Political Theory (1) Week 4-6 PDF

POLITCS POLITICAL THEORY (1) WEEK 4-6 GOVERNMEN THE STATE T  THE STATE  The term ‘state’ can be used to refer to a confusing range of things: a collection of institution...

POLITCS POLITICAL THEORY (1) WEEK 4-6 GOVERNMEN THE STATE T  THE STATE  The term ‘state’ can be used to refer to a confusing range of things: a collection of institutions, a territorial unit, a historical entity, a philosophical idea, and so on.  In everyday language, the state is often confused with the government, the two terms being used interchangeably.  The precise relationship between state and government is, highly complex. Government is part of the state, and in some respects is its most important part, but it is only an element within a much larger and more powerful entity.  So powerful and extensive is the modern state that its nature has become the centerpiece of political argument and ideological debate.  THE STATE  This is reflected, in the first place, in disagreement about the nature of state power and the interests it represents, that is, competing theories of the state.  Second, there are profound differences about the proper function or role of the state: what should be done by the state and what should be left to private individuals?  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  The state is often defined narrowly as a separate institution or set of institutions, as what is commonly thought of as ‘the state’. (For example, when Louis XIV supposedly declared, ‘L’Etat, c’est moi’, he was referring to the absolute power that was vested in himself as monarch).  The state therefore stands for the apparatus of government in its broadest sense, for those institutions that are recognizably ‘public’ in that they are responsible for the collective organization of communal life and are funded at the public’s expense.  Thus the state is usually distinguished from civil society.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  The state comprises the various institutions of government, the bureaucracy, the military, police, courts, social security system and so forth; it can be identified with the entire ‘body politic’.  It is in this sense, for instance, that it is possible to talk about ‘rolling forward’ or ‘rolling back’ the state, by which is meant expanding or contracting the responsibilities of state institutions and, in the process, enlarging or reducing the machinery of the state.  However, such an institutional definition fails to take account of the fact that, in their capacity as citizens, individuals are also part of the political community, members of the state. Moreover, the state has a vital territorial component, its authority being confined to a precise geographical area.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  This is why the state is best thought of not just as a set of institutions but as a particular kind of political association, specifically one that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial borders.  In that sense, its institutional apparatus merely gives expression to state authority.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  SOVEREIGNTY:  The defining feature of the state is sovereignty, its absolute and unrestricted power.  The state commands supreme power in that it stands above all other associations and groups in society; its laws demand the compliance of all those who live within the territory.  Hobbes conveyed this image of the state as the supreme power by portraying it as a ‘Leviathan’, a gigantic monster, usually represented as a sea creature.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  SOVEREIGNTY: It is its sovereignty which distinguishes the modern state from earlier forms of political association:  In medieval times, for instance, rulers exercised power but only alongside a range of other bodies, notably the church, the nobility, and the feudal guilds.  It was widely accepted that religious authority, centering on the Pope, stood above the temporal authority of any earthly ruler.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  CENTRAL POWER: The modern state, however, which first emerged in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe, took the form of a system of centralized rule that succeeded in subordinating all other institutions and groups, spiritual and temporal. Although such a state is now the most common form of political community worldwide, usually taking the form of the nation-state, there are still examples of stateless societies.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  AUTHORITY WITHIN ITS TERRITORY: In addition to sovereignty, states can be distinguished by the particular form of authority that they exercise. First, state authority is territorially limited  States claim sovereignty only within their own borders, thus regulate the flow of persons and goods across these borders.  In most cases these are land borders, but they may also extend several miles into the sea.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: Second, the jurisdiction of the state within its borders is universal (Everyone living within a state is subject to its authority):  This is usually expressed through citizenship, literally membership of the state, which entails both rights and duties.  Non-citizens resident in a state may not be entitled to certain rights, like the right to vote or hold public office, and may be exempt from particular obligations, such as jury service or military service, but they are nevertheless still subject to the law of the land.