Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof.

Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
CHAPTER 12: GOVERNMENTS, SYSTEMS AND REGIMES

Questions for discussions:

1. Does Aristotle’s system of political classification have any relevance to the

modern world?

Answer:

No. Aristotle’s system of political classification have no longer relevance to the

modern world because this has been replaced nor displaced by the growing emphasis
on the constitutional and institutional features of political rule around the world. To
further understand, the notion that is encapsulated in this particular traditional system of
classification is that Aristotle believed that governments could be placed in the hands of
a single individual, a small group, or the many which may either conducted according to
the selfish interests of the rulers or for the benefit of the entire community. Thus, he
then identified the six forms of government which are tyranny, oligarchy, democracy,
monarchy, aristocracy, and polity that served as his passages for his evaluation to
identify the “ideal” constitution through normative grounds.

Moreover, according to the book, through formulating the six forms of

government, Aristotle suggested that tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy were all
debased or perverted forms of rule in which a single person, a small group, and the
masses—respectively governed in their own interests and at the expense of others. In
contrast, monarchy, aristocracy, and polity were to be preferred, because in these forms
of government the individual, small group, and the masses—respectively governed in
the interests of all. Aristotle declared tyranny to be the worst of all possible constitutions,
as it reduced citizens to the status of slaves. Monarchy and aristocracy were, on the
other hand, impractical, because they were based on a God-like willingness to place the
good of the community before the rulers’ own interests. Meanwhile, Polity (rule by the
many in the interests of all) was accepted as the most practicable of constitutions.

However, the problem regarding this system of political classification is that

Aristotle advocated for a “mixed” constitution that is combined with both elements of
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
democracy and aristocracy, and left the government in the hands of the “middle
classes”—those who were neither rich nor poor. This particular argument of him was
challenged and further developed by other thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean
Bodin which both suggested that the principle of sovereignty (the highest and perpetual
power that could guarantee orderly rule) should be the basis for all stable political
regimes and not the classification of government. John Locke also pointed out that the
concept of “sovereignty” must be enshrined with the people (not the monarch) and that
the advocacy for a system of limited government must be upheld to provide protection
for natural rights of the people such as the rights to life, liberty, and property.
Meanwhile, Montesquieu proposed a system of checks and balances in the form of a
“separation of powers” between the executive, legislative, and judicial institutions which
he suggests that could protect individual liberty—that later on became the defining
features of liberal democratic government.

In conclusion, Aristotle’s system of political classification has no longer relevance

to the modern world because this has been challenged by various thinkers that the
classification of such government should not be the basis of political regimes and that
the welfare, power, and sovereignty of the people must always prevail in the end. In
addition, it has also been shadowed by the growing emphasis on the constitutional and
institutional features of political rule in the modern world that has been crafted from the
emergence of different social movements, conflicts and resolution, and sociopolitical
and economic upheavals.

2. Is there any longer such a thing as the “third world”?

Answer:

Yes. There is no longer such a thing as the “third world” because it has been
replaced by the term “developing world” which is seen as more preferable. To further
expound, the advent of the so-called “three worlds” approach—the belief that the
political world could be divided into three distinct blocs such as the capitalist “first
world”, the communist “second world”, and the developing “third world”—which were
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
resulted from different sociopolitical upheavals throughout history like the Cold War,
helped stimulate the search for a more value-neutral and ideological impartial system of
classification.

Hence, the abovementioned three-worlds classification had economic,

ideological, political, and strategic dimensions which resulted in the designation of
structured description to countries that belong to these classifications—affecting the
worldview perception to these countries (the distinction between the rich and poor
ones), creating stigma and geopolitical concerns, and portraying such role in the
international stage (labor export or exploitation of natural resources from poor countries
to those rich ones); which mainly affects those in the third world. Briefly saying, the less-
developed countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America were classified as “third”, in the
sense that they were economically dependent and often suffered from widespread
poverty—compared to the industrialized western regimes (the “first”) and the communist
regimes (the “second”) which both have the capacity to satisfy the needs of their
population and in economic terms.

