Classification of States or Governments

Political writers’ have always tried to classify States or governments into different kinds on the basis of the forms of their governments, nature of sovereignty or the philosophy or ideology of the States. We shall begin with the classification of States by the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, because he made the first systematic attempt to do so.

Classification by Aristotle.

The starting-point of all attempts to classify the States into different kinds was the famous classification given by Aristotle in his book, Politics. But he was not the first to do so. He really followed his teacher, Plato and other Greek writers, like Herodotus. The original thing about Aristotle’s classification was that he based it cm two principles, namely:

The number of persons who exercise supreme power in the State; and

The ends for which the supreme power is exercised, which may be either for the good of the ruled or of the rulers.

The First Principle

According to the first principle, there may be in a State either one ruler, or few or many. If there is one ruler, the State is a monarchy, if few rulers, it is an aristocracy, and if many, it is a ‘polity’. Hence, basically, there are three kinds of States.

The Second Principle

Aristotle further distinguished the three basic forms of States on the principle whether the sovereign power is exercised for the good of the ruled or of the rulers. According to Aristotle, a State is an association which exists for the good of its members. If its power is exercised for the good of the people, the ruled, the State is of a normal or good form. But if it is exercised for the benefit of the rulers, it is then a bad or pa-verted State, for it does not fulfil its real end. So, when monarchy becomes perverted, it becomes a tyranny, and when a polity is bad, it is what Aristotle calls a “democracy”, which may be translated as a ‘mob-rule or ‘mobocracy’. The word ‘democracy’ was used by Aristotle in its original Greek sense as the

le of the ‘demos’ which, means the ‘mob’, or rabble. In short, he classified r Slates into six forms or kinds.47

Aristotle’s classification of the States or governments may be •ummarized in tabular form as follows:

N. First Rule of One Rule of Few Rule of Many

Principle

Sccoiul \.

Principle

Normal or Good Monarchy Aristocracy Policy

Pcrvcricd or Bad Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

Let us now define each of these six forms of States. A monarchy is crnment by a king who rules for the good of the whole community. A y is a perverted form of monarchy in which the one ruler uses his e authority for his own selfish ends or benefit. An aristocracy is the of the few good rulers who exercise supreme authority for the well- of the people. When it becomes perverted, it becomes an oligarchy is the selfish government of the few rich men in their own interests, ly is a good form of the rule of the many for the good of all. Aristotle t by it what we now call a constitutional democracy i.e., a government general body of the citizens as regulated by a constitution and laws, verted form becomes what Aristotle calls “democracy” which is a and selfish rule of the ‘demos’ or the mob. According to him, a acy’ is the rule of the poor who are many but lawless, just as an y is the rule of the few rich, who are selfish, ian Cycle of Political Change.

Aristotelian classification is not merely a description of various of stales but also an explanation of how one form changes into . The change continues till the original form re-emerges, thus evident that every form of government must contain a supreme power over the state, and this supreme power must necessarily be in the hands of one person, or a or many. When they apply their powers for the common good, such states are well- rr^d: but when the interest of the one a few or the many that enjoy this power is the concern then ill-govenied.

We usually call a state which is governed by one person the common good, a monarchy: one that is governed by more than one but by a few , an aristocracy, either because the government is in the hands of the most worthy or because it is the best form for the state and its inhabitants. When the citizens at govern for the public good, it is called a polity. Now the corruptions attending each 😕 governments are these: a kingdom may degenerate into a tyranny, an aristocracy an oligarchy, and a polity into a democracy Now a tyranny is a monarchy where the of one man only is the object of government, an oligarchy considers only the rich, a democracy only the poor but none of them have a common good in view.’ The polUUi of Aristotle. Book III. Chap. VII. (Everyman’s Library)

completing one cycle of change, like the movement of a wheel. This is known as Aristotelian cycle or progression. It occurs in this manner. First of all, there is a monarchy or kingship, the rule of a good king.48 In course of time, the kings become bad and oppressive tyrants. But the tyranny does not last long, for the people overthrow it under the leadership of a few good men, who establish an aristocracy. When the character and aims of the few rulers degenerate aristocracy becomes oligarchy. This time the citizens establish a constitutional rule of the many, which Aristotle called ‘polity’. With the degeneration of the character of the citizens, they become a lawless mob. Thus polity degenerates into ‘democracy’, the rule of the mob. But this lawlessness and confusion too cannot last long. Sooner or later one strong man, e.g., a successful military leader, assumes supreme power and once again re-establishes monarchy or the rule of one. Thus the cycle of change or progression completed one full cycle and returned to its original form, but only to begin a new cycle of change.