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  COMPULSORY JURISDICTION: Third, states exercise compulsory jurisdiction:  Those living within a state rarely exercise choice about whether or not to accept its authority.  Most people become subject to the authority of a state by virtue of being born within its borders; in other cases, this may be a result of conquest.  Immigrants and naturalized citizens are here exceptions since they alone can be said to have voluntarily accepted the authority of a state.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  COERCION: Finally, state authority is backed up by coercion:  The state must have the capacity to ensure that its laws are obeyed, which in practice means that it must possess the ability to punish transgressors.  Max Weber: ‘The state is a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’.  Not only that the state had the ability to ensure the obedience of its citizens but also the acknowledged right to do so.  A monopoly of ‘legitimate violence’ is the practical expression of state sovereignty.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  Nevertheless, the relationship between the state and government remains complex: The state is an inclusive association, which in a sense embraces the entire community and encompasses those institutions that constitute the public sphere. Government is merely part of the state.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  COMPLEX relationship between the state and government:  The state is a continuing, even permanent, entity.  Government is temporary: governments come and go and systems of government can be remodeled.  Government may be possible without a state.  The state is inconceivable in the absence of government.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  COMPLEX relationship between the state and government:  Government is responsible for making and implementing state policy (As a mechanism through which collective decisions are enacted).  Government is ‘the brains’ of the state:  It gives authoritative expression to the state.  It is usually thought to dictate to and control other state bodies, the police and military, educational and welfare systems and the like.  Government serves to maintain the state itself in existence (By implementing the various state functions).  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  The distinction between state and government is not, simply an academic refinement; it goes to the very heart of constitutional rule: Government power can only be held in check when the government of the day is prevented from encroaching on the absolute and unlimited authority of the state. This is particularly important given the conflicting interests which the state and the government represent. GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE The state supposedly reflects the permanent interests of society –the maintenance of public order, social stability, long-term prosperity and national security– while government is inevitably influenced by the partisan sympathies and ideological preferences of the politicians who happen to be in power. If government succeeds in harnessing the sovereign power of the state to its own partisan goals, dictatorship is the likely result.  GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE  Liberal-democratic regimes have sought to counter this possibility by creating a clear divide between the personnel and machinery of government on the one hand, and the personnel and machinery of the state on the other.  Thus, the personnel of state institutions, like the civil service, the courts and the military, are recruited and trained in a bureaucratic manner, and are expected to observe strict political neutrality, enabling them to resist the ideological enthusiasms of the government of the day.  However, such are the powers of patronage possessed by modern chief executives like the US president and the UK prime minister that this apparently clear division is often blurred in practice.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  Although the state has assumed a variety of forms – the ‘absolutist’ state, the ‘workers’’ or ‘socialist’ state, the ‘Islamic’ state and so on– debate about the nature of the state has largely focused on the model of the state found in modern Western societies.  This state possesses clear liberal-democratic features  THEORIES OF THE STATE  The state is an ‘essentially contested’ concept: there are a number of rival theories of the state, each offering a different account of its origins, development and impact, as well as the nature of its power and the interests it represents.  Mainstream political theory is dominated by the liberal theory of the state. This emerged out of the writings of social-contract theorists such as Hobbes and Locke.  Social-contract theory has been used not only to explain why orderly and civilized existence is impossible in the absence of government, but also to advance a theory of the nature of state power.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  The state is an ‘essentially contested’ concept: There are a number of rival theories of the state, each offering a different account of its: Origins. Development. Impact. The nature of its power. The interests it represents.