Are Political Systems All The Same - Case Study Example

Are Political Systems All The Same? Name: Institution: Instructor: Date: Introduction to Political Systems. A political system is defined as a system of government and politics. In other words, it is a system of interactions that exist in societies considered independent which perform the function of adaptation and integration for both internal and external societies by way of lack of employment or employment of a more or less valid real compulsion. From these definitions, it clearly indicates that the political system of any society, region or nation on top of including governmental institutions, for instance, the executive, legislature, administrative agencies and courts, it includes other structures in their political components (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). The development of political parties that came with diverse forms of networks of separate organisation and the mass media of communication, for instance, the television, the press and the radio had significant influence in changing performance structure of the political system and the power and control of these political systems in its internal and external environment. Among these political components integrated to political systems includes but not limited to formal institutions like interest groups, political parties, and media communications; traditional schemes such as social group collections anomic phenomena of associations, demonstrations, and riots, and kinship ties (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). Common Features of Political Systems The open-closed characteristics It is used widely to differentiate between political systems. Between polyarchies or liberal on the one hand, and autocracies, totalitarian or dictatorship system on the other hand. This represents a feature of political system but not a separation. Group-autonomy feature It represents the degree and power within which political systems intervenes to the society concerns. It provides the degree of intervention and control power the political elites have over diverse groups in the boundary they operate within (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). Do the political elites have absolute control have society undertakings or are they operating in a regulative-procedural control framework? Basis of the law norms (normative characteristics) The law norms may be derived from traditional beliefs and practices, abiding by the consensual mores and norms and customs or they may be determined by the satisfaction of a specified plan, need or demand. Use of legal force. Political systems provide the legal authority with the power to use force. It possesses the heavy and legitimate sanctions and legal power to punish anybody who fails to oblige with the conveyed orders. The legitimate application of power by political systems is a unique feature that gives it a special importance and quality as well as its unity as a system. Interdependence of parts. This feature simply implies that parts making up a political system depend on each other such that when the features of an individual component of in the political system change, the entire system is affected. As stated earlier political parties and mass media make up part of the political system. An example is provided that political parties enjoying a diverse base of support and mass media communication channels have the capacity to alter the performance of all other parts of the political system and can impact the general functioning of the system. Interactions As stated early in the definition, the political system is considered a system of interaction that exists in almost all independent societies. It includes both governmental institution (executive, legislature, administrative agencies and courts) as well as formal and informal organisations that interact together to achieve a given goal that is of public interest. Change of boundary Political systems are made up of interacting roles and responsibilities of subjects, voters, the bureaucrats, nationals, judges and the legislators. The same personalities given the responsibility of performing the jobs in the economic and social system also play significant roles in the political systems. When such personalities change their job responsibilities and interest and start forming vote, interest groups of pay taxes, they change their starring role from non-political to political roles (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). An example to illustrate this; on the day the elections are done, ordinary citizens leave their daily economic activities to go at the polling stations to cast their votes. Doing so, they are crossing the boundary from economy to politics. Comprehensiveness Comprehensiveness is considered among the characteristics of political system since it encompasses all the interactions of both informal and formal institutions and organisations in the society. The example provided for this includes religious turmoil, politics originating from parties, the interaction of regionalism, inflation, social changes attributed to modernization and strategies of pressure groups. Types of Political Systems While their exist an inclination in the modern political science to consider political systems as an abstract of institutions and roles or inputs and output, least should it forgot that idea behind the political system is that it is made of a balance among the competing wills, capabilities, interest as well as a distinct status quo. A distinct political system is a specific definition of law norms, authoritative roles and allocation of responsibilities and rights that were historically guided by conflicts and a balance of power. Individuals who fill the above roles, those considered to have the right to command, control and direct others are the ones deemed the political elites. A range of balance of power can be concluded only that these balance governing sovereign states and regions share some commonalities and differ on specified major features (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). The characteristics provided later in the coverage will provide the means within which a diverse political system are discriminated from one another in term of their profiles. Among the most common political systems includes; Libertarian political system. This type of a political system is open made up of a complete group autonomy, present goals for the political elites and with customary laws. According to Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard (2015), under this system, laws and regulations are limited to the few individuals based on the openness and group autonomy and the basis of customary rights and principles. The judiciary has limited power to match the principles above to critical cases. The political goals of the elites are fixed and representational to avail widespread needs and interest provided they do not interfere with the traditional guidelines and rights of freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the sanctity of contracts and private property among others. Totalitarian political system It’s a customary law that is closed. It is practised provide it does not conflict with the interest and goals of the political elites of the society. Under this political system, law and regulations provided by the ruling regime are usually positivists that are generated to meet the future goals and needs of the political elites. Also, laws generated are observed a measure to realise some level of reconstruction in the society. Groups autonomy is overlooked in this system and this mean is does not exist (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). Authoritarian political system. This political system is closed