Constitutionalism (రాజ్యాంగవాదము)

Constitutionalism, means:

Constitutionalism is a doctrine that a government’s authority is determined by a body of

laws or constitution. Although constitutionalism is sometimes regarded as a synonym for limited
government, that is only one interpretation and by no means the most prominent one historically.
More generally constitutionalism refers to efforts to prevent arbitrary government.

1.What is the concept of constitutionalism? ( రాజ్యాంగవాదం యొక్క భావన ఏమిటి?)

The Constitutionalism is the idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and
the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its
powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing

2. What is constitutionalism and its features? ( రాజ్యాంగవాదం మరియు దాని లక్షణాలు ఏమిటి )
Features (Characteristics) of Constitutionalism. According to Barnett,
constitutionalism embraces limitation of power (limited. government), separation of powers
(checks and balances) and responsible and. accountable government.2. Henkin3 identifies
popular sovereignty, rule of.
3. What is the purpose of constitutionalism? ( రాజ్యాంగవాదం యొక్క ఉద్దేశ్యం ఏమిటి )

The Central Purpose of Constitutionalism. The central purpose of constitutionalism is to

limit governmental power, to check and restrain the persons who hold public office and exercise
political authority.

4. What are the elements of constitutionalism? ( రాజ్యాంగవాదం యొక్క అంశాలు ఏమిటి )

Louis Henkin defines constitutionalism as constituting the following elements: (1) government
according to the constitution; (2) separation of power; (3) sovereignty of the people and

1
democratic government; (4) constitutional review; (5) independent judiciary; (6) limited
government subject to a bill of individual .

5. What is an example of constitutionalism? ( రాజ్యాంగవాదానికి ఉదాహరణ ఏమిటి )

Use constitutionalism in a sentence. noun. The definition of constitutionalism is being ruled by

basic standards and ideals which are consistent with an overriding rule of law or ethics. An
example of constitutionalism is federal laws of the United States government which are
consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

6.What is the difference between Constitution and the concept of constitutionalism?

( రాజ్యాంగం మరియు రాజ్యాంగవాద భావన మధ్య తేడా ఏమిటి )

The main difference between constitution and constitutionalism lies in the fact that the
constitution is generally a written document, created by the government (often with the
participation of the civil society), while constitutionalism is a principle and a system of
governance that respects the rule of law and limits.

2
 Constitutionalism in India

India is a democratic country with a written Constitution. Rule of Law is the basis for
governance of the country and all the administrative structures are expected to follow it in both
letter and spirit. It is expected that Constitutionalism is a natural effect to governance in India.
But the experience with the process of governance in India in the last six decades is a mixed one.
On the one hand, we have excellent administrative structures put in place to oversee even the
minutest of details related to welfare maximization but crucially on the other it has only resulted
in excessive bureaucratization and eventual alienation of the rulers from the ruled. Since
independence, those regions which were backward remained the same, the gap between the rich
and poor has widened, people at the bottom level of the pyramid remained at the periphery of
developmental process, bureaucracy retained colonial characters and overall development
remained much below the expectations of the people.

Constitutionalism

For genuine democracies, constitutions consist of overarching arrangements that determine the
political, legal and social structures by which society is to be governed. Constitutional provisions
are therefore considered to be paramount or fundamental law. Under these circumstances, if
constitutional law itself is inadequate, the nature of democracy and rule of law within a country
is affected. The structure of modern nations has been shaped with government being divided into
executive, legislative and judicial bodies, with the commonly accepted notion that these bodies
and their powers must be separated. Of course, the separation of powers does not mean these
bodies function alone, rather they work interdependently, but maintain their autonomy. Other
tenets include the idea of limited government and the supremacy of law. Together, these can be
termed the concept of constitutionalism. In other words, constitutionalism is the idea that
government should be limited in its powers and that its authority depends on its observation of
these limitations. A constitution is the legal and moral framework setting out these powers and
their limitations. This framework must represent the will of the people, and should therefore have

3
been arrived at through consensus.

Meaning of Constitutionalism
Constitutionalism has a variety of meanings. Most generally, it is "a complex of ideas, attitudes,
and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from
and is limited by a body of fundamental law". A political organization is constitutional to the
extent that it "contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the
interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority". As described
by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman: It may be said that the touchstone
of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.

Constitutionalism’ means limited government or limitation on government. It is antithesis of

arbitrary powers. Constitutionalism recognizes the need for government with powers but at the
same time insists that limitation be placed on those powers. The antithesis of constitutionalism is
despotism. A government which goes beyond its limits loses its authority and legitimacy.
Therefore, to preserve the basic freedoms of the individual, and to maintain his dignity and
personality, the Constitution should be permeated with ‘Constitutionalism’; it should have some
inbuilt restrictions on the powers conferred by it on governmental organs.

History of Constitutionalism

In discussing the history and nature of constitutionalism, a comparison is often drawn between
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who are thought to have defended, respectively, the notion of
constitutionally unlimited sovereignty (e.g., Rex) versus that of sovereignty limited by the terms
of a social contract containing substantive limitations (e.g., Regina). But an equally good focal
point is the English legal theorist John Austin who, like Hobbes, thought that the very notion of
limited sovereignty is incoherent. For Austin, all law is the command of a sovereign person or
body of persons, and so the notion that the sovereign could be limited by law requires a
sovereign who is self-binding, who commands him/her/itself. But no one can "command"
himself, except in some figurative sense, so the notion of limited sovereignty is, for Austin (and
Hobbes), as incoherent as the idea of a square circle. Austin says that sovereignty may lie with
the people, or some other person or body whose authority is unlimited. Government bodies - e.g.,
Parliament or the judiciary - can be limited by constitutional law, but the sovereign - i.e., "the
people" - remains unlimited. But if we identify the commanders with "the people", then we have
the paradoxical result identified by H.L.A. Hart - the commanders are commanding the
commanders.

Constitutionalism And Democracy

Authoritarian governments are by their very nature unconstitutional. Such governments think of
themselves as above the law, and therefore see no necessity for the separation of powers or
representative governance. Constitutionalism however, is primarily based on the notion of
people's sovereignty, which is to be exercised--in a limited manner--by a representative
government. The only consensual and representative form of governance in existence today, is

4
democratic government. In this way, there is a very important and basic link between democracy
and constitutionalism. Just as mere constitutions do not make countries constitutional, political
parties and elections do not make governments democratic. Genuine democracies rest on the
sovereignty of the people, not the rulers. Elected representatives are to exercise authority on
behalf of the people, based on the will of the people. Without genuine democracy, there can be
no constitutionalism.

Case Laws where principle of ‘Constitutionalism’ is legally recognized by Supreme Court

In I.R. Coelho (Dead) By LRs. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. view taken by the Supreme
Court - The principle of constitutionalism is now a legal principle which requires control over
the exercise of Governmental power to ensure that it does not destroy the democratic principles
upon which it is based. These democratic principles include the protection of fundamental rights.
The principle of constitutionalism advocates a check and balance model of the separation of
powers, it requires a diffusion of powers, necessitating different independent centers of decision
making. The protection of fundamental constitutional rights through the common law is main
feature of common law constitutionalism.

In Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. “The constitutionalism or
constitutional system of Government abhors absolutism - it is premised on the Rule of Law in
which subjective satisfaction is substituted by objectivity provided by the provisions of the
Constitution itself.” Constitutionalism is about limits and aspirations.
As observed by Chandrachud, CJ, in Minerva Mills Ltd. – “The Constitution is a precious
heritage and, therefore, you cannot destroy its identity'”
On one hand, our judiciary elicit such intellectual responses that “Faith in the judiciary is of
prime importance. Ours is a free nation. Among such people respect for law and belief in its
constitutional interpretation by courts require an extraordinary degree of tolerance and
cooperation for the value of democracy and survival of constitutionalism” said in Indra Sawhney
and Ors. vs.Union of India (UOI) and Ors.A constitutional dictatorship is a form of
government in which dictatorial powers are exercised during an emergency. The dictator is not
absolute and the dictator's authority remains limited by the constitution. The Roman Republic
made provision for a dictator who could govern unchecked for a stipulated period of time. Unlike
other magistrates, a dictator was not subject to review of his actions at the conclusion of his term.

The United States Constitution has a similar dictator clause stating that the President "may
adjourn [congress] to such Time as he shall think proper" if the two houses disagree on when to
adjourn. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States during the American Civil War,
exercised extraordinary powers to preserve the Union. Lincoln's dictatorial actions included
directly ordering the arrest and detention of dissenters and the suspension of the right to writs of
habeas corpus. However, Lincoln remained subject to Congressional oversight, judicial review,
and periodic elections.

The Weimar Republic, which succeeded Imperial Germany after the First World War, adopted a
constitutional provision that expressly enabled the president to rule by decree, without

5
consultation with the legislative branch. That provision was used by Chancellor Hitler to
consolidate his powers upon his selection by President Hindenburg.

US President Franklin D. Roosevelt also exercised extraordinary powers in response to the Great
Depression and the Second World War. Roosevelt's actions included violating the US
Constitution's Contract Clause, the closing of banks, and a moratorium on foreclosures. Later,
meeting a perceived threat by Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans, Roosevelt ordered
their relocation to internment camps.

In the 21st century, John Yoo, attorney and legal theorist, has offered a theory of the unitary
executive for massive authority of the US President, in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the
armed forces. Yoo provided the intellectual foundation for many of the actions undertaken by the
George W. Bush administration in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited

political freedoms. Under an authoritarian regime, individual freedoms are subordinate to the
state, and there is no constitutional accountability and no rule of law. Authoritarian regimes can
be autocratic, with power concentrated in one person, or can be a committee, with power shared
among officials and government institutions The political scientist Juan Linz synthesized
authoritarian political systems as possessing four qualities:

1. Limited political pluralism, realized with legalistic constraints on the legislature, political parties,
and interest groups;
2. Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion, and identification of the regime as a
necessary evil to combat enemies of the people, socio-economic underdevelopment, and guerrilla
insurgency;
3. Minimal social mobilization consequent to legalistic constraints, such as political suppression of
all anti-regime activities;
4. Informally defined executive powers, which extend and allow government authority into
every sphere of life

6
Authoritarian government and states

Types

Linz distinguished new forms of authoritarianism from personalistic dictatorships and totalitarian
states, taking Francoist Spain as an example. Unlike personalistic dictatorships, new forms of
authoritarianism have institutionalized representation of a variety of actors (in Spain's case,
including the military, the Catholic Church, Falange, monarchists, technocrats and others).
Unlike totalitarian states, the regime relies on passive mass acceptance rather than popular
support. Some scholars also mention the emergence of a different type of regime - the hybrid
regime - in the post-Cold War era.

Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified by Linz and others. Linz
identified the two most basic subtypes as traditional authoritarian regimes and bureaucratic-
military authoritarian regimes:

 Traditional authoritarian regimes are those "in which the ruling authority (generally a
single person)" is maintained in power "through a combination of appeals to traditional
legitimacy, patron-client ties and repression, which is carried out by an apparatus bound
to the ruling authority through personal loyalties". An example is Ethiopia under Haile
Selassie I.
 Bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes are those "governed by a coalition of military
officers and technocrats who act pragmatically (rather than ideologically) within the
limits of their bureaucratic mentality." Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that it is best to
distinguish "simple military authoritarian regimes" from "bureaucratic authoritarian
regimes" in which "a powerful group of technocrats uses the state apparatus to try to
rationalize and develop the economy" such as South Korea under Park Chung-hee.

Subtypes of authoritarian regime identified by Linz are : corporatist or organic-statistic, racial

and ethnic "democracy" and post-totalitarian. Another type identified by Steven Levitsky and
Lucan A. Way is “competitive authoritarianism”.

 Corporatist authoritarian regimes "are those in which corporatism institutions are used
extensively by the state to coopt and demobilize powerful interest groups". This type has
been studied most extensively in Latin America.
 Racial and ethnic "democracies" are those in which "certain racial or ethnic groups enjoy
full democratic rights while others are largely or entirely denied those rights", such as in
South Africa under apartheid.
 Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes are those in which totalitarian institutions (such as
the party, secret police and state-controlled mass media ) remain, but where "ideological
orthodoxy has declined in favor of routinization, repression has declined, the state's top
leadership is less personalized and more secure, and the level of mass mobilization has
declined substantially". Examples include the People's Republic of China, Russian
Federation, and Soviet Eastern bloc states in the mid-1980s.

