Classification of States by Maurice Duverger and Two Ways in Classifying States
Maurice Duverger Opinion on the State
Maurice Duverger says that
In all groups of human beings, from the smallest to the largest, from the most primitive to the most modern, from the weakest to the strongest, there are certainly differences that are principled between those in power, or those who rule with people or people who are controlled or ruled. And the magnitude of this difference depends on the system of government. Likewise in all bonds or associations, such differences are always present.
But there are temporary sociologists, the Durkheim sect, who justify the notion that during the beginning of human civilization the differences between rulers or governments and those in power did not exist.
The Durkheim sect says that in a group of people power is not only exercised by a certain number of people, but equally in that group, because everyone, so all members of the group, is subject to the general norms set by that group. So at that time everyone was ruled and no one ruled.
But then there are some people who unite and elevate themselves as the embodiment of these general norms and rule the group earlier. Thus arose the personality of power, and there were differences between those who ruled and those who were ruled.
According to Maurice Duverger, this theory may be correct and it may, in fact, fit the statement. But we will find it difficult to know, because in the group from the most primitive to the most modern, which we already know and can learn, of course we will get signs of power on a personal basis, and people can call it: pastor, guardian, chairman, family heads, tribal heads, or any other designation.
So in short, in every group of people, which we then call a nation, there must be a group of people who rule.
As for the good and bad of the government, it depends a lot on the wisdom of those who sit in government, and in this case the way or system of appointing people who will sit in government and hold power, it is the main joint in the system of government in a country.
Maurice Duverger further states that from the outside it seems as if the doctrine or teaching of democracy opposes and rejects this general condition, because is not democracy formulated as "government of, by, and for the people" even rejecting the difference between government and the people ruled ? For example, the Greek city republics, as well as the Romans, as well as in modern times, such as the situation in Switzerland, and other democratic countries.
Isn't it said that the people hold power, the people become both those who rule and those who are ruled? Indeed, it is nothing more than an illusion and a mere game of words, talk about the government from, by, and for the people is nonsense.
In the ancient Roman republics, as well as the Romans, as in the Swiss cantons today, collective affairs are regulated by a few people, and do not think they do not rule. The House of Representatives does not sit continuously except for long or short intervals, and in fact they can only take care of some extraordinary things.
Furthermore, within the body of the council itself there is always a faction, a agile minority that controls time, those who rule, who are in a different position from those who are ruled. According to Aristotle, Maurice Duverger went on to say that the most important person in Athens was not mentioned in the constitution, the position was occupied by the leader of the faction, who actually led the council, and always approached his decisions. Aristotle called him the prime minister, or Prostates, of the people.
Even the most prominent theorist of democracy, Jean Jacques Rousseau, made it clear that the distinction between those who ruled and those who were ruled could not be eliminated, in which case Rousseau said :
If the meaning of the word is understood as it is generally defined, then a true democracy will never exist, and it will never exist. It is contrary to the nature of nature, that a large number should rule, while the least number should rule.
Classification of States by Maurice Duverge
Thus Maurice Duverger in his attempt to maintain his opinion, that in every group, from the most primitive to the most modern, which is then called the state, there is always a group of people who rule, and there is always a difference between those who rule and those who are ruled. And that is exactly what happened.
In line with that, Maurice Duverger says, or argues that, in the broadest sense so-called state is the appearance of the general distinction between those in power and those in power, as it does in a social group.
Meanwhile, in a more limited sense, the term governance can only be used to indicate the establishment of government in a particular human society, namely the state.
It should be noted, that if a comparison is made between the forms of government in harmony, such a form is not the basis of the actual difference, because the difference is only level.
Of all the groups or social unions, the country is indeed the most perfect union of its organization. Thus, the politics of other social units can be learned in relation to national politics.
Also in taking such limits of our research it turns out to be incredibly broad, while the results are difficult to properly articulate in a short incarnation. So we must limit ourselves to trying to describe a general scheme, creating a general division in which all countries can be placed in such a way, so that the order shows the originality of each.
Meanwhile, based on the above description, Maurice Duverger divides the discussion in his book into two parts, namely the first part of his description or the discussion is analytical, in this section discusses a classification joint or division, by studying one by one the problems regarding the structure equally owned by all countries, such as the election of rulers, the form of government bodies, the division and restriction of government power.
In the second part of the description is synthetic, here is described the most important types of governments that really exist in the world, as well as variations of each type.
