Comparative Government and Politics > Likes and Comments
date
newest »
newest »
For additional discussions involving comparative government, see the following topics in this Goodreads group:International Law and Politics
Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism vs. Rule of Law
Semi-Presidential Republics
Parliamentary Democracy
European Union (EU)
International Populist Authoritarianism
Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy
Alan wrote: "INTRODUCTION TO THE “COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS” TOPICWhen I was an undergraduate political science major during the 1960s, I was interested in taking political science courses in the fo..."
Alan, initially, I viewed politics and governance in a very narrow way, focusing solely on Portugal. Over time, I realized that this approach was too limiting and prevented me from understanding the dynamics and interactions of other nations, both domestically and internationally. I then began analyzing each system, particularly democracies, trying to understand how, why, and when certain actions or decisions were made. Naturally, to gain a broader perspective, the next step was to adopt a comparative political approach simultaneously and continuously.
Comparative Politics: Analyzing Democracies and Learning from Their Practices.
Positive Practices in Democracies: What Can We Learn?
Sweden – Transparency and Trust in Public Administration
Positive Aspect: Sweden maintains one of the most transparent public administrations globally, with laws that guarantee public access to government documents.
Reason: Reduces corruption and strengthens public trust in government institutions.
Application for Democracies: Develop digital platforms that allow citizens to track public spending and political decisions transparently.
Canada – Human Rights and Cultural Inclusion with Balance
Positive Aspect: Implementation of policies that recognize cultural diversity without compromising social cohesion.
Reason: Avoids social exclusion and reduces cultural and ethnic tensions.
Application: Formulate public policies that respect diversity while emphasizing common values and fostering integration into the dominant national culture.
Estonia – Digital Democracy
Positive Aspect: A pioneer in secure online voting and a robust digital identity system for accessing public services.
Reason: Simplifies citizens' lives and increases civic participation.
Application: Promote secure digital systems that facilitate efficient and transparent political participation without compromising security and privacy.
Norway – Responsible Management of Natural Resources
Positive Aspect: Balanced use of energy resources with significant reinvestment through a sovereign wealth fund.
Reason: Ensures economic stability and intergenerational equity.
Application: Establish mechanisms for responsible natural resource management to finance social programs and sustainable infrastructure.
Challenges in Current Democracies
Germany and France – Political Polarization and Poor Immigration Management
Growing problems of political polarization and social tensions due to inadequate immigration policies.
Proposal: Reform migration policies with an integrative but selective approach, based on qualifications and the country's social absorption capacity, avoiding the creation of ghettos.
United States – Fragmentation and Ideological Polarization
The polarization between conservatives and progressives fosters a constant climate of political conflict.
Proposal: Encourage electoral and media systems that promote balanced debates rather than radical positions.
Criticism of the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) System
The MMP system is often praised for ensuring plurality, but in practice, it has led to social divisions by favoring minority interests that frequently outweigh the common good. This has resulted in:
Government Fragmentation: Hinders consensus-building.
Radicalization: Growth of extreme groups, both on the left (to defend this path) and on the right (frustrated and tired of it).
Viable Alternatives:
Threshold Systems: Ensure that minority parties need to reach a significant vote threshold to gain parliamentary representation.
Promotion of Local Majority Voting: Favors the election of representatives with strong ties to their communities.
Negative Characteristics of Democracies
United States – Influence of Money in Elections
Politics is dominated by large donors and corporate lobbies.
Brazil – Systemic Corruption and Populism
Deep-rooted corruption practices undermine the credibility of the political system.
France and Belgium – Ghettoization and Lack of Integration
The creation of isolated communities generates constant social tensions.
Italy – Government Instability
High turnover of governments undermines consistent public policies.
Conclusion
Building an ideal democratic system requires balancing the inclusion of diverse voices with the preservation of social unity. Democracies must promote transparency, digital innovation, and intelligent cultural integration while avoiding excessive fragmentation and minority domination over the common good.
