Classification Modern Democracy Countries Maurice Duverger
Modern Democracy Countries
In this discussion, an attempt will be made to explain the growth and development of democracy, starting from the ancient direct democracy, which began to emerge and develop since the days of ancient Greece, to its development towards indirect democracy, representative democracy, or modern democracy.
This happened around the XVII century and XVIII century, so in this case it will be closely related to the teachings of natural law scholars.
Especially Montesquieu's teachings, namely the doctrine of separation of powers, which later became known as the Trias Politica, because this teaching will precisely determine the type of modern democracy; and the teachings of Rousseau, namely the teachings of people's sovereignty, which cannot be separated from democracy.
In fact, the aforementioned intention, especially regarding the growth and development of democracy, has been discussed many times in advance, especially when discussing Maurice Duverger's teachings of state classification.
So that is enough, and the repetition of the conversation here will only be pointless and tedious.
So it remains now to talk about the type or types of modern democracy. And according to the general opinion, this definition of modern democracies is based on the nature of the relationship between the legislature and the executive.
But in the meantime, do not be confused with what Kranenburg has stated in his teaching on state classification, because in this case Kranenburg intends to examine the nature of the ruling power.
Meanwhile, the definition that will be discussed here is intended to review the country in terms of its government system.
The aforementioned matter is actually a matter of how to strive for an order, or the order of the organization, that is, an organization called the state, in order to prevent a government with absolute power. For this which government system, and which one should be organized.
One of the investigations into this has been carried out by a French scholar named Montesquieu.
In connection with this, he stated that there are two characteristics of humans related to power, namely :
- That a person is happy with power, if that power is used or reserved for his own interests.
- That once a person has power, he always wants to expand and enlarge that power.
After Montesquieu wandered to various countries to investigate the constitutional systems, including in England, he argued that in England a system of government had been implemented in which it could be avoided that the concentration of more than one power in one organ was avoided.
Therefore Montesquieu then argued that a system of government must also be sought in which the powers that be in the country are separated and each of these powers is then transferred to one organ, in which each organ is separated from each other. This then became the main point of what was put forward by Montesquieu in proposing one of his teachings known as the political triad.
In his theory or teaching, he distinguishes three types of state power, namely :
- Power that regulates, or determines the rules.
- Power that carries out these regulations.
- Power which supervises the implementation of these regulations.
These three types of power must be distributed to several organs, listen, this means that one organ only holds one power, namely :
- The statutory power is transferred to the legislative body.
- Executing power is assigned to the executive body.
- The supervisory power is transferred to the judiciary.
But with his Triassic Political teachings, Montesquieu actually does not mean that one organ has nothing to do with one another.
For the main purpose of Montesquieu is to prevent it from happening that an organ which already holds one kind of power also holds another.
With this interpretation, Montesquieu should not deny that one organ can oversee other organs in carrying out their duties of power.
But no matter how people interpret it, it turns out that in history, the doctrine of the separation of the three powers, namely the Trias Politica, which was put forward by Montesquieu, received three kinds of interpretation in its implementation, namely :
- In the United States. There, when the planners of the constitution were thinking about the issue of the doctrine of separation of powers, they argued that what Montesquieu wanted was the absolute, perfect separation of powers between one power and another, even between one organ and another. other. This interpretation will later lead to a government system known as the presidential system.
- The second interpretation we get in the countries of West Europe, which was pioneered by Britain. According to their opinion, what Montesquieu wanted with his Triassic Political teachings was that there is a reciprocal relationship between one organ and another, especially between the legislature and the executive.
With this interpretation, they succeeded in creating a government system, which became known as the parliamentary system. - Whereas in Switzerland, the teaching about the separation of powers from Montesquieu has received another interpretation. There the interpretation is that the executive body is only an implementing body rather than what the legislature has decided.
The system of government implemented in Switzerland is called the referendum system. But because by its nature that the executive body is only an implementing body, or a workers 'body rather than what has been decided by the legislative body, it is presumably that the system of government implemented in Switzerland is more accurately called the system of workers' bodies.
So thus, based on the nature of the relationship between the organs entrusted with power in the country, especially based on the nature of the relationship between the legislative body and the executive body, the system of government in the country that establishes or administers the system of separation of powers can be found. kinds of government systems, namely :
- Countries with presidential government systems.