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  THE LIBERAL THEORY:  Mainstream political theory is dominated by the liberal theory of the state. This emerged out of the writings of social-contract theorists such as Hobbes and Locke. Social-contract theory has been used not only to explain why orderly and civilized existence is impossible in the absence of government, but also to advance a theory of the nature of state power.  Here, the state is thus a neutral arbiter among competing groups and individuals in society; it is a ‘referee’, capable of protecting each citizen from the encroachment of his/her fellow citizens.  This basic theory has been elaborated into a pluralist theory of the state.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  THE PLURALIST THEORY:  Pluralism is, at heart, the theory that political power is dispersed amongst a wide variety of social groups rather than an elite or ruling class. It is related to what Robert Dahl termed ‘polyarchy’, rule by the many.  Democratic processes are at work within the modern state: electoral choice ensures that government must respond to public opinion, and organized interests offer all citizens a voice in political life.  A rough equality exists among organized groups and interests, in that each enjoys some measure of access to government and that government is prepared to listen impartially to all.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  THE PLURALIST THEORY: At the hub of the liberal-democratic state stand elected politicians who are publicly accountable because they operate within an open and competitive system. Non-elected state bodies like the civil service, judiciary, police, army, and so on, carry out their responsibilities with strict impartiality, and are in any case subordinate to their elected political masters.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  THE NEO-PLURALIST THEORY:  An alternative, neo-pluralist theory of the state has been developed by writers such as John Galbraith and Charles Lindblom.  The modern industrialized state is both less responsive to popular pressures than the classic pluralist model suggests.  All organized interests are not equally powerful, since business enjoys advantages which other groups cannot rival.  While not dispensing with the notion of the state as an arbiter acting in the public interest or common good, this theory insists that this picture needs qualifying.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  THE NEO-PLURALIST THEORY:  In The Affluent Society (1998), Galbraith emphasized the ability of business to shape public tastes and wants through the power of advertising, and drew attention to the domination of major corporations over small firms and, in some cases, government bodies.  Lindblom, in Politics and Markets (1977), pointed out that, as the major investor and largest employer in society, business is bound to exercise considerable sway over any government, whatever its ideological leanings or manifesto promises.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  THE NEW RIGHT THEORIES :  Like neo-pluralism, they built on traditional liberal foundations but now constitute a major rival to classic pluralism.  The New Right, or at least its neo-liberal or libertarian wing, is distinguished by strong antipathy towards government intervention in economic and social life, born of the belief that the state is a parasitic growth which threatens both individual liberty and economic security.  The state is no longer an impartial referee but has become a self- serving monster, a ‘nanny’ or ‘leviathan’ state, interfering in every aspect of life.  New Right thinkers have tried to highlight the forces that have led to the growth of state intervention and which, in their view, must be countered.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  THE NEW RIGHT THEORIES :  Criticism has, for instance, focused on the process of party competition, or what Samuel Brittan called ‘the economic consequences of democracy’:  The democratic process encourages politicians to outbid one another by making vote-winning promises to the electorate, who, in turn, vote on the basis of short-term self-interest rather than long-term well-being.  Closer links between government and major economic interests, business and trade unions in particular, have greatly increased pressure for subsidies, grants, public investment, higher wages, welfare benefits and so forth, so leading to the problem of ‘government overload’.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY: Public choice theorists such as William Niskanen have also argued that ‘big’ government has been generated by pressures from within the state, notably by the career self-interest of civil servants and other public officials, who recognize that it will bring them job security, higher pay and improved promotion prospects.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  ELITIST THEORIES:  Pluralism has been more radically rejected by elitist thinkers who believe that behind the facade of liberal democracy there lies the permanent power of a ‘ruling elite’.  Classical elitists such as Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941), Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923) and Robert Michels (1876–1936) were concerned to demonstrate that political power always lies in the hands of a small elite and that egalitarian ideas, such as socialism and democracy, are a myth.  Modern elitists, by contrast, have put forward strictly empirical theories about the distribution of power in particular societies, but have nevertheless drawn the conclusion that political power is concentrated in the hands of the few.