What I really interested in is to understand whether cross-country differences in political regimes are stemming from variations in cultural/religious factors or they are just results of differences in economic conditions such as the distribution of wealth, income, or power.
Kings appear to have existed in all religions, although Europe may be the only group of societies to naturally employ democracy. This is normally put down to the rise of puritanism but equally may have had something to do with the riches gained from 17th century colonisation of the Americas and the introduction of the slave trade there. But certainly breaking away from Catholocism aided the growth of the middle classes and democracy in Northern Europe. There is some evidence of early, primitive democracies in Europe.
The Near East has a long history of extremely powerful kings and the creation of king-like or imperial gods. Monotheism seems a natural product of the Near East. Islam, with its ideas of obedience, top down control and cummunity based conformity, seems a natural source of monarchies and dictators. Islam has its own theory of kingship connected to revelation and the divine. It is not a natural soil perhaps for democracy.
Religions that concern themselves with ancestor reverence or worship tend also to be top-down as a rule through the overarching belief in dead leaders divine qualities.
I think that the question is not a tautological one as Mr. Schmitt stated. There can be significant differences in the form of political regime among a group of countries with similar cultural/religious heritage. To some extent, I agree that cultural factors can influence the political organization of societies. But, what I wonder is whether such factors are the ultimate sources of observed variations in the modern world. To be more specific, I try to understand whether the prevailing correlations between authoritarian/democratic regimes and certain types of cultures/religions (i.e. Asian, Latin American, European or Islamic/catholic, etc.) reflect variations in social preferences. Or, do they simply represent a spurious relationship and gloss over the impact of deeper factors such as economic conditions, or colonialism as Mr. Wilkins suggests.
It is a fact that concepts have universal applicability but it is also realistic that the impact of the milieu is relevant. Hence the need for the ecological perspective in the appraisal of political systems.
The homogeneity or heterogeneity of a society can influence the choice and implementation of a political model. For instance, a country may adopt a uni-cameral or bi-cameral legislature depending on its internal peculiarities, differently from another country operating the same political system. Additionally, a country can adopt a multi-party system different from another country operating the same political system which adopts a two-party system, also because of internal differences.
The degree of impact of cultural/religious factors on the choice of a political regime vis a vis the overall achievement of the goal of government is however dependent on the sincerity of purpose of the leadership and the political maturity of the people.
Dr. Daniel R. Ogbeide.
Types of political regimes are primarily influenced by economic conditions and by the degree of assertion of rights by working people, women and youth
Yes, in case of Indonesia. There is a 'conservative turn' that play an important factor in political sector in the last two decades
If Buddhism derives the human soul (atman) from the world soul (brahman), then the basic religious understanding is collective rather than individually oriented. Furthermore: a religion that sees man as a part of nature rather than as master over it, politics will not want to exploit creation in a way that a materialistic world view would allow. And finally: If a people believes itself chosen by God, dealing with "unbelievers" is also problematic on the political level; furthermore, promises of the religious scriptures easily become a political goal.
Culture, religion and other primordial factors may play a part in the contestation and or acquisition of political offices, or, even power itself, but the characters and forms of political regimes across countries are ultimately influenced or determined by the prevailing socieconomic conditions in countries. Witness, for instance, how identity politics has remained prevalent in Nigeria, and, how the competing elite political forces deploys that to gain electoral advantage, victory and power. Yet once in power, they are always able to form poltical regimes that bury their 'primordial differences' and operate in line with the dictates of their 'socioeconomic interests'.
Yes it plays a significant role, specially in the developing countries and it is veryvery commin practices in south Asian countries.
Culture and religion are social constructs as is political regimes. Cultures and are a great influence on temperaments. Temperaments determine what people will tolerate. The social contract with the rulers allows them to rule. The people's temperaments which are based on culture and religions will either tolerate bad leadership or rebel. Rebellion might show up in the form of electing new leadership or demanding for change and not necessarily taking up arms.
Max Weber was apologetic towards the influence of religion on the social and political way of nations organization - Protestantism is good for capitalism but Catholicism and orthodox not.
But today we see that in Eastern Europe political programs are pretty similar despite the differences in religion (Poland and Hungary catholic and Romania, Bulgaria orthodox). One can say that these countries are coming from one pagan religion (cultural dead-end) – Communist, with Lenin, Stalin, Marx and Engels as pantheon dwellers and this is a subject of academic evaluations.
