The following is detailed information about each type of government that we will be learning about this year.  Enjoy!  

 

dictatorship

dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The term dictatorship comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather than ancient dictators. Ancient philosophers’ descriptions of the tyrannies of Greece and Sicily go far toward characterizing modern dictatorships. Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.

With the decline and disappearance in the 19th and 20th centuries of monarchies based on hereditary descent, dictatorship became one of the two chief forms of government in use by nations throughout the world, the other being constitutional democracy. Rule by dictators has taken several different forms. In Latin America in the 19th century, various dictators arose after effective central authority had collapsed in the new nations recently freed from Spanish colonial rule. These caudillos, or self-proclaimed leaders, usually led a private army and tried to establish control over a territory before marching upon a weak national government. Antonio López de Santa Anna in Mexico and Juan Manuel de Rosas in Argentina are examples of such leaders. (See personalismo.) Later 20th-century dictators in Latin America were different. They were national rather than provincial leaders and often were put in their position of power by nationalistic military officers, as was Juan Perón of Argentina. They usually allied themselves with a particular social class, and attempted either to maintain the interests of wealthy and privileged elites or to institute far-reaching left-wing social reforms.

In the new states of Africa and Asia after World War II, dictators quickly established themselves on the ruins of constitutional arrangements inherited from the Western colonial powers that had proved unworkable in the absence of a strong middle class and in the face of local traditions of autocratic rule. In some such countries, elected presidents and prime ministers captured personal power by establishing one-party rule and suppressing the opposition, while in others the army seized power and established military dictatorships.

The communist and fascist dictatorships that arose in various technologically advanced countries in the first half of the 20th century were distinctively different from the authoritarian regimes of Latin America or the postcolonial dictatorships of Africa and Asia. Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin were the leading examples of such modern totalitarian dictatorships. The crucial elements of both were the identification of the state with a single mass party and of the party with its charismatic leader, the use of an official ideology to legitimize and maintain the regime, the use of terror and propaganda to suppress dissent and stifle opposition, and the use of modern science and technology to control the economy and individual behaviour. (See totalitarianism.) Soviet-type communist dictatorships arose in central and eastern Europe, China, and other countries in the wake of World War II, though most of them (as well as the Soviet Union itself) had collapsed by the last decade of the 20th century.

During times of domestic or foreign crisis, even most constitutional governments have conferred emergency powers on the chief executive, and in some notable cases this provided the opportunity for duly elected leaders to overthrow democracy and rule dictatorially thereafter. The proclamation of emergency rule, for example, was the beginning of the dictatorships of Hitler in Germany, Benito Mussolini in Italy, Kemal Atatürk in Turkey, Józef Piłsudṣki in Poland, and António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal. In other democracies, however, constitutional arrangements have survived quite lengthy periods of crisis, as in Great Britain and the United States during World War II, in which the use of extraordinary powers by the executive came to a halt with the end of the wartime emergency.

 

Dictators of today and yesterday

 

Learning from dictatorships

 

 

 

Democracy

 

DEFINITIONS

Democracy: Derived from the Greek Demos (people) and kratia (power). Literally People-Power!

Representative Democracy: Candidates with manifestos, purporting to share the concerns of a section of a society, compete to represent a given constituency - usually geographically based. Once elected, representatives are supposed to follow their own consciences when making decisions - this is often referred to as Edmund Burke's Principle. In reality elected representatives may be expected to obey the whip of their party managers.

Delegated Democracy: Delegates are instructed by their electors, and are expected to express (and carry out) these instructions faithfully. There is little room for following the Burkeian Principle - or the party managers!

Direct Democracy: Unmediated by either representatives or delegates, decision-making is carried out face-to-face.

Cascade Democracy: Representatives or delegates are selected at the lowest tier of democracy by their constituents. Candidates for each next level of representation/delegation are chosen from and selected by their own peers.

Subsidiarity: The exercise of authority is carried out at the lowest practicable level, with minimal (if any) input from higher tiers of authority. We understand this to mean that each tier of decision-making is accountable solely to its constituents/electors.

COMPARISONS & CRITERIA

Six basic models of democratic practice (listed below) have been used to compare eight different criteria and their degree of effect on popular empowerment within each type, showing the advantages and disadvantages of each form of democracy.