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  ELITIST THEORIES:  An example of modern elitists was Joseph Schumpeter, whose Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy ( 1994) suggested the theory of democratic elitism.  Schumpeter described democracy as ‘that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote’.  The electorate can decide which elite rules, BUT cannot change the fact that the power is always exercised by an elite.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  ELITIST THEORIES:  Radical elite theorists have gone further and decried the importance of elections altogether.  In The Managerial Revolution (1941), James Burnham suggested that a ‘managerial class’ dominated all industrial societies, both capitalist and communist, by virtue of its technical and scientific knowledge and its administrative skills.  Perhaps the most influential of modern elite theorists, C. Wright Mills, argued in The Power Elite (1956) that US politics is dominated by big business and the military, commonly referred to as the ‘military- industrial complex’, which dictated government policy, largely immune from electoral pressure.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  MARXISM:  Marxism offers an analysis of state power that fundamentally challenges the liberal image of the state as a neutral arbiter or umpire.  The state cannot be understood separate from the economic structure of society: the state emerges out of the class system, its function being to maintain and defend class domination and exploitation.  The classic Marxist view is expressed in Marx and Engels’ often- quoted dictum from The Communist Manifesto ( 1976): ‘the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie’.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  MARXISM:  This view was stated still more starkly by Lenin in The State and Revolution ( 1973), who referred to the state simply as ‘an instrument for the oppression of the exploited class’.  Whereas classical Marxists stressed the state’s clear alignment with the interests of the bourgeoisie and its essentially coercive role, modern Marxists have been forced to take account of the apparent legitimacy of the ‘bourgeois’ state, particularly in the light of the achievement of universal suffrage and the development of the welfare state.  This has encouraged some to argue that the state can enjoy ‘relative autonomy’ from the ruling class and so can respond, at times, to the interests of other classes.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  MARXISM:  Nicos Poulantzas thus portrayed the state as a ‘unifying social formation’, capable of diluting class tensions through, for example, the spread of political rights and welfare benefits.  Although this neo-Marxist theory echoes liberalism in seeing the state as an arbiter, it nevertheless emphasizes the class character of the modern state by pointing out that it operates in the long-term interests of capitalism and therefore perpetuates a system of unequal class power.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  ANARCHISM:  The most radical condemnation of state power is found in the writings of anarchists, who believe that all forms of political authority are intrinsically oppressive, and regard the state as a concentrated form of evil.  Such thinking is rooted in the assumption that political power is, by its nature, corrupt and corrupting, those in power being impelled to subordinate others for their own benefit, regardless of the constitutional arrangements within which they operate.  The state is thus, in the words of the Russian anarchist, Michael Bakunin, ‘the most flagrant, the most cynical and the most complete negation of humanity’.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  ANARCHISM:  Even modern anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard, simply dismiss the state as a ‘criminal band’ or ‘protection racket’, which has no legitimate claim to exercise authority over the individual.  Many modern anarchists are less willing than classic anarchist thinkers to denounce the state as nothing more than an instrument of organized violence.  Murray Bookchin described the state as ‘an instilled mentality for ordering reality’, emphasizing that in addition to its bureaucratic and coercive institutions the state is also a state of mind.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  ISLAMISM:  Islam has given an unusual degree of attention to the state for historical and theological reasons.  The theoretical basis for the Islamic state is that, by outlining a complete way of life based on a set of rules and principles that are eternal, divinely ordained and independent of the will of its followers, Islam refuses to distinguish between the sacred and the secular, religion and politics.  In the Islamic ideal, the church and the state are inseparable, a stance that has clearly theocratic implications.  Nevertheless, an explicit concept of the Islamic state did not feature in Islamic theology until the twentieth century and the emergence of attempts to transform Islam into a politico-religious ideology, often termed ‘political Islam’ or ‘Islamism’.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  ISLAMISM:  Fundamentalist Islamic states had previously existed – most notably in Saudi Arabia since the eighteenth century but the new version went beyond the adoption of the shari’a (Islamic law) as the basis of the legal system, and saw the state as an instrument of social and political regeneration.  