Collegium Civitas

Spring semester 2024

Study discipline: International Relations

Seminar

Modern Political Systems (MPS)

lecturer: DrJens Boysen
MPS – key element / area of Political Science
(International Relations)
comparison of political systems of various countries
(comparative politics)
Objectives:
gaining an overview of the diversity of the countries of the world and
their systems of government (internal political order)
understanding the reasons for this diversity (historical origins and
current factors)
capability of assessing the options for co-operation or potential
crises between states
drafting scenarios for own foreign policy or any other activity at the
international level
General context of the international / global order (1)

traditional Westphalian concept: The world consists of sovereign

states (nation states) with three key characteristics
defined territory (borders, territorial control)
government (authority effectively having control over the
country and the ability to regulate public affairs)
people / population (subjects, later – mostly– citizens)
sovereignty: states have exclusive competencies on their territory
international relations evolve between states as equal partners –
there is no central global authority (anarchy)
General context of the international / global order (2)
in the 20th century, especially after 1945, gradually developed a new
dimension / level of international relations:
the „UN ecosystem“ (and related structures)
main elements: international organisations
intergovernmental / inter-state
non-state / private (INGO)
non-state / finance & business (corporations and their
associations)
since c. 1980 intensive globalisation and cooperation on many issues
tendency towards integration of politics at the global level (global
governance) in the face of common problems / threats
States remain crucial actors in international relations
international relations as they still:
control (almost) all the territory inhabited by people
have (almost) exclusive legislative competence
are the most important actors in the implementation of political decisions
and those of courts, including international organisations and courts
have (almost) exclusive competence to conclude contracts/agreements
international law, unlike national law, does not constitute a legal corpus of
its own, because there is no ‚world people‘ and thus no global legal
legitimacy; in fact, it is the outcome of international (inter-state)
agreements
→ without nation states there can be no international law
View from the perspective of IR theories
Question: Is continued (supranational) integration in the interest of
nation states?
What kind of representation are people / citizens interested in?
What kind of governments are most suitable for tackling contemporary problems?
Which political systems are most likely to support continued integration?
Or will certain domestic features / traditions / preferences of nation states ‘cap’ this
integration process?
Possible (likely) answers
Realism: national governments must cooperate, but should keep sovereignty intact
as international organisations are unpredictable and susceptible to manipulation
(other states’ policies, UN agency, etc.)
Liberalism: in the long run, mutual trust is the only way to preserve humanity;
common challenges can / will lead to systemic convergence
Important current trends reinforcing the role of nation
states:
tendency towards the (re)emergence of a multipolar world order comprising:
USA, China, Russia, India, EU, Brazil, Japan, South Africa,…
‚new‘ or ‚rising‘ powers often show an authoritarian character → tend not to be
advocates of far-reaching integration between states or any ‚fusing‘ of
competences
general trend towards underlining fundamental divergences of national interests,
including on grounds of (perceived) cultural distinctiveness (Huntington)
as effect of this, the West is experiencing a crisis of ist global position and its claim
to establish and defend a liberal value-based global order
more and more often lack of agreement necessary for efefctive cooperation at
the UN level, mainly in the Security Council
return to a bloc system?
Criteria for categorisation / typology of political systems
- in part historical -
geographical and demographic composition: empire – nation state
character of citizenship: ethnic state – civic state
source of sovereignty: monarchy – republic
party systems
type of government: democracy – authoritarian / totalitarian state
politico-adminsitrative structure: unitary state – federal state

