Free Comparative Politics Essay Sample
Comparative politics is the study of politics in a wider scope normally within many states or countries with the primary aim of making organized evaluations and comparisons. There are two main approaches to studying comparative politics. The area studies approach and the cross-national approach. The area studies approach highlights detailed analysis within a particular country or state of the world. Whereas cross-national approach mainly encompasses the concurrent study of a vast number of states to address precise speculative questions of a wider applicability. The method is carried out using the methods of numerical examination of empirical data. Due to the systematic tools and approaches that are used to assert these concepts, comparative politics can be described as a science. There are many scientific tools that are used to study and analyze this area of political science and, therefore, it can be described as a science.
The study about different political variables in countries results in various outcomes. Some famous researchers have tried to study different phenomena that are exhibited in various states by using different comparison methods. Some of these methods are based on dependent variables against unknown outcomes by different researchers. Repetition in comparative politics can be confusing due to different interpretation of interviews and other discussions. The pursuit of generalizable information and principles has led to the significant decline in area studies. The substantial decrease in regional studies has also resulted in very few people understanding the politics of the world apart from the politics of the United States. Fewer people are now delving into the study and research in the rest of the world which has led to the loss of scientific luster in studying politics. The specialized training in this area had also sharply declined because more people are inclined to the theoretical studies of comparative politics hence making it hard to create a science of comparative politics.
States are formed on the basis of geographical, cultural or demographical factors. It is a geographical unit with supreme authority over its territory. The importance of states in this case not be downplayed. Although states are not as popular today as they used to be, they have a substantial significance. States are important because they are responsible for the fundamental public infrastructure, healthcare, education, and security because they have the ability to carry out their actions independently. People rely on states for the primary development and provision of these services in their daily lives. States also are tasked with protect human rights of the citizens who subscribe to that particular state. So, the state can be defined as the fundamental element of democracy and at one point or the other its existence is crucial because it upholds democracy and prevents the rich from exploiting the poor.
It will precisely be very challenging to live without states. An organized society needs a systematic organization of a governing body for the smooth running of the society’s affairs. Many countries have states because it becomes so difficult for the central government to keep track of its citizens and critical projects. The state is the representation of the national government in the grassroots. However, the people who have put in charge to represent the people at the state level have wielded so much power that they run the state as a private entity or some form of monarchy. It is the explanation that the states have become so unpopular, and even some suggests that they may be abolished altogether. The states can be replaced by small administrative units that are set up by the national government. In some countries, these administrative units are known as provinces. These units should be monitored carefully in order to ensure that those who are put in charge don’t thrive in corruption by consolidating a lot of power from the citizens.
Authoritarian rule is one form of government where its citizens are subjected to total obedience or subjection to authority rather than expressing individual freedom. It exercises limited political diversity whereby political groups and institutions are highly constrained. Countries that practice this form of government employ repressive tactics to subdue their opponents whom they term anti-regime. The authoritarian governments highly prohibit activities that are not supported or favored by the state. These states often rely on submissive mass acceptance rather than majority backing or popular support. As more countries are transitioning to democracy and becoming centralized, authoritarian rule has started to diminish and fall. Therefore, the legitimacy of an authoritarian government is unwarranted for and because of its repressive techniques and methods; it has been termed as a very unpopular way to govern.
More countries today are moving to democracy and decentralizing the powers to the people. Democratic governments are involving the people or citizens in the decision-making processes of their countries. In democratic politics, the rule of law is upheld together with the protection of the fundamental rights of the residents. In a democracy, the administration is accountable for the protection of the interests of its citizens. The laws apply to all the subjects equally. However, some people get into power in the pretense of democracy to further their interests and agendas like misusing public funds and properties. Some people too may take advantage of this system to exploit their citizens. Some people are also naturally unruly due the past governments that were in place that encouraged the instability and had no regard for the rule of law. They take advantage to break rules and sometimes tend to be ungovernable. A notion like this makes some countries still maintain military rule that has absolute power over all the citizens. Many authoritarian regimes have constitutions which mostly have clauses that justify the suppression of their subjects and their dissidents too.
The most notable reason communism failed is the forced ideology into the minds of the people without seeing its practicality. People were forced to work on projects that they deemed not sustaining. The fact that communism came about the time of the industrial revolution made many people be compelled to work in industries for the collective ‘good’ of their countries. People didn't have the same abilities, and many thought it would be the vehicle for inequity. People who were creative and hardworking felt exploited at the expense of building their nations. The aftermath of this were the landowners resisting the government to take away their land, crops, and even livestock because there was no ownership of private property. The fact that the citizens had low individual political freedom and had to relinquish their fundamental rights to the state made them resistant to this form of governing. Lack of incentives for hard working people in order to drive them to work harder also made communism not to realize its fundamental principle upon which it was constituted.
The whole system had its fair share of flaws that led the communist proponents do whatever they could to make up for its inefficiency. Protagonist of this form of government also did not give a care or think about the environment one bit when they were formulating their strategies on how to produce the food surplus. It led to the substantial damage to the environment which later turned to be irreparable and couldn’t further sustain their cause. The lack of a proper ways to determine the prevailing market prices of commodities over time also lead to the inefficiency in properly rationing the distribution of national resources. Communism failed to do away with class that it claimed was the primary cause of all strife. The people who were in power who propagated communism also didn't apply these tenets appropriately because they also went ahead to create the ruling class and alienated the poor who later came to snub this form of economy.