Jump to content

Regime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Regime government)

In politics, a regime (also spelled régime) is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural, or social norms, that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society. The two broad categories of regimes are democratic and autocratic. Autocratic regimes can be further[1] divided into types such as dictatorial, totalitarian, absolutist, monarchic, and oligarchic. A key similarity across all regimes is the presence of rulers and formal or informal institutions, which interact dynamically to adapt to changes in their environment[1][2][3]

Graph demonstrating the global trends of democratic vs autocratic systems over time. 

Political Regimes

[edit]

According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there are three main types of political regimes today: democracies, totalitarian regimes, authoritarian regimes, with hybrid regimes sitting between these categories.[4][5] The CIA website also has a complete list of every country in the world with their respective types of regime.[6] The term regime is often used in a demeaning, derogatory way usually to portray a leader as corrupt or undemocratic.[7] Similarly, the term democracy can be glorified, but according to political scientist Samuel Hutington it is important to recognize democracy simply as a system of government with free and fair elections to hold leaders accountable.[8] It is common to tie an individual or ideology to a government regime i.e. Putin's regime in Russia or China's Communist regime.

Authoritarian Regimes

[edit]

Authoritarian regimes are systems in which power is highly centralized, often concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite group. [9] In these regimes, political opposition is frequently suppressed, with dissenting views silenced through censorship, imprisonment, or violence. Political freedoms, such as freedom of speech and press, are typically limited or heavily controlled by the government. While some authoritarian regimes may hold elections, these are often neither free nor fair, and the results are typically manipulated to ensure the continued power of the ruling elite.[10] For instance, Russia exhibits elements of authoritarianism with elections that are held, but where opposition is heavily restricted and media outlets are controlled. Similarly, China operates under an authoritarian regime where the Communist Party exercises strict control over the political process, limiting civil liberties and restricting freedom of expression. [11]

Totalitarian Regimes

[edit]

Totalitarian regimes represent the most extreme form of authoritarianism, where the government seeks total control over all aspects of public and private life. [12]In these regimes, the state controls virtually every facet of society, including the economy, media, education, culture, and even personal beliefs and values. Governments in totalitarian states often rely on mass surveillance to monitor citizens, utilizing technology and a network of informants to prevent any opposition from emerging. State-sponsored terror is a common feature, where the regime may use fear tactics, such as imprisonment, torture, and forced disappearances, to suppress dissent and maintain control. [13] The regime typically upholds a singular political ideology that is promoted through propaganda and state-controlled media, ensuring that all citizens conform to the state’s views. North Korea is a prominent example of a totalitarian regime, with the Kim family's leadership exercising near-complete control over every aspect of life in the country. Similarly, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was a totalitarian regime that sought to control not only the state but also the cultural and social lives of its people, using terror and propaganda to maintain power. [14]

Democratic Regimes

[edit]

Democratic regimes are characterized by the rule of law, where laws apply equally to all citizens, including government officials. In a democracy, citizens have the right to participate in free and fair elections, where they can vote for representatives and leaders in a competitive process. [15] These regimes typically maintain a political system that ensures multiple political parties can compete for power, reflecting the political pluralism within the society. Additionally, democracies prioritize the protection of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, which are fundamental rights guaranteed by the state. [16] A key feature of democratic regimes is the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, ensuring that no one branch holds too much power and that each can act as a check on the others. Examples of democratic regimes include the United States, where power is divided into federal and state systems, and Germany, which features a parliamentary democracy with a strong focus on human rights.

Usage

[edit]
World citizens living under different political regimes, as defined by Polity IV.[17]


While the term originally referred to any type of government, in modern usage it often has a negative connotation, implying authoritarianism or dictatorship. Merriam-Webster defines a regime simply as a form of government, while the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "a government, especially an authoritarian one."

