53

Both democracy and ochlocracy are forms of government where political activism by citizens is tolerated as part of politics. The difference is that a democratic state follows its legislative, executive and legal processes and follows the rule of law, while an ochlocratic state ignores these in order to appease public sentiments. A couple tests you can use ...


51

All modern democracies are representative; it's for purely pragmatic reasons hard to see how a large community could govern itself directly by the people without introducing representative intermediaries. The really interesting question for me is whether the United States, though formally a democratic republic, are factually ruled by a relatively small ...


47

From a very abstract point of view, the difference is that totalitarianism desires to completely (totally) influence the thoughts and actions of its citizens, even into the private sphere, while authoritarianism is primarily concerned with keeping public life ‘in order’ and will allow for private affairs to remain private decisions. Examples (albeit ...


33

"Country", "State" and "Nation" are often used synonymously to refer to political entities. But if you want to nitpick: A "country" usually means a geographical region. A "state" is a political organization which rules over a country. A "nation" is a far more fuzzy term. It usually means a group of people who are connected by culture and heritage. Some ...


31

I think you are right that it is just a buzzword. Back in classical Greece, philosophers attempted a systematic study of forms of government and came up with the distinction of monarchy (one good ruler), tyranny (one bad ruler), aristocracy (few good rulers), oligarchy (few bad rulers), democracy (many good rulers) and ochlocracy (many bad rulers). ...


24

First of all, at risk of stating the obvious, I think it is important to be clear that terms like these, especially democratic socialism, have politically contested meanings. To understand what is meant by them, it is important to look closely at who is using the term and who their intended audience is. It is also helpful to keep in mind that the meanings of ...


17

There are three different things to define here: State: "A state is an organized community living under a unified political system, the government" (Wiki definition). This is basically just a community (usually in a specified territory) that was ruled by a specific government. It may or may not have been sovereign. Nation: A nation may refer to a ...


17

Or is it just a buzzword without a deep meaning? It is just a buzzword without a deep meaning. It's just a fancy way of saying that the politicians in charge of the country are incompetent. There is no deep theory behind it.


16

O.m. is partially correct. There is a 17th century term (in actual Greek) that roughly is synonymous: Over the last fifteen years or so, commentators in Australia and abroad have coined a range of derogatory 'ocracies' to voice their disquiet at the white-anting of democracy. In 2011 Jeffrey Sachs wrote that America was being run by the 'corporatocracy', ...


15

Disclaimer: I'm not a political scientist or even that well versed in terminology. I'm also not from the USA. As far as I understand the definition of oligarchy, it requires the small group of people and people they select to be the only people able to wield power, not that only a small group of people holds power at a single point in time. That means that ...


14

Authoritarianism is a general concept that points at a preference for a rigid, top-down hierarchical power structure. Authoritarianism demands obedience to orders and compliance with rules and laws, and calls for sharp use of both judicial and extra-judicial force to maintain that strict social order. Authoritarianism occurs — put prosaically — when some ...


13

Many people use them interchangeably. As far as I'm aware, there's a subtle distinction if one goes by formal definition (which is not always in line with common usage): A parliamentary system is a system of democratic government in which the ministers of the Executive Branch derive their legitimacy from and are accountable to a Legislature or parliament; ...


13

If you assert that having a small number of people actually exercising the power makes you an oligarchy, then all countries are oligarchies. It’s simply not a useful definition, because it excludes nothing. All democratic countries have executives, legislatures and judiciaries. What makes an oligarchy is if the power groups are self-perpetuating rather than ...


13

The answer is in the quoted passages you've posted. Imperialism is a policy put forth by a nation, whereas globalization is a global phenomenon. Imperialism is unilateral and globalization is multilateral, as you alluded to. Specifically, globalization is more of a result of a variety of multilateral organizations, treaties, and policies by many governments ...


