03. A Classic Classification Problem

Classifying a country using the political system type, economic model type and social systems

A natural way of classifying a government of a country is by using a combination of its names of the political system(s), economic system(s) and social system(s) adopted in its charter such as its decree/constitution etc., Clearly a naming convention can help here to avoid confusion. Later we can see how to effectively leverage this name type to classify better.

For example, if I quickly look up the internet and try to see how the nature of governments are defined worldwide, I quickly arrive at a classic classification problem – there are a wide variety of definitions. Let us look at some of the definitions from the Wiki/world atlas and similar other sites:

USA - Federal, democratic republic

UK - Constitutional monarchy with a multiparty, parliamentary form of government

India - Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic with a Parliamentary form of government which is federal in structure.

China - One-party communist dictatorship

France - Republican State and a parliamentary democracy

Germany - Democratic and federal parliamentary republic

Singapore - Parliamentary representative democratic republic

KSA – An absolute monarchy and a theocracy

Malaysia - Constitutional elective monarchy with a parliamentary system

Some of the common issues with the current types of government are given below:

1. A country can be constitutionally democratic, but the people may not have power to change the government before the term is over, even if its performance is rated as worst. This can result in a situation where, for the remaining term of the ruling period, the government is not of type democracy but of authoritarian type.

This gives us questions around the soundness of principles and processes on forming of alliances/associations, continuous performance evaluations, authoritative interjections, and onboarding & handoff processes.

2. The structure itself is problematic. It is not self-governing, self-auditing, self-healing, or self-learning; Nor does it have other self-optimizing governance structures that prevents accumulation of power, ensures wealth distribution, ensures optimal use of national resources etc., that leads to continuous development.

3. Besides the above-mentioned structural issues, other transactional issues like lack of transparency, honesty, integrity along with corruption, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, fascistic leanings of leaders, sidelining of meritocracy, nepotism etc., have rendered the type of the government– as questionable i.e., is what it claims to be the true type is not true in ground reality.

4. Lack of effective international intervention, usually by a world body like UN (e.g., external audit of the country entity by the UN), which needs a whole set of reforms to make it effective. The value system and related enforcement mechanisms of the world body is weaker than at least some of its constituent country level value systems. If this is the case, then UN can never play an effective policing part in its functioning.

5. Questions like the influence of economic and social systems on the nature of type of government is not understood correctly. For example, we cannot be sure if the lobbyists powered by business houses are subverting the interests of the people who voted in a democratic government? If this happen, have we failed in upholding the ethos of democracy? Similarly, if the social systems are having a skew (say a particular faction is strong and is able to enforce its will by its virtue of being a king maker), how do we ensure that common interests and the interests of the population prevails? Is the reigning order capable of ensuring integrity and fairness?

6. In any form of government, be it aristocracy, communism etc., and which is so enshrined in it’s constitutional decree, if the well-being of its population is not upheld, is it OK for the world to turn a blind eye and to sweep the dust under the rug?

We saw earlier how a combination of political, economic, and social systems can identify the form of government. I will briefly dwell into the problems around the classification of social systems that if done properly can help us classify the type of government in a better way.

A proper web definition of a social system is as below:

A social system is a group of individuals or an institution that combines to create a functioning society with goals. (study.dot.com)

Different types of social systems are in vogue.

Let us consider the below aspects before we move on.

1.Classification based on size (from helpfulprofessor.dot.com)

a. Macro analysis (looks at broad categories and systems like countries, populations)

b. Meso analysis (studies communities and groups in a society)

c. Micro (observes patterns and data from small entities like families or individuals)

I am not sure how this will help us tag the type of government. Even if the political and economic systems shout out loud that they are set in a democratic form of government, the social systems may cry foul! Sometimes, we have to worry about the degree to which the democracy is impaired! If it happens, should it still carry the tag of being a ‘democratic government’?

2. Classification based on belief, class, status etc., - again I am not sure how this will help us tag the type of government. But we know that these can impact the choice of the government.

3. We have to look at dynamic ways of classifying the social behaviour that vouches for the type of government that the country entity ascribes to.

Let us consider how an external entity like a UN body or a group like Transparency International may look at an entity like a country.

Is it transparent, opaque, or translucent?
How does it fare on social stability? What is the nature of issues that are proliferating? Are these issues indicative of a malfunctioning government? Is its type credible anymore?
How transparent are its electoral process? How can the population gain control over a very wrong ruling government? What are the powers at play? Are the powers at play be classified as some factions, business houses, elites, proletariats, wealthy individuals, religious groups etc.?

(Please note that none of the social systems mentioned above may be satisfactorily classified under any one popular social system classifications currently existing!)

So, we have to be adaptive in identifying the social systems that can alter the type of the government. Thus, we will have to look for social systems’ classification that is generic enough yet help us evaluate the type of government.

I recommend using a social system that is a common denominator across the globe that is generic.

The classification can be based on:

1.Its transparency to international scrutiny (can be any type of scrutiny preferably well-structured and covering all grounds).

Possible States: Transparent, Opaque and Translucent

2.Its stability based on national issues.

Possible States: Highly Volatile, Volatile, Predictable, Calm

3.Will the issues identified affect the functioning of the government?

Possible States: Yes, No, Perhaps, NA

4. Degree of corruption in the functioning of the government:

Possible States: Very High, high, Medium, Low

5. A score (to be brainstormed) on wealth accumulation or wealth spread in the country.

6. Effect of factions (based on religion, class etc.,) – Again we need to determine a scoring model on this.

7. Etc.,

So, in the above points, I am not directly looking at the social system entities or its interactions– rather the meta information on these entities that can point to a malfunctioning government and thus affect its type claimed. We have to convert this whole evaluation around social systems and translate the result effect on to the acceptable definitions of the government types as published by some central entities like the UN.

Thus, the result of the social system evaluations can be converted into the possible states as: Helpful, Neutral and Not helpful.

Based on this, an external audit of a central body like UN, should accept or decline the type of government as claimed by the constituent countries. We may be in for a surprise to see a corrupt communist government claiming to be a democratic country, or a semi-feudalistic government branding itself as democracy etc.,

Let us look at some of the combinations of the common types of governments using the different political systems, economic systems, and social systems.

This is just indicative and not a complete list.

A country can claim to be adapting 1 or more of the political systems and can claim to be adapting 1 or more of the economic systems. The country’s internal audit system can arrive at the meta status of the existing social systems.

A central body like UN can trigger an external audit on the politico-economic condition of a country after ascertaining the social system meta status and check the veracity of the claim on the type of the government on its constituent members.

Needless to say- certain types of governments like the fascism or variants of it should be inadmissible into UN.

S-T-F

03. A Classic Classification Problem