1.0 Introduction
With the end of the cold war, a new political world order emerged. An order that witnessed the collapse of the former Soviet Union. This was accompanied by the belief in the triumph of Western liberal democracy. Such a belief was made by Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and the Last Man. According to him, what the world may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War; or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such. He believed that it was the end of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government (Fukuyama, 1992).
The belief in the democratic transition was also outlined by Samuel Huntington in his book The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. In this book, he outlined the global trend that has seen more than 60 countries all through Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia passing through some form of democratic transition since Portugal's Carnation Revolution.
However, the post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of different types of political regimes other than liberal democracy. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe), post-communist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transitional forms of democracy. In since different types of political regimes other than liberal democracy or authoritarian regimes have emerged. (Brooker, 2013).
Various categorizations have emerged to describe the growing number of ineffective types of democracies in the hybrid zone that varied between fully closed autocracy and fully effective democracy. Despite differences in terminology, scholars agree that state failure in the enforcement of rule of law is the key factor separating effective from ineffective democracies. Applying this distinction, categorical approaches prevail that distinguish effective against ineffective democracies. One of these attempts is the index of “effective democracy.”1 This index could be a useful tool for democracy assessment at a time when the phenomenon of ineffective democracy and other types than liberal democracy is gaining significance (Alexander & Welzel, 2011).
Research on political regimes has remained at the forefront of modern political science and political sociology throughout the post-World War II era. Researchers have grappled with different problems; the origins of totalitarianism (Arendt 1951; Friedrich and Brzezinski 1965), the prospects for democratization in underdeveloped societies (Lerner 1958; Lipset 1960; Huntington 1968), the emergence of authoritarianism in certain newly industrializing countries (O'Donnell 1973; Stepan 1973; Linz 1978), and the comparative performance of different regime types (Powell 1982; Weede 1983; Sloan and Tedin 1987)
1.1 Theoretical Background
The question of political regimes, definition, characteristics, and typology is not something new in politics and can be traced back to ancient Greece especially in Athens where different types of political regimes existed as can be seen in the writing of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and others. One of these types is democracy. The Athenian democracy is generally considered the first reference to classical democracy. (mathematical democracy)
The emergence of democracy is associated with Cleisthenes’ constitution of Athens, which came into existence in 508/7 BC. A description of it was given by historians such as; Thucydides (460–395 BC), Plato (428–348 BC), and Aristotle (384–322 BC), Its main feature was the great participation by citizens in political life and their active work in the three branches of power. ( mathematical democracy)
The reasons behind introducing political elements of participation by the people were: to provide social consensus and stabilize the state on one hand. Since Athens had witnessed the rule of both aristocracy and oligarchy, tyrannies both good and bad, and political confusion with disloyalty. In a continuous state of war with neighbors and the constant struggle for power, neither regime provided political stability. Athenian leaders successively introduced elements of political participation by the people to enrich people's consent and in an attempt to stabilize the state. (mathematical democracy)
On the other hand, Athens had great lawmakers and philosophers. The laws of Solon of 594 BC became the basis of the Athenian state for centuries and together with Cleisthenes’ constitution gave the inspiration for the first Roman law of the Twelve Tables of 450 BC which became the basis of the constitution of the Roman Republic. (Twelve Tables, 2012). The Athenian intellectuals influenced political thought which made democracy also became a political ideology (Hansen,1991).
As mentioned Cleisthenes’ democratic constitution is considered the first step to Athens' democracy which democracy emerged in Athens in 508/7 BC. However, the path to democracy was not easy. History shows gradual steps introducing democratic elements before reaching that democratic constitution. At first, Draco (ca. 650– 600 BC) was chosen to compile Athens’ first written code of law in 621 BC and through that written laws instead of oral ones became known to all and applicable to all which made the aristocrats lose their legislative and juridical monopoly. (mathematical democracy and model of democracy for divide held)
Then, the laws of Solon came into existence which remained in force until the abolishment of democracy in 322 BC by the Macedonians [Hansen 1991, pp. 30–31]. Solon terminated enslavement for debt and gave freedom to those enslaved. He continued with different political, economic, and moral reforms. The election became dependent on wealth instead of birth. Another contribution to Salon was introducing measures to increase political participation, which was seen as a moral obligation. [Aristotle 330 BC, Athenian Constitution, 8.5].
