Typologies in Politics Analysis

Why typologies are used in the study of politics

In the study of politics, typology is used to capture a wide range of methods which influence can be exercised (Lührmann, Tannenberg, and Lindberg, 2018). The influence of ideas on political life is usually regarded as a challenging issue across various fields of research and reservations concerning the likelihood of evaluating the influence of ideas can be shown to vary but in revealing ways. Moreover, apprehension neither rests on one, shared reservations, nor sets of reservations. Most of the reservations also lack cogency. Therefore, the most useful method of addressing “problem-influence” is by using typology (Lührmann, Tannenberg, and Lindberg, 2018). This work intends to analyse various typologies in politics, such as Aristotle’s classification of governments, the three worlds system, democracy index, and freedom in the world.

Aristotle’s classification of governments

Aristotle’s classification of governments was mainly based on the number of individuals exercising supreme or maximum power, and the ends the individuals seek to serve their interests or benefit the whole community (Sidgwick, 1892). Aristotle’s view was that when the aim of rulers was the good of their community, the government would be one which is the pure form. However, when the rulers in the pure governments became selfish, such a state would be referred to as a perverted government. Aristotle claimed that when sovereignty rests on a single person, it is referred to as Monarchy. The perverted type of Monarchy is Tyranny. Furthermore, when sovereignty rests on a small minority population, it is called Aristocracy. However, when the small minority population uses their power for selfish interests, it becomes Oligarchy. According to Aristotle, when sovereignty rests on a large population, it is called polity and that the perverted form of polity is known as Democracy (Sidgwick, 1892).

Aristotle went ahead to develop the political change cycle (Robinson, 1997). This individual claim that change has occurred in all administration forms as a process that is natural because the state forms revolve in a cycle. Aristotle says that the initial government forms were kingship at a time when there were smaller cities with few men of great virtues. The kingship governments composed of kings who were benefactors and thus were bestowed by men of virtue. However, men and women of equal merit emerged against the power of one person; they developed a constitution and established a ruling class and a commonwealth. This ruling class then deteriorated and fed their self-interests using public treasury. Soon, oligarchies grew, and riches was the way to honour. They then became tyrannies, which led to democracies. The number of the ruling class, which diminished, strengthened the rest of the population and in the end, the rest of the population or the masses set upon the ruling class (their leaders) eventually establishing democracies. It is apparent from Aristotle’s explanation that monarchies were established first led by kings and after a while, the kings exploited their subjects leading to tyranny (Robinson, 1997).

People could not bear with this form of leadership for long, and they passed sovereign power to some intellectuals resulting in Aristocracy (Barker, 2013). Aristocracy deteriorated with time, allowing Oligarchy to be established. However, people could not tolerate Oligarchy for long, and at the right opportunity, citizens successfully revolted against Oligarchy to create polity where the supreme power was given to the people, a large population. This type of leadership was for the benefit of the people. However, the polity was perverted, allowing Democracy to take its place. Democracy degenerated making people to revolt, causing its disappearance. The people then elected a statesman as their leader bringing the Monarchy back in play. Therefore, the result is Aristotle’s revolving political change cycle (Barker, 2013).

The three world’s system

In the international relations field, there is a theory of the three worlds which proposes politico-economic worlds adding to three (Yee, 1983). The first world comprises of superpowers. The second world is made up of developing nations, and the third world consists of nations being exploited. In this theory, the first world is made of states like the USSR and the US that are involved in social imperialism and imperialism. The second world is composed of states like those in the global North-South divide, Europe, Canada, and Japan. Further, the third world is made up of states of Africa, continental Asia, and Latin America. In the field of political science, there is a three world’s theory, which is a geopolitical reformation and a Maoist interpretation of international relations. In this theory, states that make the first world include Great Britain, the US, and all their allies. In this theory, the second world is made of states like the Soviet Union, China, and all their allies. The third world, on the other hand, is made up of economically underdeveloped states and those that belong to the Non-Aligned Movement (Yee, 1983).

Democracy Index

This is an index that is developed by a unit based in the UK, known as the Economist Intelligence Unit (Rahat and Shapira, 2017). The intention of this unit is to estimate the democracy state of 167 countries, which 166 are sovereign nations and 164 are UN members. The unit bases this index on about 60 indicators which are based on five unique categories, measuring political culture, civil liberties, and pluralism. In addition to the numeric ranking and score, the index also categorises every state on four different types of regime, including authoritarian regimes, hybrid regimes. Flawed democracies and full democracies (Rahat and Shapira, 2017). In full democracy regimes, civil liberties, as well as fundamental political freedoms, are respected and reinforced by a conducive political culture allowing democratic principles to thrive (Schmidt, 2016). In states with flawed democracies, elections are free as well as fair, and their fundamental civil liberties are respected. They may, however, have some problems like the infringement of media freedom. In hybrid regimes, there are consequential irregularities in elections while authoritarian regimes have no or limited political pluralism (Schmidt, 2016).

Freedom in the world

It is a House’s flagship which assesses the state of civil liberties and political rights in the world. It analyses electoral processes, participation and political pluralism, government functions and freedom of belief, expression, organisational and associational rights, the constitution, individual rights, and personal autonomy (Bush, 2017).

References

• Barker, D.W., 2013. Oligarchy or elite democracy? Aristotle and modern representative government. New Political Science, 35(4), pp.547-566.
• Bush, S.S., 2017. The politics of rating freedom: Ideological affinity, private authority, and the Freedom in the World ratings. Perspectives on Politics, 15(3), pp.711-731.
• Lührmann, A., Tannenberg, M. and Lindberg, S.I., 2018. Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes. Politics & Governance, 6(1).
• Rahat, G. and Shapira, A., 2017. The Intra-Party Democracy Index: Development, Application, and Results 1. In The Elections in Israel 2013 (pp. 107-130). Routledge.
• Robinson, E.W., 1997. The first democracies: early popular government outside Athens (No. 107). Franz Steiner Verlag.
• Schmidt, M.G., 2016. Regime types: Measuring democracy and autocracy. List of contributors xiii Acknowledgements xx Introduction, p.111.
• Sidgwick, H., 1892. Aristotle's classification of forms of government. The Classical Review, 6(4), pp.141-144.
• Yee, H.S., 1983. The Three World theory and post-Mao China's global strategy. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 59(2), pp.239-249.