These criteria can be connected in different combinations, so creating a range of possible

concrete state / government types. This brings about a considerable diversity of political
systems, which in turn influences the international state system / international order.
Geographical and demographic composition:
empire – nation state (1)
main period of empires: antiquity (then dominant form of state)
principle of extension of a given power (national / tribal) over neighbouring
regions
centre - periphery structure; inhabitants of the latter obliged to pay tribute, do
military service, etc.
dominance of central ethnic group (hence ruler), but tolerance vis-à-vis other
cultures / religions / customs
often cooptation of local nobility into imperial aristocracy
examples: Assyria, Egypt, Persia, China, empire of Alexander the Great, Rome
Geographical and demographic composition:
empire – nation state (2)
nation state characteristic type mainly in the late Middle Ages and modern era
generally smaller and more ‚concentrated‘ (territorially and population-wise) than
empire
often – but not always – mono-ethnic, with the aristocracy (and later other social
groups) as the 'guardian of national traditions‘
underlines independence and autonomy vis-à-vis other states and supranational
powers (in Europe Holy Roman Empire and papacy)
relatively dynamic and open to modernisation
Type of citizenship: ethnic state - civic state (1)
The ethnic state is defined as the political and spatial manifestation (organisation) of a
certain nation in the sense of a community with so-called objective characteristics:
ethnicity, history, language, religious denomination, "national character"...
institutions and procedures of public life are to be adapted to these national
characteristics → as a result, tolerance towards foreign guilds may be limited, especially
in countries with a "majority-minority" structure
its ‘heyday' in Europe was in the 19th and 20th centuries; in other regions of the world
also later, e.g. in the decolonisation era and today (nationalism of ‚new powers‘)
advocates of the ethnic state cannot be very supportive of transnational / globalising
tendencies as these may threaten national identity
Type of citizenship: ethnic state - civic state (2)
The civic state sees all citizens as equal members of a nation regardless of their objective
characteristics - it is not meant to be a manifestation of a certain cultural-ethnic
nationality; "nation” understood as the totality of citizens (individualism)
definition of citizenship based on subjective characteristics (voluntarism)
desire to belong to that particular state / nation
respect for / observance of law and duties (formal loyalty)
in the absence of objective characteristics, the building of emotional bonds between
citizens happens via rituals and symbols (e.g. flag, hymn, common historical narrative)
→ civic nationalism
more pragmatic than ethnic state, including with regard to globalisation and
transnational tendencies
Source of sovereignty: monarchy – republic (1)
monarchy can be regarded as oldest system of government
the formal source of power and therefore the legitimacy of the state is the monarch
already in antiquity, philosophers such as Aristotle distinguished between monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy as the main types of government; then, monarchy was often
associated with a lack of freedom, oppression and aggressiveness
in Europe, still in 1914 out of 25 sovereign states only three were republics
monarchy is usually based on the principle of hereditary succession (dynasties)
today, most existing monarchies are linked to democratic systems, while ‚classical‘
absolute monarchies are very rare
Source of sovereignty: monarchy – republic (2)
The republic, too, has its roots in antiquity (Athens, Rome).
The formal source of power and therefore of the legitimacy of the state is the people
(community of citizens), and the activities of state institutions are based on the will of the
people.
The head of state is elected from among the citizens (by the people or the parliament)
The republic is generally identified with democracy, although this is not necessarily
correct.
The ‚heyday‘ of modern republicanism began with the French Revolution, and since then
the term „republic“ implies the overcoming of ‚older‘ forms of government, be it as a
result of systemic revolutionary change or, e.g., through the achievement of
independence by former colonies
All variants of the concept of a ‚global state‘ of ‚global society‘ take the republican model
as their obvious point of departure.
Type of government: democracy – authoritarian state /
totalitarian state (1)
democracy (from Greek „rule of / by the people“ → state instutions shall
provide for direct of indirect rule / governance in the interest of the citizens
direct democracy („ideal type“): citizens meet in the public space to
discuss and decide on matters of general concern (↔ private sphere);
referenda
pros: openness, direct exchange of views, strengthening of community
cons: hard to practice in multimillion nations; possible manipulation (demagogy)
indirect / representative democracy: citizens elect representatives
(deputies) to take decisions on behalf and in the interest of their
