|
|
|
|
Parliamentarianism Parliamentarianism is, at first glance, an ambiguous term. In its widest possible meaning, parliamentarianism could include all systems in which a parliament exists - regardless of the status of parliament and the job it performs. Political systems in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Franco's Spain and the regime in Rumania under Ceausescu all met the conditions as defined by this term. Indeed, all western democracies and authoritarian regimes in the developing world are all covered by this term. It is, then, clear from this that the term parliamentarianism is so all-encompassing as to be of little use. Parliamentarianism should only be used when referring to democratic systems. This, in turn, makes it necessary to distinguish between democratic and non-democratic systems. Attempts to distinguish between political systems are old and distinguished. Their history stretches back to Ancient Greece - where Aristotle provided important impetus - and attempts are still being made today. During the 19th and 20th centuries in particular, however, significant changes took place that made these traditional methods for distinguishing between systems impractical. The traditional distinction made between monarchies and republics, for instance, is of little use today. At least in Western democracies, where the monarch in countries such as Great Britain, Belgium, Spain, Holland and in many Scandinavian countries retain only a fraction of their previous power and differ from state presidents in other democracies only in that their position as head of state is hereditary. Another marked change during the 20th-century was the rise of regimes such as those seen in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia - made possible by mass media and the development of new methods for exercising power and suppressing populations. These systems were hard to compare with previous forms of dictatorship. The first attempts at defining the characteristics of these Nazi and Stalinist Regimes began during the 1930s. This analysis led to a differentiation being made between totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic systems. [Back to top of page] [Back to overview] Democratic systems The main characteristic of a democracy is political competition. Regular, general, secret and free elections between political parties with differing policies legitimizes political office. Elections such as this also forms the conditions necessary for a change of government (ruling party), even if in practice - like in Japan where the ruling Liberal Party has been in power since 1946 - this can sometimes take a while. Democracy ensures that human and civil rights are respected. This, in turn, restricts the power of the state and enables pluralistic structures to form in society, which is essential if the will of the people and its differing interests are to play a part in the system of power. Democracy is not a system based solely on the principle of sovereignty of the people and majority rule. Other features include the constitutional state and separation of powers. The aim of these is protect minorities, prevent despotic rule and limit the power of those holding office. In addition to the existence of contentious opinion and differing interests, another essential ingredient of a democratic system is the existence of joint consensus on accepted values - for instance basic rights or democracy itself - which are not contested by large sections of the population. [Back to top of page] [Back to overview] Totalitarian systems Totalitarianism and democracy are worlds apart in this typological differentiation. Classical totalitarian systems - Nazi Germany and the Stalinist system in the former Soviet Union - are characterized by the following features:
[Back to top of page] [Back to overview] Authoritarian systems Authoritarian governments are not democratic - something they share with totalitarian systems. The term "authoritarian system" is ambiguous and encompasses many, very different regimes. Authoritarian systems include many of the left and right-leaning military dictatorships characteristic in developing countries, but also former systems in Spain under Franco or in Chile under Pinochet. Elections are manipulated in these systems. In contrast to totalitarian regimes, the main concern of authoritarian systems is to secure power rather than to follow a particular ideology. A watered-down version of pluralism is usually tolerated provided it poses no danger to the government. Mobilization of the population based on a substitute religious-like ideology is uncommon. Indeed, these systems are often prepared to tolerate the existence of a private sphere and even differing ideologies among the population provided that the government is not criticized publicly. Since a single ideology does not exist, the ruling party does not play a major role and is often substituted for other factions based on personal relationships. Provided they are not active opponents of the regime, citizens are subjected to far less suppression and terror than in totalitarian regimes. This is because they are only expected to tolerate the regime rather than support it. Ideological and totalitarian movements are not rare and, quite rightly, are regarded as being a characteristic of the 20th century. Recent developments have proved the attractiveness of true democracy and this provides reason enough to hope that parliamentary democracy can enjoy continued success and become truly established internationally. [Emil Hübner; taken from: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung: Parlamentarische Demokratie 1, Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 227, 1993]
|
|
Subjects: Human
Rights I Democracy I Parties
I Examples I
Europe
I
Globalisation
I United Nations
I Sustainability
|
