political science homework help online

political science homework help online

The Evolution of Political Systems: A Comprehensive Analysis

1. Introduction to Political Science

Section Titles: 1. Introduction to Political Science 2. What Does “Political System” Mean? 3. How Political Systems Emerge 4. How Political Systems Change 5. Modern Political Systems and Political System Institutions 6. Leaders in Political Systems 7. Democracies Today 8. Conclusion to Political Science

Every society has to be governed. Governance means that rulers of a group have the authority to act as constructors, revealers, preservers, and/or changers of the rules, formal and/or informal, ideational and/or behavioral, regulating the interactions among the group’s members (or at least among a relevant subset of participants whose collective decisions are binding over the entire group, so that losers do not have an efficient way to opt out). The organization in charge of governance exercises two types of functions: legislative and executive. As for any complex organization (company, social movement), the rules themselves are incomplete (who can vote, for what, who is poor, etc.). Contrary to other organisms, the rules prevailing in a society usually do not protect the entire collectivity from challenges or massive disruptions, since people living within one political system are culturally, socially, economically, and ideologically organized into conflicting groups, committed to protect their competing interests. In most cases, the fact that the political system is not perceived as legitimate by a subset of potential rule-followers does not prevent its laws from being enforced, even in the absence of actual coercion by the state agents.

2. Key Theories and Concepts in Political Science

The concept of a “political system” is broad and is at the core of the analysis in this essay. A political system is made up of authorities, public policies, laws, and people who represent them to enforce/apply laws and other policies. Political systems collectively control local, regional, and national territory. States are an example of political systems. They extend power over territory and have authority over both the people and other legal systems. States maintain law and order and dispute resolution within geographic boundaries. States are made up of elected and appointed officers and have many levels and services such as police, military, judicial system, and bureaucracy. States also define and control relationships inside and outside of their territory. Political systems can be classified into geographical and historically organized regions. Systems are characterized by the allocation of power and the process used to make, implement, and distribute decisions.

Political science is the systematic study of politics. It is systematic in the way it examines the decisions made by collectives. In this essay, the primary focus is on the institutions through which political decisions are made. Although broad in focus, the analysis will proceed using the major concepts of political science: political systems, nationalism, ancient, feudal, and modern systems of governance, and their historical development. I will argue that political systems vary historically and that the “nation” changes with the political system. The analysis will help understand the origin of differences and inequality among contemporary political systems and their role in economic development. In Section 2, the formation of modern political systems and sovereignty are discussed. In Section 3, the rise of the “nation” (as a political unit) and modern nationalism are discussed. Economic development and growth are discussed in the conclusion.

3. Comparative Politics: Analyzing Different Political Systems

Second, comparisons needed for purposive selection of cases. Reconnaissance of ideas and methodologies presumes without always stating the need for comparative research a common source of explanation in the two disciplines. Only cross-national data can be used to test those theories explicitly cross-national generalizations that are likely to realize the major information advantages of a political ecology. Political scientists have identified only very few properties of collectivities that can be used to estimate a consistent function relating governance inputs to the outputs of these regimes. Whether the individual’s political behavior is based of the mere participants in and observers of the political process. The would-be political theorist, whose colleagues have built any array of largely untested theories from the findings of comparative politics, should have become investigators in order to have deemed their ideas worthy of serious attention.

What is the subject of comparative politics? Comparative politics must be the center of interest in all discussions of the nature of political science for three primary reasons. First, because most issues in the area of political inquiry are problems of a comparative sort. This characterization holds true for many involve the study of one country. The comparative method enables political scientists to apply the practices of logical appliance of empirical evidence to its questions. As thus employed, it assumes the existence of alternative government or distributional regimes that are objects of study in the cross-sectional social sciences more a means of elucidating analytically indistinguishable phenomena across nations all occur at different times within the same political unit. Comparativism is inherent in political science as inter temporal comparisons are. Indeed, standard cross-national comparisons usually substitute either cross-time or time-series comparisons (or ideally all the alternatives).

4. The Role of Political Institutions and Governance

These rules were consolidated and multiplied by the state in order to create effective governance through various institutions that most people use today. As human activity spread across bio-climate zones and gained in complexity, these common sets of rules became inappropriate. This led to tensions among the various governance institutions, three of which are particularly relevant: international, national, and local. The main question arises from the method in which these conflicts are actually resolved: does violent conflict continue to serve as the ultimate arbiter? The ideology any state uses justifies its perceived position of power and authority. This feeling of superiority arises from respect or fear generated through the power created by the belief of the controlled masses. Authorities do not expose or create psychological harm for fear of eradicating the feeling of community responsibility for public works, which would end all power and authority.

The evolution of political systems will now be evaluated in the context of the governance and political institutions of societies. Hollander, who studied people that engaged in violence to find out the origins of the state, demonstrated that societal conditions played a greater significance than individual psychological characteristics. In almost every epoch, more complex societies formed states with specific institutions for the same reason: the need for some form of law enforcement arose. The coercive force was also responsible for creating a unique power structure with rules to prevent the center from being divided and creating intergovernmental competition. The lords who controlled the public force of coercion had created a common set of rules for their subjects.

5. Current Issues and Debates in Political Science

In other words, in these studies, it is important to examine the relative bargaining power of the various fractional classes acting in an oligarchic political system, the non-patrimonial state as opposed to non-patrimonial oligarchy, and comprador transformations. Yet more recent studies are focusing on political economy issues in the international context. The much-debated issue is about the stability of a non-democratic government: that is, why do some governments last longer than others? The diverging opinions on the subject are mainly due to the fact that, traditionally, the question has been analyzed “only” by considering the impacts following approval differences in national policies. These were already somehow foregone in political outcomes and therefore “uninteresting” to the scholars.

A number of recent debates and studies in political science attest to a growing interest in the role played by non-democratic political systems in the political process. Among the emerging topics, studies have examined the effect of political competition in autocratic governments, the potential impact of democratization on corruption in non-democratic governments, and the relationship between the division of power and the degree of democratization, together with state-making processes. In addition to these themes, it is important to clarify that, except for Nobel winner Douglas North, some scholars have sought to analyze the state-building processes through the alliance-dependent perspective, highlighting the fact that the “form” of government is less important than the very rationality of the actors involved.