Heywood's Classification
POL 201
The world of politics should without a doubt have classifications, so it will be clear and comprehensible. This classification of political systems and regimes is basically the combination of similarities and differences into different categories by the means of descriptive analysis. Classification has many purposes, one of them is, making analyzation based on qualitative and normative judgments possible.
What used to be the political world’s classification, “three worlds” typology, no longer exists. Andrew Heywood came out with a new classification of the systems of the modern world by grouping these systems into five major categories: western polyarchies, new democracies, Islamic regimes, East Asian regimes, and military regimes.
With all due respect to Heywood, this modern political world classification may not be appropriate to all of the systems we see today. Some Arab countries may have a very high GDP and considered a developing country. This can be to the point where the Arab country may have similar values as countries that belong to western polyarchies. For some countries to find their place in this classification is unsuccessful.
Evidently the world of politics gets more complicated every day. Simplification should be taken into consideration. For the countries who don’t belong, sub-categories must be made for all five of Heywood’s classification.
Clearly, this classification is based on culture and ideologies. The sytem would be better if it were based on economic points. Otherwise quoting Francis Fukuyama; “Anyone out there have a better idea?”The world of politics should without a doubt have classifications, so it will be clear and comprehensible. This classification of political systems and regimes is basically the combination of similarities and differences into different categories by the means of descriptive analysis. Classification has many purposes, one of them is, making analyzation based on qualitative and normative judgments
The world of politics should without a doubt have classifications, so it will be clear and comprehensible. This classification of political systems and regimes is basically the combination of similarities and differences into different categories by the means of descriptive analysis. Classification has many purposes, one of them is, making analyzation based on qualitative and normative judgments possible.
What used to be the political world’s classification, “three worlds” typology, no longer exists. Andrew Heywood came out with a new classification of the systems of the modern world by grouping these systems into five major categories: western polyarchies, new democracies, Islamic regimes, East Asian regimes, and military regimes.
With all due respect to Heywood, this modern political world classification may not be appropriate to all of the systems we see today. Some Arab countries may have a very high GDP and considered a developing country. This can be to the point where the Arab country may have similar values as countries that belong to western polyarchies. For some countries to find their place in this classification is unsuccessful.
Evidently the world of politics gets more complicated every day. Simplification should be taken into consideration. For the countries who don’t belong, sub-categories must be made for all five of Heywood’s classification.
Clearly, this classification is based on culture and ideologies. The sytem would be better if it were based on economic points. Otherwise quoting Francis Fukuyama; “Anyone out there have a better idea?”The world of politics should without a doubt have classifications, so it will be clear and comprehensible. This classification of political systems and regimes is basically the combination of similarities and differences into different categories by the means of descriptive analysis. Classification has many purposes, one of them is, making analyzation based on qualitative and normative judgments