- Countries with a parliamentary system of government.
- Countries with a system of governing bodies of workers, or referendums.
So if we connect the above mentioned systems with modern democracy, we will get the following types of modern democracy :
- Democracy, or presentative people's representative government, with a system of strict separation of powers, or a presidential system.
- Democracy, or a representative government of the people, with a system of separation of powers, but among the bodies entrusted with power, especially between the legislature and the executive, there is a reciprocal relationship, can influence each other, or a parliamentary system.
- Democracy, or a representative government of the people, with a system of separation of powers, and with direct control of the people, is called the referendum system, or the system of workers' bodies.
What the three types of modern democracy have in common is that in the three types of modern democracy we have a representative body of the people. Meanwhile, the difference lies in the location and function of the people's representative body in the composition of the country.
Also, what is the reason why we call "democracy" a representative government of the people and not by : a people's government, just like that ? The reason is that in this modern era it is impossible to establish or implement a government directly by the people, as has happened before. or implemented in ancient Greece first.
In the past, the form of a state was nothing more than a city, therefore it was called a city state, city-state, or policy, and also its inhabitants, or its citizens were still few, the business was not as complicated and complex as it is today, so all citizens can included in government.
So all citizens, in principle, can be involved in the government. This is democracy in the old days, democracy ancient, or direct democracy.
All of these circumstances are different from the present, modern era, because in this modern era a country already has: a large area, a large number of citizens, the affairs are so complex and convoluted; Therefore, in the current democratic government, those who really take an active part in government are not the people or the citizens themselves, but rather the people's representatives, who are gathered in a unit, which is called the people's representative council.
With the note that the people's representatives, in participating actively in thinking about the way of government, must really carry the people's voice, the people's will, must reflect the will of the people, so basically the people's representative body must be representative.
That is why we call it : representative government of the people.
To distinguish it from ancient democracy, or direct democracy, democracy with this representative body of the people is called modern democracy, indirect democracy, and representative democracy, which in the last and highest instances the power to decide rests with the people.
It's just that implementation differs in each of these types of modern democracy, and in general the difficulty lies in getting the same political direction from the legislature and from the executive body.
In his description of the types of government Maurice Duvergen said that due to the narrow space for books he provided, he could not possibly be able to discuss and elaborate at length, so it was decided that it was sufficient to study only a few types which were the main examples for some other system.
In this he compared his meaning to zoology. That is, even in zoology there are divisions according to variations, which are further divided into types, and types are arranged according to nations. As in this case the difficulty, as is the case in defining the types of modern government, lies in the selection of the type that will serve as the main example.
And by itself the choice to make the parent example depends on the basis on which we make the classification. For this, let us briefly follow the various classifications of government proposed by Maurice Duverger in his book.
First, it can be argued that a government classification is based on: "the method of electing the rulers". On this basis, it can be stated :
- Countries with free electoral systems. It seems that the countries of Britain, the United States, and France, where civil servants stand completely outside of election propaganda, eschew measures that limit the independence of the opposition, and dispel all indecent thought or thought to limit the election outcome.
- Countries with a guided electoral system. It seems that the Balkan countries, where the right custom of the government over candidates and supporters of the opposition, there are restrictions on positional party propaganda, there is fear of reprisals on the part of the government that diminish the meaning of elections, but where, anyway However, it remains possible for the opposition to advance candidates and collect votes.
- Countries with a plebiscite electoral system. This looks like it's in the U.S.S.R. where the only candidate whose official position shows himself before the electorate, who only has the opportunity to make a blank note or does not vote.
- Countries that do not hold elections. This seems to have happened in Spain and China, where rulers were elected according to purely autocratic means.
Regarding the above classification Maurice Duverger states there are still shortcomings, for example, because in the Classification there is no clear difference between the British, United States and French systems, even though the three systems can be included in the first category. , whereas in fact the three systems are different.
Given these deficiencies, in Maurice Duverger's opinion, it would actually be more satisfying to make differences that are commonly or commonly found, namely :
- Parliamentary system of government (England)
- Presidential system of government (United States)
- Representative council system of government (once implemented in France).
