Regime Types and its Ambiguous Category

What describes best the regime types? As many political scientists have identified, the modern definition of regime may be described as a set of ideas, interests and institutions inherited by a state. Different states have inherited different kinds of regimes based on their cultural-social values, and the influence of their political leaders. After the breakdown of Soviet Union and post-communism era in many parts of the world, scholars have competed to discuss and identify the typology of regimes and its categories. While categorizing and grouping types of regimes, many political scientists have agreed to divide the types of regimes into four to five major categories. Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, in their article “Modern Nondemocratic Regimes,” conclude that there are major five different types of regimes—democratic (pluralist), totalitarian, post-totalitarian, authoritarianism, sultanism. Difference on grouping of regimes, among scholars, has occurred because of their grouping preference and interpretation. Some scholars think that “sultanism” should be ignored, while others argue that “corporatism” should be an independent category. Based on what Linz and Stepan have provided, except “democracy” all other four types of regimes are nondemocratic regimes, and have more similarities as well.

Perhaps the democracy is already well known form of the regime, and there is no need of further explanation in identifying itself, Linz and Stepen focus on distinguishing the totalitarianism, post-totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and sultanism based on their commonalities and differences. Although the actual form of government differs in various democratic-states, the democracy should consist of rule of law, a wide existence of vibrant civil society, an established electoral system, guarantee of fundamental human rights and fair judiciary system. For instance, the United States, Canada, Australia and The Great Britain can be taken as an example of democratic regimes. Democracy differs from all other regimes in many ways because it is the system of government run by elected politicians and the terms and policies vary according to the constitutional limits. Hence, there is no permanent president or ruler, policies made by one government can be replaced or improved by the others.

On the other hand; however, as Linz and Stephan distinguish the regime types based on the functional characteristics pluralism, ideology, mobilization and leadership. According to the authors, the level of pluralism; in economic and social life is legally protected under democracy, while authoritarianism has less space for its opposition. Under totalitarianism there is no space for economic, social and cultural pluralism because the official party has monopoly to the power, but the post-totalitarianism might allow little or no flexibility at all for such functions to exercise. And in sultanism, no civil society or economic development is free from the interruption of sultan. The authors make an excellent point in elaborating the existence of civil society in each regime types; however, too much emphasis has been given to the post-totalitarianism. I think most post-totalitarian regimes are not as stable as the other types of regimes because no specific examples have been given in the article. Also it can be considered as the period of transition from one type of regime to another.

Linz and Stepan also argue that ideology and level of mobilization are highly different among regimes. Under democracy there is profound commitment for citizens and a rule of law, and respect and protection for rights, and vibrant civil society. Authoritarian seem to ignore the ideology and does not offer significant political mobilization because they would just concerned with ruling, while totalitarian would enforce mobilization to convey the message from top to bottom. The post-totalitarian might enable legitimation and guided policy with a commitment of unrealistic society. Since the sultanism is the model of generic power inheritance, they focus on personalization and decide whatever they want by simply ignoring the outsider, and may have a very low level of mobilization.

Another point the authors make is that the nature of leadership, which is vastly different among the regimes. Unlike democracy, totalitarian strongly imposes rules to people because they are either popular or dangerous in behaviors. Post-totalitarian often rule through an established schedule within party, while authoritarian might rule with a small group of people with expected behavior. The sultanian does not provide any legal rationality, but often are forceful and deserving by system. Linz and Stepan lack the specific examples for the particular leadership. I think another missing point was the judiciary system among regimes. Totalitarians and sultanians almost have no judiciary at all because of their harsh character.

Leaving the corporatist type of regime along with the democracy, the authors have made a big mistake because not every democratic country in the world is oligarchic and not even exactly same to each other. Every country, based on its political culture, has different type of regime. Even within the democratic regime type, virtually every democratic country has some kinds of differences on their governing styles. Therefore, under other types of regimes, there are plenty of differences beyond few similarities, which I think is most important factor to look for. Since there is no such unique formula to categorize the regimes in specific types, understanding the fundamental concept of different types of regimes and comparing and contrasting their characters to understand their nature is more important than the categorizing itself.