1a) Descriptions of governments can be based on:
Economy - what provides the goods and services that are bought, sold, and used?
Capitalism-(Russia)--In a capitalist or free-market economy, people own their own businesses and property and must buy services for private use, such as healthcare
Socialism (Norway)-- Socialist governments own many of the larger industries and provide education, health and welfare services while allowing citizens some economic choices
Communism (Cuba)-- In a communist country, the government owns all businesses and farms and provides its people's healthcare, education and welfare.
Politics - how is the government run?
Dictatorship (Iraq)-- Rule by a single leader who has not been elected and may use force to keep control. In a military dictatorship, the army is in control. Usually, there is little or no attention to public opinion or individual rights.
Totalitarian (China)-- Rule by a single political party.
People are forced to do what the government tells them and may also be prevented from leaving the country.
Theocracy (Iran)-- A form of government where the rulers claim to be ruling on behalf of a set of religious ideas, or as direct agents of a deity.
Monarchy (Jordan)-- A monarchy has a king or queen, who sometimes has absolute power. Power is passed along through the family
Parliamentary (Israel)-- A parliamentary system is led by representatives of the people. Each is chosen as a member of a political party and remains in power as long as his/her party does
Republic (USA)-- A republic is led by representatives of the voters. Each is individually chosen for a set period of time.
Anarchy(Afghanistan?)-- Anarchy is a situation where there is no government.
This can happen after a civil war in a country, when a government has been destroyed and rival groups are fighting to take its place.
Authority - who picks the government?
Revolutionary (USA, France, USSR etc)-- The existing structure is overthrown by a completely new group. The new group can be very small - such as the military - or very large - as in a popular revolution. After a period of time, this 'becomes' one of the other type of government (unless there is another coup or uprising).
Totalitarian (North Korea)-- Rule by a single political party. Votes for alternative candidates and parties are simply not allowed. Citizens are allowed and 'encouraged' to vote, but only for the government's chosen candidates.
Oligarchy/Plutocracy (Pakistan)-- A form of government which consists of rule by an elite group who rule in their own interests, especially the accumulation of wealth and privilege. Only certain members of society have a valid voice in the government. This can reflect (but is not limited to) economic interests, a particular religious tradition (theocracy), or familial rule (monarchy).
Democracy (India)-- In a democracy, the government is elected by the people. Everyone who is eligible to vote - which is a majority of the population - has a chance to have their say over who runs the country.
2a.) democracy’s 5 types of governments (include single party dominant systems) 1. Democracy | The word "democracy" literally means "rule by the people." In a democracy, the people govern. | 2. Republic | | A literal democracy is impossible in a political system containing more than a few people. All "democracies" are really republics. In a republic, the people elect representatives to make and enforce laws. | 3. Monarchy | A monarchy consists of rule by a king or queen. Sometimes a king is called an "emperor," especially if there is a large empire, such as China before 1911. There are no large monarchies today. The United Kingdom, which has a queen, is really a republic because the queen has virtually no political power. | 4. Aristocracy | An aristocracy is rule by the aristocrats. Aristocrats are typically wealthy, educated people. Many monarchies have really been ruled by aristocrats. Today, typically, the term "aristocracy" is used negatively to accuse a republic of being dominated by rich people, such as saying, "The United States has become an aristocracy." | 5. Dictatorship | A dictatorship consists of rule by one person or a group of people. Very few dictators admit they are dictators; they almost always claim to be leaders of democracies. The dictator may be one person, such as Castro in Cuba or Hitler in Germany, or a group of people, such as the Communist Party in China. | 6. Democratic Republic | | Usually, a "democratic republic" is not democratic and is not a republic. A government that officially calls itself a "democratic republic" is usually a dictatorship. Communist dictatorships have been especially prone to use this term. For example, the official name of North Vietnam was "The Democratic Republic of Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The People's Republic of China." |
3a.)Authoritarianism’s 5 types of government * Authoritarian governments place all the power for making decisions, passing laws and conducting the business of the state with one individual or a very small group. These countries rise and fall on the strength of their rulers, who go down in history with a variety of names associated with them such as "great" or "terrible".
Autocracy
* In an autocracy, a person or group of people rule a nation with unlimited and unaccountable power. This type of authoritarian government differs from monarchy or theocracy in that it implies no hereditary ascension to power or religious support for leadership. It can, however have certain military characteristics. The Roman Empire's position of Cesar is an example of an autocrat with full command of the military. The only means to remove an autocrat from his position of authority is typically through revolution (in which the entire government is overthrown) or assassination of the ruler. The latter happened to more than a few Roman emperors through history.
Monarchy
* A monarchy consists of a single ruler appointed through birthright. This ruler has complete authority to move troops as he sees fit, levy taxes and make laws as he chooses without consultation of advisers or acknowledgment of the will of the people. The king or queen also functions as the head of state negotiating treaties or declaring war on foreign countries. Many powerful families throughout history have used the concept of "noble" birth to keep national power centralized. England, Spain and France have all used a monarchy authoritarian form of government in their past.
Theocracy
* A theocracy is an authoritarian system of government in which all a nation's power is centralized in a group of religious figures or one religious leader. This individual or group of acts as both religious leaders for the nation and its head of state. Laws in these nations are imposed through the interpretations of a holy text. For example, The Pope functions as both the head of state for Vatican City (which is its own nation) and the head of the Catholic faith. Once elected, a pope's power is absolute and no means exists to remove him from his office other than death.