Ricardo wrote: "Alan wrote: "INTRODUCTION TO THE “COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS” TOPICWhen I was an undergraduate political science major during the 1960s, I was interested in taking political science cour..."
Thank you for your information and analysis.
I've never understood proportional voting systems. We don't have proportional voting in the USA, and I've not, to date, studied them in other countries. There are, however, individuals and groups that argue for the adoption of proportional voting in this country, for example in the US House of Representatives. I don't understand how they think this is possible under the prescribed structure of the U.S. Constitution.
Alan wrote: "Ricardo wrote: "Alan wrote: "INTRODUCTION TO THE “COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS” TOPICWhen I was an undergraduate political science major during the 1960s, I was interested in taking politi..."
As far as I know, this voting system does not exist in democracies, nor have I seen it in other contexts. This concept emerged in my mind as a response to balance the entire electoral system, which is generally biased, manipulative, or even corrupt.
The lack of literacy in various areas, deficient education systems, constant manipulation, and misinformation rhetoric affect the most disadvantaged classes far more significantly—not minorities, but rather the majority of the population in each nation—when it comes to education, identity, and sense of belonging. As a result, it is much more likely that these classes will vote in an irrational or poorly informed way, often choosing candidates with whom they emotionally identify.
Given that this problem is widespread and global, it is important to implement mechanisms that mitigate these cognitive deficiencies. In this sense, a voting system with different weights based on pre-defined parameters brings balance and highlights the role of literacy, competence, and citizenship in choosing governance leaders.
Another advantage of this system is that it ultimately encourages better and more informed education among the population, as everyone will seek to have a greater voting weight. Over time, the majority of the population would achieve significantly higher levels of civic education, critical thinking, rationality, and ethics.
Closest Examples:
Although no formal system uses different voting weights based on educational levels, some parallel examples exist: councils or institutions where expertise weighs heavily on decisions, such as advisory boards or technical commissions influencing government decisions without directly altering suffrage.
The conventional voting system in democracies follows the principle of "one person, one vote." This system appears to be the most fair and balanced, at least in theory. However, this is precisely where one of its greatest problems lies: in today's populations, there is no homogeneity in educational, cultural, or civic levels — quite the opposite.Various factors have contributed to creating populations with cognitive and emotional limitations and vulnerabilities. These include persistent socio-economic problems, serious flaws in educational systems, dysfunctional families, decades of political and religious manipulation, outdated and biased school curricula, systemic corruption, widespread misinformation, conspiracy theories, and partisan, economic, and personal interests.
The impact of these factors varies depending on each individual's resilience, critical thinking ability, personality, and social values. Nevertheless, it is perfectly reasonable to deduce that there is no sufficiently solid common ground among citizens who possess the competencies, integrity, rationality, and ethics required to vote consciously and responsibly.
Given this scenario, it is essential to implement mechanisms that can, as much as possible, correct these gaps and errors in the evaluation and validation of votes. A logical proposal would be to accurately and impartially assess the educational levels and civic competencies of each individual, assigning them a specific weight in the voting process.
Naturally, this proposal presents significant challenges and raises complex questions: how can civic competencies be assessed? What types of education and training should be valued?
These aspects would need to be thoroughly analyzed to develop a set of norms or guidelines — or even legislation — that would guarantee a foundational model entirely free from political, religious, economic, or partisan bias. The system would need to assign points to citizens based on criteria such as:
Professional Competencies:
Citizens with proven experience in technical, educational, scientific, or health-related fields could receive additional weight, given their exposure to critical analysis, problem-solving, and leadership.
Example: An engineer, teacher, or scientific researcher could score higher by demonstrating participation in projects that benefit society.
Public Behavioral History:
Active participation in civic associations, community projects, and volunteer activities.
Example: Individuals involved in NGOs, environmental campaigns, or urban innovation projects could receive additional points.
Criminal Record:
A clean record would be valued. Serious crimes, such as corruption, fraud, or violence, should significantly reduce the score.
Effective Contributions to Society:
Regular payment of taxes without tax evasion would be positively evaluated.