To a large extent, cultures and religions of the world have a great impact on the nature of political leadership that is brought into office. During elections, voters tend to easily align themselves with persons who they share commonality of cultures and religions with....
By political regime is a set of rules, procedures, and understandings which govern relations between the state and society in a particular country (Macridis 1986:2). Rule ought to be the reflection of people belief system and culture. Hence religion and culture directly or indirectly influenced the choice of political regime. Take the case of Islamic dominated state, the Quran play a significant role in the affairs of the government just as the day-to-day affairs. More so, in less developed states, these factors play key role.
In the case of Turkey, I remember Küçükömer 1969 in Cantelmo 2015 saying that the Justice Party and Motherland Party liberalised Turkish society in the economic, religious, and to a lesser extent, the political spheres. This contrasts with the authoritarian regime of the secular Republican People's Party between 1923-1950. Based on the Turkish experience, parties supporting greater religious freedom have liberalised Turkey's political regime from authoritarian to hybrid, though this has been to varying degrees of success. This contrasts with periods of Turkish history when the CHP has been in power, either leading to single-party rule, political violence during the 60s and 70s, and secularist military coups. Whether this trend will continue to play out in the future is another story, where you could argue that the Ergenekon trials represent a step towards authoritarianism under the religious AKP instead of towards democracy. Time will tell.
Cultural and religious factors influence the shape of the political regime of the countries, substantially in terms of honesty and transparency.
Politics means polite and tricks or poly tricks. In politics lobbying, nepotism, rivalry, religion, culture, majority, etc dominate the talent or deserving candidate. Politics means contesting for a single chair. It is a dirty game. As such true gentleman avoids it.
Surely, in many instances the cultural/religious factors play a significant role in the type and form of political regime preferred by countries. However, this is most applicable for well advanced countries with great foresight. Miserably, African countries accept anything (any rubbish) given to them by colonization and globalization.
Political regime do not ask about cultural preferences. The question has problematic methodological background.
I do not think that there are any methodological issues in the question. The question examines whether or not the preferred regime type is merely a reflection of the religious/cultural heritage of the countries. So, it is a simple and clear question that can be addressed on both empirical and theoretical grounds.
Sure. To extend authority and governance beyond local chieftains or warlords to a wider society requires some sort of legitimation based on a social pact
Theocracies are all based on religious premises - consider Iran where a majority of the population believes that governance should be conducted on Islamic principles. Conversely many early states including ancient Egypt and Sumer based the authority of the ruler on their divine connections. A related later principle in monarchies was "the divine right of kings" - one reason why Christianity became so popular.
Both democracy and socialism claim something well beyond this - an authority based on 'natural justice' or order, applicable to all peoples at all times. This universality has its origins relatively recently in 'the Age of Reason".
I do not think the differences in democracies, which can be very pronounced even between neighbours, are due to cultural differences but more to institutions and constitutions established early in the process. So a historical rather than a cultural perspective is at play. I think this historicity can actually affect the culture of a country - consider the USA where its founding principles and form of governance have actually impacted on the whole society, making it very 'different' to anywhere else for good and bad.
I will relate this in case of Pakistan, there are three major religious political parties with a huge mass support but they fail to secure majority seats in the centre.
People here are easily flared up in the name of religious insolence but they don't want the clergy to involve in the ruling matters.
Politicians have used religion and culture to gain the mass support many times.
One more point is that, the sect followed by the majority in ruling party is given indirect favour.
I think if economics and particularly free markets and globalization and democracy as a corollary are incapable or fail to give solution to poverty throughout the world, we will see in the future the emergence of political systems more religiously and cultural based because people will seek other endogenous models of development.
To the extent of Pakistan, I think yes these factors play a significant role in formation of political regime. Last two governments in Pakistan (2008-2013 & 2013-18) were formed in collaboration with religious parties in the center and two provinces. The religious parties enjoy support of vast majority particularly, where school education indicators are low/poor. Historically, religious parties in Pakistan have been parcel of governments and always influenced law making.
Political regime can be very destructive according to cultural and moral values as well as to cultural identyties of particular groups and their cultural rights. Political regime very often do not ask about legitimation, that is why is a real "regime", to the moment of the next revolusion. If culture creates regime it is a kind of culture, maybe cultural regime or regime of culture, but there are o lot of relativism.
British democracy grew out of its local forms of governance, but equally through the growth of a middle class anxious for power in a top down society. Its historical premises, class conflicts (although largely contained) have all added to the broth.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India