The Islamic state was embraced as a means of ‘purifying’ Islam by returning it to its supposed original values and practices, and by countering Western influence generally, in part through a revolt against the secular and ‘corrupt’ Western state.  THEORIES OF THE STATE  ISLAMISM:  Such thinking provided the basis for the reconstruction of Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution and influenced the adoption of Islamic states in countries such as Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  However, the Iranian political system is a complex mix of democratic and theocratic elements, the former represented by an elected president and parliament, and the latter by the highly powerful Supreme Leader (since 1989, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei).  ROLE OF THE STATE  With the exception of anarchists, all political thinkers have regarded the state as a worthwhile or necessary association:  Even revolutionary socialists have accepted the need for a proletarian state to preside over the transition from capitalism to communism, in the form of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.  Thinkers have, however, profoundly disagreed about the exact role that the state should play in society.  This has often been portrayed as the balance between the state and civil society.  ROLE OF THE STATE  CLASSICAL LIBERALS & LIBERTARIANS:  At one extreme in this debate, classical liberals and, with greater emphasis, libertarians have argued that individuals should enjoy the widest possible liberty and have therefore insisted that the state be confined to a minimal role.  This minimal role is simply to provide a framework of peace and social order within which private citizens can conduct their lives as they think best.  The state therefore acts, as Locke put it, as a nightwatchman, whose services are called on only when orderly existence is threatened.  ROLE OF THE STATE  CLASSICAL LIBERALS & LIBERTARIANS:  What is called the ‘minimal’ or ‘nightwatchman’ state nevertheless has three core functions:  The maintenance of domestic order.  The enforcement of contracts.  The provision of protection against external attack.  Such minimal states, with institutional apparatus restricted to little more than a police force, a court system and an army, commonly existed in the nineteenth century, but became increasingly rare during the twentieth.  ROLE OF THE STATE  LIBERAL NEW RIGHT:  Since the 1980s, particularly in association with the pressures generated by globalization, there has been a worldwide tendency to ‘roll back’ state power.  The minimal state is the ideal of the liberal New Right, which argues that economic and social matters should be left entirely in the hands of individuals or private businesses.  The state’s economic responsibilities should be restricted to creating conditions within which market forces can most effectively operate.  In practice, this means that the state should only promote competition and ensure stable prices by regulating the supply of money.  ROLE OF THE STATE  STATE INTERVENTION:  For much of the twentieth century, however, there was a general tendency for the state’s role progressively to expand. This was supported by a broad ideological coalition including social democrats, modern liberals and paternalistic conservatives.  The principal field of government activism was the provision of welfare designed to reduce poverty and social inequality:  ROLE OF THE STATE  STATE INTERVENTION:  The form which social welfare has taken has, however, varied considerably.  In some cases, social security systems have operated as little more than a ‘safety net’ intended to alleviate the worst incidents of hardship. In the USA, Australia and, increasingly, the UK, welfare provision usually emphasizes self-reliance, and targets benefits on those in demonstrable need.  On the other hand, developed welfare states have been established and, to some extent, persist in many Western European countries. These attempt to bring about a wholesale redistribution of wealth through a comprehensive system of public services and state benefits, financed though progressive taxation.  ROLE OF THE STATE  STATE INTERVENTION:  The other major form state intervention has taken is economic management.  This is based on the belief that the market is the only reliable means of generating wealth, but it requires oversight or external control if it is to function properly:  In short, the market is a good servant but a poor master. This implies that the state’s economic responsibilities go well beyond ensuring the effective operation of market forces.  Keynesian economic policies aimed at reducing unemployment and promoting growth (Public expenditure grew and the state became the most influential of economic actors).  ROLE OF THE STATE  NATIONALIZATION: Nationalization, adopted more widely after World War II, led to the development of so-called ‘mixed economies’. In these, the state controlled key strategic industries, the so-called ‘commanding heights of the economy’, directly, and had an indirect influence over the rest of the economy. Enthusiasm for both Keynesianism and nationalization has nevertheless waned since the 1980s, reflecting, in part, the pressures generated by intensified global competition.  