7
  Competitive authoritarian" regimes” are civilian, not military or single party, and have
formal democratic institutions like legislature, courts, regular elections, but "the
incumbents’ abuse of the state places them at a significant advantage vis-à-vis their
opponents.” These includes many post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes as well as
Kenya, Cameroon, Taiwan, Malaysia. The term was coined by Steven Levitsky and
Lucan A. Way in their 2010 book of the same name.

Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or
populist. Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority
exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and
formal rules". Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By
contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong,
charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups".
Examples include Argentina under Perón, Egypt under Nasser and Venezuela under Chávez
and Maduro.

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by

political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass
organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. Adam Przeworski has theorized
that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity".

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power,
a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free
choice among competitors", the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties and little tolerance for
meaningful opposition.

A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is
maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime
and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.

Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands

of the people". Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism
through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness and that this overly rigid
approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the
populace or even groups within the system". Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on
performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.

Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a
one-party state) or other authority. The transition from an authoritarian system to a more
democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.

John Duckitt suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand
in opposition to individualism. Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism
submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.

8
Authoritarianism and totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs

from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under
governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol
of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of
authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:

Sondrol argues that while both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are forms of autocracy, they
differ in "key dichotomies":

(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators
develop a charismatic "mystique" and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with
their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.

(2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians

view themselves as individual beings largely content to control and often maintain the status quo.
Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an
indispensable function to guide and reshape the universe.

(3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among
authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support
their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering
a kleptocracy.[16]

Compared to totalitarianism, "the authoritarian state still maintains a certain distinction between
state and society. It is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it
gives society a certain degree of liberty. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, invades private life
and asphyxiates it". Another distinction is that "authoritarianism is not animated by utopian
ideals in the way totalitarianism is. It does not attempt to change the world and human nature".
Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and
monopoly control of ... industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that
distinguish them from other autocracies.

Authoritarianism and democracy

Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another, as it is possible
for democracies to possess authoritarian elements. An illiberal democracy (or procedural
democracy) is distinguished from liberal democracy (or substantive democracy) in that illiberal
democracies lack features such as the rule of law, protections for minority groups and an
independent judiciary.

A further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another; research
has extended the theory and finds that more democratic countries tend to have few wars

9
(sometimes called militarized interstate disputes) causing fewer battle deaths with one another
and that democracies have far fewer civil wars.

Some commentators, such as Seymour Martin Lipset, believed that low-income authoritarian
regimes have certain technocratic "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income
democracies, helping authoritarian regimes generate development. Morton H. Halperin, Joseph
T. Siegle and Michael M. Weinstein (2005) counter this belief, arguing that the evidence has
shown that there is no "authoritarian advantage" and that there is a "democratic advantage"
instead. Halperin et al. argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over
authoritarianism. They point out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier economic
growth and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes than authoritarian
regimes; that civil liberties act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources; and that
democracies are more adaptable. Halperin point out that the vast majority of refugee crises and
financial catastrophes occur in authoritarian regimes.

Studies suggest that several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality)
have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per
capita, size of the public sector or income inequality. Prominent economist Amartya Sen has
theorized that no functioning liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.

Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government.
Those were also moderately developed nations before applying liberal democratic policies.
Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in
determining the prevalence of corruption and that parliamentary systems, political stability and
freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption. One study has concluded that
terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the
least amount of terrorism are the most and least democratic nations.

Characteristics

Systemic weakness and resilience

Andrew J. Nathan notes that "regime theory holds that authoritarian systems are inherently
fragile because of weak legitimacy, overreliance on coercion, overcentralization of decision
making, and the predominance of personal power over institutional norms....Few authoritarian
regimes—be they communist, fascist, corporatist, or personalist—have managed to conduct
orderly, peaceful, timely, and stable successions". One exception to this general trend is the
endurance of the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party, which has been unusually
resilient among authoritarian regimes. Nathan posits that this can be attributed to four factors: (1)
"the increasingly norm-bound nature of its succession politics"; (2) "the increase in meritocratic
as opposed to factional considerations in the promotion of political elites"; (3) "the
differentiation and functional specialization of institutions within the regime"; and (4) "the
establishment of institutions for political participation and appeal that strengthen the CCP's
legitimacy among the public at large".

10
Gender and authoritarianism

According to a study by Brandt and Henry, there is a direct correlation between the rates of
gender inequality and the levels of authoritarian ideas in the male and female populations. It was
found that in countries with less gender equality where individualism was encouraged and men
occupied the dominant societal roles, women were more likely to support traits such as
obedience which would allow them to survive in an authoritarian environment and less likely to
encourage ideas such as independence and imagination. In countries with higher levels of gender
equality, men held less authoritarian views. It is theorized that this occurs due to the stigma
attached to individuals who question the cultural norms set by the dominant individuals and
establishments in an authoritarian society as a way to prevent the psychological stress caused by
the active ostracizing of the stigmatized individuals.

Types of dictatorships

A dictatorship has been largely defined as a form of government in which the absolute power is
concentrated in the hands of a leader (commonly identified as a dictator), a "small clique", or a
"government organization", and it aims to abolish political pluralism and civilian mobilization
On the other hand, democracy, which is generally compared to the concept of dictatorship, is
defined as a form of government where the supremacy belongs to the population and rulers are
elected through contested elections.

A new form of government commonly linked to the concept of dictatorship is known as

totalitarianism. The advent of totalitarianism marked the beginning of a new political era in the
20th century. This form of government is characterized by the presence of a single political party
and more specifically, by a powerful leader (a real role model) who imposes his personal and
political prominence. The two fundamental aspects that contribute to the maintenance of the
power are: a steadfast collaboration between the government and the police force, and a highly
developed ideology. Here, the government has "total control of mass communications and social
and economic organizations". According to Hannah Arendt, totalitarianism is a new and extreme
form of dictatorship composed of "atomized, isolated individuals". In addition, she affirmed that
ideology plays a leading role in defining how the entire society should be organized. According
to the political scientist Juan Linz, the distinction between an authoritarian regime and a
totalitarian one is that while an authoritarian regime seeks to suffocate politics and political
mobilization, totalitarianism seeks to control politics and political mobilization.

However, one of the most recent classification of dictatorships does not identify Totalitarianism
as a form of dictatorship. In Barbara Geddes's study, she focused in how elite-leader and elite-

11
mass relations influence authoritarian politics. Geddes typology identifies the key institutions
that structure elite politics in dictatorships (i.e. parties and militaries). The study is based on, and
directly related to, factors like: the simplicity of the categorizations, cross-national applicability,
the emphasis on elites and leaders, and the incorporation of institutions (parties and militaries) as
central to shaping politics. According to Barbara Geddes, a dictatorial government may be
classified in five typologies: Military Dictatorships, Single-party Dictatorships, Personalist
Dictatorships, Monarchies, Hybrid Dictatorships.

Military dictatorships

Military dictatorship

Military dictatorships are regimes in which a group of officers holds power, determines who will
lead the country, and exercises influence over policy. High-level elites and a leader are the
members of the military dictatorship. Military dictatorships are characterized by rule by a
professionalized military as an institution. In military regimes, elites are referred to as junta
members; they are typically senior officers (and often other high-level officers) in the military.

Single-party dictatorships

One-party state

Single-party dictatorships are regimes in which one party dominates politics. In single-party
dictatorships, a single party has access to political posts and control over policy. Other parties
may legally exist, compete in elections, and even hold legislative seats, yet true political power
lies with the dominant party. In single-party dictatorships, party elites are typically members of
the ruling body of the party, sometimes called the central committee, politburo, or secretariat.
These groups of individuals controls the selection of party officials and "organizes the
distribution of benefits to supporters and mobilizes citizens to vote and show support for party
leaders".

Personalist dictatorships

Personalist dictatorships are regimes in which all power lies in the hands of a single individual.
Personalist dictatorships differ from other forms of dictatorships in their access to key political
positions, other fruits of office, and depend much more on the discretion of the personalist
dictator. Personalist dictators may be members of the military or leaders of a political party. Yet,
neither the military nor the party exercises power independent from the dictator. In personalist
dictatorships, the elite corps is usually made up of close friends or family members of the
dictator. These individuals are all typically handpicked to serve their posts by the dictator.

12
Monarchies

Monarchy : King Salman of Saudi Arabia

Monarchic dictatorships are regimes in which "a person of royal descent has inherited the
position of head of state in accordance with accepted practice or constitution". Regimes are not
considered dictatorships if the monarch's role is largely ceremonial but absolute monarchies,
such as Saudi Arabia can be considered hereditary dictatorships. Real political power must be
exercised by the monarch for regimes to be classified as such. Elites in monarchies are typically
members of the royal family.

Hybrid dictatorships

Hybrid dictatorships are regimes that blend qualities of personalist, single-party, and military
dictatorships. When regimes share characteristics of all three forms of dictatorships, they are
referred to as triple threats. The most common forms of hybrid dictatorships are
personalist/single-party hybrids and personalist/military hybrids.

Measuring dictatorships

Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 2016. Blue represents more democratic
countries, while yellow and red are considered as hybrid regime and authoritarian, respectively.
Most dictatorships are represented as darker shades of red.

One of the tasks in political science is to measure and classify regimes as either dictatorships or
democracies. Freedom House, Polity IV and Democracy-Dictatorship Index are three of the most
used data series by political scientists.

Generally, two research approaches exist: the minimalist approach, which focuses on whether a
country has continued elections that are competitive, and the substantive approach, which
expands the concept of democracy to include human rights, freedom of the press, and the rule of
law. The Democracy-Dictatorship Index is seen as an example of the minimalist approach,
whereas the Polity data series, is more substantive.

History

Between the two world wars, four types of dictatorships have been described: Constitutional,
Communist (nominally championing the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), Counterrevolutionary
and Fascist. Since World War II, a broader range of dictatorships has been recognized, including
Third World dictatorships, theocratic or religious dictatorships and dynastic or family-based
dictatorships.

13
Dictators in the Roman Republic

During the Republican phase of Ancient Rome, a Roman dictator was the special magistrate who
held well defined powers, normally for six months at a time, usually in combination with a
consulship. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. In
execution, their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law
and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of
the 2nd century BC and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power
much more personally and arbitrarily. As the Roman Emperor was a king in all but name, a
concept that remained anathema to traditional Roman society, the institution was not carried
forward into the Roman Empire.

19th-century Latin American caudillos

Caudillo : Antonio López de Santa Anna wearing Mexican military uniform

After the collapse of Spanish colonial rule, various dictators came to power in many liberated
countries. Often leading a private army, these caudillos or self-appointed political-military
leaders, attacked weak national governments once they controlled a region's political and
economic powers, with examples such as Antonio López de Santa Anna in Mexico and Juan
Manuel de Rosas in Argentina. Such dictators have been also referred to as "personalismos".

The wave of military dictatorships in South America in the second half of the twentieth century
left a particular mark on Latin American culture. In Latin American literature, the dictator novel
challenging dictatorship and caudillismo is a significant genre. There are also many films
depicting Latin American military dictatorships.

Communism and Fascism in 20th-century dictatorships

In the first half of the 20th century, Communist and Fascist dictatorships appeared in a variety of
scientifically and technologically advanced countries, which are distinct from dictatorships in
Latin America and post-colonial dictatorships in Africa and Asia. Leading examples of modern
totalitarian dictatorship include:

 Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, Hideki Tojo's Japan, Benito Mussolini's Italy, Francisco
Franco's Spain and other Fascist dictatorships;
 Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao Zedong's People's Republic of China, Kim
dynasty's North Korea and other Communist dictatorships that appeared after World War
II in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, East Asia and other countries.

Dictatorships in Africa and Asia after World War II

Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire's longtime dictator

14
After World War II, dictators established themselves in the several new states of Africa and
Asia, often at the expense or failure of the constitutions inherited from the colonial powers.
These constitutions often failed to work without a strong middle class or work against the
preexisting autocratic rule. Some elected presidents and prime ministers captured power by
suppressing the opposition and installing one-party rule and others established military
dictatorships through their armies. Whatever their form, these dictatorships had an adverse
impact on economic growth and the quality of political institutions. Dictators who stayed in
office for a long period of time found it increasingly difficult to carry out sound economic
policies.

