So, it has been brought to my attention that a lot of people don't really know what the different kinds of government represent.
The thing about governmental bodies is they're actually rather similar. Communism, Republics, Monarchies, and all the rest: Despite all the rhetoric about vast gulfs of understanding (not to mention all of the wars fought over those differences), governmental types themselves actually vary very little from one another.
Which is only logical, because, in the end, they all serve basically the same purpose: to provide for communal defense, to ensure order, and to gather certain resources to guard the community against emergencies.
Modern society would probably also add to that the providing of certain resources and infrastructure that are deemed necessary for modern life – ie roads, electricity, education, and the like.
And, well, since they all serve a similar purpose, it is only natural that they would share a similar structure.
Beyond all the philosophy and rhetoric and ceremony, there is – really – only one thing that distinguishes one government style from another in any meaningful way. And that is: who gets the vote.
In other words, who it is that gets to make the decisions about how that society lives, endures, and is governed.
So, here's a quick run-down of the various kinds of government, and their take on that one major difference:
Democracy: rule by the Commons
Republic: rule by an elected Elite who are chosen by the Commons
Monarchy: rule by an inherited Aristocracy
Oligarchy: rule by the wealthiest Merchant Families
Theocracy: rule by the most important Religious Figures
Fascism: rule by Militants (note: NOT the Military, more like vigilantes)
Soviet Communism: rule by Bureaucrats
Socialism: rule by the Worker
Dictatorship: rule by One Man
Confederation: a voluntary council of multiple Leaders
Technocracy: rule by Scientists
Demarchy: rule by Lottery Winner
Anarchy: no rule
Now then, when you study the various governmental bodies, you will notice that a particular style of government will tend to produce a particular kind of law. And that is only natural, since a certain class of rulers will tend to produce a certain kind of law – an aristocracy isn't likely to begin divesting power onto the serfs, for instance.
But the kind of government actually has nothing inherently to do with the kind of laws which are implemented, nor the ones that are enforced, nor the kind of economy that gets implemented, nor the kind of court system that gets organized, nor – most of all – the kinds of social structures that people under that rule form with each other.
However, all of those things are related. A society with certain social structures will tend to form certain kinds of governments. Ie, a society based around the Rule of Law will trend towards Democracy, because the values of both systems mesh well together. But neither of those inherently develops the other. They just work well together, and because they work well together, they are often found together. However, they work well with other systems, too.
For instance – The Rule of Law works just as well with Technocracies. Perhaps even better.
On the other side of things, the Rule of Law doesn't work so well with Monarchy – a society where the law is defined on the moment by the aristocracy, meaning their word is law, not the law on the books – so Monarchy and the Rule of Law are not often seen together. Or at least not for long (not long in terms of history, anyways). But, they are not by any means mutually exclusive.
Society, you see, is a mess of several structures that are spun together to form the society that people live under. The government, then, is (for the most part) the system of rules through which the rulers rule. And that is why the different governmental styles, when looked at from a distance, seem so similar. Their differences are not in their structures, but instead is merely in their arrangement of that structure.
So why, then, the recent big dispute between Democracy and Soviet Communism? Why, when the difference is only between rule by a selected Elite (most of today's 'Democracies' actually being Republics, of course) and rule by Bureaucrats?
Well, the actual dispute wasn't between governmental styles, but between economic systems, because communism isn't just a governmental style, it's also a series of economic theories. And the dispute was between Capitalist theory and Soviet Communist theory. An economic system controlled by a corporate elite and a system controlled by bureaucrats (Soviet Communism being a system where all power was concentrated in the hands of the bureaucrats).
And, if you really want to get down to it, the dispute wasn't really about that either. Capitalism was never against anything called Communism, as its long-running deals with China show.
The dispute was over who was going to control the world's resources in the post World War II world, what with Europe in retreat from its imperial holdings – the Old World interests, their New Money offspring, or these jumped-up bureaucrats. Worse, these bureaucrats kept mouthing off about worker-rule. Even if they never forged a system with any real intent of making that happen, that kind of talk was rather a thorn in the side of the Capitalist system.
Then there's the recent dispute over Fascism, and the whole question of whether it is a Right or a Left institution?
Fascism's philosophies were actually taken from both Right and Left. Fascism is more complex than a simple Right/Left system can represent. If you absolutely must put it on such a binary graph, it leans slightly more to the right than the left – with its love of militarism, tradition, and order. But it isn't really a rightwards organization.
To really plot Fascism, you have to step beyond the single-dimensional Right/Left, Liberty/Order simplicity. Simplicity may be easy to understand, but it is often lacking in accuracy.
If you were to draw a vertical line onto the horizontal Liberty/Order line, and attach the term Progressive to the top, and Populist on the bottom, then you will be able to get much more meaning from plotting Fascism onto a grid.
Fascism doesn't really care about Liberty or Order, so it plots flat on the right/left line, but trending rightwards. Instead, what Fascism is most concerned with is Elitism. Elitism of person, and of idea, and of race. So it plots to the top of the up/down Progressive/Populist line.
And if you want to get really accurate, you'll add the Z-axis into the mix, and attach Individualist and Community to that Z-line. Picturing such a 3-dimensional system isn't so easy for everyone though. But if you do add the Z, then you can plot Fascism well into the community side, since Fascism is all about sacrifice and giving over your identity to the state (and usually eventually the Empire). Thus making Fascism an upwards and backwards movements, but not a rightwards or leftwards. (Though trending rightwards towards conservatism and Order).
On top of all this, there are a few other terms thrown around about governmental styles. But these are usually just flavors of the terms above – a specification of type rather than category. Tyranny is a type of Dictatorship (or occasionally of Oligarchy or Monarchy) where the absolute rule of the dictator is unwanted and cruel – ie, Saudi Arabia. Benevolency is a type of Dictatorship that treats its people well, and is thus often well-liked by its people.
Social Democracy is a type of Republic that strives for a society without extremes of wealth, power, or privilege. Fundamentalist is a type of Theocracy ruled by the extreme Traditionalists. The Garrison State is a theoretical rule by a military that isn't also an aristocracy or a dictatorship (theoretical because it's never been attempted).
Etc. Etc.
And those are the government styles under which we all live.
Some points that might be worth pondering: Democracy hasn't really been tried since the time of the Ancient Greeks. A Federation is the same as a Confederation, except membership isn't voluntary. Marxism has never really been tried – outside of the occasional commune. Oligarchy has been tried many times, but rarely successfully. Empire and Dictatorship go incredibly well together. Yes, Demarchy really exists, and has been attempted (no politicians!), but success is even more minimal than Oligarchy. Parliamentary systems allow each group a portion of the seats on the governmental body equal to the percentage of the vote the capture, instead of Winner-Takes-All, which allows for rapid changeovers of the government even under a Republic. The US is Federation, not a Confederation.
