Reading List 1. "Africa, 1973," entire issue. Current History, March 1973. 2. Busia, Kofi Abrefa. Africa in Search of Democracy. New York: Praeger, 1967. 3. Carlson, Lucile. Africa's Lands and Nations. New York: 4. Cowan, Laing Gray. Black Africa: The Growing Pains of Independence, Headline Series. New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1972. 5. Ewing, A. F. Industry in Africa. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968. 6. Fitzgerald, Walter. Africa: A Social, Economic, and Political Geography of Its Major Regions. (10th ed. revised by W. C. Brice) London: Methuen, 1967. 7. Hance, William Adams. Population Migration and Urbanization in Africa. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1970. 8. Hatch, John Charles. Africa--The Rebirth of Self-rule. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967. 9. Hazlewood, Arthur, ed. African Integration and Disintegration: 10. Hodder, B. W. and Harris, D. R., eds. Africa in Transition: Geographical Essays. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967. 11. Hodgson, Robert David and Stoneman, Elvyn A. The Changing Map of Africa, 2d ed. Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1968. 12. Legvolt, Robert. Soviet Policy in West Africa. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1970. 13. Moore, Clark D. and Dunbar, Ann. Africa Yesterday and Today. New York: Bantam, 1968. 14. Robson, Peter. Economic Integration in Africa. Evanston, Ill. Northwestern Univ. Press, 1968. 15. Singleton, F. Seth and Shingler, John. Africa in Perspective. New York: Hayden, 1967. 16. Woolf, Leonard Sidney. Empire and Commerce in Africa; A Study in Economic Imperialism. New York: Howard Fertig, 1968. COMPARATIVE POLITICAL SYSTEMS During the twentieth century, the world has witnessed a turbulence in political systems probably unprecedented in the history of mankind. Governments based on new ideologies-communism, fascism, socialism--have come to power, and are actively seeking to convert other governments to their image by subversion as well as by overt power. Many changes have been caused by the impact of western civilization on traditional societies of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and to a lesser extent Latin America. Since World War II, political evolution has proceeded at an accelerated rate, leading in the past two decades to the creation of many new political, national entities, either by internal revolution or by voluntary or forces withdrawal of western political control. New political elites have come to power in many parts of the world. The United Nations has doubled in size during the past twenty years. This acceleration of change in political systems has taxed the ability of political scientists to categorize and compare the many different and changing governments in the modern world. New theories are being advanced. Scholars do not agree on terminology. And in some cases it is difficult to obtain detailed information on how government systems really operate. But despite these difficulties, it is essential to an appraisal of the world situation and to an assessment of our our national security that we have a basic understanding and working knowledge of the major political systems of the nations of the globe. Certain particularly significant patterns of government have emerged, partly out of history, partly out of force, and partly out of example. The chief patterns are the totalitarian system, also called the one-party dictatorship; the parliamentary pattern of Great Britain and the Commonwealth and the somewhat different parliamentary patterns of Western and Northern European countries; and the presidential pattern of the United States. Many other nations of the world have adopted these patterns, or variations of them. The Totalitarian System. This simplest of all modern political systems concentrates political authority in the executive. Administration is backed up by the strong influence of a highly organized political party. Law and the courts reinforce the standards of behavior laid down by the party leadership and ratified by the executive and the administration. All government organs reinforce the objectives of the regime. Objectives are formulated by the leaders of the one political party which directs not only political, but also economic, social, and personal affairs. Democratic Systems. Democratic systems, though varied, attempt to secure an effective representation of the electorate; establish a relationship between the groups representing the electorate and the executive which permits leadership; and establish checks and balances to limit the arbitrary use of power by the government and its officials. The most common democratic systems are the parliamentary pattern and the presidential pattern. The Parliamentary Pattern. The principal characteristic of a parliamentary system is the so-called fusion of the executive and the legislature. The executive becomes the governing group because it comprises the leaders of one or several political parties represented in the legislature who are able to obtain sufficient support within that body to pass the legislation embodied in their program. There is an interaction between executive and legislature which keeps them constantly interrelated and dependent on each other, but fulfilling different functions. The executive organizes the program, pushes it through the legislature, and supervises the administration. The members of the legislature consider the details of the program, criticize or support the executive's and administration's handling of their responsibilities, and keep alert to the comments and reactions of their constituents. The judiciary is non-political and independent; one court or another can make judgments on the legality of administrative acts by testing them against the statute or ordnance under which the action was taken. British Parliamentary System. The British parliamentary system evolved from two counterprocesses which operated at different periods of time. One process was that of limiting and differentiating the power of the monarch. The other process began in the eighteenth century, when the king began to select his 508-367 O-73-2 chief advisers or ministers from persons who had the confidence and support of a majority of the members of the House of Commons. Governmental leadership comes from the traditional British twoparty system and the right of the Crown (now exercised by the Prime Minister) to dissolve Parliament. The British Cabinet accepts its responsibility to act for the country as a whole and not merely as the organ of the majority party. The courts proceed from the premise that legislation is meant to be reasonable in intent, and to deal equally and fairly with all people. The Commonwealth of Nations. British parliamentary institutions have been adopted closely by Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; however, history and environment have added individual features. Canada and Australia are federal systems. Canadian political parties follow the American pattern more than the British. Australia and New Zealand took the lead in experiments with state ownership and compulsory arbitration of industrial disputes. In all three countries common political and intellectual heritage has been kept strong by ties of blood and ideal conditions for democracy, including middle-class social structures, a high degree of social mobility, and a balance between industry and agriculture. British institutions and parliamentary traditions are also found in several of the newer Commonwealth members (India, Malaya, and Nigeria), even though the literacy rate is low, the middle class is a small minority, and poverty is widespread. French Parliamentary System. In the traditional French system, the legislature dominated the ministry because it had created the ministry. In addition, the country had many political parties, none with a clear majority. For these reasons, France formerly had a weak, unstable executive incapable of providing consistent and effective leadership. The Constitution of the Fifth French Republic was designed to correct his imbalance. Since 1958, France has been governed by what some observers describe as a mixture of authoritarianism and technology, with technical experts directing administration under the general supervision of the President and the Cabinet. Under the Fifth French Republic, no Cabinet member may also be a member of the National Assembly, though he can appear before the body to direct discussions and explain policy. West Germany. The present West German system was intended to provide that country with a genuine parliamentary pattern |