Example: Small business owners who generate jobs and contribute to the local economy could receive proportional recognition.
Exemplary Citizenship Practices:
Proven participation in informed public discussions and previous voting activities.
Example: Citizens who regularly vote and participate in local civic debates could be rewarded.
Education and Civic Literacy:
Participation in certified programs on ethics, politics, citizenship, and conflict resolution.
Example: Completion of courses on democracy, sustainability, or public management could add points.
It is crucial to ensure that the criteria are dynamic, adaptable to social changes, and reviewed by an independent commission.
It is important to emphasize that the goal would never be to format individuals into robots aligned with a single set of values or behaviors. On the contrary, this structure should encourage critical thinking and the diversity of ideas and opinions, as long as they respect fundamental principles such as healthy coexistence, the common good, common sense, rationality, and ethics.
Encouraging Progress:
Another benefit of this system would be the incentive for better and more informed education among the population, as everyone would want to have a greater weight in the voting process. Over time, the majority of the population would reach much higher levels of civic education, critical thinking, rationality, and ethics, promoting a more conscious and balanced society.
Ricardo wrote: "A logical proposal would be to accurately and impartially assess the educational levels and civic competencies of each individual, assigning them a specific weight in the voting process."I have explained my strong opposition to weighted voting schemes in earlier Goodreads posts and in my review of Ricardo’s book. Governments are unreliable instruments for such power: imagine what scheme the Trump administration would come up with! According to the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, all people should be treated equally before the law. There should be no castes mandated by law. The only solution to the crisis of irrationality is in the long-term project of civic education and rational persuasion. As Lord Acton observed, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (quoting from memory). Government cannot be trusted for such coercive fine-tuning.
Alan wrote: "Ricardo wrote: "A logical proposal would be to accurately and impartially assess the educational levels and civic competencies of each individual, assigning them a specific weight in the voting pro..."Alan, you probably misunderstood or misinterpreted the implementation of this system, and I will explain below why:
Equality before the law:
The system I propose does not serve any caste nor discriminate against people before the law and public order. On the contrary, the intention is to guarantee more fair and responsible electoral participation without excluding anyone.
Justice and impartiality:
The goal is not to create privileges but to move toward a voting system that is more conscious, based on clear and impartial criteria. All citizens retain the right to vote, but civic responsibility, education, and citizenship competencies can be valued to ensure more informed and rational collective decisions.
Intelligent Supervision:
As I explain in my book, this system would be carefully considered and adjusted to each social and economic reality. The supervision or moderation would be entrusted to highly well-defined and auditable AI algorithms, functioning transparently to prevent biases, corruption, and political manipulation.
Protection Against Manipulation:
This model does not allow political, economic, or religious manipulation, as it is implemented within the Technomeritocracy governance framework. The characteristics of this system eliminate the influence of economic and political elites, who often seek to serve their own interests rather than those of the nation.
Inclusive Participation:
Unlike "elitist censorship," this proposal encourages greater education and civic engagement, where each individual, upon realizing they can have more influence on collective decisions, is motivated to develop civic competencies and values.
Conclusion:
The proposed model aims to foster a more conscious, critical, and ethical society, with the help of technology to moderate complex decisions while dismantling interest games from elites. This structure strengthens governance by genuinely prioritizing national interests over private agendas.
Ricardo wrote: "As I explain in my book, this system would be carefully considered and adjusted to each social and economic reality. The supervision or moderation would be entrusted to highly well-defined and auditable AI algorithms, functioning transparently to prevent biases, corruption, and political manipulation."That's your plan, but I am a student of history, and it would never work the way you envision. Instead, I see a fantastic potential for people who would be in control of the algorithms to create a totalitarian state. We have already seen with our own eyes what such technology has done in China. And we see how algorithms have been used by the technical elite to create all kinds of evil in the West.
It would be a caste system where those who don't have the right scores on the politically manipulated algorithms would be second, third, and fourth class citizens. This is not a glitch in your technical system; it is a deliberate design feature. It is the stuff of horror movies.