However, neither the rich nor the poor were fully satisfied with Solon's law. In the end, the whole society was fully fragmented. This fragmentation ended with Peisistratos 'coup, thus establishing an unconstitutionally gained tyranny in 561 BC. Peisistratos, the Tyrant of Athens, ruled until his death in 527 BC. Contrary to the known understanding, a tyrant- in the classical sense- was not necessarily an oppressive ruler, but meaning ‘one who takes power by force’. In that sense, Peisistratos governed the Athenians without affecting the order of offices or changing the laws. He governed the city according to its established constitution and organized all things fairly and well’ (Herodotus 450–420 BC, Book 1). He faced the aristocracy, decreased their privileges, confiscated their lands, and redistributed them to the poor. Moreover, He also established a traveling court to serve local justice throughout the city-state (mathematical and model of democracy for divide held).
In 508/7 BC, a democratic constitution was designed upon Cleisthenes’ initiative (Boedeker and Raaflaub 1998, Finley 1973). Its greatest innovation was taking power from the aristocrats and giving it to the common which marginalizes the power of untrusted nobles. More importantly, Cleisthenes protected democracy from a new tyranny through a mechanism called ostracism (Aristotle 330 BC, Athenian Constitution, 22.1)
He attempted to increase the political participation of the people by dividing the state into ten tribes instead of four so that more may have the chance to be part of the government; Under Cleisthenes’ constitution, the Ekklesia (People’s Assembly) became the legislative body of Athens. It was the general meeting of all citizens —that is, males of Athenian origin over the age of 20(Anderson 1974, Hansen 1991, Hyland 1995). Cleisthenes found a new organ of state, the Boule or Council of Five Hundred. Its role was to set the agenda for the Assembly and to select collective magistrates from its members. The Council's administration was by the Executive Committee of Fifty. The people’s courts — with large juries of 201, 501, and sometimes up to 5001 jurors- were charged primarily with political functions like judging the legality of actions. Thus, laying down the division of power into three branches. (mathematical democracy and model of democracy for divide held)
As for the origin of the term ‘democracy’, it existed in the 6th century BC(Hansen 1986, Hansen 1991, pp. 69–71). However, the political system introduced by Cleisthenes was called isonomia (equality of political rights) and was not democratic. The more aggressive word demokratia (rule of common people, or even of the low class) was first applied to Athens late in the 5th century by Herodotus. (mathematical democracy
As Aristotle points out in his Politics, the rotation principle, ‘to govern and to be governed in turn’, was the leading principle of Athenian democracy, It aims to achieve equality and prevent the misuse of power(Hansen, 1991).
As it can be seen, different types of regimes could be seen in Athens, and that can be illustrated by Plato and Aristotle's typology of regimes. Plato's classification of regimes was; Aristocracy which is a form of government ruled by a philosopher king based on reason and wisdom. He was an advocate of this regime more than the other four types. Timocracy which is the rule by the wealthy and powerful is mixed of aristocracy and oligarchy as in Sparta. Oligarchy is when power rests on a small number of people privileged by the nobility, wealth, education, or political or military control; democracy is ruled by people; and tyranny is ruled by a single dictator (Plato 360 BC, Republic, Books 8–9)).
Later Aristotle divided each type of government into good and bad ones. In the good one, the power is subordinated to the law, and in the bad one, the law is subordinated to the power. He clarified these six-fold types in his Politics. Aristotle classified government based on the Rule of the one; the good one Monarchy, and the bad one Tyranny; Rule of the few; the good one Aristocracy, and the bad one Oligarchy; Rule of the many; the good one Lawful democracy and the bad one Lawless democracy. ( and model of democracy for divide held)
In addition to dividing each type of government into good and bad versions, Aristotle, in Books 4 and 6 of Politics, pays attention to intermediate cases. He defines four types of oligarchy and democracy, ranging from their radical (worst) versions to the ones resembling aristocracy and lawful democracy, the latter being called politeia — constitutional government (Hansen,1991).