ROLE OF THE STATE  NATIONALIZATION: Nationalization, adopted more widely after World War II, led to the development of so-called ‘mixed economies’. In these, the state controlled key strategic industries, the so-called ‘commanding heights of the economy’, directly, and had an indirect influence over the rest of the economy. Enthusiasm for both Keynesianism and nationalization has nevertheless waned since the 1980s, reflecting, in part, the pressures generated by intensified global competition.  ROLE OF THE STATE  COMMUNISM:  A more extensive form of state intervention, however, developed in orthodox communist countries such as the Soviet Union. These sought to abolish private enterprise altogether and set up centrally planned economies, administered by a network of economic ministries and planning committees.  The economy was thus transferred entirely from civil society to the state, creating collectivized states.  The justification for collectivizing economic life lies in the Marxist belief that capitalism is a system of class exploitation, suggesting that central planning is both morally superior and economically more efficient.  ROLE OF THE STATE  COMMUNISM:  The experience of communist regimes in the second half of the twentieth century, however, suggested that state collectivization struggles to produce the levels of economic growth and general prosperity that Western capitalist countries have achieved.  Without doubt, the failure of central planning contributed to the collapse of orthodox communism in the Eastern European revolutions of 1989–91.  ROLE OF THE STATE  TOTALITARIANISM:  The most extreme form of state control is found in totalitarian states.  The essence of totalitarianism is the construction of an all-embracing state, whose influence penetrates every aspect of human existence, the economy, education, culture, religion, family life and so forth.  Totalitarian states are characterized by a pervasive system of ideological manipulation and a comprehensive process of surveillance and terroristic policing.  All the mechanisms through which opposition can be expressed – competitive elections, political parties, pressure groups and free media– have to be weakened or removed. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin are often seen as the classic examples of such regimes.  ROLE OF THE STATE  TOTALITARIANISM:  In effect, totalitarianism amounts to the outright abolition of civil society, the abolition of ‘the private’, a goal which only fascists, who wish to dissolve individual identity within the social whole, are prepared openly to endorse.  In one sense, totalitarianism sets out to politicize every aspect of human existence: it seeks to establish comprehensive state control.  However, in another sense, it can be viewed as the death of politics, in that its goal is a monolithic society in which individuality, diversity and conflict are abolished.  REGIME  There is no shortage of definitions of “political regime’’  The number and complexity of its terminology indicates the difficulty of making consistent generalizations about the nature of these regimes.  The political regime is an analytical term that describes two phenomena: the system of governance, that is political institutions of the three powers -executive, legislative and legal- and their interactions between themselves and with society; and the web of interactions, relationships and tools related to the phenomenon of power, such as the principles (the ideology), the actors (the elite) and the constitutional and institutional regulatory framework.  REGIME  For other political scientists, the regime includes:  The type of government.  The guiding ideology of the political elite.  The rules of the game.  The structure of the political polity in the state.  We adopt Geddes, Wright and Franz's definition of regime as "the basic set of formal and informal rules that determine who influences the choice of leaders and policies, including the rules that define the group from which leaders can be selected.  REGIME  Regime is measured in terms of continuous years in which the same group -but not necessarily the same individuals- have controlled power in the country and use the same ground rules.  In some cases, there is an overlap between the state and the regime; confusion in perception and behavior, on the part of the rulers as well as the ruled, between the state as a well-established historical legal entity which includes the people, government and sovereignty within geographic boundaries, and the regime as people, rules, values ​and relationships of governance and politics subject to periodic change.  “Regime change” is no mere changing of the guard or cleaning out of City Hall; it is, rather, profound structural change in all forms of political activity.  Regime change may be revolutionary, as in the violent shift from a monarchical to a republican regime in France in 1789 or from Pahlavi dynastic rule to the Islamic republic (some would say “theocracy”) in Iran in 1979. However, Regime change may be relatively peaceful and incremental.  REGIME TYPES  DEMOCRATIC REGIMES:  Individuals are assumed to be free.  Clearly defined and demarcated “limitations” and “responsibilities” are the two key features to recount the essence of a democratic regime.  Limitations, both procedural (the manner in which the political power is exercised) and substantial (rights, liberties, various structures etc.) serve as checks on the powers and authority of the state.  