Contemporary academic usage of the term "regime" is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)."[18] In global studies and international relations, the concept of regime is also used to name international regulatory agencies (see International regime), which lie outside of the control of national governments. Some authors thus distinguish analytically between institutions and regimes while recognizing that they are bound up with each other:

Institutions as we describe them are publicly enacted, relatively-enduring bodies of practice, procedures and norms, ranging from formalized legal entities such as the WTO to more informal but legally-buttressed and abiding sets of practices and regimes such as the liberal capitalist market. The key phrases here are 'publicly enacted' and 'relatively enduring'. The phrase 'publicly enacted' in this sense implies active projection, legal sanction, and often as not, some kind of opposition.[19]

Regimes can thus be defined as sets of protocols and norms embedded either in institutions or institutionalized practices – formal such as states or informal such as the "liberal trade regime" – that are publicly enacted and relatively enduring.[19]

Urban regimes

[edit]

Other regime theorists suggest that localized urban regimes exist, shaped by the unique interplay of interests, institutions, and ideas within a city. These regimes are characterized by the relationships between local government actors, political elites, and various institutions, all working toward specific policy goals and governance structures. [20] [21]

Urban regime theorist Jill Clark argues that these regime types are categorized by economic actors and policy-making within a community. The six urban regime types are: entrepreneurial, caretaker, player, progressive, stewardship, and the demand-side.[21]

An entrepreneurial urban regime is defined as: Strong ties to business leaders, formed to advance a cities hierarchy in relation to other cities, and are operated with closed development decision-making venues with relevant business interests and political leaders.[22]

A caretaker urban regime is: A regime designed to preserve the status quo, keep taxes low and preserve the same quality of life. Often associated with taxpayers and homeowners' interests[23].[24]

A player urban regime is: Active government participation in private decision making. This type of regime manages and resolves disputes between community groups and business. A player urban regime when combined with state actions develops into a stewardship urban regime.[25]

A progressive urban regime is: A key feature of progressive urban regimes is the redistribution of the benefits of a industrialized, developed society. The focus of the regime is economic equity, how to reallocate the benefits of society to various groups or areas of the city who need it most. Most commonly these are ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged people, and neighborhoods destroyed or changed by gentrification. Everyone in this system has a say on who is most deserving and who will receive these benefits. Progressive urban regimes become activist regimes when merged with a stewardship role.[26]

A stewardship urban regime is more adversarial toward business than an entrepreneurial regime and prioritizes protecting community interests over those of large corporations, focusing on the well-being of local residents. Unlike progressive urban regimes, which actively redistribute resources, stewardship regimes emphasize accountability in managing taxpayer investments without aiming for direct redistribution. This approach seeks a balanced governance model that advocates for "the little guy" while maintaining a sustainable investment environment.[27]

A demand-side urban regime is characterized by strong support for small businesses and neighborhood revitalization efforts. These regimes encourage and provide state assistance to small businesses, including launching state-operated venture capital programs to foster new enterprises. This approach allows the government to maintain an active role in local development. Demand-side urban regimes often emerge when progressive policies align with government initiatives aimed at supporting small business owners.[28]

Measuring regime

[edit]

There are two primary methods for measuring regimes: continuous measures of democracy (e.g., Freedom House (FH), Polity, and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)) and binary measures of democracy (e.g., Regimes of the World).[29] Continuous measures classify regimes along a scale of democratic and autocratic characteristics, allowing for nuanced differentiation.[29] Historically, these measures primarily focused on distinguishing democracies from autocracies, but have since evolved to include various gradations of governance. [30] In contrast, binary measures classify regimes in simpler terms, categorizing them strictly as either democratic or non-democratic.[31]

Some scholars argue that unless a government meets certain democratic criteria, it cannot be considered a true democracy.[32] However, academics like Stanford professor Philippe C. Schmitter and associate professor Terry Lynn Karl suggest that democracy is better viewed as a matrix of outcomes.[33] This matrix includes factors such as consensus, participation, access, responsiveness, majority rule, parliamentary sovereignty, party government, pluralism, federalism, presidentialism, and checks and balances, offering a more comprehensive framework to evaluate democratic practices.[33]

The V-Dem Institute, an independent research organization, is a prominent example of continuous democracy measurement. It uses a detailed set of indicators, such as access to justice, electoral corruption, and freedom from government-sponsored violence, to assess governance quality.[34] V-Dem relies on country experts who provide subjective ratings for these latent regime characteristics over time, contributing to one of the most comprehensive data sources on democracy worldwide.[34]

