A political system is a system of politics and government.

It is usually compared to the legal

system, economic system, cultural system, and othersocial systems. However, this is a very
simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the questions of who should
have authority and what the government's influence on its people and economy should be.

Meaning:
Each society must have a political system in order to maintain recognized
procedures for allocating valued resources. In large complex societies, many
decisions must be made about the duties and responsibilities of citizens and
also about the rights and privileges.

If the society is to be orderly, people must obey the rules that are made. The
political institution determines and enforces the laws and punishes those who
disobey them.

Even in stateless societies which had no developed formal central institutions

were seen having some kind of decision-making and rule-making processes
which were dominated by some members. As societies become wealthier and
more complex, political systems develop and grow more powerful.

According to renowned political scientists, Gabriel Almond and James

Coleman (1960), Political system is that system of interactions to be found in
all independent societies which performs the functions of integration and
adaptation by means of legitimate physical compulsion.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (1994) defines it as, a political

system in any persistent pattern of human relationship that involves (to a
significant extent) power, rule and authority. It is a collectivity of political
institutions (e.g., government), associations (e.g., political parties) and
organizations performing roles based on a set of norms and goals (like
maintaining internal order, regulating foreign relations, etc.). Sociologically, the
term political system refers to the social institution which relies on a
recognized set of procedures for implementing and achieving the political
goals of a community or society.

Functions of a Political System:

Almond and Coleman (1960) have described the following three main
functions of a political system:
1. To maintain integration of society by determining norms.

2. To adapt and change elements of social, economic, religious systems

necessary for achieving collective (political) goals.

3. To protect the integrity of the political system from outside threats.

They have grouped these functions into two categories:

(1) Input functionspolitical socialization, interest articulation, interest
aggregation, and political communication; and

(2) output functionsrule making, rule application and rule adjudication.

Eisenstadt (1966) has classified the functions of a political system as:

(i) legislative,

(ii) decision-making, and

(iii) administrative.

Types of Political Systems:

According to Edward Shills, there are three main types of political systems.
These are discussed as under:
Totalitarian system:
A system in which the state controls and regulates all phases of life
considered essential for perpetuating its power and for carrying out
programmes arbitrarily. It is the most extreme form of authoritarianism. Unlike
democracies, where a variety of groups struggle for a voice in government,
the government dictates the societys values, ideology, rules and form of
government.

Societies having totalitarian system do not permit dissent. The centralized

authority always dominates over the autonomy of individual or sub-groups
within the society. Mussolinis Italy, Hitlers Nazi Germany and Stalins Soviet
Union are often quoted as examples of totalitarian states.

Totalitarian states are ruled by one political party that organizes the citizens
into a unified group. In practice, the state is represented by a politically
powerful ruling class or elite that dominates all other interest groups.

Oligarchic system:
Any form of government in which there is a rule by a few, for example, by
members of a self-regulating elite having domination over a large society is
known as an oligarchic political system. It is a system in which a small group
(elites) rules and holds supreme power over a larger society.

Democratic system:
In its broadest sense, democracy is a way of life in which an individual feels
free to act within accepted boundaries of norms and also equal in respects of
his/her rights. In the narrower sense, it is a form of government, a power
structure in which people govern themselves.
People participate in the government through their representatives that they
elect. In other words, people represent themselves and take their own
decisions. It is an imagination of the replica of an equalitarian society.

The most fundamental purpose of national security policy is not to keep the nation safe from physical
attack but to defend the constitutional order. At least, that is what President Reagan wrote in a Top
Secret 1986 directive.

The primary objective of U.S. foreign and security policy is to protect the integrity of our democratic
institutions and promote a peaceful global environment in which they can thrive, President Reagan
wrote in National Security Decision Directive 238 on Basic National Security Strategy, which was
partially declassified in 2005.

In a list of national security objectives, the directive does note the imperative to protect the United
States from military, paramilitary, or terrorist attack.

But that is not the primary objective, according to the Reagan directive. Defense of the Constitution
evidently takes precedence.

The first purpose of national security policy is to preserve the political identity, framework and
institutions of the United States as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, President Reagan wrote.

This is a remarkable statement, for several reasons. First, it recognizes that the political identity and
institutions of the United States are not simply a given, but that they are vulnerable to many types of
threats and must be actively defended and sustained. This task is not normally assigned the
urgency or the priority given to national security.

Second, the directive distinguishes between constitutional governance and physical security. Not
every measure intended to promote security is constitutional. And not every act in defense of
democratic self-governance is likely to promote public safety. (The American Revolution was not
calculated to increase homeland security. Quite the opposite.) Sometimes a choice between the
two is required. President Reagan indicated what he thought the choice should be.

And third, the directive is remarkable because its rhetoric was so imperfectly realized by the Reagan
Administration (and egregiously defied in the Iran-Contra Affair) and has been largely abandoned by
its successors.
Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal
Government, wrote President George W. Bush in his 2002 National Security Strategy, skipping over
President Reagans primary objective.

Likewise, As President, I have often said that I have no greater responsibility than protecting the
American people, President Obama wrote in his National Strategy for Counterterrorism.

The Reagan directive invites reflection on what U.S. national security policy would look like if it were
truly structured above all to protect the integrity of our democratic institutions.

In a section of the directive that was only classified Confidential, President Reagan contrasted the
U.S. with the Soviet Union, which was described as its polar opposite.

Our way of life, founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual, depends on a stable and
pluralistic world order within which freedom and democratic institutions can thrive. Yet, the greatest
threat to the Soviet system, in which the State controls the destiny of the individual, is the concept of
freedom itself.

The survival of the Soviet system depends to a significant extent upon the persistent and
exaggerated representation of foreign threats, through which it seeks to justify both the subjugation
of its own people and the expansion of Soviet military capabilities well beyond those required for self-
defense, President Reagan wrote.

Numerous Presidential directives from the Reagan Administration have been declassified in recent
years and have released by the Reagan Library, though others still remain partially or completely
classified. Many of the declassified directives provide a fascinating account that enlarges and
enriches the public record of events of the time.

Only last year, for example, a 1985 directive (NSDD-172) on Presenting the Strategic Defense
Initiativewas finally declassified.

This year, NSDD 159 on Covert Action Policy Approval and Coordination Procedures (1985) was
declassified.

NSDD 207 on The National Program for Combatting Terrorism (1986) was declassified in 2008.
Among other things, that directive ordered the Attorney General to Review the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and determine whether terrorist movements or organizations are abusing its
provisions.