Regarding the above differences Maurice Duverger did not mention what was used as the criteria. Only in passing he said that the basis of these differences is legal-formal, therefore this distinction is less practical in its implementation.
For example, in which group will this U.S.S.R. be included ? After all, where is the definite difference between the parliamentary system of government and the parliamentary system of government?
Therefore Maurice Duverger then put forward his own opinion, namely a classification based on the structure of his political parties based on this the classification is :
- Single-party government systems, for example what happened in the U.S.S.R.
- The two-party system of government, for example, is the case in the United States and Britain.
- The multi-party government system, for example, has happened in France, Germany and Italy.
However, Maurice Duverger went on to say, although this classification is closer to reality, such a classification is also not satisfactory, because for example, the British system of government is very different from that of the United States of America, although there are similarities regarding the structure of the party.
Likewise, for example, the government system in Russia when compared to the government system in Germany during the Nazi era, or Italy during the Facis era.
If people not only pay attention to the structure of their government, but also take into account the power of the rulers and the ways of limiting that power, then the classification can be put forward as follows :
- Free government system. Here the power of the ruler is strictly limited, while the freedom of individuals or citizens is guaranteed in a special way, except in the economic field. This is for example the government systems in England, the United States, and Switzerland.
- A semi-free government system. Here the power of the ruler is weakly limited, and so is the nature of the guarantee for individuals or citizens of a weak nature. This is for example the system of government that has been implemented in the Balkan countries, and in several South American countries.
- Totalitarian or collective government systems. In this system the ruler has absolute power over or over individuals or citizens, which power is supported by a political party, Maurice Duverger calls it the term political police, with a monopoly on newspapers, censuses, and so on. For example, the government systems in Russia, Germany during the Nazi era, and Italy during the Facis era.
If we pay attention to the whole of this last classification, then the classification will be almost the same as the classification we first described above, namely :
- In the liberal system of government, here the appointment of the rulers is carried out by election, and the restoration is carried out freely.
- In a semi-liberal system of government, here the appointment of the rulers is also carried out by election, but has been somewhat guided.
- In a totalitarian or collective system of government, here the appointment of the rulers is not carried out by election, or if figures are carried out, it is only pretend, so it is a kind of plebiscite.
Regarding the aforementioned classifications, it seems that all of them have weaknesses or weaknesses, namely the lack of certainty of classifications to be included in one class of governmental system, which sometimes there are principal differences from one another.
Strictly speaking, if viewed from one point of view the countries that are included in one group do have similarities, but if it is viewed from another perspective, then maybe the countries that were originally included in one group have big differences. Thus, the classification of the country is very dependent on the basis or criteria used to carry out the classification.
Given these realities, Maurice Duverger argues that if we are to respond to reality as precisely as possible, it is better to abandon the classifications or classifications as described above, and stick to a predictive classification if in terms of logic.
If we look at it from this point of view, the government that actually exists in the world can be classified or classified into three broad categories, according to three basic types, namely :
- The British type, for example, is found in the UK itself, and also in the British dominion countries, as well as in most Western European countries.
- America type, for example, is found in most of the countries of the continent, except Canada.
- Russian type, for example, is found in Russia itself, which means the U.S.S.R., and in the satellite countries.
Apart from the three types or systems mentioned above, according to Maurice Duverger, we will only be able to find an archaic government system, namely a system of government left over from ancient times, and colonized or semi-colonial peoples who do not have an autonomous government at all.
In addition, it is also necessary to pay attention to and be given a separate place for the Swiss government system, because this system is very original and has very little outside influence. On the other hand, this system does not have much external influence.
These are the types of government in Maurice Duverger's opinion. but while it should be reminded here that Maurice Duverger's review has more or less entered into the Science of State Law, remember what has been stated in the beginning to discuss the object of State Science.
Returning to discussing the types of modern democracy. If the classification of the types of modern democracy as stated in the foregoing descriptions is aligned with the classification of types of government put forward by Maurice Duverger, it can be concluded that in the description or discussion of modern types of democracy, it is emphasized. on the type of democracy, therefore we give a separate place to the Swiss government system, while Maurice Duverger emphasizes his description on the system of government.
We classify Russia into a modern autocratic system, while Maurice Duverger views the Swiss government system, although he sees it as an independent type, it does not get a special description.