11

No. The concept of a nation is not explicitly ethnic. Despite the recent preponderance of intersectionality considerations, or the vast multitudes of nations that appear ethnic, a single ethnic build up is not an explicit requirement of being a nation. It is possible for a national identity to exist as the superset, having a greater hierarchical ranking ...


10

When I worked on the Hill (the U.S. Capitol) back in the '90s, I had the opportunity to visit with the staffs of several members of Congress, both on the House and Senate side. What they do: (Hint - Read the Mail and vette the issues) Typically, there were three types of political aides: Interns / Junior Legislative Assistants On the bottom of the totem ...


9

Both oligarchy and democracy are a sliding scale; you can talk about a country being "fairly democratic" or "very democratic". Iran is more democratic than Saudi Arabia, and America is more democratic than Iran. The same goes for oligarchy. Democracy and oligarchy are separate scales, but they are related phenomena. Morfildur gives a good ...


9

Based on that, the main difference seems to be that imperialism is something from the past whereas globalisation is from the present. I would disagree. The main difference in my opinion is that imperialism is globalization imposed by the imperialist. Globalization is the more general term. It includes military and economic imperialism but also things ...


9

After reading your comment below Gramatik's answer, you seem to be asking if the outcomes of globalization aren't effectively the same as those of imperialism. I think this is a more difficult question because imperialism often increased trade, a hallmark of globalisation. The real question is what kind of trade. The first forms of globalisation are ...


9

Rights of the minority In both democracy and mob rule the majority gets to decide public policy. However, democracy implies certain limits to what kinds of policy this majority is allowed to apply, and what unalienable rights the minority is going to have anyway. For example, in a simplified case of two mostly unified factions, if the majority can impose ...


9

Authoritarianism wants obedience, totalitarianism wants belief. As the consequence, authoritarianism tolerates obediently behaving disbeliever, totalitarianism persecutes and destroys him[non-gendered use] if it failed to destroy his disbelief first. Authoritarian regimes always have ideology, even if as rudimentary as "public good". They always have a ...


8

The kangaroo is a practice which allows the Speaker to select which amendments to a Bill are to be debated1. The guillotine is a common name for allocation of time motions2. I'm afraid I have no clue what "the fox" might refer to. 1 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/teaching/law6cw/hc-3.htm 2 http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/allocation-of-time-...


8

The proper term is "illegal alien," or "illegal immigrant." An alien is a person in a country that they are not a citizen of: Any person not a citizen or national of the United States. Where as, an immigrant is: "Permanent Resident Alien" - An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly ...


8

By control they mean who is able to enforce rules in a particular area. In most countries there is a single, unified government that controls all area within its borders. That means the government is able to enforce its rules in its land. Usually they just need to tell their people of the law, but if need be they can use police or military force. In places ...


8

Technically, No. Practically, Yes (at least partly). Technically not because elections are free and anyone can run for any office within some smaller restrictions (President must be US born, convicts of a felony may not be able to run under some circumstances). Also the judiciary is independent, so opposing candidates cannot easily be excluded from the ...


8

In a one-party state, the party leadership usually sets the rules, which are binding for all party members and/or citizens. In a non-partisan democracy, every candidate or representative can form and voice their own opinions. A non-partisan democracy lacks a Politburo.


8

To quote Wikipedia on the definition: Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favour for a favour". Phrases with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat", and &...


7

The number of things that your typical senator/representative is expedted to do/learn is often too much for a single person to do, so they hire political aides to help them. Your senator/representative generally doesn't personally read all the mail that is written to him, or even completely read entire bills that he/she has to vote upon. Political Aides ...


7

In the age of Empire, these were totally different things. A nation was an ethnological term - it referred to a people group. A state, on the other hand, was a governmental authority. As such, the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have been a single state with mutiple nations - including Austrians, Magyars (Hungarians), Gypsies, and others. With the ...


7

Let's define terms, then contextualize terms. Most misunderstanding come from how we define our terms. So let's define them. Partisanship In U.S. politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party or political coalitions. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible