Anthony Mughan

Introduction to Comparative Politics: How Governments Work

This chapter shifts our attention away from states and toward how governments work. How do the three main branches of government – the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary – interact in the daily task of governing in democratic and authoritarian regimes? What is the business of governing like across these regime types? We argue that there are important similarities and differences between them when it comes to governing. For example, governments of both types face a similar set of constraints, such as the need to maintain popular legitimacy and to engage in inter-branch negotiation and adjustments when making policy. Equally, executives dominate the governance process no matter the regime type. Thus, even in democracies, executives possess more levers of power than do legislatures. Still, the spread of democracy around the globe has led authoritarian regimes to establish legislatures and courts that, among other things, function to constrain (however mildly) the exercise of arbitrary power. Such similarities notwithstanding, however, there remains considerable variation in both types of regime in regard to how the three branches of government interact. In this chapter, we explore these issues by addressing the following themes: (1) the rules of governance (such as constitutions, both written and unwritten); (2) the structures of governance (executive, legislative, judicial) in democratic regimes; and (3) the structures of governance in authoritarian regimes. We begin with a discussion of the concept of government.

Introduction to Comparative Politics: The Modern State

This book is about states and the challenges to sovereignty they face in the contemporary world. We address this issue by systematically comparing states around the globe. As such, this book represents a contribution to comparative politics, which is a core subfield within the academic discipline of political science. The other subfields include international relations, political theory, and American politics. The object of study of comparative politics is to understand similarities and differences in the domestic, or internal, politics of states. Specifically, the goal is to explain why countries are sometimes similar and sometimes different in their domestic political processes and outcomes. A typical political process question is why some governments are popularly elected by their nations citizenry and why others come to power through violent upheaval, such as revolution. A typical political-outcomes question is why some states provide more generous welfare provision for their citizens than others do. Thus, a “comparativist” is one who observes similarities and differences in the domestic politics of states, develops theoretical explanations for them, and then seeks to test these explanations against new cases. The state is central to the study of domestic politics because it defines the territorial framework and institutional landscape within which these politics unfold. India, Switzerland, and South Africa, for example, all have political parties to organize and aggregate the various and competing political interests in society. But exactly how these parties function, how they represent their supporters, how they raise and spend money, how they gain power, and even how many parties exist are all strongly shaped by the values, ideas, myths, and practices embedded in the state, as well as by the institutional rules of governance set forth in the states founding documents (such as the constitution). In other words, there is a “statist” context to politics, and by that we mean that states are among the primary causal elements that shape, frame, and condition the how, what, when, and why of domestic politics. Of course, states are not static entities immune from, and impervious to, the impact and pressure of external forces.

Introduction to Comparative Politics: States and Politics

States, then, provide a framework or container for the practice of politics. The task of this chapter must therefore be to address the question: What is politics? Is it a dignified and noble activity that involves serving the public good? Politicians often speak this way, lauding colleagues or other officials for their public service. Or is politics a negative, corrupting, and perhaps evil form of human behavior? Common people often speak like this, painting the politician as a crook or depicting a governments loss of an election as “throwing the rascals out.” Philosophers in the Western tradition are divided on this question, and some have even constructed in their writings ideal worlds without politics, but human history has yet to record the existence of such a community. What is your conception of politics? Is it a dignified vocation or a sordid game involving corruption, power, and greed? This is not an easy question to answer, because how one addresses it invariably reflects prior political values. Politics as a concept is a contentious term involving competing traditions of political thought. One cannot simply offer a definition of it and thereafter remain politically neutral. Rather, defining it requires one to “take sides” in some key philosophical disputes.