After getting caught in conversations on populist claims and on the role of institutions, I realized that I had not studied the basic concepts of political science enough.

Below are some definitions that I found useful:

On government and its various forms:

Government:

“Exercise of influence and control, through law and coercion, over a particular group of people, usually formed into a state”. The following distinctions should be noted: (1) constitutional (power is limited by a constitution) vs. non-constitutional government, (2) limited (power is limited by other agencies within the state, law being the principal one) vs. absolute government, (3) political (there are certain institutions, such as courts of law, concerned with the representation, arbitration, adjudication and conciliation of interests within the state) vs. non-political (e.g. primitive government of a tribe by a single chieftain in accordance with custom) government. In addition to these basic distinctions, classifications of government have evolved according to who holds power and in whose interest, the principal ones being monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny.

Principal forms of government:

Monarchy

“Monarchy” (literally “rule by one”) is now understood as “the form of government in which the head of state holds office, usually with the title of King or Queen, either for life or until voluntary renunciation”. There are two fundamental kinds of monarchies: absolute monarchy and limited monarchy.

Democracy

“Government by the people as a whole (from the Greek word demos) rather than by any section, class or interest within it”. In “direct democracy”, “all citizens participate in decision-making, say by voting and accepting a majority verdict”. In “representative democracy”, “the people choose (say by voting) representatives who are then answerable to them, but at the same time directly involved, and usually without further consultation, in the practice of government”. A “liberal democracy” is a particular form of democracy that establishes procedures and institutions to prevent the “tyranny of the majority”, a concept used by John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville to signal the “danger that democracy might degenerate into tyranny if minorities and eccentrics are not protected from oppression by the majority. It is possible for a policy of genocide, for example, to achieve the consent of the majority; without constitutional guarantees – and specifically a law which upholds elementary rights and freedoms – democracy may therefore become the enemy of liberty”. These procedures and institutions include (1) constitutional guarantees of individual rights (e.g. freedom of expression, right to vote, eligibility for public office, protection of minorities), (2) alternative sources of information, and (3) oversight of legislative and executive powers, such as the “rule of law” (“form of government in which no power can be exercised except according to procedures, principles and constraints contained in the law, and in which any citizen can find redress against any other, however powerfully placed, and against the officers of the state itself, for any act which involves a breach of the law”) and the “ separation of powers” (theory, implicit in Aristotle, independently expressed by James Harrington and John Locke, and popularized by Montesquieu, advocating the separation of government powers into the “legislature”, which “formulates policy and enacts it as law”, the “executive”, which “carries policy into action” and the “judiciary”, which “applies the law according to rules of procedural justice and resolves disputes”).

Aristocracy

“Rule by the best” in Greek. Aristotle viewed it as a form of government in which virtue is the title to power, and where the few rule in the interest of the many. In its modern sense, it implies a particular kind of class organization with hereditary privileges.

Oligarchy

“Rule by a few” in Greek. Aristotle viewed it as a form of government in which wealth is the title to power, and where the few rule in their own interest. In its modern sense, oligarchy is a form of government where “power belongs to a minority group or party without hereditary restrictions on membership”.

Tyranny

“Absolute ruler” in Greek, and “one who rules exclusively in his own interest” for Aristotle. The word is now used synonymously with “despotism” to denote “any form of government which is oppressive, cruel, and without a rule of law, and in which there is considerable concentration of power, in the hands of a single individual or a single organization”.

Other forms of government:

Absolutism

A government is “absolute” if “it is not limited by any agency internal to itself”, i.e. when there is “an unfettered power of government” and there are “no constitutional checks and balances”. Such power need not be used (contrary to despotism, there may be real limitations on the power of government, but not enshrined by law) nor applied in every area of social existence (contrary to totalitarianism). “Absolute rule may vest in an individual, in an office (absolute monarchy), in a party (democratic centralism), or in a system of administration (classical Chinese bureaucracy).”

Autocracy

“Self-rule”, i.e., “rule by an agent who holds all power himself, and who exercises that power in an arbitrary manner. There may be a constitution and laws which seem to limit or guide his power, but in fact these can be revoked at will by the autocrat, and also disobeyed by him, there being no independent mechanism for enforcing them”. Autocracy should be seen as “the perversion of absolutism, in which power is not only absolute but also arbitrary”, i.e., not applied according to a law or any other independent reason.

Bureaucracy

“Rule by administrative office”. In a bureaucracy, “actual power is vested in those who are, from the legal point of view, administrative intermediaries between sovereign and subject. They (normally the civil servants, although there can also be military and religious bureaucracies) can delay or advance the causes of both sovereign and subject to an extent that gives them de facto control over major political transformations”.

Despotism

“Despotism”, from the Greek word for “master”, applied to the “absolute ruler of a people whose condition could be compared to that of slavery” and “any form of arbitrary or tyrannical government”, that is not “inherently limited by law, custom or effective opposition, so that the power of state can encroach wherever and whenever this should please those who wield it”. As argued by Montesquieu, a necessary condition for its existence is the concentration of powers in a single person, office or political agent.