1. Size of constituency.
2. Degree of influence by party machines.
3. Whether the right of recall exists.
4. Is there a direct mandate from electors?
5. The effect of the number of tiers on the electorate.
6. Where does ultimate control come from?
7. The degree to which popular debate can have influence within the system.
8. The amount of time required of us all for discussion and decision making.

REPRESENTATIVE (TOP DOWN)

NOMINAL CONTROL OF CENTRE THROUGH GENERAL ELECTIONS

• The size of constituencies at the local levels are very variable (often 5,000); the average Westminster constituency is 60,000; European Parliament weighs in with around 600,000.
• The influence of the party machines is very high.
• There is no right of recall (their terms of office are notionally fixed).
• There is no direct mandate.
• The number of tiers has little effect, though there may be more electoral ballots.
• Real control comes from above.
• Popular debate has little formal effect, though there may be various lobbies, referenda and riots!
• Almost no popular time is required for polling.

REPRESENTATIVE (CASCADE)

EACH TIER ELECTS ONLY THE TIER ABOVE

• The constituencies can be very small, particularly if the lowest tier of representation is based on the street moot/forum.
• The influence of party machines should be very limited.
• There is no right of recall (again, fixed terms apply).
• There is no direct mandate.
• A larger number of tiers will make higher representatives increasingly remote from the grass-roots.
• Control cascades upwards from each tier.
• The effect of popular debate will remain low, but there is far greater scope for close range scrutiny by the tier below.
• The amount of time needed for popular participation is low; the electorate only chooses the lowest tier.

REPRESENTATIVE (SUBSIDIARITY)

EACH TIER ANSWERABLE ONLY TO ITS OWN ELECTORATE

• Constituencies are likely to be similar to those which operate under the top-down system.
• Party control would be weaker at local levels, but likely to be higher at the higher tiers.
• There would be no right of recall; representatives would have office for a fixed term.
• There would be no direct mandate from their constituents.
• Each tier would have only appropriate powers; there would be clear divisions of responsibilities between the various tiers.
• Democratic control of each tier is by its own electorate only.
• The effect of popular debate would still be low, although representatives would be more clearly accountable.
• Time needed for popular participation would be low.

DELEGATE (CASCADE)

EACH TIER SENDS DELEGATES TO THE TIER ABOVE

• The size of the lowest levels could be as low as 100, or as low as 20 if based on street moots.
• The room for parties to manipulate delegates would be very slight.
• A right of recall could be applied.
• Delegates may be given a direct mandate.
• A greater number of tiers would result in those at higher levels feeling increasingly remote.
• Control would ultimately come from below.
• Popular debate should have a very large effect.
• A lot of time would probably be needed to participate at the grass-root.

DELEGATE (SUBSIDIARITY)

EACH TIER MANDATED INDEPENDENTLY

• The sizes of catchment areas are likely to be the same as at present.
• Party influence on delegates would be very slight.
• A right of recall could be operated.
• Delegates may be given a direct mandate.
• Powers and responsibilities may be defined as necessary, without remoteness at the higher tiers.
• Control would come from below.
• Popular debate should have a great influence.
• More time would be needed for participation.

DIRECT (FACE TO FACE)

" The length of a meeting rises with the square of the number of people present. " - Eileen Shanahan

• Catchment areas should be no more than 1,000 - around 250 would be ideal, with smaller street moots.
• Party influence should be very slight.
• The right of recall does not apply.
• Mandates would be irrelevant in this system.
• A probable maximum of 3 tiers would be practicable, due to the numbers limit.
• Control would be immediate.
• Popular debate would have a crucial effect in this system.
• A very high level of time and commitment may be needed, although this would vary according to popular concerns.

 

Democracy and Civil Rights

 

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?

 

Democracy in other countries

 

Monarchy

 

Monarchy as a Form of Government in History

Tracing Kingship from Ancient to Post-Modern Periods

 

 

 

 

 

• Dec 2, 2009
• Michael Streich

The Church Favored Monarchy - HurleyGurlie182 on Morguefile

Monarchy is the oldest and most used model of government from the Ancient World through the Middle Ages and the development of early modern nation states.

