The fault in our classifications

Classifying political regimes is important because it aids our understanding of politics and governments throughout history. This knowledge stems generally from comparing various regimes and by highlighting their similarities and differences so that we can evaluate regimes effectively. But the issue with all system classifications is in their oversimplification, impermanence, and questionable fundamentals.

Each regime is unique in its own way and is entirely different from another. Though it may be possible to group a few together based on their common traits, the differences are so substantial that I find the classifications pointless. The communist regime in North Korea will be the complete opposite to that which was adopted in USSR and grouping them both under the banner of communism would only complicate matters. Not only that, the danger of ethnocentrism causing comparative analysis to fail is all too real. In my opinion, the traditional classifications are overly simplified and the grouping of so many regimes under one category hampers complete analysis by assuming they are all the same.

Secondly, the volatility of all systems in this dynamic and ever changing world questions the validity of classifications. Ideologies and political systems transform so rapidly that the traditional and historical classifications need to constantly evolve and if they do not adapt at the pace of changing regimes, they become redundant. The constantly evolving polictical system makes historical analyses difficult if some regimes did not exist then and if thos edo not exist in the prenest.

 Lastly, the classifications are debated on what grounds they are formed. The issue is that these classifications are based on broad normative judgement forming descriptive analyses of the regimes. These are just subjective quantitative judgments being used as analytic devices therefore problems can arise. Should segmentation be based according to their productivities, economic power and growth rates as First, Second or Third Worlds or should ideological bases of political structures as Tyranny, Oligarchy or Democracy be used, or further, should economic structures and ownership be used to classify regimes as Capitalist, Fascist, Communist or Totalitarian?

The debate over grounds for formulating typologies discourages complete reliability in these classifications. Therefore, in summation, even though classification is an effective tool in aiding analysis, it provides an incomplete view that might lead to flawed or questionable analyses of political systems if seen at face value.