Talk:Form of government
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
Fundamentalism vs. theocracy
I replaced "Fundamentalism" with "Theocracy". Fundamentalism as a common noun is the extreme literalist form of any religion, and as a proper noun is a particular movement in 20th-century Protestantism. In either case it is not a form of government.
The Taliban government in Afghanistan was an oligarchic Islamic theocracy. The government proposed by Christian Reconstructionism is a Christian theocratic republic. While the religious views of either movement may be called fundamentalist, their political views are theocratic.
Similar terms
Question: Is it accurate to refer to socialism and communism as forms of government? I would term them economic models (with capitalism, mercantilism, etc.) rather than government types. For the USSR and other Iron Curtain states, I would use the government type "People's Republic", a subclass of oligarchy noted for claiming to rule in the name of the common people.
More thoughts: The words "autocracy" and "despotism" seem pretty similar, and "absolute monarchy" a subclass thereof. "Dictatorship" is a related term. How about "empire"? Is "meritocracy" a form of government, or a political theory? (Was the Confucian bureaucracy in China meritocratic, or feudal?) Feudal? Oh yeah, "Feudalism" has been a popular form of government in various places.
System of government
Would system of government be a better title?
- I'm not sure that anarchism a form or system of government. Should there be a note saying that it is not? Maybe the title should avoid `government.' Perhaps `national organisation system' would be better. Tim Ivorson 17:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Europe trouble and social democracy
Hmm, while several EU nations are monarchies, they are also Democracies. Oddly, the combination of consensus and representation used in european democracies seems to somehow be missed? Or at least it's not clear where one should look. Maybe I can add in Social Democracy or so, that'll go some distance. 80.126.238.189 17:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, social democracy is more of a political movement than a form of state. I'll leave it in there for now, and see if someone replaces it with a more useful link. 80.126.238.189 17:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Futurology
I might add some stuff about possible future government types. The advent of computers would allow 'Thought Control' type 1984 governments, or Cybernetic Socities where the laws are made by computer intelligence. There are a few other interesting types too. Good idea? --ShaunMacPherson 19:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, they are very speculative, but with such a disclaimer, this section could be useful. We should add more classifications of existing types of governemtn (do see external links I added to White's Historical Atlas). Oh, I also added patriarchy and tripartite classification of authority links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
List to be moved off
I propose that the list is moved to a separate article. Should it be entitled List of forms of government or List of political systems or something else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What is a political systems and what is not
Some political systems (as in what this page is about) are often confused with economic systems. I think we need to go through the current system and weed some stuff out (social democracy is a good example, it is an ECONOMIC system, not a POLITICAL one - IMHO). Do you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Republic and democracy
Putting republic as a type of democracy is a grevious error, IMHO. Setting aside the fact that Plato IIRC divided forms of government into democracy, republic and despotism, from our own Wiki definition of republic: The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people. In some cases, a republic may be a dictatorial or totalitarian state. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On classification (Mihnea Tudoreanu, please read)
I don't want to revert your changes, but I don't agree with some of them. Let's have a little talk aboit them here, ok?
- 1) Authoritarianism and Autocracy are very close together. While I agree that my previous hierarchical categorization of them was not very good, removing a link between them is not much better. Perhaps we should put them on the same vertical line (as in a... see also a...)?
- "Authoritarianism" is a general term, while Autocracy is much more specific. Autocracy means "rule by one", whereas authoritarianism just means a rule by an authoritarian government. This authoritarian government does not have to be led by an autocrat, therefore authoritarianism is not a form of autocracy.
- 2) Coordinatorism is an economic system, not political, I suggest removing it entirely from that list (it's place is on the List of economic systems, not here)
- I agree. It was my mistake, and I'll correct it. Sorry for the trouble.
- 3) Communist states should autocracy/dictatorship (this is even mentioned in the current lead of their own article). Why do you object to that? Please remember we are not talking about economic system here, only about the form of government - and the definition reads: communist state is one ruled by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism. It is also called Marxist-Leninist state/government/dictatorship
- I object to this because different communist states belong in different categories. Some are autocracies (Stalin's USSR), others are oligarchies (most of Eastern Europe, the post-Stalin USSR, Vietnam since the 70's, etc.), yet others are military dictatorships (Poland in the early 80's, North Korea). So where do you put "communist states" in general? They obviously need their own separate category.
- 4) Same goes for facism. Why create a separate entry when in the political essence it was also a one-party dictatorship?
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Was Nazi Germany an autocracy or an oligarchy? Was Franco's Spain an oligarchy or a military dictatorship? Fascist governments are difficult to classify in any of the other categories, so they should stay separate. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:31, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I see your point. That's the problem with ideology and economic system infecting political systems. One name can have so many meanings - and contradictory examples. Still, the facist examples you mention look like an autocracies to me (rule by one strong leader...Hitler, Franco, Mussolini). Perhpas what we need is to decide if what the main goverment types are before we start arguing about the subtypes...or perhaps we can include the 'mixed' ones into several main types, instead of making them a stand-alone type? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
