Talk:Form of government

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.

While I agree that communism and socialism do appear more economic than political systems, a dispute using "People's Republic" to refer to the USSR etc. Most communist dictatorships do use "People's Republic" as part of their formal title, but this is usually only posturing. Stalinist or Maoist governments have so few aspects of a republic, if any, that they may as well be "republics in name only", and being dictatorships, they don't exactly take to well to having ideas submitted by the common people. I think the proper aim of this and related pages should be to categorize and describe the actual components of the various systems which exist in governments, not what the governments themselves claim to advocate. Of course all (well, most) governments think they're doing good for the people, that's how they justify their existence. But they can't all be right, or there'd be no need for categorization.

In addition, although communism is theoretically an economic system, in practice it tends toward specific political systems in order to be implemented on nation-scale. These are usually very authoritarian systems such as a Stalinist dictatorship. There are very few governments, for instance, which are both truly communist and truly democratic at the same time for very long. Socialism, however, is a different case, and may be more likely to be an economic system independent of political associations. I'm not really sure how to incorporate any of these thoughts into the articles, though. MQinator (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

I would rather see possible future governments as a new article that links to this article. Giving the topic it's own page would allow for a lot more creative additions while allowing this article to focus on historical and current forms. The new article could start as a copy of this article that is modified to focus on why these forms of government failed and what it should be replaced with Cobra Control (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2009 (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)

Form of government - confusion

I think that "form of government" is acceptable when referencing "democracy," "monarchy" and "republic." These labels are ancient and should not carry the modern baggage of being called a "system." "Systems" are those elements found within a government that make ruling possible, elements such as elections, budgets, and prisons. A "regime" strikes me as being an actual group of rulers over an actual state. Perhaps a way to approach this is to divide up the categories as "Traditional forms" (the Aristotelian monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, etc.) and "Modern forms" (parliamentary, presidential, semi-presidential). I agree with Arado that those are "forms," but they are still normally those forms that we identify with free states. I think you still need some broader categories for forms than just those normally associated with the label "democracy." Hague and Harrop's most recent text uses a "democratic" and "authoritarian" framework. This seems sensible and has some historical grounding. Bibowen 3:10 27 February 2006

I AGREE WITH YOU. Political regime is something else but there would be a lot of damage if we moved the article. I put a "subheading" to clarify it Astharoth1 (comments to astharoth1@yahoo.com). 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a confusion!!!. The article actually refers to the concept of political regime (democracy, dictatorship and so on).

Form of government means something else. It is about the nature of the executive: divided (parliamentary or semi-presidential, and the functions of both the head of state and head of government) or monolithic (where the head of government is also the head of state)

Forms of government are:

• Parliamentary: UK, Germany, Japan
• Semi-presidential: France
• Presidential: USA

See for example: Hague, Rod/Harrop, Martin (1998): Comparative Government and Politics, 4th edition. Houndmills: MacMillan. --Arado 11:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point. Feel free to work on correct definitions and fix the confusion. An article on political regime would be a good start (it currently redirects to Political system, note that form of government redirects to this list, not a perfect soultion as well). See also: parliamentary system, semi-presidental system, presidental system and others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Expert" (b.t.w. hate the word)

I gave the article a measure of "expertise", by rewriting the definition, by bringing up important scholarly debates and literature in comparative politics.

However, I refrained to mention epistemological, and other important normative and methodological, questions. I believe that the spirit of the reformed article is to have the text at the high scool-college level, so more people can read and use the broad category.

I was surprised that no other political scientist had reformed this page before. Astharoth1 P.S. I opened another subheading to put the previous text. 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)email me at astharoth1@yahoo.edu

Single-party system

A comment to the "single-party system" in socialist countries: the difference between the US dual-party system is not characteristic. However there was only one party in socialist counties, the elections were rather focused on persons, and there were usually more candidates in an elections. Ruthenian 10:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

By socialist, I think you mean communist. Note that there were in theory several facade parties, but in practice all were subordinate to one main party. The elections were also often rigged, with results predetermined and 'winning' candidates selected before anybody cast their vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So...

Which of these governments are used today and which are outdated?

There is no such thing as an outdated government. ALL forms of government are viable if they are ruled by benevolent leaders.

-G

Origins of words

I've noticed that many of the greek origins of some of the forms of governments are inconsistant..

Aristocracy, Autocracy, Democracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Plutocracy and Theocracy all seem to stem from a similiar greek word namely κρατειν/kratein - to rule. But on most of the pages, the word is different. I have found kratôr, kratos, ἄρχων/archon, ἄρχω/arcgekho, and κρατειν/kratein..

If the meaning is the same (to rule) then shouldnt the greek word used to portray this be the same?

This could prove confusing to anyone trying to find the origins of the words.. Is it worth changing? Or are the words, in fact, of the right origins, and in reality DO vary this much. If so, i apologise for my ignorance..

Anacyclosis

Is it possible to include some information on anacyclosis in this article? Anacyclosis is a theory that the government will undergo a cycle of changing into various forms of government. It starts with monarchy, then goes to tyranny, then aristocracy, and so on until it leads back to monarchy. It seems related but I don't really know how to include it in this article. Thaurisil 14:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Outdated "Dominion" of Canada

In the Canada Act (1982), under which the British Parliament finally abdicated the right to legislate for Canada, and the Canadian Constitution of the same year, the country is referred to as "Canada".

