IR 301

Comparative Politics
Assist. Prof. Dr. Hasret Dikici Bilgin
Fall 2016

Types of Political Systems

Democracies
Non-Democracies (Autocracies/
Dictatorships)
Mixed Systems (Anocracies)

Non-Democratic Systems
Terms as dictatorships, totalitarian
systems, authoritarian systems,
autocracies are used to refer to the
non-democratic systems
Totalitarian regimes have distinct
features; and today authoritarian
regimes are more widespread

Democracies and Non-Democracies

in common
They both have public sphere
They both try to build consent, with
different methods
They both have multiple forms
But, non-democracies commonly lack
periodical, free and fair elections

Non-Democracies
In non-democracies
1) The chief executive either is not chosen by popular
election or by a body that was itself popularly
elected.
2) The legislature is not popularly elected (limited
political participation)
3) It is either a one-party system or there are
limitations on party formation and competition
4) An alternation in power under electoral rules
identical to the ones that brought the incumbent to
office do not take place.
(Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland (2007))

Non-Democracies
Nondemocratic regimes are those
controlled by a small group of individuals who
exercise power over the state without being
constitutionally responsible to the public.
Nondemocratic regimes restrict individual
freedom, but some (not all) strive to provide
social and economic equality. Some are
highly ideological; others reject ideology and
simply pursue power for the state or its
leader.

Types of Non-Democratic Systems

Totalitarian
Authoritarian
Post-totalitarian
Sultanistic
They differ with respect to four key
dimensions: pluralism, ideology,
leadership, mobilization

Totalitarian Systems
Totalitarianism is a regime
which eliminated almost all pre-existing
political, economic and social pluralism;
has a unified, articulated, guiding, utopian
ideology;
has extensive and intensive mobilization;
has a leadership that rules, often
charismatically, with undefined limits and
great unpredictability and vulnerability for
elites and masses

Totalitarian Systems
Totalitarianism is a form of nondemocratic
rule with a highly centralized state with a
strong ideology that seeks to transform and
fuse the institutions of the state, society, and
economy.
Totalitarian regimes often use violence to
maintain control and destroy obstacles to
change, though this does not mean any violent
regimes is totalitarian. Communist North Korea
is the only truly totalitarian country in the
modern world.

Totalitarian Regimes vs Other NonDemocratic Regimes

Total control over all aspects of human life as the
ultimate aim
Total transformation of the socio-economic and political
system
Systematic and intensive state violence especially in the
first phase in power
Objective and subjective enemies
Oppression and intimidation of the opposition
Systematic violation of private life
Radical ideology, indoctrination, propaganda
Mass mobilization
Leadership cult

AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES
Authoritarian regimes are regimes
with limited, not responsible, political pluralism;
without eloborate and guiding ideology, but with
distinct mentalities;
without intensive or extensive political
mobilization, except at some points in their
development;
in which a leader or occasionally a small group
exercises power within formally ill-defended
limits but actually quite predictable ones

AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES
Evolution of authoritarian regimes:
Until 19th century, there were monarchies
In early 19th century, dictatorship by a (military)
organization and its leader (Napoleon Bonaparte)
Mid 19th century: presidential monarchy (Louis
Napoleon)
Early 20th century: party dictatorships (fascist
and communist?)
In 1960s and 1970s: New types added such as
African one party states
Coup: corporate coup, factional coup, counter coup

Types of Authoritarian Regimes

Personal rule
Ruling monarchies
Leaders of parties and military may form
personal dictatorships
presidential democracies

Organizational rule (military or one party)

Military
Open
disguised (civilianized or indirect)

One party
Ideological
Religious

Organizational rule
(1)Military rule:
Why doesnt the military run every country?
The dominant form in Third World countries during the 1970s
Empirically weak and unstable form of regime
Subtypes of military rule:
Open (the juntas)
Disguised
- Civilianized
- Indirect

Post-Totalitarian Regimes
PT Regimes
Limited but not responsible social, economic
and institutional pluralism; but still no actual
political pluralism. Among them, economic
pluralism is strongest
Guiding ideology officially exists, but
weakened
Loss of interest in political mobilization by the
ruling elite
Loss of charismatic leadership; top leadership
from the party technocrats

Sultanistic Regimes
Limited social and economic
pluralism; subject to unpredictable
intervention. No rule of law, fusion of
public and private
No elaborate guiding ideology; but
extreme glorification of the leader
Low and occasional manipulation
Highly personalistic leadership.
Extreme personalization of rule

Personal rule
(1)Ruling or dictatorial monarchies:
Hereditary and highly ceremonial nature of personal rule
A ruling monarch is different from a reigning monarch who is
the constitutional head of state
Still existing in countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates
How can the survival of ruling monarchies be explained?
- Dynastic monarchies
- Traditions? Rentier states?

Personal rule (continued)

(2)Personal or monarchical dictators:
Dictators are the leaders of a military or party organization
Successful reversal of the principal-agent relationship between
ruler and organization
Sub forms of monarchical dictators
(2.1) Presidential monarchies:
Term coined in the 1960s, as Third World dictators
institutionalized their rule in the post of a president
Emerge from or with some cases of organizational rule

Sub forms of monarchical dictators (continued)

(2.2) Populist presidential monarchies (autogolpe):
Elected president becomes a dictator
Often emerged from democratization
The Latin American tradition of autogolpe was taken over
by many countries of the former Soviet Union

Claims of legitimacy
Authoritarian regimes typically claim to exercise some kind of
legitimate
authority.
(1) Religious claims to legitimacy:
The standard case for centuries (The divine right of
kings)
Rare in the 20th century
Example: Islamic Republic of Iran

Claims of legitimacy (continued)

(2) Ideological claims to legitimacy:
Replaced religious claims in the 20th century
Generally lacks the social presence and influence
of religions, therefore uses instruments to shape
social presence (e.g. mass media)
Visionary (e.g. Marxism), organizational (e.g.
Leninism) and personal forms (e.g. Stalinism) of
ideological claims. Often overlapping

Claims of legitimacy (continued)

(3)Democratic claims to legitimacy:
Most dictatorships claim a form of democratic
legitimacy:
- By employing democratic institutions
(elected parliaments or president)
- By preparing the country for democracy
(temporary military rule)
Democratic legitimacy is undermined by the
fact that elections are:
- Non-competitive: No choice between
candidates or party-lists
- Semi-competitive: While there is a choice
between candidates or party-lists, the
winner is known prior to the elections
(from media control to vote rigging)

The process of rule

(1)Exercising control:
Monitoring and/or enforcing political loyalty
Typical for military rule:
- Bestowing policing and judicial powers upon
military
Typical for one party rule:
- Partys Politburo as de facto government
- Extensive membership used to monitor and
enforce policy implementation

The process of rule (continued)

(2) Policies:
Authoritarian regimes tend to implement more
diverse and extreme policies than democracies
- Genocide by the Nazis
- Great Leap Forward by Mao
Generally a higher level of intervention in
economy and society

The process of rule (continued)

(3) Policy-making:
Main difference to democracies: Ruler's career
does not depend upon success in the next
elections
In case of personal-rule: Depending on dictator's
personality
In case of organizational-rule:
- Comparable to cabinet-government
- Models of bureaucracy have been applied, but
policy not necessarily incremental

Next Week
Mixed Systems and Transitions