The often-cited exploitative dictatorship is the regime of Mobutu Sese Seko, who ruled Zaire
from 1965 to 1997, embezzling over $5 billion from his country.[23] Pakistan is another country to
have been governed by 3 military dictators for almost 32 years in 7 decades of its existence.
Starting with General Muhammad Ayub Khan who ruled from 1958-1969. Next was General
Zia-ul-Haq who usurped power in 1977 and held on to power the longest until he died in an air
crash in 1988. Ten years after Zia, General Pervez Musharraf got control after defeat against
India in the Kargil war. He remained in power for 9 years until 2008

Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier succeeded his father François "Papa Doc" Duvalier as the
ruler of Haiti after his death in 1971.

Democratization

The global dynamics of democratization has been a central question for political scientists. The
Third Wave Democracy was said to turn some dictatorships into democracies (see also the
contrast between the two figures of the Democracy-Dictatorship Index in 1988 and 2008).

Xi Jinping's term limits were removed in 2018 by the party-controlled National People's
Congress, practically entitling him as ruler for life.

One of the rationales that the Bush Administration employed periodically during the run-up to
the 2003 invasion of Iraq is that deposing Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic
government in Iraq would promote democracy in other Middle Eastern countries. However,
according to The Huffington Post, "The 45 nations and territories with little or no democratic rule
represent more than half of the roughly 80 countries now hosting U.S. bases. ... Research by
political scientist Kent Calder confirms what's come to be known as the "dictatorship
hypothesis": The United States tends to support dictators [and other undemocratic regimes] in
nations where it enjoys basing facilities."

Theories of dictatorship

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2017)

15
Mancur Olson suggests that the emergence of dictatorships can be linked to the concept of
"roving bandits", individuals in an atomic system who move from place to place extracting
wealth from individuals. These bandits provide a disincentive for investment and production.
Olson states that a community of individuals would be better served if that bandit were to
establish himself as a stationary bandit to monopolize theft in the form of taxes. Except from the
community, the bandits themselves will be better served, according to Olson, by transforming
themselves into "stationary bandits". By settling down and making themselves the rulers of a
territory, they will be able to make more profits through taxes than they used to obtain through
plunder. By maintaining order and providing protection to the community, the bandits will create
a peaceful environment in which their people can maximize their surplus which means a greater
taxable base. Thus a potential dictator will have a greater incentive to provide security to a given
community from which he is extracting taxes and conversely, the people from whom he extracts
the taxes are more likely to produce because they will be unconcerned with potential theft by
other bandits. This is the rationality that bandits use in order to justify their transformation from
"roving bandits" into "stationary bandits".

Why are all communist countries authoritarian?

Every nominally "Communist" state has used the Marxist-Leninist model of revolution (or "liberation"
for those of Maoist persuasion). Marxism, itself, calls for a radical transformation of society and Lenin
planted a lot of seeds for a totalitarian system. I think it comes to down to the following factors:

1. The state confiscates all wealth and property and redistributes it by force. Naturally, a lot of people will
have a big problem with this. The regime needs to deal with that kind of dissent.

2. Everything, or almost everything, is state socialized. Even things the government has no reason to do
like brewing beer, making clothes and plumbing are its domain and no competition is allowed. That
means a lot of black markets to crack down on and corruption will be rampant. The regime has to deal
with corruption and quash competition.

3. Everything is centrally planned. Decisions are made at the top and handed down. The central
committee needs to know its decisions are being carried out to the letter. Quotas must be met. The regime
has to make sure people grow what they tell them to and produce the amount they tell to. Since the state
employs everyone it needs to make sure it needs to ensure all of hospitals, factories, etc. have enough
staff so people just can't up and leave or move.

16
4. The Communist Party runs the government and its platform is essentially law. Also, it means if the
regime loses power, the state will collapse. If someone disagrees with the platform, he/she is essentially
committing an act treason. The regime can't allow even the slightest criticism to spread because it could
snowball into an all out revolt like what happened to the Soviet Union after it implemented perestroika.

5. People get tired of the economic stagnation/having no rights and come to believe that things are not any
better off under Communism. In order to retain power, the regime must convince people this is not the
case. A case of authoritarianism breeding more authoritarianism.

6. Marxist-Leninist states have a disregard for human rights which they believe to be bourgeois values.
The real reason is that human rights is an obstacle to repression.

There are probably a lot of other reasons that I haven't touched on.

The Marxist-Leninist model has the most successful ways for Communists to gain power but it's too
dogmatic and rigid in its implementation of Marxism thus, pure repression is necessary to its very
survival. Communism remains appealing because of what it promises. Unlike Fascism/Nazism, it's not
mean-spirited and doesn't want to be authoritarian; its authoritarian out of self-defense. Its adherents still
think it isn't despite some of the most brutal and systematic mass murders in recorded history carried out
in its name.

Social Democracy has been a far more successful implementation of Marx's ideas, achieving satisfactory
levels of equality and happiness without compromising freedom which, I think, are the optimal goals of a
socialist system. Also, in democratic systems, people keep voting them back into power. Sadly, a lot of
people (e.g. Conservatives, Birchers) don't understand the difference and equivocate all forms of
socialism with Marxism-Leninism.

Communism

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is the
philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the
establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the
common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and
the state.

Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism and
anarchism (anarcho-communism), as well as the political ideologies grouped around both. All of
these share the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system,
capitalism; that in this system there are two major social classes; that conflict between these two
classes is the root of all problems in society; and that this situation will ultimately be resolved
through a social revolution. The two classes are the working class—who must work to survive
and who make up the majority within society—and the capitalist class—a minority who derives
profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means of production.

17
The revolution will put the working class in power and in turn establish social ownership of the
means of production, which according to this analysis is the primary element in the
transformation of society towards communism. Critics of communism can be roughly divided
into those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century communist states and
those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory.

Marxism-Leninism and democratic socialism were the two dominant forms of socialism in the
20th century; democratic socialism advocates economic reform through gradual democratic
legislative action rather than through revolution

Early communism : History of communism

According to Richard Pipes, the idea of a classless, egalitarian society first emerged in Ancient
Greece. The 5th-century Mazdak movement in Persia (Iran) has been described as
"communistic" for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy, for
criticizing the institution of private property and for striving to create an egalitarian society. At
one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the
inspiration of Scripture For example, in the medieval Christian Church some monastic
communities and religious orders shared their land and their other property (see religious and
Christian communism). Communist thought has also been traced back to the works of the 16th-
century English writer Thomas More. In his treatise Utopia (1516), More portrayed a society
based on common ownership of property, whose rulers administered it through the application of
reason. In the 17th century, communist thought surfaced again in England, where a Puritan
religious group known as the "Diggers" advocated the abolition of private ownership of land. In
his 1895 Cromwell and Communism, Eduard Bernstein argued that several groups during the
English Civil War (especially the Diggers) espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals and that
Oliver Cromwell's attitude towards these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile.
Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th
century through such thinkers as Jean Jacques Rousseau in France. Later, following the upheaval
of the French Revolution communism emerged as a political doctrine.

In the early 19th century, various social reformers founded communities based on common
ownership. However, unlike many previous communist communities they replaced the religious
emphasis with a rational and philanthropic basis. Notable among them were Robert Owen, who
founded New Harmony in Indiana (1825), as well as Charles Fourier, whose followers organized
other settlements in the United States such as Brook Farm (1841–1847).

In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century Europe. As
the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of the
proletariat—a new class of urban factory workers who labored under often-hazardous conditions.
Foremost among these critics were Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels. In 1848, Marx
and Engels offered a new definition of communism and popularized the term in their famous
pamphlet The Communist Manifesto.

18
Communism in the Soviet Union : Communist state

The Russian SFSR as a part of the USSR in 1922

The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Vladimir
Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that
position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, in which the
Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate
within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built
upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. However, Russia was one of
the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of
industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of
bourgeois rule.

The moderate Mensheviks (minority) opposed Lenin's Bolshevik (majority) plan for socialist
revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power
was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread and land" which tapped into the massive
public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for
land reform, and popular support for the soviets The Soviet Union was established in 1922.

Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical
basis, with active cells of members as the broad base. They were made up only of elite cadres
approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party
discipline. In the Moscow Trials, many old Bolsheviks who had played prominent roles during
the Russian Revolution of 1917 or in Lenin's Soviet government afterwards, including Kamenev,
Zinoviev, Rykov and Bukharin, were accused, pleaded guilty of conspiracy against the Soviet
Union, and were executed.

Cold War : Cold War

Its leading role in the Second World War saw the emergence of the Soviet Union as a
superpower, with strong influence over Eastern Europe and parts of Asia. The European and
Japanese empires were shattered and communist parties played a leading role in many
independence movements. Marxist–Leninist governments modeled on the Soviet Union took
power with Soviet assistance in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and
Romania. A Marxist–Leninist government was also created under Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia,
but Tito's independent policies led to the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform which
had replaced the Comintern and Titoism was branded "deviationist". Albania also became an
independent Marxist–Leninist state after World War II. Communism was seen as a rival of and a
threat to western capitalism for most of the 20th century.

19
Dissolution of the Soviet Union: Dissolution of the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was dissolved on December 26, 1991. It was a result of the declaration number
142-Н of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. The declaration
acknowledged the independence of the former Soviet republics and created the Commonwealth
of Independent States, although five of the signatories ratified it much later or did not do it at all.
On the previous day, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev (the eighth and final leader of the
Soviet Union) resigned, declared his office extinct and handed over its powers – including
control of the Soviet nuclear missile launching codes – to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. That
evening at 7:32, the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin for the last time and replaced with
the pre-revolutionary Russian flag.

Previously, from August to December all the individual republics, including Russia itself, had
seceded from the union. The week before the union's formal dissolution, eleven republics signed
the Alma-Ata Protocol formally establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States and
declaring that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.

Present situation : List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national

parliamentary representation

Countries of the world now (red) or previously (orange) having nominally Marxist–Leninist
governments

At present, states controlled by Marxist–Leninist parties under a single-party system include the
People's Republic of China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. North Korea currently refers to its leading
ideology as Juche, which is portrayed as a development of Marxism–Leninism. Communist
parties, or their descendant parties, remain politically important in a number of other countries.
The South African Communist Party is a partner in the African National Congress-led
government. In India, as of March 2018, communists lead the government of only one state,
Kerala. In Nepal, communists hold a majority in the parliament. The Communist Party of Brazil
was a part of the parliamentary coalition led by the ruling democratic socialist Workers' Party
until August 2016.

The People's Republic of China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy and along with
Laos, Vietnam and to a lesser degree Cuba has decentralized state control of the economy in
order to stimulate growth. Chinese economic reforms were started in 1978 under the leadership
of Deng Xiaoping and since then China has managed to bring down the poverty rate from 53% in
the Mao era to just 6% in 2001. These reforms are sometimes described by outside
commentators as a regression to capitalism, but the communist parties describe it as a necessary
adjustment to existing realities in the post-Soviet world in order to maximize industrial
productive capacity. In these countries, the land is a universal public monopoly administered by
the state, as are natural resources and vital industries and services. The public sector is the
dominant sector in these economies and the state plays a central role in coordinating economic
development.

20
Marxist communis: Marxism

A monument dedicated to Karl Marx (left) and Friedrich Engels (right) in Shanghai, China

Marxism, first developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid-1800s, has been the
foremost ideology of the communist movement. Marxism considers itself to be the embodiment
of scientific socialism, and rather than model an "ideal society" based on intellectuals' design, it
is a non-idealist attempt at the understanding of society and history through an analysis based in
real life. Marxism does not see communism as a "state of affairs" to be established, but rather as
the expression of a real movement, with parameters which are derived completely from real life
and not based on any intelligent design. Therefore, Marxism does no blueprinting of a
communist society and it only makes an analysis which concludes what will trigger its
implementation and discovers its fundamental characteristics based on the derivation of real life
conditions.

At the root of Marxism is the materialist conception of history, known as historical materialism
for short. It holds that the key characteristic of economic systems through history has been the
mode of production and that the change between modes of production has been triggered by
class struggle. According to this analysis, the Industrial Revolution ushered the world into a new
mode of production: capitalism. Before capitalism, certain working classes had ownership of
instruments utilized in production, but because machinery was much more efficient this property
became worthless and the mass majority of workers could only survive by selling their labor,
working through making use of someone else's machinery and therefore making someone else
profit. Thus with capitalism the world was divided between two major classes: the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie. These classes are directly antagonistic: the bourgeoisie has private ownership of
the means of production and earns a profit off surplus value, which is generated by the
proletariat, whom has no ownership of the means of production and therefore no option but to
sell its labor to the bourgeoisie.