Regarding the methods of his investigation and his speech, Maurice Duverger said that it was often found to tend to describe constitutionality according to its juridical form, by omitting the facts from the way Maurice Duverger acted.
It is also possible that the stance was justified by the events, in which the ruling people really tried to adapt their actions to the provisions in the constitution. In that case we will be grateful, but today there is a gap between the law and its reality, between the text and its implementation, the gap that is getting wider and wider.
In this world there is no shortage of completely empty constitutions, which formulate a government with no real affiliation with the party that truly rules the country, so that the constitution is only a barrier, or a barrier for that party. So if you want to keep the truth, the last statement must also be taken into account.
Further, at the beginning of the first part of his book above, Maurice Duverger said that politics as a whole is a group of answers to the problems facing the lives and organizations of those who hold government within a social unit or state.
In this case, as has been said, many questions or problems arise to be faced, such as: how the election of the rulers, how to divide the power, there should be no restrictions on the power of the rulers, if necessary how and so on.
All solutions or answers to the above problems, according to Maurice Duverger can be divided into two categories, namely :
- In connection with the tendency towards the doctrine of liberalism, namely the tendency to reduce the power of the rulers, so as to benefit the people ruled.
- In connection with the tendency towards the doctrine of authoritarianism, namely the tendency to maintain and strengthen the power of those who hold the power of state government, thus weakening the people ruled.
Thus here people stand at the crossroads of two concepts about human life, about society and its ins and outs, at the crossroads of two philosophies, two doctrines, two systems of life, all of which are the basis from which various constitutional systems arise as a technical implementation modality of a conception.
While the value of a government is for the most part depends on the quality of the people sitting in the government. That is why, then the way or system of election or appointment of the rulers is one of the main joints of a government.
In accordance with his opinion above, then Maurice Duverger in classifying the country using criteria, how the nature of the relationship or relationship between the rulers and the people in power. The relationship is clearly seen in the way or system of the election or appointment of these rulers.
Maurice Duverger Two Ways in Classifying States
As for this method or system, there are many patterns, which however can be classified in two ways, which later these two methods can still be combined in a mixed system, namely ;
The first way in the appointment of the rulers is the way or system in which the people are not included in the appointment or election of those who will hold the power of government.
So here we want to keep the ruled people away from the election of those who will hold the power of the state government. Such a system by Maurice Duverger is called the autocratic system, it is in accordance with the doctrine of the authoritarian, a state so called autocracy.
This system for now is practically no longer a country that embraces it, except in the sociologically backward countries and the modern dictatorial countries.
However, such systems, which are practically largely in accordance with authoritarian teachings or doctrines, over the past few centuries have been embraced by many countries, and these have been camouflaged or shrouded in various systems, namely:
- Power struggle. This is the first way for the appointment of rulers, that is, one party seizes power from the other. The first person in power, who became king, was certainly a fortunate soldier. The seizure of power is not a legal way, by law, for the appointment of rulers. But it is only a mere fact, and in fact it is a violation of the law, but later from this violation of the law will soon be raises the state of the new law, because the winning party in the power struggle is always trying to inaugurate or validate his position.
This power struggle can be shaped or carried out in various ways :
a. Revolution, which is a way of seizing power by using the power of all the people.
b. Coup d'etat, a way of seizing power by using the power of the old government to overthrow and then replace it.
c. Pronunciamiento, this way is a kind of coup d'etat, but using military force. According to Maurice Duverger the most common is the combination of the various forms mentioned above. - The hereditary system. This is the form of autocratic government that we get the most. And in general this system only applies to one person, the king is replaced by his rightful descendants. But in addition there is also a body or organ whose rights are hereditary.
Judging from the history of this hereditary system often comes following the system of power struggle, that is, the holder handed over his power to his descendants. Or sometimes this system arises as a deformation, a change of form towards a disadvantage, from cooptation, or even from a selection system. - Cooptation. This is the appointment of the ruling candidates by the old rulers who will then replace them. So here the ruler to be replaced has appointed his successor, before they are replaced. As in the case of the hereditary system, this system may apply to a single person, or to a council.
- Voting system. This system was once implemented in some ancient Greek cities to appoint magistrates. For now this voting system exists only as a hypothesis, in the administrative or judicial field, specifically to appoint members of the yuri.
- There is another system, namely that the appointment of the ruler who will replace it is done by another ruler. So the one who appoints or chooses is not the ruler who will replace him, but is another ruler, so this method is not purely autocratic because everything will depend on the ruler who made the appointment. In this case there are two possibilities, the appointment can be done with the electoral system, if so then it will have a democratic nature. But it can also be that the adoption is done in a non-selective way, if so this will have an autocratic nature.