This is a fundamental error of modernity: to think that science and technology can create a utopian future. Science and technology have their place, but we must never forget their dangers. In the last analysis, it all depends on humans--in this case the humans who design the algorithms. History has shown again and again that we cannot proceed on the premise that humans given such power can be trusted.
I am 100% certain that this will never happen in the USA unless Trump succeeds in this obvious plan to become a dictator with his first buddy Elon Musk. Trust me, Musk would be the one designing such a system, and he would do so in way that would ensure fascist rule for eternity. Your plan is totally inconsistent with the US Constitution and laws, but Trump, Musk, and JD Vance are already saying that the courts have no business preventing a presidential dictatorship. They are throwing the Constitution and laws out the window. Eventually, they will not even obey an order of the US. Supreme Court. They might approach you to learn how they could permanently rig the electoral system to continue their ilk in power forever. On the other hand, Musk and his minions don't need you to tell them how to do it. They are probably already planning it.
I don't know why you and I have to keep going back and forth on the same issue. You keep repeating yourself, and I keep repeating myself. We are probably trying the patience of other members of this group. We've both stated our positions at length. Let's leave it at that.
Alan wrote: "Ricardo wrote: "As I explain in my book, this system would be carefully considered and adjusted to each social and economic reality. The supervision or moderation would be entrusted to highly well-..."Alright, I recognize that we have quite distinct positions on this topic. I agree that the recent history of the U.S., marked by growing polarization and institutional challenges, may justify your skepticism regarding the acceptance of significant changes in mindset and public policies. Indeed, historical and cultural contexts shape these perceptions and reactions.
From my perspective, I observe that the current state of affairs faces serious failures, especially due to the lack of control, clear rules, rationality, honesty, and social justice. This often results from poorly chosen leaders or systems vulnerable to manipulation. Therefore, I consider it essential to create mechanisms free from emotions and personal interests, controlled by an independent entity, similar to the judicial system in various European countries. This entity should be constitutionally safeguarded against external influences, with its activity regulated solely by parliamentary suffrage.
I understand the risks associated with the use of AI, but I believe that it is, as you mentioned, similar to the evolution of viruses and antiviruses in the digital age: there will always be people who will use it both for good and for self-serving interests. We cannot escape this reality; we need to learn to live with this technology, maximizing its potential for progress, sustainability, and social justice.
I agree that this is a topic that generates many arguments, but I also believe it can enrich the debate. I will stop here as well, respecting the patience of the other group members. However, I see this exchange as an opportunity to reflect and discuss ideas that, sooner or later, will need to be addressed.
Ricardo wrote: "I agree that this is a topic that generates many arguments, but I also believe it can enrich the debate. I will stop here as well, respecting the patience of the other group members. However, I see this exchange as an opportunity to reflect and discuss ideas that, sooner or later, will need to be addressed."Thank you. I don't have anything to add to our very exhaustive discussion, and I will not add anything in the future. As founding moderator of this Goodreads group, I will delete any of your future posts that address, explicitly or implicitly, the pros or cons of weighted voting. If, however, another group member addresses your weighted-voting scheme, I will permit you to respond.
Alan wrote: "Ricardo wrote: "I agree that this is a topic that generates many arguments, but I also believe it can enrich the debate. I will stop here as well, respecting the patience of the other group members..."Ok, that sounds perfectly fair and reasonable.
I would like to get the discussion in the present topic back to its subject: “Comparative Government and Politics.” I am currently studying the governmental systems in countries other than my own (USA). I will be posting some comments in the future about this topic, and I welcome comments of other group members about same.Again, I request that all group members posting comments in this Goodreads group review the Rules and Housekeeping topic. I added a rule this morning.
Alan E. Johnson
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
Founding Moderator of the “Political Philosophy and Ethics” Goodreads group
Re: msg #1 this thread by AEJGadzooks! I'm frankly astounded at your latest reading program, Alan. That is a weightier list of books than a typical undergraduate completes in two years.