Historical illustrations

Aristotle’s cycles of change is illustrated by the history of ancient States of his times, especially the Greek city-States. They were originally monarchies, which degenerated into tyrannies. The nobles or landlords overthrew the tyrannical kings and established aristocracies in various Greek city-States. When they degenerated into oligarchies, the citizens overthrew them and established ‘polity’ or constitutional rule, as illustrated by the city-State of Athens. It degenerated into mob rule which was in its turn overthrown by a warrior-statesman, as was shown by the rise of Philip and Alexander the Great of Macedon. History of Rome also illustrated this cycle. Modern history also illustrates this cycle of political changes to some extent.

For example, before the French Revolution, France was ruled by kings whose government became perverted under Louis XV. The Revolution of 1789 overthrew French monarchy and established an aristocracy which lasted only two years and became a ‘democratic’ State under the Directory. Then came the reign of terror which ended with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, a successful military General and Statesman, who established an Imperial Monarchy.

Merits

Aristotle’s classification of States has some merits. In the first place, it is so precise and exact that it has fascinated and attracted the attention of political writers down to the present day. Secondly, he classified the States not only on the basis of their governmental structure but also on that of their ethical or moral spirit. He clearly showed that a good or norma! State is one which is governed by good rulers. The character of the rulers determines the nature of the State; good rulers make good State and bad rulers, a bad State. Thirdly, he analysed the causes of political change and revolution. His chief aim was to suggest ways and means to prevent endless revolutions which occurred so frequently in the Greek city-States. He found two causes, viz., the deterioration of the character of the rulers and the influence of wealth, i.e., of the economic conditions on political life. He was the first great political writer who showed that politics is conditioned by economics or that wealth influences the political structure of the State to a great extent. He clearly said that oligarchy is a bad government of the rich, while his ‘democracy’ is a bad government of the poor. Lastly, being an empirical thinker, he illustrated his theory of political change or cyclic progression by the history of his times. Dcfects.

In spite of its merits, Aristotelian classification has been subjected ID severe criticism. In this connection the following objections have been litken to it:

Aristotelian classification is unscientific and merely quantitative. It is urged that Aristotle’s classification is unscientific and iirtificial because it is based not on organic and qualitative distinctions 1*1 ween various forms of the State but merely on numerical and i|imntitative differences. He distinguished them on the basis of the number of rulers, one, few or many. But this is not a qualitative distinction. For Instance, the rule of one sovereign may be as democratic as that of the m.iny. This criticism, however, does not hold good. The distinction between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy or polity is really qualitative and mgunic because it indicates the spread of political consciousness among the jwople.

Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed that knowledge is the basis nl the State and knowledge means the consciousness of the ethical end for which the State exists. When more people become conscious of this ethical i« spiritual end of the good of the State, a new form of State comes into •wing. Thus regarded, a monarchy is qualitatively different from an aristocracy as well as from a polity or democracy as we understand it today. Burgess has rightly said that the distinctive character of a State depends upon the number of persons who are inspired with political consciousness and therefore participate in its organisation and government

Aristotle’s classification confuses the state with government Gamer is of the opinion that Aristotle did not keep in mind the difference between the State and government; and, therefore, he did not classify State, but governments. Gamer further asserts that even as a classification of governments it is unsound and unscientific because it is not based on their fundamental characteristics. This objection is to some extent correct. But we must keep in mind that the Greeks did not know the difference between the State and the government which is a modern discovery in Political Science. Burgess says that even this shortcoming in Aristotle’s classification can be removed if we substitute the terms ‘State’ and ‘sovereignty’ by ‘government’ and ‘rule’.