Therefore, it is indeed that the phrase “third world” is widely resented as being
demeaning, discriminatory, and inappropriate in both sociopolitical and socioeconomic
contexts because it implies entrenched disadvantage—that is why the term “developing
world” is usually seen as preferable due to the fact that it entails potential growth and
prosperity.

3. To what extent have post-communist regimes discarded their communist past?

Answer:

The extent to which post-communist regimes discarded their communist past

was through embracing the principles and essence of social democracy which
somehow managed to retain their measure of electoral credibility and stability—most
post-communist presidencies operate within what are effectively parliamentary systems.
Furthermore, to put in context, certain problems were encountered by post-communist
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
states regarding the emergence of democratization—the need to deal with the politico-
cultural consequences of communist rule, especially the ramifications of Stalinist
totalitarianism (using totalitarianism to make Russia into the first state inspired by Karl
Marx’s ideas). However, based on the example from the book, the ruthless censorship,
and suppression of opposition in Russia that underpinned the communist parties’
monopoly of power guaranteed that a civic culture emphasizing participation, bargaining
and consensus failed to develop—producing a weak and fragmented party system that
is apparently incapable of articulating or aggregating the major interests of Russian
society. In conclusion, communist parties, or former communist parties have often
continued to provide a point of stability by means of adapting the principles of social
democracy—enshrining a balance relationship between the market and the state, a
balanced between the individual and the community, the acceptance of capitalism as
the only reliable mechanism for generating wealth, and maintaining the electoral
credibility of their regime to survive.

4. Why have liberal-democratic structures proved to be so effective and successful?

Answer:

Liberal-democratic structures proved to be so effective and successful because

to some extent, it has been the ability of this political force to generate political stability
that explains the seemingly ever-wider adoption of liberal democratic practices such as
electoral democracy and party competition in the modern world. Nevertheless,
advocates of liberal democracy stress that, as it is based on consent, it embodies
mechanisms that ensure that it is responsive, and so guarantees a high degree of
systemic equilibrium (institutional checks and balances, and protections for individual
and minority rights). Regarding this matter, government power is also being upheld
through winning a competitive struggle for the popular vote (Schumpeter, 1942), and
can be lost when the support from the general public diminishes—justifying the notion
that it operates as an institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which
individuals acquire the power to decide. Moreover, liberal democracy’s humanitarian
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
benefits derive from its capacity to uphold human rights and afford citizens the widest
possible sphere of freedom unchecked by the state.

Therefore, liberal democracy proved to be so effective and successful in the

modern world because it ensures political stability through electoral democracy and
party competition and brings a unique collection of humanitarian, economic, and political
benefits. Its economic benefits stem from its intrinsic relationship with capitalist
economic structures, helping to explain why liberal democratic regimes are also
prosperous and developed.

5. Have some new democracies got stuck in a “grey zone” between dictatorship
and liberal democracy?

Answer:

Yes. Some new democracies got stuck in a “grey zone” between dictatorship and
liberal democracy because instead of slowing down in the process of their
democratization, some progress of other regimes is going the other way (has been
reversed) due to political contributory factors such as rising political tensions or
grudging and incomplete process of market reform. For instance, according to the book,
in countries such as Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Belarus—sometimes
dubbed “Europe’s last dictatorship”—an official acceptance of democratic legitimacy has
been accompanied, albeit in different ways, by the systematic removal of checks on
executive power and the erosion of the rule of law. Meanwhile, in the case of Russia,
the emergence of Putin as the government’s leading force has led to a strengthening of
executive control over television, the judiciary, and the provinces, as well as a more
ruthless approach to dealing with potential opponents.

Hence, as Dmitry Baluev (2013) put out in “The Concept of ‘Grey Zones’ of World
Politics”, the identification of functional boundaries of grey zone requires allocation of a
list of threats and criteria by which these threats can be placed in “grey zone threats”
class. Identification of geographic (much more mobile than functional) boundaries and
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
monitoring the dynamics of their changes require the creation of specialized geo-
information systems. New technologies and changes in political systems modify the
nature of interaction between states and mass media, between states and non-state
actors. This leads to the spread of scope (functional and geographic) of grey zones. The
development of national media markets is not defined by separate nations of
governments anymore. The evolution of local media systems is now a part of the
development of the global media market and it is happening outside of traditional norms
and rules of the international system—it is truly a grey zone phenomenon.