Historical materialism goes on and says: the rising bourgeoisie within feudalism, through the
furtherance of its own material interests, captured power and abolished, of all relations of private
property, only the feudal privileges and with this took out of existence the feudal ruling class.
This was another of the keys behind the consolidation of capitalism as the new mode of
production, which is the final expression of class and property relations and also has led into a
massive expansion of production. It is therefore only in capitalism that private property in itself
can be abolished. Similarly, the proletariat will capture political power, abolish bourgeois
property through the common ownership of the means of production, therefore abolishing the
bourgeoisie and ultimately abolishing the proletariat itself and ushering the world into a new
mode of production: communism. In between capitalism and communism there is the
dictatorship of the proletariat, a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is
elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage. It is the defeat of the bourgeois
state, but not yet of the capitalist mode of production and at the same time the only element
which places into the realm of possibility moving on from this mode of production.

21
An important concept in Marxism is socialization vs. nationalization. Nationalization is merely
state ownership of property, whereas socialization is actual control and management of property
by society. Marxism considers socialization its goal and considers nationalization a tactical issue,
with state ownership still being in the realm of the capitalist mode of production; in the words of
Engels: "The transformation into State-ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature
of the productive forces. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the
conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that
solution". This has led some Marxist groups and tendencies to label states such as the Soviet
Union—based on nationalization—as state capitalist.

Leninism : Vladimir Lenin's statue in Kolkata, West Bengal

We want to achieve a new and better order of society: in this new and better society there must
be neither rich nor poor; all will have to work. Not a handful of rich people, but all the working
people must enjoy the fruits of their common labour. Machines and other improvements must
serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and
tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society. The teachings
about this society are called 'socialism'.
–Vladimir Lenin, 1903

Leninism is the body of political theory, developed by and named after the Russian revolutionary
and later Soviet premier Vladimir Lenin for the democratic organisation of a revolutionary
vanguard party and the achievement of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as political prelude to the
establishment of socialism. Leninism comprises socialist political and economic theories
developed from Marxism, as well as Lenin's interpretations of Marxist theory for practical
application to the socio-political conditions of the agrarian early-twentieth-century Russian
Empire. In February 1917, for five years Leninism was the Russian application of Marxist
economics and political philosophy, effected and realised by the Bolsheviks, the vanguard party
who led the fight for the political independence of the working class.

Marxism–Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism : Marxism–Leninism and

Stalinism

Joseph Stalin, 1942

Marxism–Leninism is a political ideology developed by Joseph Stalin, which according to its

proponents is based in Marxism and Leninism. The term describes the specific political ideology
which Stalin implemented in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and in a global scale in
the Comintern. There is no definite agreement between historians of about whether Stalin
actually followed the principles of Marx and Lenin. It also contains aspects which according to
some are deviations from Marxism, such as "socialism in one country". Marxism–Leninism was

22
the ideology of the most clearly visible communist movement. As such, it is the most prominent
ideology associated with communism.

Marxism–Leninism refers to the socioeconomic system and political ideology implemented by

Stalin in the Soviet Union and later copied by other states based on the Soviet model (central
planning, one-party state and so on), whereas Stalinism refers to Stalin's style of governance.
Marxism–Leninism stayed after de-Stalinization, Stalinism did not. In the last letters before his
death, Lenin in fact warned against the danger of Stalin's personality and urged the Soviet
government to replace him.

Maoism is a form of Marxism–Leninism associated with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. After de-
Stalinization, Marxism–Leninism was kept in the Soviet Union, but certain anti-revisionist
tendencies such as Hoxhaism and Maoism argued that it was deviated from, therefore different
policies were applied in Albania and China, which became more distanced from the Soviet
Union.

Marxism–Leninism has been criticized by other communist and Marxist tendencies. They argue
that Marxist–Leninist states did not establish socialism, but rather state capitalism. According to
Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat represents the rule of the majority (democracy) rather
than of one party, to the extent that co-founder of Marxism Friedrich Engels described its
"specific form" as the democratic republic. Additionally, according to Engels state property by
itself is private property of capitalist nature unless the proletariat has control of political power,
in which case it forms public property. Whether the proletariat was actually in control of the
Marxist–Leninist states is a matter of debate between Marxism–Leninism and other communist
tendencies. To these tendencies, Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism nor the
union of both, but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion, forced
into the CPSU and Comintern. In the Soviet Union, this struggle against Marxism–Leninism was
represented by Trotskyism, which describes itself as a Marxist and Leninist tendency.

Trotskyism

Trotskyism is a Marxist and Leninist tendency that was developed by Leon Trotsky, opposed to
Stalinism. It supports the theory of permanent revolution and world revolution instead of the two
stage theory and socialism in one country. It supported proletarian internationalism and another
communist revolution in the Soviet Union, which Trotsky claimed had become a "degenerated
worker's state" under the leadership of Stalin, in which class relations had re-emerged in a new
form, rather than the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Trotsky and his supporters, struggling against Stalin for power in the Soviet Union, organized
into the Left Opposition and their platform became known as Trotskyism. Stalin eventually
succeeded in gaining control of the Soviet regime and Trotskyist attempts to remove Stalin from
power resulted in Trotsky's exile from the Soviet Union in 1929. While in exile, Trotsky
continued his campaign against Stalin, founding in 1938 the Fourth International, a Trotskyist

23
rival to the Comintern In August 1940, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico City on Stalin's
orders.

Trotsky's politics differed sharply from those of Stalin and Mao, most importantly in declaring
the need for an international proletarian revolution (rather than socialism in one country) and
support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles.

Maoism : Chairman Mao statue in Shenyang, China

Maoism, known in China as Mao Zedong Thought, is a communist political theory derived from
the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong, whose followers are known as
Maoists. Developed from the 1950s until the Deng Xiaoping reforms in the 1970s, it was widely
applied as the guiding political and military ideology of the Communist Party of China and as
theory guiding revolutionary movements around the world. A key difference between Maoism
and other forms of Marxism–Leninism is that peasants should be the bulwark of the
revolutionary energy, led by the working class in China.

Libertarian Marxism

Libertarian Marxism is a broad range of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the
anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left
communism, emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism and its derivatives, such as
Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism. Libertarian Marxism is also critical of reformist positions,
such as those held by social democrats. Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and
Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France emphasizing the
Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a
revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its liberation. Along with anarchism, libertarian
Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism.

Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as Luxemburgism, council communism, left

communism, Socialisme ou Barbarie, the Johnson-Forest tendency, world socialism,
Lettrism/Situationism and operaismo/autonomism and New Left. Libertarian Marxism has often
had a strong influence on both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian
Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Antonio Negri,
Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Guy Debord, Daniel Guérin, Ernesto Screpanti and
Raoul Vaneigem.

Council communism: Council communism

Council communism is a movement originating in Germany and the Netherlands in the 1920s. Its
primary organization was the Communist Workers Party of Germany. Council communism
continues today as a theoretical and activist position within both left-wing Marxism and
libertarian socialism.

24
The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of social democracy and
Leninist communism, is that democratic workers' councils arising in the factories and
municipalities are the natural form of working class organization and governmental power. This
view is opposed to both the reformist and the Leninist ideologies, with their stress on
respectively parliaments and institutional government (i.e. by applying social reforms on the one
hand and vanguard parties and participative democratic centralism on the other).

The core principle of council communism is that the government and the economy should be
managed by workers' councils composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any
moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run authoritarian "state socialism"/"state
capitalism". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists
believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council
communists support a worker's democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of
workers' councils.

Eurocommunism: Eurocommunism

Eurocommunism was a revisionist trend in the 1970s and 1980s within various Western
European communist parties. They claimed to be developing a theory and practice of social
transformation more relevant for Western Europe. During the Cold War, they sought to
undermine the influence of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It
was especially prominent in Italy, Spain and France.

Left communism : Rosa Luxemburg

Left communism is the range of communist viewpoints held by the communist left, which
criticizes the political ideas and practices espoused—particularly following the series of
revolutions which brought the First World War to an end—by Bolsheviks and by social
democrats. Left communists assert positions which they regard as more authentically Marxist
and proletarian than the views of Marxism–Leninism espoused by the Communist International
after its first congress (March 1919) and during its second congress (July–August 1920).

Left communists represent a range of political movements distinct from Marxist–Leninists

(whom they largely view as merely the left-wing of capital), from anarcho-communists (some of
whom they consider internationalist socialists) as well as from various other revolutionary
socialist tendencies (for example De Leonists, whom they tend to see as being internationalist
socialists only in limited instances).

Non-Marxist communism

The dominant forms of communism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of
communism (such as Christian communism and anarcho-communism) also exist.

25
Anarcho-communism

Anarcho-communism (also known as libertarian communism) is a theory of anarchism which

advocates the abolition of the state, private property and capitalism in favor of common
ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary
associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding
principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Peter Kropotkin, main theorist of anarcho-communism

Anarcho-communism differs from Marxism rejecting its view about the need for a state
socialism phase before building communism. The main theorist of anarcho-communism, Peter
Kropotkin, argued that a revolutionary society should "transform itself immediately into a
communist society", that is should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the "more
advanced, completed, phase of communism". In this way, it tries to avoid the reappearance of
"class divisions and the need for a state to oversee everything".

Some forms of anarcho-communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are egoist and strongly
influenced by radical individualism, believing that anarchist communism does not require a
communitarian nature at all. Most anarcho-communists view anarchist communism as a way of
reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.

To date in human history, the best-known examples of an anarcho-communist society,

established around the ideas as they exist today and that received worldwide attention and
knowledge in the historical canon, are the anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution and
the Free Territory during the Russian Revolution. Through the efforts and influence of the
Spanish anarchists during the Spanish Revolution within the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936
anarcho-communism existed in most of Aragon, parts of the Levante and Andalusia as well as in
the stronghold of Anarchist Catalonia before being brutally crushed. During the Russian
Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend—through the
Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine—anarcho-communism in the Free Territory of
the Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921.

Christian communism: Christian communism

Christian communism is a form of religious communism based on Christianity. It is a theological

and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to
support communism as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on the
exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that
evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, established
their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection. As such,
many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the
Apostles themselves.

26
Christian communism can be seen as a radical form of Christian socialism. Christian communists
may or may not agree with various aspects of Marxism. They do not agree with the atheist and
antireligious views held by secular Marxists, but they do agree with many of the economic and
existential aspects of Marxist theory, such as the idea that capitalism exploits the working class
by extracting surplus value from the workers in the form of profits and the idea that wage labor is
a tool of human alienation that promotes arbitrary and unjust authority. Like Marxism, Christian
communism also holds the view that capitalism encourages the negative aspects of humans,
supplanting values such as mercy, kindness, justice and compassion in favor of greed, selfishness
and blind ambition.

Constitutionally Limited Government Key

In a “limited government,” the power of the government to intervene in the lives and activities of
the people is limited by constitutional law. While some people argue that it is not limited enough,
the United States government is an example of a constitutionally limited government.

27
 The term “limited government” refers to any central government in which that government’s
powers over the people are limited by a written or otherwise agreed to constitution or overriding
rule of law.

The doctrine of limited government is the opposite “absolutism” which bestows all power over
the people to a single person, such as a king, queen, or similar sovereign.

The English Magna Carta of 1512 was the first legally binding written charter of rights to
encompass the concept of limited government.

The central government of the United States of America is constitutionally limited government.

Limited government is typically considered to be the ideological opposite of the doctrines of

“absolutism” or the Divine Right of Kings, which grant a single person unlimited sovereignty
over the people.

The history of limited government in Western civilization dates back to the English Magna Carta
of 1512. While the Magna Carta’s limits on the powers of the king protected only a small sector
or the English people, it did grant the king’s barons certain limited rights they could apply in
opposition to the king’s policies. The English Bill of Rights, arising from the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, further limited the powers of the royal sovereignty.

In contrast to the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution establishes a
central government limited by the document itself through a system of three branches of
government with limits over each other’s powers, and the right of the people to freely elect the
president and members of Congress.

Limited Government in the United States

The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, embodied a limited government. However, by

failing to provide any way for the national government to raise money to pay its staggering
Revolutionary War debt, or to defend itself against foreign aggression, the document left the
nation in financial chaos. Thus, the third incarnation of the Continental Congress convened the
Constitutional Convention from 1787 to 1789 to replace the Articles of Confederation with the
U.S. Constitution.