Monarchy is one of the oldest forms of government. In the Ancient world, forms of monarchy were normative. The Hebrews, for example, argued with God to give them a king so that they would be like their neighbors. Monarchies existed in Ancient Greece and Rome, begun as an Etruscan monarchy. Throughout the Middle Ages, kings and more infrequently queens ruled territories and eventually modern nation-states. The Catholic Church, an integral institution in Western Civilization, favored monarchy as the form of government that most closely represented the cosmological world view. Monarchy still exists in the post-modern world, albeit in various stages.

Development of Ancient World Monarchies

In the latter years of the Neolithic period, early communities were formed around the great river valleys of Africa and Asia. As these communities began to practice sedentarization, social, economic, and political institutions were formed. In many cases, these early communities were led by warrior-priests and some historians cite the prominent role of powerful women in some ancient communities. The role of warrior-king was soon differentiated from the role of priest and in many cases became hereditary.

In Egypt, the land was unified under a pharaoh, a title traced to Hebrew and Greek titles meaning “great house;” in Mesopotamia, the ruler of the individual city-states was known as lugal or big man. From these early forms of kingship monarchy as an ideal spread throughout the ancient world. Only in Greece, where geography tinkered with evolving and disparate city-states, were other forms of government employed.

 

Rome and the Middle Ages

Rome began as part of the Etruscan system of city-states, governed as a monarchy until the last of the Tarquin kings was overthrown in 509 BCE. One of the chief fears of the Republic was the reestablishment of monarchy. It was one of the reasons Julius Caesar was assassinated by members of the Roman Senate.

Even during Imperial Rome, emperors, though behaving as kings, preferred, like Augustus, to see themselves as the “first servant” of the state. Much of this broke down during the 3rd – Century as rampant political instability interfered with good imperial leadership.

 

Read This Next

• Democracy, Republics, and Democratic Republicanism
• Monarchies in the Middle East
• Theocracy in Colonial New England

 

The rise of the Christian Church, however, brought back the notion of kingship. Monarchy became the preferred form of government in the emerging territories that had either been part of the Roman frontier or pagan communities in Germania. It was the Catholic Church that pressured the powerful stem-dukes to select one of their own to become emperor. In 800, Pope Leo III proclaimed Charlemagne “king of the Romans.”

Monarchies and Early Modern Nation States

Following the Hundred Years’ War, several early modern nation states emerged in England, France, Spain, and Scandinavia. Within the next two centuries, powerful dynasties like the Hapsburgs, Romanovs, and Hohenzollerns would create strong states that competed for overseas colonies and influence in European continental affairs. For the first time in history, several prominent women would sit on thrones, although ancient history does provide examples of exceptional women rulers like Hatshepsut in Egypt and Wu Zhao of Imperial China.

Monarchies in the Post Modern World

Monarchies still exist, but in varying stages. All surviving European monarchies operate as national symbols with kings and queens serving as figureheads. In England, Queen Elizabeth II still opens Parliament and is the Head of State in Australia, represented by a Governor General. In Thailand, the king still wields some political power while some Middle East countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have strong monarchies.

The lure of monarchy is still in evidence. Numerous contemporary science fiction depictions of galactic threats use the model of monarchy, from Star Wars to the Chronicles of Riddick. As the ideals of popular self-government permeate world political institutions, monarchies will become less attractive. Historically, however, monarchy has been the preferred form of government for most nations.

 

Civil Rights? A look at Swaziland

 

 

Theocracy

By Tom Head, About.com Guide

 

Definition: A theocracy ("theo-" = God, "-cracy" = government) is a government operated under divine rule, or the pretense of divine rule. In practice, this term refers to a government operated by religious authorities who claim unlimited power in the name of God or other supernatural forces.

There are many governments--including the United States--in which leaders invoke God, or claim to be inspired by God, or claim to obey the will of God. This does not, in practice, make a government a theocracy. What makes a government a theocracy is when lawmakers actually believe that leaders are governed by the will of God, and write laws predicated on this belief.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are often cited as modern examples of theocratic governments. In practice, North Korea also resembles a theocracy due to the supernatural powers attributed to Kim Jong-il; and the comparable deference he receives from other government officials, the military; and the hundreds of thousands of indoctrination centers that center on devotion to his will and legacy.

There are theocratic movements in virtually every country on Earth, but true contemporary theocracies are primarily found in the Muslim world.

 

The following video is from YouTube - and is quite long.  It details Iran's Theocracy over many years.