Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Identify the differences between strong and weak states
- Compare and contrast examples of political capacity in different countries
- Define and identify different regime types
Introduction
The rise of the so-called modern state is usually attributed to the end of the European Middle Ages, when states were critical to the organization and survival of certain societies. Being a member of a state brought benefits to those included. Having a recognized state meant trade and business could be discussed with other states. Economic development solidified trading relationships, and states were able to pursue technological innovations. Advances in technology helped European states invent, or improve, the use of gunpowder, weapons, and mapmaking, as well as mathematics and engineering. A final benefit for European states coming out of the Middle Ages was some semblance of political stability for its inhabitants. When protected by a recognized, and somewhat unified, state, ordinary people had greater chances for survival.
As described earlier in this chapter, not all social contracts and state authority are created equal. In fact, there is great variation in the way states manifest in different regions and under different ideological perspectives. To this end, how we can compare states and state power? What is the scope of variation in the types of states we have seen? What are the implications of various state types?
Foundations & Strong and Weak States
States began forming when societies were able to stay in one place (thanks to the agricultural revolution), and some form of social contract developed between a state authority and those under the state authority. Regardless of the type of regime, government, and culture of the society, states tend to grapple with how much power a state can have to impede on the lives of its citizens. The balance over how much freedom to grant, versus how much authority the state can wield, contributes to a variety of different political outcomes; this is where the foundations of the social contract begin to end. Some states are powerful, strong, effective, and stable. Other states are disorganized, chaotic, weak, and unstable. How can we tell the difference between strong and weak states?
Strong states able to work their political agendas effectively, to make sure basic political tasks are completed. They are able to defend their territory and interests, collect taxes from the people, enforce laws, manage their economies, and promote civil and political stability within their domain. Regardless of where authority is derived, the state has the legitimacy to act because the citizens have accepted the terms of the social contract.
Weak states are unable to perform basic political tasks, and unable to work the political agenda of the authority in charge. Typically, they are unable to defend their territories and interests. They do not have enough legitimacy, or related logistics, to collect taxes, enforce their laws, and manage their economy effectively. Weak states also struggle with ensuring domestic stability, likely because they lack the legitimacy and authority to act on their constituents.
Considering strong and weak states side-by-side, we can begin to discuss the concept of state capacity. Political capacity is the ability of a state to use its power, as derived through authority and legitimacy, to get things done and promote its own interests. A state with low capacity is a weak state whereas a state with high capacity is a strong state. Capacity is one of the factors comparativists consider when comparing states.
An important factor is a state's regime type. A regime is the method by which the state has chosen to wield its power to enforce laws, rules, and norms of political life. Regime type and the form of government are somewhat synonymous.
Aside from political capacity and regime type, comparativists consider many aspects of the political and cultural realities and institutions of a given state. Factors such as internal political stability and conflict, political conflict between competing states, culture and society within a state, geography, social demographics, political agendas and outcomes, and state economies and relationships to the global economy are all important.
Regime Types - Dictatorships to Democracies
States can vary not only in their strength, legitimacy, and authority, but in the mechanisms they use to achieve political agendas. To this end, there are a number of different government types that states have chosen to achieve their political ends. Here, too, there can be many variations in how states choose to exercise their power. One way to look at regime types is to consider, broadly speaking, the range in types.
A monarchy is a form of government where a single person leads the country under the authority of royalty, bloodlines, or some other factor of symbolic significance. The word monarchy derives from the ancient Greek word, μονάρχης (monárkhēs), where μόνος or mónos means “one” or “single” and ἄρχων or árkhōn means “ruler” or “chief.” Historians think the concept of a monarchy descends from more ancient forms of tribal leadership, where tribes appointed a special or sacred individual to lead their interests. Over time, modern monarchies evolved where leadership was generally vested with a King or Queen. Even within the regime type of monarchy, there is variation in how the leader may exercise their power, these are generally classified as an absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy.
A dictatorship is a form of government where one person, or sometimes a single group, has sole and absolute power over the state. The extent to which the state intervenes in the private lives of citizens varies. However, most dictatorships do not permit free media, freedom of speech, or personal rights and freedoms. The 20th and 21st centuries witnessed the emergence of personalist dictatorships. Current examples could be Kim Jong-Un of North Korea and Xi Jinping of China. Like his father, Kim Jong-Un has operated under a cult of personality, where a state leverages all aspects of a leader’s real and exaggerated traits to solidify the leader’s power. The state uses its media to promote propaganda that endows its leaders with near or equal to God or Godly status.
An aristocracy is a form of government where a group of social elites rules the state. Often, these leaders are nobles, wealthy, or somehow identified as superior to and/or above the class that is being ruled. Aristocracy tends to be associated with ancient Sparta because the form of government deliberately vested power with those who were seen as elite and capable of ruling. A more present-day embodiment would be oligarchies, where elites rule, though there is not necessarily an assumption of nobility.
A junta is a regime type where there is a small, military group of elites who rule state activities. The term derives from the Spanish resistance to Napoleon’s attempted invasion of Spain in 1808, wherein military groups within Spain assembled and attempted to stop Napoleon’s attack. Junta means “meeting” or “committee” in Spanish, though its current affiliations within political science characterize it as akin to a military oligarchy. Often, juntas tend to form as resistance or rebellion, and are used in coup d’etats. (Coup d'etats are attempts by elites to overthrow the current government of a state through an abrupt seizure of power and removal of the government’s leadership.)
Source: politics-dz.com
Regime Transitions
Regime transitions occur when a formal government changes to a different government leadership, structure, or system. Sometimes, a regime will change from a dictatorship to a democracy through the mobilization of citizens demanding change from their state operations. Other times, a democracy may backslide into a dictatorship. While democracies have become the most common and generally accepted form of government, there have been dozens of examples of a democracy backsliding into a dictatorship.
Consider the example of the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany during the 1920s. Following World War I, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) put Germany into social and economic dire straits. Forcing Germany to pay high reparations to the Allies left the German people impoverished. High unemployment, high inflation, and general discontent caused the democratic-based Weimar Republic difficulty in enforcing its political agenda. In the midst of dire circumstances, Adolf Hitler was able to use a Cult of Personality to rally many Germans against the Weimar Republic. Capitalizing on manipulation and incendiary speech, he was appointed as the Chancellor of Germany, abolished the Constitution, and eroded the rights and liberties of the German people till Germany was a fully authoritarian regime led by a single dictator. At the end of World War II, Germany experienced a regime transition back towards democracy.
Overall, observing cases of regime transition can be important in learning the causes and consequences of changing regimes.
