Amending Classification of Regime Types

One of the most interesting ideas I came away with after reading the articles and listening to the lectures is how regime types are analyzed. As described in the Linz and Stepan article "Modern Nondemocratic Regimes", there have been three traditional categories in contemporary studies--democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian. The argument for the existence of all three was strong enough to warrant acceptance, but I was interested in figuring out how countries identified themselves as compared to how the international community identified them.

Thus, using the online United Nations database, I was able to figure out that there are only a handful of nations on the planet who do not identify themselves as democracies of some sort. Two of the major examples were Saudi Arabia and Thailand, which are, by no stretch of the imagination, non-democratic regimes. However, it was interesting to see the states that self-identified as democracies when most in the West would not consider them anywhere close to a true democracy. Iran was a specific example that was highlighted, as it is a nation notorious for consolidation of power around one person, the Ayatollah. Of course, Iran does have a parliament that is elected, but this system of “democracy” is nowhere near what democratic purists would consider acceptable. In fact, many argue that Iran is actually on the opposite end of the spectrum and is in its bare essence, a totalitarian regime. Yet because of the Iranian self-identification as a democracy, the international community’s collective stance is that the people have freedoms there. For reasons which are clear, Iran is not a true democracy that nations should strive to achieve. It is a nation that simple self-identifies as such so as not to draw criticisms from the international community like other self-identified nondemocratic regimes do.

Moving away from the Iran example, there are other nations on the lists of democracies that do not seem to be completely democratic. The addition of China on the list of democracies is puzzling to some because of the power of the Communist Party in ruling the state. However, one can argue that the classification of China as a totalitarian state is also erroneous. Thus China is the perfect example of an authoritarian nation which could be considered in the middle of the spectrum, though I would argue closer to totalitarianism rather than democracy. In addition to China, there are dozens of other examples of nations who self-identify as democratic, yet are not considered democratic by many of the nations that have longstanding and stable democracies. Thus, the problem of identification of regime types becomes apparent.

It would be nice to believe that the ultimate goal for every nation is to become liberalized and thus more democratic. In contemporary history, democracy has been viewed as the best kind of regime and government system because it puts power in the hands of the individual citizenry (at least in definition). Thus the criteria for measuring a free society—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, individual rights, and regular elections—should be used to rate how every nation is classified. If the current system employed by the United Nations is not amended, it is highly likely that progress towards liberalization and democratization will be slowed. Similarly to how there are weapons inspectors, there should be democracy inspectors. These people would travel throughout the country being analyzed and see whether or not democratic reforms are being put in place and how if they are effective. It may seem crass, but there needs to be a better way of analyzing and classifying regime types around the world.