Dictatorship

In the Roman Republic, a dictator was a “magistrate with extraordinary powers, appointed in times of civil or military crises”, usually for a term of six months. “Dictatorship” is “a system of government in which one person, office, faction or party is empowered to dictate all political action and compel obedience from all other citizens”. Dictatorships may exist de jure or de facto.

Gerontocracy

“Rule by the elderly”. This is a frequent practice in primitive tribes and in societies where it is considered that only age can provide the knowledge, wisdom or influence necessary for government.

Plutocracy

Literally “rule by wealth”. Describes “any form of government in which institutions are so formed (whether or not by express design) that only a person of considerable wealth can hold office, either because of the expenses necessary to achieve, or those necessary to maintain it”.

Police state

State “in which political stability has come to be, or to seem to be, dependent upon police supervision of the ordinary citizen, and in which the police are given powers suitable to that. The police force is extended, and operates secretly, with powers to detain for interrogation without charge, to search, to interrupt correspondence and to tap telephone calls, and in general to keep detailed records on citizens accused of no crime, in order to enforce measures designed to extinguish all opposition to the government and its institutions”. Such large police powers may be de jure or de facto.

Totalitarianism

A state is “totalitarian” if “it permits no autonomous institutions in any sphere in which the state has an interest – e.g., in education, trade union organization, and so on”, i.e., “if the aims, activities and membership of all associations are subject to the control of the case. For this to be the case freedom of association cannot be permitted. (…) Complete state control of the means of communication is also essential, together with in ideology”. Totalitarianism involves “the total supervision by a central power of all the functions of society”.

Theocracy

Literally “government by God” and in common usage “government by priests”. As practiced in the ancient world, theocracy involved not direct government by priests, but the tenure of judicial and legislative office by priests.

Timocracy

Term used by Plato to denote the “government of honour, which arises out of aristocracy (government by the best), when the military character of the state comes to be the focus of all ambition”. Such a description could be applied to Sparta, certain orders of medieval knighthood, the local rule by the samurai in Japan or the first Napoleonic state.

On the political spectrum and ideologies

Left and right

According to the Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, the distinction between “left” and “right”, as applied to politics, dates back to 1791, during the French Revolution: the king’s supporters in parliament (royalists) sat to the right of the President of the National Assembly, while the king’s opponents (revolutionaries) sat to his left. The metaphor has remained, but the nature of the distinction has evolved significantly. In his book Left and Right, Italian (left-wing) philosopher Norberto Bobbio argues that the distinction between left and right corresponds to the difference between egalitarianism and inegalitarianism: the “right” believes inequalities are natural and acceptable, while the “left” believes they should be overcome by an active state. British (conservative) political scientist Roger Scruton, in his Dictionary of Political Thought, defines “left” as a journalese term (i.e., lazy use of language designed more to cut corners or to evoke stock responses than to observe and make sense of the facts) used to suggest a combination of the following views: (1) hostility to private property and belief in social ownership, (2) hostility to favored classes, (3) hostility towards establishment and symbols of the dignity of government, (4) desire for a classless society, (5) belief in democracy, popular participation or government by consent, (6) belief in natural rights, (7) belief in progress, (8) egalitarian leanings, (9) anti-nationalist tendencies, (10) belief in welfare state and in state control over education, medicine, and important resources. In turn, he defines “right” as some bundle of the following: (1) conservative doctrines concerning the nature of civil society, with emphasis on custom, tradition, nationality, allegiance as social bonds, (2) theories of political obligation in terms of obedience, legitimacy and piety, (3) reluctance to a divorce between law and morality, (4) cultural conservatism, (5) respect for hereditary principle and prescriptive rights, (6) belief in private property as an indispensable part of the condition of society, (7) belief in free enterprise, free markets and a capitalist economy as the only mode of production compatible with human freedom, and (8) belief in human imperfectability.

Moderates and extremists

Scruton defines “extremism” as a vague term which can mean (1) “taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of unfortunate repercussions, impracticalities, arguments, and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition”, (2) “intolerance towards all views other than one’s own”, or (3) “adoption of means to political ends which disregard accepted standards of conduct, in particular which show disregard for the life, liberty and human rights of others”. Conversely, he defines a “moderate” political opinion as one that displays (1) “a desire for conciliation rather than confrontation, (2) “a preference for reform over revolution”, (3) “a belief that political transformation should be gradual and involve no great violence to institutions”, (4) “a belief that there exists a consensus among right-minded people” (the process of politics consisting in part in discovering this consensus and translating it into law), and (5) “tolerance towards views which do not match the consensus”, provided they are expressed according to the above principles. Likewise, Norberto Bobbio argues that the distinction between extremists and moderates has little to do with the nature of the ideas professed but rather concerns their radicalization, and therefore the strategies for their implementation in practice. This explains why opposing ideologies can have points of contact and agreement at their extremes, a left-wing extremist and a right-wing extremist sharing a rejection of democracy. Cas Mudde, in his depiction of the right, similarly distinguishes between “mainstream right” and “far right”, the former in favor of “liberal democracy”, and the latter against. According to Mudde, the “far right” encompasses (1) the “radical right”, which is against some elements of liberal democracy such as minority rights, rule of law, or separation of powers, and (2) the “extreme right”, which is against democracy itself, i.e., popular sovereignty and majority rule.