After great debate, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention conceived a doctrine of limited
government based on a constitutionally required system of separation of powers with checks and
balances as explained by James Madison in the Federalist Papers, No. 45.

Madison’s concept of limited government maintained that the powers of the new government
should be limited internally by the Constitution itself and externally by the American people
through the representative electoral process. Madison also stressed the need for an understanding

28
that the limitations placed on the government, as well as the U.S. Constitution itself, must
provide the flexibility needed to allow the government to change as required over the years.

Today, the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments -- forms a vital part of the Constitution.
While the first eight amendments spell out the rights and protections retained by the people, the
Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment define the process of limited government as
practiced in the United States.

Together, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments spell out the difference between the “enumerated”
rights expressly granted to the people through the Constitution and the implied or “natural” rights
granted to all people by nature or God. In addition, the Tenth Amendment defines the individual
and shared powers of the U.S. government and the state governments forming the American
version of federalism.

How is the Power of U.S. Government Limited?

While it never mentions the term “limited government,” the Constitution limits the power of the
federal government in at least three key ways:

 As expressed largely in the First Amendment and throughout the rest of the Bill of
Rights, the government is prohibited from directly interfering in certain areas of the lives
of the people, such as religion, speech and expression, and association.
 Certain powers forbidden to the federal government are granted exclusively to the state
and local governments.
 Powers and rights not reserved by either the federal or state governments are retained by
the people.

In Practice, Limited or ‘Limitless’ Government?

Today, many people question whether the restrictions in the Bill of Rights ever have or ever can
adequately limit the growth of the government or the extent to which it intervenes in the affairs
of the people.

Even while complying with the spirit of the Bill of Rights, the government’s reach of control in
controversial areas such as religion in schools, gun control, reproductive rights, same-sex
marriage, and gender identity, have stretched the abilities of Congress and the federal courts to
justly interpret and apply the letter of the Constitution.

In the thousands of federal regulations created annually by dozens of [link]independent federal

agencies, boards, and commissions[link], we see further evidence of how greatly the
government’s realm of influence has grown over the years.

However, it is important to remember that in almost all cases, the people themselves have
demanded that the government create and enforce these laws and regulations. For example, laws

29
intended to ensure things not covered by the Constitution, like clean water and air, safe
workplaces, consumer protection, and many more have been demanded by the people over the
years.

Concept Limitations on government power

In political philosophy, limited government is where the government is empowered by law

from a starting point of having no power, or where governmental power is restricted by law,
usually in a written constitution. It is a key concept in the history of liberalism.

What are the limitations on the powers of government?

a principle of the federal government, according to the U.S. Constitution, that allows each
branch of government to limit the power of the other branches. the structure of the federal
government, according to the Constitution, that sets up three branches with their own distinct
powers and responsibilities

How did the founding fathers limited government power?

The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did
not allow one person to have too much authority or control. ... A branch may use its powers to
check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three
branches of government.

What limits the power in a democracy?

Democracy is a system of rule by laws, not individuals. In a democracy, the rule of law protects
the rights of citizens, maintains order, and limits the power of government. All citizens are
equal under the law. No one may be discriminated against on the basis of their race, religion,
ethnic group, or gender.

What are the 3 principles of limited government?

Limited Government. 1.5: Explain how the fundamental principle of limited government is
protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including democracy, republicanism,
federalism, the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and individual
rights.

Why is limited government necessary?

Limited government is an important component of economic freedom, and higher levels of
economic freedom are associated with higher annual incomes, better health, longer life
expectancies and greater political and civil liberties.

How does the First Amendment limit the power of government?

The First Amendment text reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.

30
A few thoughts about the limitations of government

Our founding fathers

How large should government be?

How policy helps frame the debate

Where we are headed

In a recent post, “Stop the madness now!“ I voiced my growing concern with the direction in
which the country is headed. I am not alone in my anxiety. Despite recent improvements in the
economy, most recent polls show that Americans are more alarmed now than they were early in
the year when things looked rather bleak. While these concerns have manifested themselves in
various ways depending in large part on political affiliation, it is clear much of the worry centers
on jobs - or the lack thereof.

Policy makers have been ‘wildly’ successful in stabilizing the economy in the U.S. and
elsewhere. Given the enormity of the financial crisis, it is unrealistic to have expected a far better
economic situation than the present one. Nevertheless, disenchantment with the economic
direction has reached a fever pitch and put the Obama Administration on its back foot.

In my view, this is not just because the economy remains weak. Americans are angry because the
economic policies used to try to fix our predicament have been both unfair and opaque. They
have favored special interests like big banks and much of the maneuvering has been done in
secret. All of this has increased distrust of government and weakened the Obama Administration.

The result of the increasing distrust of government has been a renewed questioning of the role
and limitation of government in the American economy.

When thinking about government and its role and size, there are three camps of thought.

Big Government. Supporters of big government believe that government can do good. In
this view, an increase in the size of government is not just needed but necessary in a severe
economic downturn in order to fill the void left by the private sector’s fragility. The large
scale fiscal stimulus enacted in 2001 at the beginning of President Bush’s first term, in 2008
at the tail end of the Bush Administration, and in 2009 during the Obama Administration are
examples of Big Government in action.

Limited Government. People in this camp believe that government must always be held in
check - even in times of economic distress. If not, a self-perpetuating bureaucracy develops, with
a cadre of individuals dependent on government and wedded to institutions or programs which
no longer have great value. In this view, expanding government is like moving to into bigger

31
house; the new space must be filled with stuff, with size justifying the need for possessions
rather than the need for space justifying the size.

Small Government. Individuals in this camp see government as a parasite which, while
necessary in small measure, always and everywhere raises the specter of despotism and
cronyism. In this view, government must be kept as small (and as local) as possible because it
feeds on society and on power to usurp property and wealth for its own use and that of its
cronies.

Our founding fathers

The United States were founded by individuals who were distrustful of government, many
looking to escape tyranny, taxes and religious persecution. The founding fathers were largely in
the limited government camp, with many falling into the third small government group. We need
look no further than the U.S. Constitution for evidence of this instinctive distrust of government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

This preamble to the Constitution is a statement of purpose. It is the answer as to why the U.S
exists. It answers:

1. who established the government: “We the People” (back then, white tax-paying citizens;
now all women and men)

 for what purpose we established the government: “to form a more perfect union.... and secure
the Blessings of Liberty”; and

 who benefits from this action: “ourselves and our Posterity.”

The specific words were chosen carefully. The word liberty is central to this statement. Merriam-
Webster describes liberty like this:

the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical
restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various
social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.

Then there is “our Posterity” i.e. our children, children’s children and their descendants and other
future citizens. They are to be a chief beneficiary of government action.

I would describe this as a document affirming great respect for individual liberty but cognizant
of the need to sacrifice some individual liberty for a sustainable long-term future. You and I both

32
know this document is more of a goal than a reality. After all, slavery was permitted in the
United States until nearly 100 years later. Native Americans were persecuted and slaughtered for
decades. And women were refused a vote until the early 20th century. So, as far as execution
goes, you have a few problems. The idea, on the other hand, is terrific. I consider that idea
Libertarian.

To this day, Americans have a Libertarian bent and are more distrustful of power, elites, and
government than many in Western Europe and elsewhere.

How large should government be?

It is with this ethos as background that most are taking in the debate about the size of
government. I would argue that most Americans today are in the middle group (where I also see
myself) - wary of big government but receptive to the need for more government in times of
national emergency. These people were swayed toward Big Government because of a deep
downturn and financial crisis but crony capitalism and bailout fatigue have discredited Big
Government. And now we are witnessing a war about the proper role of government. Perceptions
of recent policy decisions remain top of mind in the process.

At about this time last year, I wrote a post called “A brief philosophical argument about the role
of government, stimulus and recession“ which outlined how I saw the role of government.

How policy helps frame the debate

Nevertheless, my thinking has changed in some ways since late last year - along with many
Americans.

Barack Obama has been handed one of the worst legacies since Franklin Roosevelt. When he
entered office, we had two wars, a financial crisis, a deep economic downturn, and numerous
bailouts already in progress. Combine that with a desire for substantive change on health care
and the environment, issues that many of his supporters felt were stymied during the Bush years,
and you have a Herculean task for any person. Back in January Warren Buffet said not to expect
miracles from Barack Obama because many of his supporters seemed to believe he could do it all
- and with instantaneous positive results.

I don’t expect instantaneous results. I expect a decade-long struggle for the United States
because stimulus is no panacea for all of our problems. My expectation of a long road ahead is a
principal reason I am concerned about Obama’s newfound role as deficit hawk.

Where are the homeowners bailout packages? Where are the unemployed’s bailout packages?
Not that I am advocating bailouts; I am not. I am simply pointing out that the too big to fail
banks and automakers got bailouts while ordinary Americans received next to nothing.

33
Now most people don’t write a finance blog with statistics and 100 different stories to rattle off
about the big squander on how all of this is grossly unfair, how this is a fake recovery from
which they are not benefitting but from which banks are benefitting. But people aren’t stupid,
they know they are being looted. And this makes them lose faith in government.

I find it ironic that the panic which precipitated the acute phase of this crisis was caused by a loss
of trust in banks by the people and banks in each other. The government told us they would fix
them and we trusted they would. They certainly stabilized the economy but at great cost and in
an enormously unfair manner. So when New York Times columnist David Brooks runs a victory
lap for the Administration telling us what Geithner got right, I laugh at how misguided these
arguments are. It is not a question of whether the Administration has stabilized the economy, it is
the way they did so.

Those in the third group I mentioned at the outset - those who support small government - they
are saying, “I told you so.” At this point in time, I have no retort.

Where we are headed

So, to those who say,” give him the President a chance - he has only been in office 10 months,” I
say that is long enough to know. The President’s task is to lead irrespective of the circumstance.
And despite the limitations of his office, national emergency or economic circumstance, he is the
one who is expected set the tone for our nation’s policy agenda and to decide which issues we
prioritize as a nation.

Fairly or not, every President is measured based on his ability to do so while improving the
nation’s economic lot. And the lot of ordinary Americans is no better; it is worse. Meanwhile it
is business as usual on Wall Street and in the corridors of high finance.

So I say, “stop the madness.” I still back targeted stimulus for jobs. But, despite the calls by the
Krugmans of the world for yet more stimulus of the full tilt variety, this is all I want. I am less
confident of government.

What is a Constitution?

34
Definition of constitution

1a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and
duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it

b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization

2a : the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and
appearance of the body a hearty constitution

b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something the constitution of

society

3 : the mode in which a state or society is organized especially : the manner in which sovereign
power is distributed

4 : an established law or custom : ordinance

5 : the act of establishing, making, or setting up before the constitution of civil laws

A constitution is primarily a set of rules and principles specifying how a country should be
governed, how power is distributed and controlled, and what rights citizens possess. It is usually
written down and contained within a single document; the UK is unusual in having an uncodified
constitution with many sources.