made of an authoritative political stand that is open to a few selected individuals by birth or any other recognised status and is developed on the grounds of customary laws and norms. Here group autonomy is considered on condition that they do not interfere with the goals of the political elites and the established traditional status quo (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). Roles of political systems Political recruitment and socialisation. Political socialisation is used to evaluate and determine the type and form of political recruitment. Recruitment of individuals to fill political roles have a direct impact on the success and maintenance of political systems. Interest articulation. It is the process of uniting the diverse interest and concerns of scattered groups and making them operate with some oneness. It regulates the boundary line within which political system should operate. Political communication. Political systems provide with a channel through which important communication message are conveyed to the interested party. Different political systems maintain different communication methodology. Communication within political systems interconnects the state and society directly and through feedback calamities that are man-made in nature are mitigated. In a political system that is closed in nature, there is strong need to decontrol the communication since communication is likely to transform into indoctrination, interest articulation or propaganda for a clique or group. To political systems that embrace democracies, communication is significantly free. Such political systems cherish in structures that are neutral, multifaceted and their operations are speedy, flexible, expanding and smooth such that output of the system towards equilibrium is fostered (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). Interest aggregation. Political systems are required to neutralise the diverse interest and group or aggregate them to a higher level. Various demand wants, interest, pressures and much more have to be expressed and combined in manner way to form an extensive policy decisions. In most occasions aggregation is achieved through accommodation of a diverse interest into extensive policies and employment of individual representatives of the interest of distinct group into the body making decisions. The aggregation of interest enables political systems to work in an acceptable, simplified, accountable, efficient and responsive manner. Also, the operation of the political systems is calculated and measurable that ensuring peaceful coexistence among a diverse stakeholder with different interests (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). Generation of rules and application. Making of rules mostly reflects the will and interest of the people, the political elites within the political system, pressure and other devolved interest. The process of making the rules/laws are maintained in two phases, the higher/governing level which represents the constitution or the natural laws of justice symbolising on the basic elements of culture and values and the lower house which is directly influenced by citizens on the grounds of majority age franchise legislate basics rules. Rules are made in such a manner they can be applied to a diverse situation and circumstance. Rules arbitration. Under this role of political systems, rules made are required to be applied broadly to promote justice and equality to a range of concerns subjected to it. It calls for the need of intelligent and experienced experts who are deemed neutral and independent to offer a clear understanding of the rule and thus provide sound judgment based on such understanding. Analysis of the political systems Most political systems of nations are made of a blend of the above types. Considering the political system of the United States for instance; analysis of the country’s system indicates that it is increasingly oriented in a totalitarian direction in recent years even though libertarian system looks more prevalent in the past. The modern political elites and welfare state of the nation combined with the mixed the nation’s present and future goals have a direct intervention on the welfare a diverse group of people (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). The characteristics provided by political systems clearly indicates that there is a difference between different political systems. The difference of political systems is partially attributed from the fact that traditional group autonomy and law system to a greater extent limits the power within which a political elite can instrument future goals. Theoretically speaking, no political system have operated on the extreme of being both authoritarian and totalitarian. The reason provided for this is simple; as the elite group of people in society focus more on the future issues, and inhibit freedom of the autonomous group, chances are traditions aspect will be assumed significantly. Customs, informal and precedent norms are considered obstacles on most occasion for the reconstruction process and are transformed or assumed (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). The above mentioned political systems are built based on a diverse political formulas or ideologies. The general formulas or ideologies of these political systems range from democratic socialism, conservatism, communism, libertarianism, fascism and liberalism. The eventual formula and ideology of any political system are built upon adherence to customs and traditions of the belief that the crucial power and control should be vested in the hands of a family line gifted and provided with the task of upholding such customs and traditions. For a government adopting a totalitarian political system, the elites in the community are limited to those with elite policies and distinct recognitions but above these boundary individuals as well as groups are provided with the freedom to follow their desires and interest. Conclusion From the above analysis, we recognise that different political system possesses different characteristics. Even if they tend to share one or more characteristics, there is always a point of deviation and is upon this that the analysis concludes political systems are not all the same rather they differ on some aspects which in return makes up their distinct uniqueness. In generally, based on the characteristics and features of political system analyzed, the basic features used to differentiate one political system from the other is whether they control or allow the freedom of the group autonomy, whether they open or closed, whether they focus on the future, present or the past and whether they are normatively based. It is upon these features that space is made to differentiate the three mentioned political systems (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). Totalitarian and authoritarian types of political systems both are closed systems while their main point of deviation is that in authoritarian types of political system, groups have autonomy with limitation provided that should not interfere with the political elite’s goals and the traditional status quo while in totalitarian political system groups have no autonomy. Libertarian type of political system differs from the two from that fact that it is closed. These subparts of the entire characteristics of the political systems are what makes all political systems not to be the same. A political system may possess the characteristic of being open, but in reality, it is closed in the control and regulation of practised by the political elites of the society (Fortes, and Evans-Pritchard 2015). References Fortes, M. and Evans-Pritchard, E.E., 2015. African political systems. Routledge. Read More