Usually the rulers who are appointed with this system are in a slightly lower position than the rulers who appoint them, this system is in many cases implemented in the appointment of administrative officials, and is rarely done in the appointment of government officials in the true sense of the word.
However, in practice it is often done for the appointment of ministers.
Maurice Duverger further states that in any form for the birth and life of autocracy a religious conception of power is needed. Because, how is it really justified, that some people rule their fellow human beings without hindrance in carrying out that office, if the rulers are not seen as the embodiment of God or of the supernatural powers in the primitive human mind precede the realization of God, or of the myth who is free from religion, like about nations, countries, classes and so on, which in the modern human mind replaces the thought of God? So the constitutions of autocratic countries are based on irrational ones.
The second method or system put forward by Maurice Duverger in the appointment of the rulers is a way in which in the appointment of the rulers the people are included. So here there is a desire to bring closer the relationship between the rulers and the ruled people. Such a way is called a democratic way, then the country is then also called a democratic state.He further stated that this system is in accordance with the doctrine of liberalism, because the power of the rulers here can then be limited. It is in this system that people want to build a government with rational foundations.
This system of democracy has historically been born in ancient Greece, and is called the system of direct democracy in the sense that according to its concept all citizens can directly choose and participate in thinking the way of government, in fact it is said that everyone participates in governing.
So this system can only be implemented in countries that are still small, the people are still small, so it is easy to gather, and the affairs are still very simple, where the people can directly manage it.
However, in many cases this system has always been the target of deformations that completely change its pattern and nature. It seems that Aristotle in Athens witnessed that in the general assembly there were always groups, that is, some people gathered close to their leader, while the people embraced it only by accepting and inaugurating their proposals.
But in any case, this system of direct democracy has never been able to be implemented consistently in the history of the constitution, even in ancient Greece itself.
If the figure of people always says as a classic example of the implementation of direct democracy is the ancient Greek state, that is just the name, but the reality? Because in ancient Greek times it was the fact that they had the right to think about the way of governing, especially those who participated in ruling, it was only certain people, that is, independent people. So for example: slaves, people with mental illness, children who are considered immature, people who can not afford to pay taxes, even women, it has no statehood at all.
It was only later in the eighteenth century that a new system of democracy emerged, which gave the possibility of being implemented in large countries and evolving towards modern civilization, because in this system of democracy not all citizens are directly included in government, but they elect their representatives among themselves, who then sit in the representative bodies. This is why this system of democracy is called indirect democracy or also called representative democracy.
And this is where democracy gets its true meaning, in the sense that the rulers are elected by the people. As for how the election of the people's representatives who will sit in government, and its implementation there are various ways.
After all, the number and arrangement of the representative bodies of each country are not the same. But the point is where there are free and secret elections and that's where the democratic system is. And in this form the system of democracy gradually expanded to almost all modern countries.
Since the emergence of the representative democratic system, since then two new kinds of conditions have been born, namely: the acceptance of the general election system, and organized political parties.
Indeed, since the democratic system of representation lacks perfection in its implementation, this is because in the case of the election of the rulers is incorrect, that is, the rulers are only elected by a group of people, and this group only consists of certain people only, these are usually the rich.
But then gradually the number of voters increased, due to pressure from the principles of democracy itself. Especially when in 1848, when France eliminated the difference in the level of wealth as a condition of being able to have the right to vote in elections. But, unfortunately, the difference in rights between men and women could not be eliminated at that time. For these women, in most new countries in the twentieth century can be included in the election, and thus this general election then get perfection in its implementation.
Regarding political parties, this does have an important role to play in determining the growth and development of the representative democratic system. But let us not forget the fact that in recent times these political parties even threaten the authority of the representative democratic system, this can happen if the party leadership wants to replace the elected rulers, or if the rulers incorporating his will in a party through the people voters.
So here will be violations of the principles of democracy. In many ways, this representative democratic system, individuals gain as much freedom as possible in the field of government. In the sense of being able to participate in determining the path of government independently. So this system of democracy is also called liberal democracy.
The third method or system proposed by Maurice Duverger in the appointment or election of rulers is a mixed system or combination of a democratic system with an autocratic system. This mixed system will later create an oligarchy state.