In conclusion, it is indeed that some new democracies got stuck in a “grey zone”
(Carothers, 2004) between dictatorship and liberal democracy due to the fact of rising
political tensions or grudging and incomplete process of market reform which hinder
their progress from democratization—affecting their political stability and reversing the
effect of supposedly their prosperity.

6. How democratic are western polyarchies?

Answer:

Western polyarchies are democratic in various ways and conditions such as

enshrining the practice of a competitive party system, having a healthy civil society, and
widespread dispersal of power to participate in political activities. To further expound,
polyarchical regimes are distinguished by the combination of two general features. In
the first place, there is a relatively high tolerance of opposition that is sufficient at least
to check the arbitrary inclinations of government. This is guaranteed in practice by a
competitive party system, by institutionally guaranteed and protected civil liberties, and
by a vigorous and healthy civil society. The second feature of polyarchy is that the
opportunities for participating in politics should be sufficiently widespread to guarantee a
reliable level of popular responsiveness. The crucial factor here is the existence of
regular and competitive elections operating as a device through which the people can
control and, if necessary, displace their rulers.
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
In other case, western polyarchies are also democratic because the government
in this matter is based on free and fair elections which also give the right to its people to
vote (suffrage). They also possessed unrestricted conditions and rights upon running
the office, highlighting the notion of freedom of speech through giving rights to the
citizens to voice out their opinion or make a protest, giving its citizens to have access to
alternative sources of information, and most importantly, groups and associations in
western polyarchies enjoy at least relative independence from the government.
Therefore, western polyarchies indeed showcase some conditions and indications of a
democratic rule since the notion of a competitive party system, healthy civil society (free
from oppression and repression), and equal dispersal of political power to the citizens to
political engagements and activities are being upheld—which are all essence of genuine
and constitutional democracy.

7. Do Confucianism and Islamism constitute viable alternatives to western

liberalism as a basis for a modern regime?

Answer:

No. Confucianism and Islamism do not constitute as viable alternatives to

western Liberalism as a basis for a modern regime because the former has sort of
authoritarian characteristics and the latter centralize the essence of theocracy which
can be seen and distinguished as “illiberal”. To elaborate and put in context, the political
ideology of “Liberalism” mainly emphasizes individualism (supreme importance of the
human individual’s welfare), freedom (the desire to ensure individual’s capacity to act as
he or she pleases o chooses), equality (commitment to equal rights and entitlements),
and constitutionalism (the belief in limited government through fragmentation of political
power, creation of checks and balances, and establishing a codified or written
constitution). Hence, all these aforementioned characteristics of Liberalism sharply
contradict what “Confucianism” suggests because it is more economic orientated rather
than political ones—possessing the priority to boost growth and deliver prosperity,
rather than to enshrine individual freedom in the western sense of civil liberty.
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
Confucianism also supports the notion of “strong” government, in this point, powerful
“ruling” parties tend to be more tolerated (which diminishes the equal dispersal of
political power) and that there should always be a respect to leaders because this
particular ideology believes in loyalty, discipline, and duty that is sometimes being done
through either implicit or explicit form of authoritarianism. Furthermore, it puts great
emphasis on community and social cohesion through “group think” that tends to restrict
the scope for the assimilation of ideas such as individualism and human rights (and
other western political influences) which is a proof that Confucianism is not a viable
alternative to western Liberalism.

On the other hand, Islamism cannot also be an alternative because its core of
political rule is theocracy which considered as illiberal because it violates the
public/private divide, in that it takes religious rules and precepts to be the guiding
principles of both personal life and political conduct and it invests political authority with
potentially unlimited power (as temporal power is derived from spiritual wisdom) in that it
cannot be based on popular consent, or be properly constrained within a constitutional
framework. Nevertheless, political Islam thus aims at the construction of a theocracy in
which political and other affairs are structured according to “higher” religious principles.
For instance, the Iranian system of government is a complex mix of theocracy and
democracy—Shari’a law continues to be strictly enforced throughout Iran as both a legal
and a moral code. Meanwhile, the forces of revolutionary fundamentalism also asserted
themselves through the Taliban regime in Afghanistan which was characterized by the
imposition of strict theocratic rule and the exclusion of women from education, the
economy, and public life in general—a huge contradiction to the essence of western
Liberalism.