Constitutions vary in length, the famous US Constitution of 1787 being rather short, but will
typically all contain guidance on matters such as those listed below:

 Rules and guidelines for conducting elections, including when and how often elections
are held, who can stand for elected office, which processes and procedures are to be
applied (including details of the electoral system), and provisions for the oversight of
elections.
 The relationship between the key institutions, or branches, of government: the
executive, the legislature and the judiciary. It is usual to set out precisely what powers are
held by the different branches, and how individuals within them, including the chief
executive, can be checked or removed.
 The location of sovereignty (ultimate political authority) within a political system. In the
case of the USA, sovereignty lies with the people (‘We the People…’) and in the UK
sovereignty, by convention, rests with Parliament.
 Ways in which a constitution can be amended: a constitution must contain a clear
statement of the processes by which it can be changed. Some ‘originalists’, such as the
late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe constitutions should be beyond

35
 reproach but most political actors and commentators view them as ‘living’ documents.
That is, it should be possible to adapt and change a constitution so that it better matches
the values and principles of the time, and so that problems and challenges not envisaged
at the time of the constitution’s founding can be addressed within the bounds of the
system. An uncodified constitution makes no distinction between ‘higher’ constitutional
and other law, therefore amendment is easily attained via a parliamentary majority and no
special arrangements are necessary.
 A statement of the rights of citizens against the state and how redress might be
gained. The opening 10 Amendments to the US Constitution are known as the ‘Bill of
Rights’ and guarantee freedoms such as the right to a fair trial and ‘due process of law’,
free speech, freedom of religion and, notoriously in the case of the 2 nd Amendment, ‘the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms’, a staple of presidential election campaigns.
The situation is more complicated in the UK but recent statute law such as the Human
Rights Act (1998) and the Freedom of Information Act (2000) serve a similar purpose, as
does common law and convention, albeit these protections are not entrenched and the
lack of codification also explains some confusion as to where the rights of citizens lie.
 The overall type of government. The American constitution specifies that it will be both
a democratic and a federal system, with federalism and the separation of powers
enshrined in the 10th Amendment: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.’ This provides the moral and legal force behind States’ Rights.
 What the nation stands for. A constitution begins with a Preamble, a short statement the
purpose of which is to neatly summarise and crystallise the values and principles a nation
hopes to embody and wishes to project to the rest of the world. They are aspirational and
often quite vague statements intended to inspire citizens and shape a positive national
identity and political culture. The French constitution promises the Republic will embody
‘the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity’; in Brazil, the constitution promotes
‘the exercise of social and individual rights, liberty, security, well-being, development,
equality and justice as supreme values of a fraternal, pluralist and unprejudiced society’;
Russia swears its allegiance to ‘the universally recognized principles of equality and self-
determination of peoples’; India highlights Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, and
Ireland promises to ‘promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence,
Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true
social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with
other nations’. A closer look at preambles would reveal no shortage of ‘spin’ and a
certain tendency towards the airbrushing of history but in theory a constitution
encapsulates a set of values, beliefs and goals the people of a country can collectively
support and often, as in the case of the racially very diverse nation of Brazil, such
statements are careful constructions aimed at overcoming potential barriers to unity. In
this way, a constitution goes to the heart not only of a country’s system of government
but also to its image of itself.

36
Constitution Definition:

The basic, fundamental law of a state which sets out how that state will be organized and
the powers and authorities of government between different political units and citizens.

Related Terms: Federalism, Government, Constitutional Law, Common Law

The basic law or laws of a nation or a state which sets out how that state will be organized by
deciding the powers and authorities of government between different political units, and by
stating the basic law-making and structural principles of society.

The primary contract or law by which the government of a nation or state is set out and
organized.

The constitution is colloquially referred to as the "#1 law of the land"; to which all of
government, citizens, corporate persons and other laws must defer in the event of any conflict.

The Canadian Constitution is typical in stating that:

"The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with
the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."

Constitutions are not necessarily written and may be based on aged customs and conventions, as
is the case, in part, in England and New Zealand (the USA, Canada and Australia all have written
constitutions).

Note these words of Niccolo Machiavelli in his 1611 book, The Prince:

"There is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to
carry through than initiating change in a State's constitution. The innovator makes enemies of all
those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those
who could prosper under the new. Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their
adversaries, who have the existing law on their side, and partly because men are generally
incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience."

An almost constant debate is whether a constitution, once written, should be exposed to judicial
expansion - by the adaptation of it to an evolving state.

Even where written, the words and scope of the written constitution is by necessity shaped by the
Courts. As lawyer and later Governor of the State of New York, Charles Edward Hughes once
said, in about 1906:

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

37
 while an agreeable idea to almost all judges, such changes would then emanate not from elected
officials or even from popular vote, but from judicial opinions of judges. In McCulloch v.
Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court wrote what is still
today the dominant theory:

"(The) constitution (of the USA is) intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be
adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

Different Types of Constitution

A constitution has been defined as a body of rules established to regulate the system of
government within a state. The reason for drafting a codified constitution is usually associated
with the time in which a particular State is formed or associated with a major change that has
taken place at national level. For instance, Italy drew up a new constitution in 1948 and Germany
did the same in 1949 following their defeat in Word War II and also to mark the destruction of
their previous regimes. The United States drafted a codified constitution upon independence
from Britain in 1787, and India drafted a constitution after independence from Britain, in 1950.

In Britain, the constitution remains uncodified, and Bogdanor argues that the reasons for this are
both historical and conceptual. The former reflects the fact that British history has remained
continuous since 1689, and there has not been an obvious break which would have called for
drafting a codified constitution. As such, Britain has lacked a “constitutional moment”.
However, that is not to say that there have not been important historical events, which influenced
the way Britain is governed. There have been many such events: The Great Reform Act 1832,
the Acts of the Union with Scotland and Ireland in 1707 and 1801 respectively, and the Anglo-
Irish Treaty of 1921, to name a few. Conceptually, Bogdanor argues, the reason for not having a
codified constitution in Britain is because the basis of the government is the sovereignty of
Parliament; this concept seems incompatible with a codified constitution simply because a
codified constitution would limit that sovereignty.

Codified, Uncodified, Flexible and Inflexible Constitutions

That difference between a codified and uncodified constitution is also reflected on the fact that
what is written in the constitutional document becomes a superior law that can only be judged by
a Constitutional Court. This brings us to another classification of constitutions as “flexible”, such
as the British constitution that can be amended with ease, and “inflexible”, such as the US
constitution, which contains entrenchments that make it very difficult to make constitutional
changes. In constitutions of the inflexible type, it is the constitution, not the legislature that is
supreme. Arguably, codified constitutions provide mechanisms to effect constitutional changes.
However, making those changes is not necessarily easy. In the Canadian Constitution of 1982,
the whole of Part V of the constitutional document lays down the procedures for constitutional
amendment, and as a consequence, the constitution is criticised for being at a standstill.

38
Monarchical and Republican Constitutions

Continuing the comparison between the British and American constitutions, a further
constitutional classification is possible: monarchical and republican. In the former, the monarch
is the head of state, although in Britain”s case, the powers of the monarch are limited, and the
Queen reigns in accordance with the constitution. The political power lies with the Prime
Minister. Accordingly, a constitutional monarchy is a limited monarchy. A republican
constitution on the other hand, provides for the election of a President who is the head of state
and the head of the government.

Arguably, the modern concept of a constitution has been attributed to the American Constitution
of 1787, which includes a Bill of Rights, and also to the French Declaration of Rights of 1789.
Both constitutions were created as a consequence of liberation, from colonialism and the
monarchy respectively, in order to promote The Republic, and they had behind them violent
revolutions. No longer was a constitution a body of law, institutions and customs forming the
State, but it contained the concept of republicanism: the people constituting a State.

Presidential and Parliamentary Constitutions

By the fact that a republican constitution places the power in the hands of the President, while
the British constitution places the power on Parliament, it would be possible to make a further
classification of a constitution as “presidential”, or “parliamentary”. This affects the way the
government operates. In the case of the former, the President will be the head of state and the
head of the executive branch of the government but not the head of the legislature and not
accountable to it. Furthermore, the President is not a member of the House of Representatives or
the Senate. By contrast, in a Parliamentary constitution, the head of the executive branch of the
government is the Prime Minister, who will also be the head of the executive, and also a member
of the legislative branch of the government and accountable to it.

Federal and Unitary Constitutions

In a federal system such as the one in the US, it can also be said that the constitution is a
“federal” constitution, instead of a “unitary” one. In the former, apart from a central government,
there is also government at state level, with legislative competence under the constitutional
arrangements. This is the case not just in the US but also in Australia, Canada and South Africa.
On the other hand, Britain has a unitary constitution and it is centrally governed. However, this
point may now be challenged because due to devolution powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland, perhaps there is an incipient federal aspect to the British constitution.

Political and Legal Constitutions

A further constitutional classification is a “political” and a “legal” constitution. The former is

associated with holding to account those who hold political power, because it advocates that the
making of laws is the exclusive domain of Parliament, and only when Parliament legislates, does

39
the law become legitimatised. Behind a political constitution such as the British constitution is
the concept of “majoritarianism”, that is, that an elected majority should make the decisions
affecting the voters, rather than leaving those decisions to the courts. In contrast, a legal
constitution such as the American one, empowers the courts, in particular the Constitutional
Court to establish the limits of government power.

Advocates of a political constitution such as Griffith and Tomkins argue that politics is the best
way to exert government control because entrusting government accountability to the judiciary is
neither democratic nor effective, due to the fact that judges do not have the democratic
legitimacy of an elected government. As such, a political constitution is the living representation
of the politics that create it. Perhaps an important difference between a political and a legal
constitution is the weight given to the latter. A political constitution is flexible and changeable
while a legal constitution, such as the American Constitution, has the status of a civil religion or
scripture, the constitutional document is held in high esteem and the Supreme Court has a very
high status within the country as the “guardian” of the Constitution.

An example of constitutional zeal is seen in the “Tea Party”, which advocates carrying a copy of
the constitution at all times. Furthermore, literal constitutional interpretation by the Supreme
Court has helped to perpetuate the second amendment which allocates a right “to keep and bear
arms”, interpreted by the more liberal as applying only to a “well regulated militia” but
interpreted by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v Heller as allowing the citizens to
keep and bear arms regardless of whether certain states had banned weapons based on public
safety.

Arguably, the British political constitution based on the sovereignty of Parliament has changed
through the enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) which incorporated the
European Union (EU) Treaties into the British constitution, allowing also for the primacy of EU
law. A further constitutional change was the incorporation of the European Convention on
Human Rights into national law by the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), in
order to protect fundamental rights which were not considered to be protected by common law in
a sufficient manner or to have proper judicial articulation.

Critics may argue that this is a sign that the British political constitution is beginning to show
tendencies towards becoming a legal constitution, and that both the ECA and the HRA have
created entrenchments. However, it could also be argued that this is merely the effect of Britain
being part of a global economy, and that because it remains uncodified, the British constitution
remains flexible, and able to change with the times.

Conclusion

In conclusion, whether a constitution is codified or uncodified, flexible or inflexible, presidential

or monarchical, republican or parliamentary, political or legal, the one thing they have in
common is that all constitutions are unique. Parpworth states, quoting Finer, that the reason for
this uniqueness is that all constitutions contain autobiographical elements, and they are therefore

40
idiosyncratic. Furthermore, they are based on different historical contexts that have generated
different preoccupations, and therefore different priorities.

Despite that, it can be argued that there is a general level that should be upheld in every
constitution regardless of how it is classified: a democratic basis, protection against the abuse of
power, promotion of the separation of powers, implementation of the rule of law and a proper
system of checks and balances to effect government control. Constitutional maintenance should
occur through active constitutional surveillance and assessment. In that sense, a political and
flexible uncodified constitution has a better chance to do so, and to develop organically
according to the needs of the times. However, each constitution should be able to operate within
its own core of custom, convention, case law and compromise.

41
 Why Britain became more democratic, 1851–1928

1. Democracy grew in Britain due to the impact of the industrial revolution and the Great War.
New political ideas and pressure groups came to the forefront as politicians sought to secure
votes. Throughout the period 1851 to 1928, Britain became more democratic for a number of
reasons:

 industrialisation and urbanisation increased

 pressure groups were changing political attitudes
 parties realised the power of political advantage

2. Industrialisation and urbanization: ( Impact of the Industrial Revolution)

There was a distinct shift of power and influence to urban Britain from the rural areas. As a
result, the influence of the old landed aristocracy declined. Land was becoming secondary in
importance to urban business.

A new 'middle class' was created, which owned the new industrial sectors of business, such as
factories, coal mines and railways.

The middle class believed they should be involved in politics, as they were making a great deal
of money for the country.

This changed the balance of power in the country as until this point, it had only been the
aristocracy who could be involved in politics.

Demographic change

Urbanisation resulted from the desire of many to find work or improve their wages. As more and
more people moved to the towns, class consciousness developed rapidly amongst the 'working
class'.

They gained in some ways - more food, better clothing, more goods to buy. But they also
suffered greatly in the filthy slums of the cities and in harsh treatment related to factory work.

Workers realised that many people were in the same situation as them. This led them to question
the existing political set-up.

Many workers felt that they deserved political power, as without them, industry would grind to a
halt.

42
The concentration of people in towns and cities meant there was more chance of new political
ideas spreading, especially with the railways and the development of national newspapers.

Changing attitudes towards the working class

The middle and upper classes had viewed working class people as violent and uncivilized. But
this belief was fading.

Middle class business owners were now in regular contact with those working for them. They
realised that they were not to be feared.

There was a growth in the artisan class (skilled workers) who were regarded as more respectable.

