currently found in Egypt with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and in Russia with Vladimir Putin. These pseudo democratic regimes are emerging as a product of an electorate that has gone global with a false sense of democratic normalcy. The attempt at liberalization has increased these hybrid authoritarian regimes’ institutional capacity to execute some level of stability and predictability for society. These hybrid regimes offer elements of democracy, yet it is all a façade.

Failed States

A final category of states – and a complicated one – is failed states. Assessing which states fall into this category is difficult. Failed states share numerous commonalities: weak or no functioning institutions, loss of sovereignty, lack of capacity to secure territory, and neglect of human security. Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen are often put into the category. The one feature shared by these countries is not their inability to meet policy objectives; it simply is their inability “to provide the functions that define them as states – they’re unable to coerce or successfully control the inhabitants in their territory.”⁴²

Notes