Jump to content

Regime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Régime)

In politics, a regime (also spelled régime) is a system of government that determines access to public office, and the extent of power held by officials. The two broad categories of regimes are democratic and autocratic. Autocratic regimes can be further divided into types such as dictatorial, totalitarian, absolutist, monarchic, and oligarchic. A key similarity across all regimes is the presence of rulers of both formal and informal institutions, which interact dynamically to adapt to changes to their environment[1][2][3] The CIA website also has a complete list of every country in the world with their respective types of regimes.[4]

World citizens living under different political regimes, as defined by Polity IV.[5]

Usage

[edit]

According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there are three main types of political regimes today: democracies, totalitarian regimes, and authoritarian regimes, with hybrid regimes sitting between these categories.[6][7]

The term regime is often used critically to portray a leader as corrupt or undemocratic.[8] 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."

In contemporary academic discourse, the term "regime" is used more broadly than in popular or journalistic contexts. It refers to "an intermediate stratum between the government, which is responsible for day-to-day decision-making and can be changed relatively easily, and the state, which encompasses a complex bureaucracy tasked with a wide range of coercive and administrative functions."[9] 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.[10]

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.[10]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.

Types of political regimes

[edit]

Authoritarian regimes

[edit]
A statue of Julius Caesar


Authoritarian regimes are systems in which power is highly centralized, and often concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite group. [11] In authoritarian regimes, political opposition is often suppressed, with dissenting voices silenced through tactics such as censorship, imprisonment, or violence. Political freedoms, including freedom of speech and the press, are usually restricted or tightly controlled by the government. While elections may occur in some authoritarian systems, they are frequently neither free nor fair, with outcomes manipulated to secure the dominance of the ruling elite and maintain their hold on power.[12] Political scientist Juan Linz states that an authoritarian government lacks both political pluralism and political mobilization. He states that an authoritarian regime specifically has vague limits on executive power in order to give more control to the executive branch.[13] For instance, Russia demonstrates characteristics of authoritarianism by holding elections, but these are heavily controlled, with significant restrictions placed on opposition parties and candidates, and media outlets operating under state influence. Similarly, China exemplifies an authoritarian regime where the Communist Party maintains strict control over the political system, curtails civil liberties, and limits freedom of expression to ensure its dominance. [14] Another notable example is the Roman Empire under Julius Ceaser which had a highly centralized government that transformed the Republic of Rome to the Roman Empire.[15]

Images of totalitarian leaders. 

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. [16] In totalitarian regimes, the state exercises control over nearly every aspect of society, encompassing the economy, media, education, culture, and even the personal beliefs and values of individuals. These governments often employ mass surveillance systems, utilizing advanced technology and networks of informants to monitor citizens and suppress any form of opposition. A hallmark of such regimes is the use of state-sponsored terror, which includes tactics like imprisonment, torture, and forced disappearances, instilling fear to maintain authority and ensure compliance. [17] 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. [18]

Democratic regimes

[edit]
US Federalism Diagram


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. [19] 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. [20] 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. The term democracy can have positive connotations, 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.[21] A notable contemporary viewpoint on democracy is Robert Dahl's introduction of "polyarchy" which is notable for being contestable and inclusive.

Urban regimes

[edit]

Theorists suggest that localized urban regimes exist and are shaped by the unique interplay of interests, institutions, and ideas within a city. They are characterized by the relationships between local government, political elites, and various institutions that all work toward specific policy goals and government structures. [22] [23] Jill Clark argues that these regime types are categorized by economic factors and policymaking within a community. The six urban regime types are entrepreneurial, caretaker, player, progressive, stewardship, and the demand-side.[23]

Entrepreneurial

[edit]

An entrepreneurial urban regime is defined as having strong ties to business leaders and is formed to advance a city's hierarchy in relation to other cities. This type operates in exclusive venues where important business leaders and politicians deliberate.[24] Leaders in this type of regime focus on gathering votes for reelection by supporting projects that appeal to the community.