While limitations negate the state to interfere in the activities of the individuals, responsibility demands certain definite and positive actions on the part of the state and its involvement in various activities with a view to further individuals’ well-being.  REGIME TYPES  DEMOCRATIC REGIMES:  Participation and elections, two very fundamental premises of democracy, give the people at large the instruments to determine the major policy guidelines and choose their representatives accordingly; and enable to evaluate/judge, and on the basis of performance of their representatives, decide whether to vote for them or not in the general elections.  General public participate in the state activities only by means of letter- writing to the government or to the press, forming clubs, and voting in the elections.  A political party on the other hand is an association that activates and mobilizes the people; represents their interests, and provides a ground for a political leadership.  REGIME TYPES  Totalitarian Regimes:  The essence of totalitarian regimes lies in the ideology. Ideology offers a set of comprehensive propositions about the problems of society. General public is tightly organized in the name of the ideology, with the goal of disseminating it and imposing it.  All totalitarian regimes are based on the single-party system.  The totalitarian regimes can be classified as the communist totalitarian regimes like erstwhile Soviet Union, and other Eastern European countries and the Balkans (except Greece), Cuba, Vietnam, Mongolia, Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique, Nicaragua, etc. and the non-communist totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.  REGIME TYPES  Authoritarian Regimes:  Authoritarianism can be related to the nature of formation of a nation-state.  The particular political culture of the country too plays a role in the emergence of authoritarianism.  Authoritarianism has developed in countries where there has been the absence of the following values:  i) Where there is a highly unbalanced relationship between the civil society and the state.  ii) Where the middle classes are weak and unable to form associational representative parties or networks that limit the state.  iii) Where there is a hidden or inherent tendency toward statism or, to put the same idea negatively, where restraints against the state are few and weak.  REGIME TYPES  Main characteristics of Authoritarian Regimes:  The military is highly significant and influential.  The level of popular participation is very low.  Rights especially political rights are either non-existent or nominal.  There is normally absence of any ideology to mobilize the masses.  While trying to subordinate societal and interest groups, authoritarian regimes do not undertake restructuring of the society.  BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES  The category of “bureaucratic authoritarianism” is devised by Guillermo O'Donnell; it finds its origin in the Argentine experience.  Bureaucratic authoritarianism is a type of authoritarian regime whose main characteristics are as follows:  At the institutional level, the organizations and specialists of coercion have a decisive weight, as well as those who seek to “normalize” the economy. The decisive role played by these actors is the institutional expression of the main tasks of bureaucratic authoritarianism: the restoration of “order” through the political disorganization of the popular sector and the “normalization” of the economy.  It is a system of political exclusion of a once active popular sector, which will be subject to strict controls aimed at eliminating its previous presence on the political scene. This is achieved through coercion, as well as destruction or strict governmental control of resources that have persisted in this activity. BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES  This exclusion entails the suppression of citizenship and political democracy. The removal of institutional roles and channels of access to government that characterizes political democracy aims to abolish the roles and organizations (including political parties) that were once conduits for calls for substantive justice. These channels are considered incompatible with the restoration of order and the normalization of the economy.  It is also a system of economic exclusion from the popular sector, because it promotes a model of capital accumulation that is strongly biased in favor of large oligopolistic units of private capital and certain state enterprises. Thus, the pre- existing inequality is increased.  The main social base of bureaucratic authoritarianism is high bourgeoisie. For it is a regime which represents, fundamentally and principally, that aspect of the world community which guarantees and regulates the hegemony exercised through a class structure of the upper layers of the oligopolistic and transnational bourgeoisie. BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES This type of regime seeks through its institutions to “depoliticize” the handling of social issues, which it entrusts to those who deal with them according to objective and impartial standards of technical rationality. This regime implies the closing of the democratic channels of access to the government. More generally, it is about closing channels to represent the interests of the people and the working class. Access is limited to leaders of large organizations (state and private), particularly the Armed Forces, large corporations, and certain sectors of the civil state bureaucracy.