A blog for POLS 209, Dictatorships and Revolutions, at Victoria University of Wellington. A place for students to talk and think about political pathologies all over the world. This is our other blog - see also here
Thursday, 5 April 2012
Democats Regime Classification Chart
The regime classification chart for the Democats in case the link posted earlier doesn't work for people.
I really like the idea of the flowchart - it's quite easy to follow. But what question do you plan to answer once you have classified the world in this way?
It is also unclear why you separate competitive authoritarian regimes and authoritarian regimes in the way you do. Why do you think Competitive Authoritarian regimes are regimes where elections are contested but subject to corruption AND the penalties for running are not physically threatening but dictatorships are regimes where elections exist, are subject to corruption, AND the penalties are physically threatening? (So Zimbabwe and Russia are both dictatorships?)
What about regimes where no elections exist (or are so meaningless as to not be really elections) - are they all absolute monarchies? (e.g., North Korea?)
Perhaps a certain amount of simplification would be possible: is there government yes/no; if so, are there elections yes/no; if yes, are the elections competitive yes/no; if yes, are the elections fair (etc.). Run it thorugh with a few cases to see what you get (e.g., North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, Venezuela, Russia).
Even if the regimes are non elected, the majority still hold some form of elections every once in a while (Even North Korea has had elections) however meaningless they are. That was our reasoning anyway.
Even if the regimes are non elected, the majority still hold some form of elections every once in a while (Even North Korea has had elections) however meaningless they are. That was our reasoning anyway.
That makes sense, but it may still be better not to imply that non-electoral regimes are all monarchies. (E.g., add a condition: if the ruler is selected by hereditary succession, class it as monarchy).
I love the simplicity of this flowchart but on the other hand, surely regimes can't be this black and white. For example, if a country doesn't hold elections does that immediately qualify said country as an absolute monarchy? Also, I'm not sure physical punishment to opposition should be a distinguishing feature between competitive authoritarianism and dictatorship. I think there's a lot of grey areas not acknowledged in this, and it tends to over-generalise. I do really like the colours though!
Holly, but are we willing to spend a lot of time tracking down more specific information for a much larger number of categories? Sometimes simplicity is a good compromise. (Though I agree that lack of elections might mean a couple of different things).
I really like the idea of the flowchart - it's quite easy to follow. But what question do you plan to answer once you have classified the world in this way?
ReplyDeleteIt is also unclear why you separate competitive authoritarian regimes and authoritarian regimes in the way you do. Why do you think Competitive Authoritarian regimes are regimes where elections are contested but subject to corruption AND the penalties for running are not physically threatening but dictatorships are regimes where elections exist, are subject to corruption, AND the penalties are physically threatening? (So Zimbabwe and Russia are both dictatorships?)
What about regimes where no elections exist (or are so meaningless as to not be really elections) - are they all absolute monarchies? (e.g., North Korea?)
Perhaps a certain amount of simplification would be possible: is there government yes/no; if so, are there elections yes/no; if yes, are the elections competitive yes/no; if yes, are the elections fair (etc.). Run it thorugh with a few cases to see what you get (e.g., North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, Venezuela, Russia).
I don't understand how no elections can only mean an absolute monarchy, there are many other non-elected regimes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex but I like the flow chart in that it is easy to follow.
DeleteEven if the regimes are non elected, the majority still hold some form of elections every once in a while (Even North Korea has had elections) however meaningless they are. That was our reasoning anyway.
DeleteEven if the regimes are non elected, the majority still hold some form of elections every once in a while (Even North Korea has had elections) however meaningless they are. That was our reasoning anyway.
DeleteThat makes sense, but it may still be better not to imply that non-electoral regimes are all monarchies. (E.g., add a condition: if the ruler is selected by hereditary succession, class it as monarchy).
DeleteI love the simplicity of this flowchart but on the other hand, surely regimes can't be this black and white. For example, if a country doesn't hold elections does that immediately qualify said country as an absolute monarchy? Also, I'm not sure physical punishment to opposition should be a distinguishing feature between competitive authoritarianism and dictatorship. I think there's a lot of grey areas not acknowledged in this, and it tends to over-generalise. I do really like the colours though!
ReplyDeleteHolly, but are we willing to spend a lot of time tracking down more specific information for a much larger number of categories? Sometimes simplicity is a good compromise. (Though I agree that lack of elections might mean a couple of different things).
Delete