The Education Acts passed in 1870 and 1872 had created a more learned working class, which
changed how the rich viewed them.

The generally peaceful behaviour of skilled workers, their interest in political matters and their
educational achievements were noted by Gladstone in 1866. This is when he stated that it would
be unwise for Parliament to ignore the "increased fitness of the working class for political
power".

All of these changes led reformers to argue that the British Parliament no longer represented the
country properly.

According to the historian D G Wright, parliamentary reform was "largely a reflection of

changes in the economic and social structure of the country".

3.Changing political attitudes

During the second half of the 1800s, socialism began to spread throughout Europe.

This ideology put forward the view that:

 the workers were responsible for producing a country’s wealth

 workers should be able to influence politics
 political power should be distributed more evenly among the population

By the 1870s, many trade unionists supported this new ideology. It appeared to offer a brighter
future for the working class.

43
Threat of revolution

Marxists (followers of Karl Marx’s views of socialism) and some of the more militant socialists,
believed that violent revolution was the only way to change the unfair political systems that
existed in Europe.

One such revolution occurred in Russia in 1917, overthrowing the traditional government and
bringing in firstly a more democratic government, then a communist dictatorship.

As a result socialism was seen by many landowners and businessmen as a real threat to their
interests.

If large numbers of people were denied the vote then they might be attracted to new dangerous
political ideologies. Including more of the working class in the political system might make them
less likely to support such revolutionary ideas.

4. Popular protests and events abroad (The risk of rebellion)

As pressure for greater democracy increased during the early part of the 19th century, many
politicians favoured granting limited political reforms rather than risk a revolution.

The French Revolution of 1789 had resulted in increased interest in democracy across Europe.

The ruling classes in Britain watched with fear the turmoil and bloodshed that went hand-in-hand
with greater democracy in France. Some of them thought that if it had happened in France it
could happen in Britain.

Popular uprisings had occurred throughout Europe in 1848. Although these were mainly fuelled
by social and economic factors, it demonstrated the destructive power of a dissatisfied working
class.

Examples of reform from abroad

In the United States and Europe, struggles were taking place for liberty and for the people to
have greater political influence. This put pressure on the British government to make similar
changes.

The American Civil War of 1861 to 1865 provided a stimulus to reform. It renewed the debate of
political rights in Britain. Popular enthusiasm for democracy coincided with popular support for
the Unionists.

As the British government tended to support democratic reform in other countries, it seemed
logical that it should encourage such moves in Britain.

44
Female suffrage

By the time America joined World War One, some US states had granted women the vote. Other
countries, such as New Zealand, Australia, Finland and Denmark, along with most of Canada,
had enfranchised women.

It was increasingly difficult for Britain to continue denying women a political voice.

In addition, Britain's propaganda during World War One stressed that the Allies were fighting for
democracy - this implied universal suffrage.

5.Pressure groups

Changing political attitudes and examples of popular rebellion abroad inspired many groups
within Britain to demand a more open and genuine democracy.

The Reform Union and Reform League

In 1864, the National Reform Union was formed to promote the idea of common interests
between the middle and working classes.

It argued that the political aims of the two classes were similar and that they could work together
politically. The organisation campaigned for:

 a secret ballot
 equal distribution of seats in parliament
 votes for all ratepayer

The Reform League was also formed in 1864. It was a much more radical movement.

The League attracted many followers including trade unionists, socialists and former Chartist
sympathisers. It campaigned for universal male suffrage and a secret ballot.

A number of demonstrations and marches were organised by the League prior to the passing of
the Second Reform Act in 1867. After proceedings turned violent in Trafalgar Square and Hyde
Park, protests spread to other parts of the country, albeit on a smaller scale.

The protests increased in number during the 'Winter of Discontent' of 1866-67.

Women’s suffrage groups ; The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS)

The NUWSS was an umbrella group established in 1897 to coordinate the women’s suffrage
societies emerging at local level. The suffragists used peaceful methods of protests and had
53,000 members by 1914. They gained more support as backing for the suffragettes reduced.

45
The Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU)

The suffragettes were born out of the suffragist movement. Emmeline Pankhurst had grown
impatient with the middle class, respectable, gradualist tactics of the NUWSS.

In 1903 she broke ranks and set up a separate society. This became known as the Women's
Social and Political Union (WSPU).

The suffragettes used increasingly violent methods to highlight the struggle of disenfranchised
women. Sensational events, such as the death of Emily Davison, gained considerable media
coverage.

Hunger strikes, and the resulting Cat and Mouse Act, brought a great amount of sympathy for
those women involved. However suffragette methods were not always successful. Many MPs
who had previously supported increasing the franchise to women, withdrew their support due to
the methods of the suffragettes. Membership fell severely in the years before World War One.

6.Political advantage

1. The idea that a political party could gain support by passing reforms led to democratic change
in Britain. 2. Public figures who supported political reform became very popular and caught the
public imagination.

The Second Reform Act 1867

The desire to reform in order to gain support for a political party can be seen most clearly by the
actions of Benjamin Disraeli and the Tory party. His aim was to “dish the Whigs” (defeat the
Whigs) by “stealing the Liberals' clothes” (using their ideas).

Disraeli persuaded his supporters that the English working man would make limited demands on
politicians - if kept housed, fed and clothed he would vote Conservative for ever. This gamble
became known as ‘The Leap in the Dark’. It was well known that the Liberals favoured an
extension of the franchise to include the urban working class.

In 1864 Gladstone, the future Liberal Prime Minister, had declared that "Every man who is not
presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal fitness or of political danger is
morally entitled to come within the pale of the Constitution, provided this does not lead to
sudden or violent or excessive, or intoxicating political change."

However, while the Liberals were out of power, Disraeli’s government adopted their plans to
extend the franchise. This was unusual as the Tories were not seen as the party of electoral
reform. Traditionally they supported the interests of the landed class.

46
Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act 1883

This Act of Parliament was passed when the Liberals were in power. It was believed that
curtailing the amount that could be spent on election campaigns would affect the landed
aristocracy more severely. The aim was to create an even playing field for all prospective MPs
to compete for votes. It could be argued that the Liberals passed this legislation in part, to try and
reduce support for the Tories.

The rise of Labour

1. By the end of the 19th century, the trade union movement was gaining pace. Many Liberals
saw the unions as direct competition for the support of the working classes.

2. As membership of the trade union movement grew, some Liberals thought the only way to win
back this support was through democratic reform. 3. Trade unions recognised that they needed a
voice in parliament if they wanted to change the political nature of Britain. 4. In 1900 the unions
agreed to use some of their funds to set up a new organisation called the Labour Representation
Committee. This became the Labour Party in 1906.

7. The Great War 1914 – 1918 ; (The need to increase male suffrage)

During the war there had been plans to change rules regarding male suffrage.

Many men returning home from war could have potentially found themselves disqualified from
voting due to the residence qualifications. It was felt that these men should be entitled to vote
after they had served their country. it was suggested that some women might be included in the
proposals.

Support for female suffrage

For more than 50 years, an all-male parliament was reluctant to enfranchise women. By the end
of the war, politicians had changed their minds for a number of reasons.

 politicians recognised there was a general need for reform

 women were seen to have “done their bit” for the country through war effort
 this effort helped dispel the bad press Suffragette campaigns had received

Changing political views

The balance of political power changed during the period of the war.

David Lloyd George replaced Herbert Asquith as Prime Minister. Lloyd George was more
sympathetic to votes for women.

47
Other politicians who were in favour of female suffrage also became more influential at this
time. This included Conservative MPs Arthur Balfour and Andrew Bonar Law.

It has been argued that the war provided a convenient excuse for MPs, who had been hostile to
votes for women, to change their minds if they thought their position was in danger. Women's
war work was a convenient pretext for them to alter their position in favour of women's suffrage.
After the war, even Asquith expressed the view that women had "earned" the right to vote.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF CONTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

1. Introduction
2. What is Constitutional Government?
3. Constitutional Features Across the World
3.1. Classifying Constitutional Government
3.2. Flexibility and Rigidity
4. State Format and Executive Powers
4.1. Federalism, Decentralization and Institutional Autonomy
4.2. The Distribution of the Powers to Govern
5. The Role of Assemblies and the Judiciary
5.1. The Performance of Assemblies
5.2. The Role of the Judiciary
6. Constitutional Government: Who Rules and Who Benefits?
Summary
The core element of constitutional government is, of course, the existence of a "Rule-of- Law" or
set of “basic laws” that binds both public office-holders and all members of a society (i.e.
citizens) within a given territory. Presently most states avail of a constitution, which directs the
organization of the state, the relations between the public offices within the state, as well the
human and civil rights of the individual. Constitutional governments, however, do not perform in
the same manner everywhere. In this contribution, the following aspects are discussed
comparatively: (a) The relationship between constitutional features and the existing state format;
(b) The key institutions which define the type of government and the relationship between the
executive and legislative; (c) The existing systems of "checks and balances" between
governments, assemblies and Heads of State, as well as the role of the judiciary; (d) The actual
performance of constitutional governance in terms of human and civil rights. Of course, these
relations and practices of governance have been developing over time. It is also obvious that
there is a strong tendency toward "liberal democracy" (in particular after 1991 when the USSR
collapsed as a political system). It is equally clear that the state format, i.e. federal versus unitary
states; decentralized versus centralized government, as well as the type of governance, varies
considerably across the world of constitutional government.

48
In this contribution a fundamental distinction is made between democratic types of government,
on the one hand, and one-party systems and other (mainly with unchecked powers or military
rule) systems, on the other. Most of the latter types of ‘defective’ constitutional government can
be found in developing countries, but not exclusively.

Finally, the relative degree of "polyarchy" (an empirical model of democracy) has been
presented as an indication of the democratic performance. Contrary to the formal division of
democratic government, it becomes clear that in practice well developed polyarchies only cover
23% of all constitutional governments. Hence constitutional government does by no means
imply a working liberal polity.

1. Introduction
Constitutional Government is a regime type that is characterized by the fact that "Government"
operates within a set of legal and institutional constraints that both limits its power and protects
the individual liberty of the citizen of a polity. Central elements of constitutional government
therefore are the set of rules or "basic laws" that establish (usually in writing) the duties, powers
and functions of government (i.e. the institutional autonomy) and define the relationship between
state and individual (i.e. individual autonomy). This complex of institutional relations is a regime
type, because it is fundamentally different from those states where the "Rule of Law" is either
absent (or suspended), or is defined on the basis of other principles than "liberalism" (meaning
commitment to the principles of individual liberty, freedom to associate, tolerating other mans
belief and respecting minorities, and consenting equal rights to all citizens within the polity;.
Hence, constitutional government is based on a "contract" between the "Principal" and the
"Population" at large and that can be considered as an authoritative guideline concerning the
"Room to Maneuver" of government. The origins and development of "constitutionalism" can be
traced to its roots in the 18 Century enlightenment and the Bourgeois Revolutions in the US and
th

Europe. This overview will show that at present the meaning of constitutional government
appears to overlap strongly with the idea of the "rule of law" and also has influenced the chosen
organization of the state (its format, e.g. republicanism, federalism, parliamentarism,) and the
values of a society (Liberty, Social and Economic aims like public welfare, human rights etc.
Taken in this sense Constitutional Government is both a principle for organizing public life and a
framework for assessing the sustainability of a political system. It can be considered as one of
the building blocks of not only organizing a society, but also as being crucial for understanding
how and to what extent national government contributes to sustainable conditions of society.

Traditional concepts of Constitutional Government are often biased towards legalistic

(anmechanistic) approaches of how government works. Conversely, Dahls "ideal type" of liberal
democracy" Polyarchy" seeks to define an optimal and realistic relationship between institutional
and individual autonomy within society. Hence, "Polyarchy" is the embodiment of liberal
democratic rule as a political regime in development (i.e. more or less sustainable) and ought to
be seen as the institutional design to assess the polity (the institutional framework) in terms of
producing public goods that are close to the individual preferences of all.

49
 The following elements will be discussed and illustrated to demonstrate how constitutional
government looks in "reality": The origins and availability of constitutions across the world;
What is a constitution and what not in terms of their respective features; The key institutions
emanating from the constitutions which shape the state format and type of government;
The relations between the Head of State, the Executive, the Assembly, the Judiciary; The
distribution and frequency of human rights and civil rights across the world.