Comparing constitutions from regimes around the world? Is quite a formidable undertaking. But if any man can do it, it is certainly yourself. I know it will inform your forthcoming book on best-practices-in-government.
Otherwise --I feel that --for common lay-people at least -- 'comparative government' --is a dangerously deceptive and insidiously seductive idea to someone like Ricardo Castro. Or, to anyone similar to he, who wants to 'reform the world' from the confines of his armchair.
It is a devil's arithmetic to assume that 'finding the right kind of people' and then 'placing the right kind of people' in world leadership positions, will heal world problems. This is nothing short of a eugenicist's mindset.
I've seen this atrocious/reductionist concept underlying the agenda of several new Goodreads authors lately. Hideous and revolting. Horrendous.
Biting my tongue here to keep any further criticism at bay. I don't wish to be unfair.
Feliks wrote: "Comparing constitutions from regimes around the world? Is quite a formidable undertaking."It is important for a political philosopher or political scientist to understand the various political regimes around the world. I've been living in relative ignorance about this, which is problematic for one who addresses complicated questions of international politics and political philosophy. It is good that there are currently many good books on this subject. That was not the case when I was in my teens and twenties. I find these recent books on comparative government very interesting. They are fascinating because they unlock the erstwhile mystery (to me) of how these polities actually operate.
I’m also rereading (for at least the third time) Aristotle’s Politics, which Leo Strauss called the first work of political science. Among other things, Aristotle discusses the forms of government of the many Greek polities of his time.
PRESIDENTIAL MONARCHIES“Presidential monarchies provide a natural platform for leaders who want to set themselves apart from–and above–all others. In such systems, presidents use what they define as their direct mandate from the people to cast a shadow over competing institutions such as the courts and the legislature. While they do not usually go so far as to reduce these bodies to completely token status (they particularly need the courts and the bureaucracy to keep things running), they work to concentrate power in themselves and their supporters rather than to distribute it among institutions. It is this lack of institutionalization that is the central feature of the authoritarian executive, and what we find in its place is the tradition of personalism . . . .”
John McCormick, Martin Harrop, and Rod Hague, Comparative Government and Politics, 13th ed. (Bloomsbury Academic, 2025), 204, Kindle
FEBRUARY 25, 2025 NOTE: Compare the foregoing definition of “presidential monarchies” to what is going on right now in the second Trump administration. It is clear, from his own public statements and actions, that this is Trump’s intention. Time will tell whether he will be successful in this project.
“O CANADA!”The foregoing is, of course, the title of the Canadian national anthem.
Canada’s form of government is different from that of the United States. It is a parliamentary democracy. However, its head of government is the UK monarch, advised by the governor general of Canada. This is basically a ceremonial arrangement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm... for details.
Mark Carney will shortly become the prime minister of Canada, following his election by members of the Liberal Party. Under Canadian law, parliamentary elections will have to be conducted on or before October 20, 2025. The party who has the most members of Parliament as a result of that election will name its leader as prime minister, assuming that such party has a majority of the total members of Parliament or can assemble a majority with the assistance of another party or parties.
For a fascinating discussion about Mark Carney, see the Politico article at https://www.politico.com/news/magazin....
PUTIN-TRUMP COMPARISONSee the following April 7, 2025 article by Anastasi Edel titled “Why America’s Oligarchs May Regret Their Obedience: Putin’s Russia Shows What Happens When Billionaire Businessmen Choose to Back a Strongman”: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc... (gift article).
This article provides an excellent summary of how Putin came to have the power in Russia that he currently has and how Trump’s ideas and actions are similar—though not, of course identical—to Putin’s historical transformation of Russia into an authoritarian state.
re: msg #18, by AEJhttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
"The business of America, is business" --Republican Pres. Calvin Coolidge, January 1925.
[This quote is not verbatim, because press re-worded it at the time.] But I'm merely repeating Cal's famous quip to underscore my own opinion which I'm voicing here.
Namely that the USA --always suffering so many poorly-educated "George Babbitt" -type businessmen in our Congress --this has long been a dangerous infirmity in our system.