It should be noted that Plato had a negative approach to democracy that can be seen in his Republic. According to Plato, the problem is not only that common people are not qualified to rule the state. Their confidence in politicians makes them victims of ill-conceived reforms, unavoidable wars, and unfair judgments. All of these led to economic failures, and military loss which could have been avoided. (mathematical)
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In addition, the Athenian democracy is called direct democracy since the Athenian citizens engaged directly in political life and legislation through the political procedures as mentioned in the constitution. On the other hand, it is also selective; Almost 90% of the Athenian population was ineligible to participate in the formal procedures, descendants of immigrants whose families had settled in Athens several generations earlier, women, and slaves could not participate. Only native Athenian males over 20, who made up about 10% of the Athenian population could engage in political life. ( and model of democracy for divide held and mathematical)
Despite all the advantages of the Athenian democracy, it was not out of flaws as it appears from Plato's negative approach to democracy, as it was also selective. The alternative to democracy, as proposed by Plato, is a society governed by philosophers and educated professionals. By the end of his life, Plato had the conclusion that a government cannot be stable without popular consent and participation. He started to establish the theory of a mixed state, including philosopher-kings with democracy (Held 2006). This idea was later developed by Aristotle who formulated his own theory of mixed governance mixing elements of oligarchy and democracy together (Aristotle 340 BC, Politics mathematical).
Aristotle in his Politics praised the mixed state in ancient Greece and the best example of it was Sparta. He praised Sparta for its mixed state under the laws of legendary Lycurgus (ca. 820 – 730 BC). According to Aristotle, Sparta's constitution is a mixed one of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy which allows its citizens to take part in public life. (mathematical of Democracy and Model of Democracy, Aristotle 340 BC, Politics, Book 2
Moreover, both Plato and Polybius (ca. 200 BC – 120 BC), a Roman general and a historian suggest the idea of rotation of governmental types kyklos (cycle). According to Polybius, a society is originally anarchy just trying to survive. The need for order makes the strongest personality into a leader, who founds a kingship. Kings’ descendants, paying attention to their power, become tyrants. Then a few leading citizens challenge the tyranny and collectively establish an aristocracy. Due to their power, they get rich, virtue and values become secondary, and the state degenerates into an oligarchy. This is then overthrown by the citizen, and a democracy is set up which gradually becomes corrupt and degrades further to anarchy. (Polybius 2nd century BC, Histories, Book 6, 10, mathematical democracy).
In order to avoid corruption and stabilize the state, the best way is to combine all good forms of government, where each form controls the others in an equal equilibrium according to Polybius like Sparta. Polybius opinion on mixed government influenced Cicero (106 – 43 BC) and influenced the political thought of the 14th-century Renaissance and the 18th-century Enlightenment (Cicero 2012, models of democracy and mathematical democracy).
The mixed government was implemented in republics. Cicero and other Latin writers start to use the word res publica2 as an alternative to the Greek politeia 3 which was translated as ‘republic’ by Renaissance scholars describing the medieval Italian city-states (Republic 2012). The archetype of all republics in classical and medieval times was the Roman Republic (model of democracy).
The Roman Republic was the age of classical Roman civilization that traditionally dated back to 509 BC with the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom, and ended in 27 BC with the establishment of the Roman Empire
The Roman Republic's highest administration institution was the consul. The power was held by two consuls, who had to make decisions by unanimity since each of the consuls had veto power. In addition, they were elected only for one year to avoid the misuse of power. During an emergency, a dictator was appointed to run the state for six months (Roman Republic 2012. model of democracy).
The most influential governmental institution was the Roman Senate founded upon the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus in 753 BC. The Senate gave advice to the consuls and lower magistrates in the most important decisions. The sovereign of the Roman Republic was the citizenry, arranged into legislative assemblies with different areas of competence. The assemblies had the legislative power to pass laws, elected magistrates, and considered some other issues. Each assembly was presided over by a single magistrate who controlled the agenda, procedure, and legality, making the magistrate’s power over the assembly nearly complete and absolute (mathematical democracy).
However, the citizens have the right to control the magistrates with their right to appeal the magistrates 'decisions to higher rank magistrates. The citizens also could evaluate them after each term to restrict the use of the office. This made the Roman Republic practice direct democracy, meaning that citizens, and not elected representatives voted for particular decisions before each assembly. (model of democracy).