The explanation is as follows. That in addition to the countries that implement the autocratic and democratic system of government as described above, there is still a system of government that is a mixed system or combination of the two systems. And these are actually forms of transition from autocracy to democracy. In the government of this mixed system, the elements or principles of democracy insist on the elements or principles of autocracy.
According to Maurice Duverger this system of mixed government is a system of government in which the people who hold the power of government of the country are elected or appointed in ways that are a form of transition from the way of autocracy to the way of democracy.
And according to him this system of mixed government can be distinguished in three kinds of forms, and in order to be able to distinguish this one must look at the way in which the principles of autocracy and the principles of democracy are mixed.
1. A system of mixed government according to juxtaposition
In this system we find the existence of two organs of government, one of which is autocratic, while the other is democratic, and the two are side by side. It can still be further distinguished into :
- Juxtaposition between a king or monarch who is autocratic, with a representative body or parliament that is democratic. This is for example a country ruled by a king who is hereditary or by a dictator who faces or is confronted by a representative body or parliament whose members are appointed by using the electoral system by the ruled people.
- Juxtaposition between the autocratic elements and the democratic elements in a people's representative body or parliament. So here there is juxtaposition in parliament, meaning the people's representative body consists of two chambers, one of which is the election of its members by way of election by the ruling people, so its nature is democratic, while the other is the appointment of its members is determined autocratically, as with hereditary, cooptation, or benign means. This is the case in the UK, where the House of Commons is democratic in nature, due to its election by appointment; facing the House of Lords which is autocratic in nature, because its membership is hereditary.
- Juxtaposition between the autocratic elements and the democratic elements in one people's representative body or parliament, This means that here in the country there is only one people's representative body whose appointment of members is partly democratic, while others are autocratic. This is very rare, one example of this type of form is the French parliament, or the French senate which took place in 1875. Here in addition to the two hundred and twenty-five senators whose election was by way of election, so with a democratic system; indeed there are still sixty-five, senators whose positions or membership cannot be challenged or fired, whose appointment is by co-op, so autocratic.
2. A system of mixed government in combination
This is a country where the power of government is only held or exercised by one organ only. Where the organ is performed in a democratic and autocratic way.
For example, the system of election with ratification, that is, that the appointment of the ruler was originally done autocratically, this for example can be by: power struggle, cooptation, descent. But the ruler has not been able to perform the functions of government before the voice of the people ratifies, or endorses the election or appointment that was done earlier. so here then there is a kind of plebiscite, while this plebiscite is actually not an election in the true sense. This system once happened in France.
3. A system of mixed or fusion government
This is a system in which the rulers whose appointment cannot be said to be autocratically or democratically pure, or in stages as in a system of mixed government in combination or a mixed system according to juxtaposition, where one, or the first level is autocratic, is next is democratic.
But in this fusion-mixed system, the way the rulers are appointed is found to have autocratic and democratic elements as well as fusion or cohesive. This system, for example, occurs in the appointment of rulers in the oligarchy.
In this oligarchy country the rulers are only elected by a small group of ruled people. So here it is indeed on the one hand approaching the democratic way, because the rulers are elected by the people in power. But on the other hand this way of approaching the autocratic system, this is considering the small number of ruled people who can participate in the election. So here the democratic elements and the autocratic elements are mixed into one, fusion, or cohesive, inseparable.
The form of government of the country as mentioned above, lastly, we find a lot, and this is actually a form of transition, that is, a form of transition from autocracy to democracy. It is only in this case that its implementation undergoes various variations. Which variation can be seen in the granting of the right to speak in the election.
Rarely here is the transition from a state that does not know the election, namely the autocratic countries, to the state of the exercise of the right to a general vote or election, that is, in democratic countries. So first we have to know the proto-type of the electoral systems, or the maintenance of general voting rights. This right of expression was initially only given to a small group of people in special positions, in fact there are countries that do not want to give this right to vote to women.
But in further development, especially in modern countries the number of people entitled to speak in this election is increasing, and finally all citizens who are in that country have the right to vote in an election provided- certain conditions. So, in other words, all the citizens in principle have the right to vote in election.
Thus it finally happened that the autocracy must first open and vacate itself to give place to the closed oligarchy, this oligarchy then slowly and gradually also opened itself and emptied the place for democracy. This is where the transition from autocracy to democracy takes place.
Whereas in a mixed system of government in combination, there is a rare transition from autocracy to democracy, but more often there is a reaction to the system of democratic government that takes only a few birthmarks, but strongly rejects the essence of democracy.
This is the way it is mostly implemented in some modern countries to cripple the democratic system while pretending to flatter it.
