Wangun pamaréntahan: Béda antara owahan
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
c →Pranala njaba: All info is kept in Wikidata, removed: {{Link FA|ca}} using AWB (10903) |
c mbenakaké éjaan using AWB |
||
Larik 1:
{{Wangun pamaréntahan}}
'''Wangun pamaréntahan''' kuwi istilah kang ngrujuk marang tatanan [[institusi]] [[pulitik]] kanggo nata [[
Gréja, prusahaan, klub, lan èntitas sangisoré tataran nasional liyané uga duwé wangun "pamaréntahan", ananging jroning artikel iki mung organisasi
Wolulas
* [[Australia]], [[Bahama]], lan [[Dominica]] kuwi sacara resmi sawijining [[persemakmuran]] utawa ''[[commonwealth]]''.
* [[Luksemburg]] kuwi awangun ''[[Grand duchy]]''.
* [[Uni Èmirat Arab]] kuwi kumpulan
* [[Rusia]], [[Swiss]], lan [[Saint Kitts & Nevis]] kuwi [[federasi]].
* [[Libia]] kuwi [[jamahiriya]]
* Ana 33 [[monarki|karajan]] ing donya, nanging 18 kang bener-bener karajan, déné 15 liyané dikenal minangka [[realms]]. Jordan kuwi sacara khusus sawijining Karajan [[Hashemite]], lan Inggris lan Irlandia Lor isih nonjolaké sajarahé dhéwé-dhéwé lan nyawiji dadi [[United Kingdom]].
* [[Andorra]], [[Liechtenstein]], lan [[Monako]] kuwi arupa [[prinsipalitas]]
* [[Republik]] kuwi wangun pamarétahan kang paling akèh dianggo, paling sethithik sacara resminé, yakuwi déning 132
<!--
The invocation of democracy is common in the official names of republics - [[North Korea]] is a Democratic [[People's Republic]], four states are simply Democratic Republics, and [[Sri Lanka]] is a Democratic [[Socialist Republic]].
Larik 56:
On the surface, identifying a form of government appears to be easy. Most would say that the United States is a [[democratic republic]] while the former Soviet Union was a [[totalitarian state]]. However, as Kopstein and Lichbach (2005:4) argue, defining regimes is tricky. Defining a form of government is especially problematic when trying to identify those elements that are essential to that form. There appears to be a disparity between being able to identify a form of government and identifying the necessary characteristics of that form. For example, in trying to identify the essential characteristics of a [[democracy]], one might say "elections." However, both citizens of the former [[Soviet Union]] and citizens of the [[United States]] voted for candidates to public office in their respective states. The problem with such a comparison is that most people are not likely to accept it because it does not comport with their sense of reality. Since most people are not going to accept an evaluation that makes the former [[Soviet Union]] as democratic as the [[United States]], the usefulness of the concept is undermined. In political science, it has long been a goal to create a typology or taxonomy of [[polities]], as typologies of political systems are not obvious <ref>Lewellen, Ted C. ''Political Anthropology: An Introduction Third Edition''. Praeger Publishers; 3rd edition (November 30, 2003)</ref>. It is especially important in the [[political science]] fields of [[comparative politics]] and [[international relations]]. One important example of a book which attempts to do so is [[Robert Dahl]]'s [[Polyarchy]] (Yale University Press (1971)).
One approach is to further elaborate on the nature of the characteristics found within each regime. In the example of the [[US]] and the [[Soviet Union]], both did conduct elections, and yet one important difference between these two regimes is that the [[USSR]] had a [[single-party system]], with all other parties being outlawed. In contrast, the United States effectively has a [[bipartisan]] system with political parties being regulated, but not forbidden. A system generally seen as a [[representative democracy]] (for instance [[Canada]], [[India]] and the [[United States]]) may also include measures providing for: a degree of [[direct democracy]] in the form of [[referendum]]s and for [[deliberative democracy]] in the form of the extensive processes required for constitutional amendment.
Another complication is that a number of [[political systems]] originate as [[socio-economic movement]]s and are then carried into governments by specific [[political party|parties]] naming themselves after those movements. Experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves. Some examples are as follows:
*Perhaps the most widely cited example of such a phenomenon is the [[communist]] movement. This is an example of where the resulting political systems may diverge from the original socio-economic [[ideologies]] from which they developed. This may mean that adherents of the [[ideologies]] are actually ''opposed'' to the political systems commonly associated with them. For example, activists describing themselves as [[Trotskyist]]s or communists are often opposed to the [[communist state]]s of the 20th century.
*[[Islamism]] is also often included on a list of movements that have deep implications for the form of government. Indeed, many nations in the [[Islamic world]] use the term ''Islamic'' in the name of the state. However, these [[governments]] in practice exploit a range of different mechanisms of power (for example [[debt]] and appeals to [[nationalism]]). This means that there is no single form of government that could be described as “Islamic” government. Islam as a political movement is therefore better seen as a loose grouping of related political practices rather than a single, coherent political movement.
*The basic principles of many other popular movements have deep implications for the form of government those movements support and would introduce if they came to power. For example, [[bioregional democracy]] is a pillar of [[green politics]].
-->
| |||