It does not apply to many kinds of modem governments. Seeley and Leacock have objected that his classification docs not embrace several kinds of modern States and governments. Seeley says that Aristotle knew only the city-States of his times which were quite unlike the modem ‘country-States’. Hence his classification is of little value for modem States. But this objection is not very sound, for the nature of the State is fundamentally the same whether it is a small city-State or a large country- State.

Dr. Leacock raised four objections against his classification. Firstly, it does no provide any place for constitutional or limited monarchies like that of England. Modem English constitution is a ‘mixed constitution’ which combines the features of a monarchy and a democracy. Outwardly it is a monarchy, but really it is a democracy. Obviously, Aristotle’s classification cannot properly classify it. Secondly, ‘Aristotle’s polity’ or what we now call ‘democracy’ and ‘monarchy’ open the way to great confusion. Take the case of England and the U.S.A. Both of them are democracies, but they will be put in different categories, for England is a monarchy, while the U.S.A is a republic. Thirdly, this classification fails to take account of the difference between a federal and a unitary form of government. Fourthly, it also fails to distinguish the parliamentary from the presidential form of government. These objections are justifiable to some extent. Aristotle’s classification is inadequate for modem States. That is the reason why several modem writers have endeavoured to classify them on other principles, as we shall now describe.

Other Classifications.

Among the modem writer, Montesquieu proposed a three-fold division, viz., republics, monarchies and despotism. In a republic, the people or part of them possess supreme power. In a monarchy, one man

fUlcs the State according to the laws of the country. In despotism, the rule of One man is arbitrary and unrestricted by any law. Rousseau also divided the governments into three kinds, viz., monarchies, aristocracies and democracies. He divided the aristocracies further into three forms, natural, elective and hereditary aristocracies. He regarded elective aristocracy as the iKSSt form of government. Yet he was a champion of democracy! The (lerman writers are more pedantic in their classification. Bluntschli has classified the States into four kinds; monarchies, aristocracies, democracies Itul theocracies. A theocracy is a form of government in which sovereignty ll uttributed “to God or a god or to some superhuman being or to Idea.” Another German writer. Von Mohl, gives a long list of States, which he distinguishes as patriarchal, theocratic, despotic, classic, feudal and constitutional States.

Murriot’s Classification

Sir J.A.R. Marriot has provided us with a more adequate classification. He classified States on a three fold basis. First of all he distinguished them on the basis of the distribution of supreme powers in the government. On the principle, there are two kinds of governments, unitary and federal. In a unitary government, all governmental powers are exercised liy a single, central government, while in a federal State they are distributed l)ctween a federal or central government and the governments of the component units of the federation. Marriot next classifies the States on the basis of the nature of the constitution, which may be either rigid or flexible. A rigid constitution cannot be easily amended, while a flexible one can be. The third basis of classification is the relation between the legislature and the executive. When the legislature is, supreme and the executive is responsible to it, it is a parliamentary form of government. When the two have separate and co-ordinate powers and the executive is not responsible to the legislature, it is a presidential form of government.

Leacock’s Classification

First of all, it should be noted that Leacock does not try to classify all the States known to history. He has confined himself to the modem States only. He first divides them into two classes, viz., despotic and democratic States. In a despotic State, one man exercises supreme power without any reference to the will or wishes of the people. But this form of State, says Leacock, is now becoming a thing of the past. In a democracy, supreme power rests ultimately with the people. Democracies are further divided into limited monarchies, like that of England, Belgium, etc., and republics, e.g., U.S.A., France, etc. In a limited monarchy, a king or queen is the supreme head of the State, but he or she exercises only limited or nominal authority, while real power is in the hands of a legislature. King’s authority is limited by the constitution. In a republic the supreme executive head is either directly or indirectly elected by the people for a definite number of years.

Each of these forms of governments is further divided into unitary and federal forms. In a unitary government, all sovereign powers are in the hands of a single, central government. The State may be divided into provinces, districts, cantons, etc., but they are merely administrative units, possessing no autonomy or sovereign authority. In a federal State, there are two sets of govemments-a central and two or more federating governments of the component units of the federation. Each of them exercises supreme authority within its sphere of authority as defined by the constitution. Unitary and federal States are further divided into parliamentary and presidential or non-parliamentary types. This distinction is made on the basis of the relation between the legislature and the executive, as Marriot did.