The term, "Dominion" was an alternative to "Kingdom" and comes from the British North America Act (1867), which used to provide Canada's Constitutional framework. "Dominion" is obsolete and is only used for historical purposes. Some see it as somewhat insulting to use this Imperialist term for the second-largest country in the World; a prosperous, long-established and stable democracy of 27 million people, which no longer has constitutional links to the United Kingdom.

British Citizens lost their special rights [to vote etc] in the 1980s and are now treated like anyone else. Even the symbolic "Crown" is, in legal terms, a number of separate entities in the countries, which retain Elizabeth II as nominal Head of State- hence the term "The Crown, in the right of _______". Canadians, most of whom are of British origin, love British people but Canada is an independent country, not a colony.

Anyone, who is pedantic enough to point out that one verse of "O, Canada" contains the line "Hold our dominion in thy loving care" will be tied to a tree near Craigellachie and forced to count the number of containers, which have travelled westwards, from Montreal. [That was a joke: it is also a very peaceful country, unlike some others in the Americas, ahem.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evieconrad (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Iran

Iran is a theocracy, not a presidential republic. Yes, it has a president, but ulimately the power rests in the Ayatollah and his priests.

Pantisocracy

I notice there is neither mention nor article for the utopian pantisocracy government. Anyone out there know enough to have some inclusion, or is it not article-worthy? -BaronGrackle 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

what would be?

what would be a govement that everyone votes but it is rated by current status (using for wiki) with it going Admin->Sysops->Normal users on what we call the security counsil->normal users->IP adressess and everyone gets a vote relative to ranking with everyone given the opritunity to make a suggestion. Djf2014 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Other forms

Would a dewmocracy be considered a form of government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to Disambiguation Page "Union"

I'm fixing links to disambiguation pages as a part of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, and I noticed that in the last bullet point of the intro, there is a link to the disambiguation page union. I would fix this, but I don't know what kind of union Burma is. If someone can please look through the links on the union disambiguation page and find the one that applies, that would be great. Thanks. Ensign beedrill (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

i look fore job wheth you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.224.216 (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Majority vs coalition in "Attributes of government" section

The Attributes of government section of this article includes the distinction between majority and coalition governments. That isn't related to a stable form of government like the other attributes, but to a temporal situation that may easily change at any time. Do you agree that it should be removed from the list? --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Peru

How can Peru be a "fully presidential republic" when it has both a President and a Prime Minister? Surely this would make it a semi-presidential or even parliamentary republic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.52.215 (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Form of government and Political System

What are the differences between Form of government and Political system ????--Adikhebat (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Could both article be merged? if not why? I still can't understand difference of them --Adikhebat (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unifocracy

I have stumbled upon a new government theory or whatever you call it. It is called Unifocracy. The official site of it is here: http://unifocracy.multiply.com/ It seems thought out. I suggest we could consider it being added to the list. I know the person who came up with it so if you need more information of it ask me and ill give you the creators contact info. Legendman3 12:04, 20 July 2011 (CST)

Are there third-party sources which establish this person's idea as notable? -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Socialist state?

I was taught by a very learned history teacher that "socialism" and "communism" are economic systems, NOT government types. For example, one could have a theocratic state that employs communism as the method of allocating resources. Communism need not involve atheism. Likewise, there are multiple nations around the world that employ socialism, but they have vastly different political systems. I just wanted to question the validity of including these as government types.

Bowlesdp (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Different people use different semantics, but arguably "socialism" is the centrally-planned economic system and "communism" is "government by workers" or "single-party rule by the Communist Party" which has historically been combined with both socialism (but with more aspects of capitalism in recent decades). -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Observations

I just stumbled across this and there are many changes I would make. Remove either Patriarchy or Androcracy, they are both the same thing (male rulers) although Patriarchy is a better page Androcracy is the actual term for the rule of government (although matriarchy is used instead of Gynocracy). So either merge Androcracy into Patriarchy then remove Androcracy from the list or just remove one of them. Corporatism isn't a type of government. (The) Garrison state appears to actually be a book so shouldn't really be in this template. Green state is a type of democracy so should be a subsection of tha tpage. Kakistocracy doesn't have an entry, but it is locked. Confusing! Kratocracy isn't actually a type of government, it as a way of staging a coup. Kyriarchy, not sure what this is but it is not a type of government. Mediocracy is not a type of government. The page Nomocracy is crap, it seems to be some sort of term for an Islamic theocracy. Or is it an Autocracy? I'm not sure but it clearly isn't a type of government it is a sub-type of one of those other types. Noocracy is a self described 'Aristocracy' so should be merged. Panarchism is a subsection of Anarchism and not itself a type of government. Pantisocracy appears to be a type of Communism. Plantocracy is just a type of Plutocracy although that itself seems to be a type of Oligarchy. Sociocracy appears to be a type of Democracy. Squirearchy is not a type of government. Police state is not a type of government but is a type of Totalitarianism. Sultanism is a type of Monarchy. Superpower is not a type of government. Synarchism is not its own type of government. Finally, Welfare state is not a type of government. I do not know why all these redundant terms are in here. But this template is severly bloated and should probably be, at least, halved. I thought it best to come here first, as maybe there is some reason for having these excess terms here, and I didn't want to be rude by making vast changes to this template when I had not contributed to it before. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Due to a split and later merger, I think these comments now apply to List of forms of government. I made some edits there, feel free to discuss further on Talk:List of forms of government. -- Beland (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)