In conclusion, Confucianism and Islamism are not capable to constitute as viable

alternatives to western Liberalism as a basis for a modern regime because the capacity
of the former prioritizes economic affairs rather than the welfare of individuals, believes
in a strong government that is often implicitly or explicitly authoritarian, and it
undermines the notion of individualism and human rights by the belief of “group think”
for social solidarity—hence, the latter emphasizes theocracy as the core of political rule
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
which is distinguished as “illiberal” because religious rules are becoming the guiding
principles for their personal life and political authority.

8. Are military regimes doomed to be short-lived?

Answer:

Yes. Military regimes are doomed to be short-lived because they only function or
more likely intervene in politics when the legitimacy of the existing institutions and the
ruling elite is challenged—hence, it can be distinguished that such military regime (the
loyalty of the armed forces) is the decisive factor that upholds the regime. Furthermore,
the key feature of a military regime is that the leading posts in the government are filled
on the basis of the person’s position within the military chain of command—normal
political and constitutional arrangements are usually suspended, and institutions
through which opposition can be expressed, such as elected assemblies and a free
press, are either weakened or abolished.

Moreover, it is difficult for a military rule to exist in a stable and enduring political
form which is a clear indication that is meant to be a short-termed phenomenon. While
military leaders may highlight the chronic weakness, intractable divisions, and endemic
corruption of civilian government, it is unlikely that military rule will provide a solution to
these problems, or that it will be perceived as legitimate, except during temporary
periods of national crisis or political emergency. This is why military regimes are
typically characterized by the suspension of civil liberties and the suppression of all
potential sources of popular involvement in politics. Protest and demonstrations are
curtailed, opposition political parties and trade unions are banned, and the media are
subjected to strict censorship. As a result, the military often prefers to rule behind the
scenes and exercise power covertly through a civilianized leadership.

Therefore, military regimes are indeed doomed to be short-lived because they

only act as a decisive factor that merely uphold a particular political regime—intervening
in politics when there is a presence of legitimacy crisis of the existing institutions or
Bonje, Hans Gabriel A. Prof. Elmer Soriano
BAPS 1-4 Fundamentals of Political Science
whereas the status-quo of the ruling elite is being challenged. Hence, in addition,
military regimes do not also have the capacity to function within the political system
because their institution—the armed forces—are only a part and machinery of the
government in which they are dependent to it and fragile regarding the power of the
people and essence of a stable democratic rule.

RELEVANT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CHAPTER

1. Do a particular political ideology dependent on such a regime? Or is it just a

mere reflection and manifestation of a regime? Is it replaceable or irreplaceable?
And what is its implication to the process or function of the political system? (see
p. 266) (own perspective)
2. Does the essence of classification of political systems an aid to the intensification
of political polarization in modern societies? (see p. 266-267) (own perspective)
3. What is the role or correlation of classical typologies in modern political
ideologies? (see p. 267-269) (own perspective)
4. Does the term “third world” a mere facade constructed and being weaponized by
the capitalist “first world” countries to further employ their rampant exploitation
and hegemony on such countries within the framework of neoliberal
globalization? (see p. 269-270) (own perspective)
5. What is the role of “party politics” in western polyarchies? Does the notion of
“dictatorship by majority” inevitable in this matter? (see p. 273-275) (own
perspective)
6. What is “new” in new democracies? Is this the future of modern politics? (see p.
275; 277) (own perspective)
7. Are East Asian regimes and Islamic regimes products of “non-western ideological
trend”? (see p. 276-279; 281) (own perspective)
8. How can we counter the inevitable emergence of military regimes knowing the
fact that this hinder or repress our constitutional rights? (see p. 281-282) (own
perspective)