electorate (however: free mandate ↔ imperative mandate)
Type of government: democracy – authoritarian state /
totalitarian state (2)
liberal democracy: self-name of most democratic („Western“) systems
apart from the formal requirements / structures, a liberal democracy should be
effective; this means
institutions must be fully independent from each other (separation of powers) and
maintain constitutional standards including civic and human rights
politicians / political partie should strive for making decisions that serve the interest
and well-being of citizens as the collective sovereign
NGOs should have effective freedom of action
Corruption must be avoided or limited
Type of government: democracy – authoritarian state /
totalitarian state (3)
authoritarian state (or regime): political system, in which the effective
power remains permanently in the hands of one particular person or group
usually, the ‚regular‘ institutions of a modern state are in place, and low-
level, ‚non-political‘ procedures work normally, e.g.in the administration or
the economy; also, elections often take place in a formally regular way
however, the separation of power is broken, and state policies do not
(always) reflect the will of the people
the regime requests acceptance / obedience, but usually does not interfere
much in peoples‘ everyday lives (private sphere)
can use violence against opponents, but prefers to keep society quiet
Type of government: democracy – authoritarian state /
totalitarian state (4)
totalitarian state (or regime): political system, in which both formal and
effective power lie in the hands of the regime, this way not even theoretically
allowing for any change of the political course of the country → mostly one-party
system or pseudo-pluralism (several parties that must, however, accept the
leading role of the ruling party)
seeks to control all aspects of public life (politics, economy, culture, etc.), but also
the private sphere → no, or very little, personal autonomy; the regime does not
content itself with passive acceptance on part of the citizens but demands active
support through symbolic acts – e.g. public holidays – and ‚positive‘ contributions
regular use of violence, systematic elimination of oppositionists
aiming at total makeover of society according to ideological goals (extremism)
Type of government: democracy – authoritarian state /
totalitarian state (5)
Historical examples for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes
authoritarian regimes: governments of anti-Communist as well as anti-
liberal character during the inter-war period, notably in East-Central
Europe, Southern Europe and Latin America
East-Central Europa: Hungary (since 1920), Poland (since 1926), Lithuania
(since 1926), Yugoslavia (since 1929), Austria (since 1932), Estonia (since 1934),
Latvia (since 1934), Slovakia (since 1939)
Southern Europa: Spain (from 1923 to 1930 and from 1936 to 1975), Portugal
(from 1932 to 1974)
Latin America: Brazil (from 1930 to 1945), Argentina (from 1946 to 1955)
Type of government: democracy – authoritarian state /
totalitarian state (5)
Historical examples for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes
totalitarian regimes: the most radically anti-liberal governments aiming at an
upheaval of the entire domestic and international order (rules)
Soviet Russia (since 1917/18) / Soviet Union (since 1922): first Communist regime,
aiming at putting into practice Marxist theory (in the variation of „Marxism-Leninism“):
total control of Communist party over economy, politics, social relations
Italy: ‚original‘ fascism under Duce (Leader) Benito Mussolini (since 1922); strong,
centrally organised state with imperialist ambitions; example for many other „fascist“
movements
Germany: National Socialism (Nazism) under Führer (Leader) Adolf Hitler (since 1933):
combination of classical great-power politics with anti-Capitalism and „race“ theory
(escpecially antisemitism); collectivist reshaping of society
Conflicts of „systemic“ character in the 20th century
World War II (1939-1945): three (four) types of political systems struggling for
world domination
Western democracies (USA, Britain, France, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands…) +
some authoritarian regimes, including Poland
„Axis“ of fascist regimes (Germany, Italy, Japan) + and some authoritarian
regimes, including Hungary and Romania
bolshevist Soviet Union

Cold War (1947-1991): two types of political systems struggling for

world domination
Western democracies (USA, Canada, European NATO members)
“Socialist bloc” (Soviet Union, European Warsaw Pact members)
special role for “Third World”: southern countries, often former colonies
 Key criteria: Politico-administrative structure
Unitary state
unified entity in legal and political respect (part of international system)
centralised unitary state: only one level of formal and effective governance
decentralised unitary state: various levels of governance of different
character regarding their organisational and institutional make-up
Federal state
nation state consisting of different sub-units with certain legal and political
competences; these are legally equal, but can have different concrete features
→ often the result of historical processes