Caretaker

[edit]

A caretaker urban regime is designed to preserve the status quo, keep taxes low, and preserve the quality of life in a city. This is often associated with taxpayers and homeowners' interests. The goal of this regime type is to lower the involvement of the government sector and increase the involvement of the private sector. [25].[26]

Player

[edit]

A player urban regime is characterized by active government involvement in private sector decision-making. This regime type plays a key role in managing and resolving disputes between community groups and businesses, often acting as a mediator to balance competing interests. In some cases, player regimes may use the coercive powers of government to address and resolve crises within the community, ensuring stability and progress. When player regimes align with state-led initiatives and broader governance strategies, they can evolve into stewardship urban regimes, blending collaborative decision-making with a focus on community welfare and sustainable development.[27]

Progressive

[edit]

A progressive urban regime emphasizes the redistribution of the benefits of an industrialized and developed society to promote economic equity. The primary focus is on reallocating resources to various groups or areas of a city that are most in need, including ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged populations, and neighborhoods affected by gentrification. Decision-making in these regimes is often inclusive, allowing all stakeholders a voice in determining who is most deserving of support and how resources are distributed. When progressive regimes incorporate the fiscal accountability and sustainability focus of stewardship regimes, they evolve into activist regimes, blending equity-driven goals with long-term community resilience.[28]

Stewardship

[edit]

A stewardship urban regime is defined by its more adversarial stance toward large corporations compared to entrepreneurial regimes. These regimes prioritize safeguarding community interests, ensuring the well-being of local residents over advancing business-centric agendas. Unlike progressive urban regimes, which actively redistribute resources to address inequality, stewardship regimes focus on fiscal accountability, managing taxpayer investments responsibly without direct redistribution efforts. This governance model seeks to strike a balance between advocating for "the little guy" and maintaining a sustainable and equitable investment environment, fostering long-term community resilience.[29]

Demand-side

[edit]

Demand-side urban regimes focus on supporting small businesses and revitalizing neighborhoods. These regimes actively encourage and provide state assistance to small enterprises, often establishing state-operated venture capital programs to stimulate entrepreneurship and foster new business development. This strategy enables the government to play a significant role in shaping local economic growth and urban revitalization. Demand-side regimes frequently arise when progressive policies align with governmental initiatives to empower small business owners and promote community-based economic activities.[30]

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).[31] Continuous measures classify regimes along a scale of democratic and autocratic characteristics, allowing for nuanced differentiation.[31] Historically, these measures primarily focused on distinguishing democracies from autocracies, but have since evolved to include various gradations of governance. [32] In contrast, binary measures classify regimes in simpler terms, categorizing them strictly as either democratic or non-democratic.[33]

Global Political Participation in 2000

Some scholars argue that unless a government meets certain democratic criteria, it cannot be considered a true democracy.[34] 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.[35] 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.[35]

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.[36] 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.[36]

See also

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

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ 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. ^ "Government type - The World Factbook". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
  5. ^ "World citizens living under different political regimes". Our World in Data. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
  6. ^ Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
  7. ^ Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
  8. ^ "Regime | Autocratic, Democratic & Totalitarian | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
  9. ^ Ufheil-Somers, Amanda (December 2, 2014). "The Breakdown of the GCC Initiative". MERIP.
  10. ^ a b James, Paul; Palen, Ronen (2007). Globalization and Economy, Vol. 3: Global Economic Regimes and Institutions. London: Sage Publications. p. xiv.
  11. ^ Linz, Juan J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (paperback ed.). Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 9781555878900.
  12. ^ Cheibub, José Antonio (2010). "Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited" (143 no. 1-2 ed.). Public Choice.
  13. ^ Linz, Juan (1964). An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain. New York: Free Press. p. 297.
  14. ^ "Freedom in the World". Freedom House. Retrieved 2024-11-18.
  15. ^ Loewenstein, Karl (2012). The Governance of Rome (Illustrated ed.). Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9789401024006.
  16. ^ Arendt, Hannah (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt.
  17. ^ Friedrich, Carl J. (1953). Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. the journal of politics. pp. 30–33.
  18. ^ "Holocaust Encyclopedia". encyclopedia.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2024-11-18.
  19. ^ Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  20. ^ Diamond, Larry (2015). "Facing Up to the Democratic Recession.". Journal od Democracy. pp. 141–155.
  21. ^ 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.
  22. ^ 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.
  23. ^ 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.
  24. ^ "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.
  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. ^ "Decision-making in the public sector". 2019-09-19. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  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. ^ 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.
  30. ^ 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.
  31. ^ a b Elkins, Zachary. 2000. "Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science. 44(2): 293-300.
  32. ^ 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
  33. ^ Herre, B. (2021). “The ‘Regimes of the World’ data: how do researchers measure democracy?”, Our World in Data
  34. ^ Przeworski, A. (1999). “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense”, In I. Shapiro, & C. Hacker-Cordon (Eds.), Democracy’s Value Cambridge University Press. 12-17.
  35. ^ a b Karl, Terry, and Philippe Schmitter. “What Democracy Is…and Is Not”. Journal of Democracy 2, no. 3 (January 1970): 75-88.
  36. ^ 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.
[edit]

Sources

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regime&oldid=1258709402"