Though Coolidge himself was an Amherst man, 'business leaders' are not always ideal as statesmen. Coolidge was followed by Hoover and Hoover [though 'educated' also] was followed by The Great Crash ( October '29).
Feliks wrote: "re: msg #18, by AEJhttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
"The business of America, is business" --Republican Pres. Calvin Coolidge, January 1925.
[This quote is not ve..."
Yes. Government is essentially different from business. You can't run government like a business without destroying government, which Trump, Musk, et al. are doing before our eyes.
Many people don't see that right now. But I think they will understand it sometime during the next year or two (just in time for the midterm elections), as this country and its Constitution fade into oblivion. Trump's tariffs will destroy the US economy and, most likely, the world's. His other policies and actions will turn this country into an authoritarian dictatorship. However, I think that he will cause so much destruction that the Republicans will be lost in the wilderness for an extended period of time, just as the Republicans were in the Great Depression.
PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS JUDICIAL REVIEWThe United Kingdom and some other countries follow the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam...).
As I explain on pages 316-17 of my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (https://www.academia.edu/13797615/Ala...), Sir Edward Coke, who became Chief Justice of the English Court of Common Pleas, attempted
to uphold the rule of law against the views of James I and Charles I that the monarch was above the law and had absolute power. However, Coke also taught that there were limits to parliamentary legislation. His most famous judicial opinion, Dr. Bonham’s Case, [endnote omitted] was rendered the same year as his pronouncement on the limitations of royal proclamations. In that case, Coke held that “when an Act of Parliament is against Common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will control it, and adjudge such Act to be void [endnote omitted]. More than three centuries later, Sir Winston Churchill observed that “Coke’s claim that the fundamental law of custom and tradition could not be overbourne, even by Crown and Parliament together, and his dream of judges in a Supreme Court of Common Law declaring what was or what was not legal, had been extinguished in England for ever” by the mid-seventeenth-century English Civil Wars, in which “the idea had emerged that an Act of Parliament was the final authority.” Although the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy became established in Great Britain, Coke’s concept of what we now call judicial review “survived . . . across the ocean, one day to emerge in an American revolution directed against both Parliament and Crown”[endnote omitted]. It received its classic American formulation in Chief Justice John Marshall’s Opinion of the Court in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). In concluding that “the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void,” Chief Justice Marshall echoed and developed the logic of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 78 (1788).See also chapter 2 (“Governmental Recognition and Protection of Individual Rights”) of my book Reason and Human Government (https://www.academia.edu/145862733/Al...).
THE UK SUPREME COURTThis March 3, 2026 SCOTUSblog article provides an excellent description of the UK Supreme Court and the many ways in which it differs from the US Supreme Court: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/th....
This article should be compared to the information conveyed in the preceding post.
When I was an undergraduate political science major during the 1960s, I was interested in taking political science courses in the following areas: political philosophy, US government, US constitutional law, international law and politics, and comparative government. (I was not interested in behavioralism [see Wikipedia article], which was the political science fad of the day.)
I was able to take courses in each of my preferred areas except for comparative government. No course in comparative government was available to undergraduates at my college at that time.
Now, decades later, I still find myself in relative ignorance regarding comparative government and politics, except for the history of some authoritarian governments I have studied in depth, for example, the Soviet Union, present-day Russia, and Nazi Germany. Accordingly, I have now embarked on my own reading program in order to rectify my ignorance. I have downloaded on Kindle and am currently reading the following books on this subject: (1) John McCormick, Rod Hague, and Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics, 12th ed. (Bloomsbury Academic, 2022); (2) Peter Leyland, The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis, 4th ed. (Hart, 2021); (3) Ulrich Haltern, The Constitution of the European Union: A Contextual Analysis (Hart, 2025); and (4) Tom Ginsburg and Alberto Simpser, eds., Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
The series “Constitutional Systems of the World” includes more than fifty books regarding specific constitutional regimes throughout the world. The entire series can be accessed by typing “Constitutional Systems of the World” in the title blank on the Amazon book search page.