In this overview we will also devote attention to those governments, which do have a
constitution (e.g. communist states) or have suspended it (e.g. military rule), but cannot be
considered as liberal democratic polities. Finally, we shall present a cross-national survey of the
relationship between constitutional government and liberal democracy to highlight the high level
of cross-national variation with respect to the elements discussed in this contribution.

2. What is Constitutional Government?

Almost all nation-states have in common that they have a constitution. Only eight of the 192
countries listed by the UN did not have a basic document that could be considered as a
constitution. Constitutions are apparently an important part of any political system across the
world. This observation is further reinforced if one takes into account that constitutions had
emerged already in the eighteenth century. Yet, the study of constitutions as part of political
science (and also of Law) faded away in the post-war era and only became the subject of
investigation again in the past decade. Two reasons can be given for this renewed attention:

• Since the late 1980s, around 45 per cent of all constitutions were either conceived and adopted
or rigorously changed;
• In the same period, institutionalism regained its status as a valuable and viable approach to the
study of how government works, namely as a result of the existing rules of the political game.

The first reason is not only due to the worldwide change in regimes, such as in the Communist
World and the Third World, but also a consequence of a widely felt need to reconsider existing
systems of governance. So new, or drastically renewed constitutions also emerged in Western
Europe (e.g. The Netherlands and Belgium) or were heavily disputed (e.g. Canada, Italy, New
Zealand and the United Kingdom). Arguably, constitutions are not only a widely spread
phenomenon, but also considered as an important "epiphenomenon," as regards the direction and
organization of the nation’s polity, i.e. the organisation and role of government The second
reason is mainly due to the growing dissatisfaction with the existing approaches within post-war
political science. The focus of attention had slowly shifted from studying the (formal) rules of
the political game towards structural functionalism in which the political system was treated as a
part of a larger whole, on the one hand; and towards the behaviour of political actors as such
(e.g. parties, interest groups, governments, bureaucracies, etc.), on the other. These approaches
are considered as too limited or even as biased with respect to explaining how and why
government acts or, equally interesting, does not act.

50
In conclusion, students of politics and government are increasingly interested both empirically
and theoretically in the basic set of rules, or institutions, that both limit the powers of
government and protects the individual liberty of the citizen within a country. In addition,
political scientists are employing institutions as analytical tools to understand better the working
of governments and its policy-making capacities. Paul Heywood defines constitutionalism in the
broad sense as: "a set of political values and aspirations that reflect the desire to protect liberty
by internal and external checks on government power."

Taken in this sense, a constitution can be viewed as the core description of a political system, the
relations between state and society, on the one hand, and establishing the relations between
office holders within the government system, on the other. Such a description relates norms and
values to activities of government and sets constraints to governmental actions. Examples of the
first (values and activities) are constitutional chapters (or: preambles) in which, often, ideology
forms a basic point of departure (as has been the case in many communist and some socialist
constitutions), or where social development and public welfare is designed to be a concern of the
"state" (e.g. in Germany, the Netherlands, Paraguay and Kenya). Examples of constitutional
constraints are manifold and multifarious: they range from religious or ethnic safeguards to a
special role for the Head of State, or the military, to preserve the nation (as in South Africa,
Turkey and Indonesia). Generally speaking, the purpose of a constitution and the related actions
of government are:
• to embody the nation by empowering the state;
• to establish unifying norms and values and develop shared goals for society
(ideology);
• to give public officials special (selective) powers, which are legitimized
(institutional autonomy) and
• to limit these special powers by protecting freedom for (groups of) individuals
(individual autonomy).

According to Heywood, this broad interpretation of constitutionalism almost fluently spills over
in its more narrow sense, namely: "constitutionalism is said to exist if and when government
institutions and related political processes are effectively constrained by constitutional rules".
The narrow meaning of constitutionalism can be considered as a more legalistic and negative
form. Instead of referring to values and goals, the emphasis is clearly more conservative. This
version focuses more on the rules per se and whether or not they are effective in the sense of
means-end relationship (assessing whether or not a specific rule is indeed conducive to its
desired outcome). For example is the Judiciary indeed independent, if appointed by the Head of
State? Or can they function independently if the constitution prescribes that judges are to obey
the law only, which implies upholding specific values (like religion, ideology or the state)? The
"narrow" approach should however not be dismissed too light heartedly: it enables the researcher
to develop the "power map" of a political system and to analyze its political organization
comparatively on an empirical basis.

51
These points were already in the mind of the pre- (Second World) war political scientists. A
famous exponent was Lord Bryce, who compared the constitutions of (the then existing)
democracies and deduced from this investigation the actual working of those democratic
systems.

However, as the 1930s proved, the institutional design did not prevent systems from turning into
authoritarianism (as in Germany and Italy) nor from establishing anything but personal freedom
and protection of liberty (as in the USSR). This led to the demise and devaluation of the study of
constitutional government in the post-war period and should be a caveat in studying and
assessing constitutional development at present.

Modern constitutionalism therefore ought to be discussed both in the broader sense and in its
narrower meaning. Point of departure is then the framework of reference it represents for a
society at large and the institutionalization of public authority in the form of a political regime, a
system of political rule by government. This implies that regime analysis is basically the analysis
of constitutional government, since it asks persistent questions on how power in societies is
distributed, and with what consequence for the public welfare. For example, Polybius and
Aristotle developed
typologies of political regimes on the basis of comparative evidence, in order to answer
questions such as: "who rules" and "who benefits". The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate
forms of government on normative grounds, hoping to identify the ideal constitution serving the
community at large.

According to many political scientists, this type of regime-analysis lays the foundation for
further ideas developed during the European era of "absolutism," by philosophers such as
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jean Bodin (1530-1596). In their view, the Aristotelian
questions could only be answered by vesting the sovereignty into one indivisible principle (the
monarch), who was bound only by a higher power (God) and its rules (e.g. the Bible). Whatever
one may think of these ideas, the importance is that concepts like "sovereignty" and "authority"
were introduced. The concepts pointed at a (necessary) relationship between the "state" and its
jurisdiction over the inhabitants of a territory.

The writings of Locke (1632-1704), Montesquieu (1689-1775), and Madison (1751-

1836), although developing alternative models, mark the beginning of what is still sovereignty
resided with the people (i.e. inhabitants), and proposed therefore that governmental powers
should be limited mainly to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property. Montesquieu
advocated a constitutional system of "check and balances" by means of the (well-known)
"separation of powers," between the executive, legislative and judiciary institutions. The ideas of
Locke and Montesquieu lay the foundation for the US constitution (1787), the French Revolution
(1789), and were gradually dispersed first across Europe and later elsewhere in the form of
liberal democratic government.

Many of these ideas indeed materialized in most of the constitutions that were developed in the
aftermath of the Napoleonic era, which brought constitutional government in Europe, and both

52
the Americas, in particular. With it, one can also witness a growing level of variety as to what
appeared to be considered as the "ideal" constitution. Republicanism superseded monarchism,
parliamentarism was distinguished from presidentialism, and unitary systems became
accompanied by federal ones.

In conclusion, the emerging systems of political rule that developed over time had a number of
identical features that originated from a debate among political philosophers on the relationship
between State and Society and the role and position of government. On the other hand, the
constitutional choices made and the ordering of these features, varied considerably, and led to a
bewildering variety of constitutions across the world. We shall concentrate on this variation in
constitutions, and on the attempts to classify constitutional government, in the next section.

3. Constitutional Features Across the World

A constitution, or if it does not concern a separate document, the "basic laws" of a nation-state,
always refer to its/their supreme organic law. It is thus the law(s) from which all other laws are
derived and it prescribes how a nation is governed and by what type of office holders, as well as
the way these political actors can and must interact. Although most, if not all nation-states have
a constitution or basic laws, the supremacy of the basic law is not only a matter of whether or not
it exists, but also of how and by whom the law is upheld, and in what way and to what extent
these basic laws can be changed and adjusted in order to make them work effectively in
establishing statesociety relations.

Two concepts are used to denote this phenomenon: the "Rule of Law" emanating from
the constitution, and the development of "conventions". The Rule of Law is the idea that
the law should "rule" and as such, establishes a framework by which the conduct and
behaviour of political actors can be assessed. This principle applies equally to all
members of society, be it private citizens, members of the civil and military service, but
foremost, to political office holders (i.e. members of the executive and legislative).
The Rule of Law, or "Rechtsstaat" is thus an expression of the supremacy of the (basic)
law, but is also subject to the scrutiny of the Judiciary and requires a liberal and
democratic culture to survive as well as to be effective. This is often not the case, or
only temporarily the case (e.g. military coups d’état or takeovers of government). If
there is such a culture, then the second (informal) institution of constitutional order to make
constitutional government work in a stable fashion.
Constitutional conventions are the rules of practice, which are considered as "correct"
(how things should be done) and as "practical" (how procedures will be workable).
These non-legal rules are, of course, to some extent flexible and dependent on the power
relations in "political society". These exist in all types of constitutional government and
guide the conduct and behaviour where formal rules are either unclear or incomplete (in
particular in so-called "rigid" constitutions or basic laws). Conventions play a
particularly important role if there is not a constitution, or a comparable codified
document is not available. In essence, these informal rules modify the effect of the
different powers laid down in law and define usually by means of the Judiciary the
room to manoeuver of the ruling elites (this is, e.g., visible in the working of the

53
"common law" in many Anglo-Saxon countries, and in the interpretations of "High",
"Supreme", or "Constitutional" Courts).
Both the "Rule of Law" and "Constitutional conventions" are important elements for
considering the actual working of constitutional government in reality and should
always be taken into account whilst studying modern government, in particular as
regards assessing the degree of its constitutionality in theory and practice.
3.1. Classifying Constitutional Government
Classifying constitutional government is not an easy task if one departs from the set of
given rules. Some constitutions have been in existence for 200 years, others were only
adopted a decade ago, and often follow existing patterns.
A first indicator for classification is the question of whether or not government is based
on a written or codified document that directs its behaviour. Only a few nation-states
have no codified set of basic laws that function as a constitution. Research conducted by
Derbyshire and Derbyshire shows eight cases without such a document: Bhutan, Israel,
New Zealand, Oman, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Vatican City.
Yet, even in these cases one should bear in mind that there is a minimal system of
"checks and balances" and some kind of a "bill of rights," defining the status and "room
to manoeuver" of government, on the one hand, and circumscribing protection of the
liberties of the individual, on the other.
The exceptions to the rule concern firstly the sacred laws of the Koran and restricting
the kingdom of Bhutan and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Bible directs the role of the
Pope in the Vatican City. In addition, certain traditions have been institutionalized and
work as conventions regarding decision making and, for instance, the succession of the
Principal. The case of Israel is in part the same, since the Torah remains a source of
political authority.
Yet, at the same time, Israel is different in that this nation has developed a set of rules
that can be considered as basic laws. The same applies to New Zealand that has adopted
a political system that is similar to that of the United Kingdom, where the development
of Common Law shapes its practice. In the United Kingdom, in the course of time, a
series of "Acts of Parliament" were adopted, from as early as 1688 (the "Glorious
Revolution"), in which the Rights of Parliament and of the citizens is protected. (the supremacy
of parliament vis-á-vis government and the Crown, limiting the influence of
the House of Lords, and the enlargement of political representation). Hence, it is
misleading to classify constitutional government solely on the basis of the availability of
a written constitution. All constitutions or sets of basic laws are in fact a blend of
written and unwritten (conventions), although the mix of the two varies considerably
across the nations.
Germany and France, for example, can be considered as having an extensive and
detailed set of rules directing the working of government and the powers of the state.
Conversely, the constitutions of the Netherlands and the US are short documents (ca.
10 000 words), in which broad principles of civil and political rights and a loose
framework of government are laid down.
The main institutions of government, as in the relationship between the executive and
the legislature, have evolved over time. For example, the role and position of the Dutch

54
Head of State (the King or Queen) was fixed in 1848, by which a minister has the ability
to exercise the Royal Prerogative, however still being fully responsible to parliament.
This latter constraint is not actually mentioned in the Dutch constitution and has
developed over time through a number of political clashes and is still based on
convention.
It appears more fruitful therefore to ask whether or not a nation-state has a codified set
of basic laws, which shape the state format (e.g. federalized or not), the organization of
the executive (e.g. parliamentary or not), the independence of the judiciary and the
existing civil and political liberties. Before treating these properties of constitutional
government we shall devote some attention to other general features of constitutions and
their development: changing the constitution.

55
56