It should be mentioned that Rome has two classes The descendants of the first senators were the Patrician class (Roman Senate 2012)and the Plebeian Commoners which had its own council that passed most laws and elected its own officers. However, in 449 BC, the Plebeian Council gained the status of an assembly and had the full force of law overall Romans (plebeians and patricians). In 287 BC the last instrument allowing the Roman Senate to veto acts of the Plebeian Council was revoked. After this, almost all domestic legislation was passed by Plebeian Council (Legislative Assemblies 2012, mathematical democracy).
The Roman Republic's mixed government of different forms of power provided remarkable political stability, economic prosperity, and military success that made the republican model so attractive for so many centuries. It is also believed that the Roman Republic existed much longer than the Athenian democracy simply because of its mixed type of government; (Staveley 1972, Finley 1973, Nicolet 1980). It was free from the weaknesses of inappropriate interventions and the overburdening of the population with civil duties. A set of checks and balances developed between the different forms of power so as to decrease the risk of tyranny and corruption, and to increase the possibility of good government (Constitution of the Roman Republic 2012). References pg 54
As in ancient Greece, the Roman Republic also witnessed different types of political regimes, this can be demonstrated by thinkers like Marsilius who adopts Aristotle's six typologies of power. However, while democracy reached its highest point in Athens and was used in Rome, it began to lose its ideological role and was gradually ignored in favor of other forms of power, which seemed more appropriate in the historical context. Christianity had a great influence on this process. The perfect model of an active citizen was replaced by the ideal of a true believer; the idea of political participation by citizens was not the main essence of being a true citizen, but rather the full subordination to the church and authority in the Roman Emperor. (model of democracy and mathematical).
After declining during the Roman Empire, attention to mixed government started to gain attention in the 10th century in the medieval Italian city-republics like Venice, Florence, and some others. Once they had achieved independence from the German Holy Roman Emperor. Venice and Florence had emerged as independent maritime republics with power over several Mediterranean colonies due to trade, shipbuilding, banking, and military companies supported by advanced navies (Italian City-states 2012).
Italian philosophers and political thinkers revived the interest in the theory of mixed government, they also revived Cicero’s word ‘republic’ (res publica — public concern) that was often inaccurately applied to the Italian city-states (models of democracy .mathmatical democracy).
Venice is one of the best examples of a city-republic. It existed for 1100 years between the election of the first Doge in 697 and its abolishment by Napoleon in 1797. Venice has mixed government and political institutions that restricted the use of power. Its Dodge gradually started to have a constrained power after the Great Council was established in 1172. This council had the role of appointing and
controlling officials with the power to create laws. In addition, In 1175 the Minor Council4 was established of six advisors to the Doge5, and in 1179 the supreme tribunal Quarantine was established. In 1223 the central body of government became the Signoria, which was made of the Doge, the Minor Council, and the three leaders of the Quarantine. (mathematical democracy)
Those institutions clearly ensured the restriction of absolute power with a clear division between the three branches of power. Those reasons make Machiavelli describes Venice as an ‘excellent’ republic that is subordinated to law and has a legal institute to govern beyond the law in extraordinary circumstances. (Machiavelli 1517, Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy, models of democracy).
The Venetian Republic had a mixed government, combining monarchy in the Doge, aristocracy in the Senate, and, democracy in the Great Council. Although the Great Council was made of nobles, the poor ones were legitimate to vote but had no real chance of election to magistracy themselves.
The reasons behind such an interest in mixed government were: political developments in the Italian republics; endless conflicts in the clergy, the Pope’s power over the clergy, as well as the clergy’s disregard for civil authorities. Moreover, the church's dominance over power became an important issue. This issue with other political issues became dominant in order to bring stability to society. For instance, Ockham formulated the basics of power interrelations in terms of individual rights in (Ockham ca. 1332–1348, Dialogues). He had an opinion close to the modern democratic principle — the right of individuals to take part in the governing process. In addition, he also discusses topical questions related to interactions between the state and the Church in legislative, juridical, and economical fields. (mathematical democracy)
In that sense democratization and mixed government as argued by Machiavelli were pragmatic means to bring stability. Machiavelli saw the role of democracy as a counterweight to authoritarian power. Such a pragmatic understanding of democracy differed from Athens' developmental conception, which aimed at giving equal rights to all citizens. He saw democracy as an interaction of self-determination, self-protection, self-stabilization, and self-development that was a fundamental step in political thinking. (Machiavelli 1517, Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy, Book I, 2)
Stuck on your essay?