See also

[edit]
Look up regime or regimen in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Karl, Terry; Schmitter, Phillippe (Summer 1991). "What Democracy Is...and Is Not". Journal of Democracy (3): 76–78. Retrieved March 3, 2023.
  2. ^ Young, Oran R. (1982–2004). "Regime dynamics: the rise and fall of international regimes". International Organization. 36 (2): 277–297. doi:10.1017/S0020818300018956. ISSN 1531-5088.
  3. ^ Herre, Bastian (December 2, 2021). "The 'Regimes of the World' data: how do researchers measure democracy?". Our World in Data. Retrieved March 14, 2023.
  4. ^ Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
  5. ^ Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
  6. ^ "Government type - The World Factbook". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
  7. ^ "Regime | Autocratic, Democratic & Totalitarian | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
  8. ^ Huntington, Samuel (1989). "The Modest Meaning of Democracy," in Democracy in the Americas: Stopping the Pendulum, edited by Robert A. Pastor. New York: New York: Holmes & Meier.
  9. ^ Linz, Juan J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (paperback ed.). Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 9781555878900.
  10. ^ Cheibub, José Antonio (2010). "Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited" (143 no. 1-2 ed.). Public Choice.
  11. ^ "Freedom in the World". Freedom House. Retrieved 2024-11-18.
  12. ^ Arendt, Hannah (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt.
  13. ^ Friedrich, Carl J. (1953). Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. the journal of politics. pp. 30–33.
  14. ^ "Holocaust Encyclopedia". encyclopedia.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2024-11-18.
  15. ^ Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  16. ^ Diamond, Larry (2015). "Facing Up to the Democratic Recession.". Journal od Democracy. pp. 141–155.
  17. ^ "World citizens living under different political regimes". Our World in Data. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
  18. ^ Ufheil-Somers, Amanda (December 2, 2014). "The Breakdown of the GCC Initiative". MERIP.
  19. ^ a b James, Paul; Palen, Ronen (2007). Globalization and Economy, Vol. 3: Global Economic Regimes and Institutions. London: Sage Publications. p. xiv.
  20. ^ Rhomberg, Chris (1995). ""Collective Actors and Urban Regimes: Class Formation and the 1946 Oakland General Strike"". Theory and Society. 24 (4): 567–594. doi:10.1007/BF00993523. S2CID 144406981.
  21. ^ a b Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 25. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. JSTOR 40861827. S2CID 152728694.
  22. ^ "Decision-making in the public sector". Volume 46, Number 5, October 2019. 2019-09-19. doi:10.1287/orms.2019.05.11. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
  23. ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
  24. ^ "Decision-making in the public sector". 2019-09-19. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  25. ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
  26. ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
  27. ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
  28. ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
  29. ^ a b Elkins, Zachary. 2000. "Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science. 44(2): 293-300.
  30. ^ Lauth, H., & Schlenkrich, O. (2018). Making Trade-Offs Visible: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations about the Relationship between Dimensions and Institutions of Democracy and Empirical Findings. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 78-91. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1200
  31. ^ Herre, B. (2021). “The ‘Regimes of the World’ data: how do researchers measure democracy?”, Our World in Data
  32. ^ Przeworski, A. (1999). “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense”, In I. Shapiro, & C. Hacker-Cordon (Eds.), Democracy’s Value Cambridge University Press. 12-17.
  33. ^ a b Karl, Terry, and Philippe Schmitter. “What Democracy Is…and Is Not”. Journal of Democracy 2, no. 3 (January 1970): 75-88.
  34. ^ a b Pemstein, D., Marquardt, K.L., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y., Medzihorsky, J., Krusell, F., von Romer, J. (2023). “The V-Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross-National and Cross-Temporal Expert-Coded Data”, The Varieties of Democracy Institute. Series 2023:21. 1-32.

26. Linz, Juan J. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000.

27. Cheibub, José Antonio, et al. "Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited." Public Choice 143, no. 1–2 (2010): 67–101.

28. Freedom House – "Freedom in the World" Reports.

29. Dahl, Robert A. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971.

30. Diamond, Larry. "Facing Up to the Democratic Recession." Journal of Democracy 26, no. 1 (2015): 141–155.

31. [1]Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.

32. Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, 1951.

33. Friedrich, Carl J., and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski. "Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy." The Journal of Politics 15, no. 1 (1953): 30–33.

34. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum – [2]"Holocaust Encyclopedia: Totalitarianism."

Sources

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regime&oldid=1258194493"