Falangism

The falangists (falange española) were founded in 1933 by José Antonio Primo de Rivera (son of Spanish dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera) to secure working-class support for local fascists. They were successful in the civil war under the leadership of Franco. “Falangism” now denotes “the particular synthesis of fascism and traditionalism exemplified by Franco’s subsequent dictatorship”, with its emphasis on: (1) “Spanish national character”, (2) “close moral and political ties between people and leadership”, and (3) “a fundamental unity between the state and all autonomous institutions, including the church”.

Fascism

Derived from the Latin “fasces”. “Name given by Mussolini to the movement which he led to power in Italy in 1922”. The term is now used more widely to also include German Nazism and Spanish falangism. Fascism is characterized by the following features: (1) corporatism, (2) nationalism, (3) hostility to democracy, to egalitarianism, and to the values of liberal enlightenment, (4) cult of the leader, and admiration for his special qualities, (5) respect for collective organization, and love of the symbols associated with it, such as uniforms, parades, and army discipline. In Germany the cult of violence, together with a violent antisemitism, were added to these features, with notorious results”. The label “fascist” may often be applied loosely to denote doctrines that conflict with left-liberal ideology.

Islamism

“Belligerent attempt to impose Islamic government and Islamic laws on people regardless of whether they consent to it”. Islamists, whose modern exponents include the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and al-Qa’eda, believe they are commanded to wage jihad against the infidels, and that the world’s situation authorizes radical destruction and martyrdom.

National Socialism

“Political movement founded in Germany in 1919, and subsequently led to power by Hitler”, presenting itself as “a nationalist answer to international socialism”, and combined with “racist doctrines and military ambitions”. The nationalist ideas included (1) the belief in a master race of ruling people with a right to expand into a living space and expel inferior peoples standing in their way, (2) the idea of a people’s state, with no distinction between political institutions and society, leading to a one-party state and a totalitarian government, and (3) a fascination with eugenics. The socialist element survived in the form of extensive welfare programs, mixed economy, and hostility towards the historical ruling class. It differs from (a) other brands of fascism by a cult of violence and virulent antisemitism, and (b) from Stalinism through the survival of some forms of private ownership, the adoption of virulent antisemitism, and hostility to the labour movement.

Populism

The term “populist “ refers to (1) “one who wishes to solve all political problems by appealing to the ‘will of the people’, believing the people to have instincts and reactions which, if properly tapped, will be alone sufficient to provide guidance and authority to the statesman”, or (2) “the behaviour of the politician who appeals at every juncture to popular sentiment, and enlists ignorant opinion to his side, even in matters of the utmost delicacy where the people lack the expertise to make a sound decision”. “Populism” has alternatively been viewed as (a) a positive force promoting the engagement of the common people in politics and/or helping achieve radical democracy, (b) an irresponsible economic policy characterized by massive public spending financed by foreign debt, followed by hyperinflation and harsh economic adjustments, (c) a political strategy employed by strong and charismatic leaders seeking to concentrate power and maintain a direct connection with the masses, or (d) a folkloric style of politics (dress code, language, behavior) aimed at garnering media coverage and popular support. It is often conflated with “clientelism”, in which voters obtain goods (money, access to jobs, goods and services) conditioned on their support. Cas Mudde views “populism” as an ideology with three core concepts: the people, the elite, and the general will. “Populists” present themselves as the defenders of the “pure people” (the common people, those left behind, the silent majority, the true rulers, the national community, the natives), ignored or deliberately kept from political, social and economic power by a “corrupt elite” (the establishment, those who hold leading positions within politics, business, the media, and the arts). Populism can be attached to other ideologies, such as socialism, nationalism, liberalism or agrarianism. Opposites of populism include “elitism” (the people are dangerous, dishonest, and vulgar and should thus have no say in politics, which should be left to the elite, superior in moral, cultural, and intellectual terms) and “pluralism” (diverse groups are a strength, power should be distributed so that no specific group can impose their will on others).

Stalinism

“Form of despotism exemplified by Stalin’s exercise of power in the USSR, the main characteristics of which are”: (1) “complete control of all media for propaganda purposes”; (2) “systematic elimination of opposition, without respect for morality or law”; (3) “mobilization of popular support around the leader”; (4) “‘five-year plans’ designed to secure production by force”; (5) “elaborate propaganda designed to reconcile every aspect of policy with Marxist-Leninist principles”; (6) “unswerving dogmatism in all matters, regardless of competence”; and (7) “fear of and pitiless retribution against all those thought to be traitors to the ruling party and its purposes”.

Terrorism

“Intentional creation of widespread fear and dismay by violence, in particular by violence of a random and arbitrary kind”.

Sources

• The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought, by Roger Scruton (Third Edition, 2007, Palgrave Macmillan)
• Populism: a very short introduction, by Cas Mudde and Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser (2017, Oxford University Press).
• Left and Right, The Significance of a Political Distinction, by Norberto Bobbio, translated by Allan Cameron (1996, Polity Press).