Despotism
* Despotic rule exists as a more tyrannical form of authoritarian rule. Where monarchies, autocracies and other forms of government flourished with happy populations throughout history, despotic governments shutter the civil rights of its citizens and deal violently with vocal dissenters. The reigns of certain dictators like Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler have been associated with despotic rule.

4a.) separation of powers
Definition: The term separation of powers originated with the Baron de Montesquieu, a French enlightenment writer. However, the actual separation of powers amongst different branches of government can be traced to ancient Greece. The framers of the Constitution decided to base the American governmental system on this idea of three separate branches: executive, judicial, and legislative. The three branches are distinct and have checks and balances on each other. In this way, no one branch can gain absolute power or abuse the power they are given.
In the United States, the executive branch is headed by the President and includes the bureaucracy. The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.
5a.) Fusion of Power
Fusion of powers is a feature of parliamentary democracies, wherein the executive and legislative branches are intermingled. It is often contrasted with the more strict separation of powers found in the presidential democracies. Fusion of powers exists in many, if not a majority, of democracies today, and does so by design. But the system was the result of political evolution in Britain over many centuries, as the powers of the monarch and the upper house withered away, and the lower house became dominant
6a.) pure/impure bi-party systems vs. single-party or coalition government
Two-party systems can be compared with… * Multi-party systems. In these, the effective number of parties is greater than two but usually fewer than five; in a two-party system, the effective number of parties is two (according to one analysis, the actual average number of parties varies between 1.7 and 2.1.)[5] The parties in a multi-party system can control government separately or as a coalition; in a two-party system, however, coalition governments rarely form. Examples of nations with multi-party systems include Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Taiwan. * Single-party systems or dominant-party systems happen in nations where opposing parties are outlawed or restricted by the dominant party which wields power. Examples include rule by the Communist party of China and People's Action Party of Singapore.
A two–party system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices are members of one of the two major parties. Under a two-party system, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature and is usually referred to as the majority party while the other is the minority party. While the term two-party system is somewhat imprecise and has been used in different countries to mean different things, there is considerable agreement that a system is considered to be of a two-party nature when election results show consistently that all or nearly all elected officials belong to only one of the two major parties, such as in the United States. In these cases, the chances for third party candidates winning election to any office are remote, although it's possible for groups within the larger parties, or in opposition to one or both of them, to exert influence on the two major parties.
7a.) Multi-party systems vs single party or coalition government
A multi-party system is a system in which multiple political parties have the capacity to gain control of government separately or in coalition. The effective number of parties in a multi-party system is normally larger than two but lower than ten. It is a system where there are large amounts of major and minor political parties that all hold a serious chance of receiving office, and because they all compete, a majority may not come to be, forcing the creation of a coalition.[1]
Unlike a single-party system (or a non-partisan democracy), it encourages the general constituency to form multiple distinct, officially recognized groups, generally called political parties. Each party competes for votes from the enfranchised constituents (those allowed to vote). A multi-party system prevents the leadership of a single party from controlling a single legislative chamber without challenge.
If the government includes an elected Congress or Parliament the parties may share power according to proportional representation or the first-past-the-post system. In proportional representation, each party wins a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives. In first-past-the-post, the electorate is divided into a number of districts, each of which selects one person to fill one seat by a plurality of the vote. First-past-the-post is not conducive to a proliferation of parties, and naturally gravitates toward a two-party system, in which only two parties have a real chance of electing their candidates to office. This gravitation is known as Duverger's law. Proportional representation, on the other hand, does not have this tendency, and allows multiple major parties to arise.
A two-party system requires voters to align themselves in large blocs, sometimes so large that they cannot agree on any overarching principles. Along this line of thought, some theories argue that this allows centrists to gain control. On the other hand, if there are multiple major parties, each with less than a majority of the vote, the parties are strongly motivated to work together to form working governments. This also promotes centrism, as well as promoting coalition-building skills while discouraging polarization.
Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Indonesia, Japan, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Taiwan, Spain and Sweden are examples of nations that have used a multi-party system effectively in their democracies (though in many cases there are two parties always larger than the others). In these countries, usually no single party has a parliamentary majority by itself. Instead, multiple political parties usually form coalitions for the purpose of developing power blocs for governing.
A coalition government is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which several political parties cooperate. The usual reason given for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve a majority in the parliament. A coalition government might also be created in a time of national difficulty or crisis, for example during wartime, or economic crisis, to give a government the high degree of perceived political legitimacy, or [collective ideology] it desires whilst also playing a role in diminishing internal political strife. In such times, parties have formed all-party coalitions (national unity governments, grand coalitions). If a coalition collapses, a confidence vote is held or a motion of no confidence is taken.
8a) electoral systems
A voting system or electoral system is a method by which voters make a choice between options, often in an election or on a policy referendum.
A voting system contains rules for valid voting, and how votes are counted and aggregated to yield a final result. Since voting involves counting, it is algorithmic in nature, and, since it involves polling the sentiments of a person, this represents affective data. Together, with the exception of proxy voting, this corresponds to in-degree centrality in graph theory and social network analysis, with votes as directed edges, and voters and candidates as nodes.[1] Common voting systems are majority rule, proportional representation or plurality voting with a number of variations and methods such as first-past-the-post or preferential voting. The study of formally defined voting systems is called voting theory, a subfield of political science, economics, or mathematics.
With majority rule, those who are unfamiliar with voting theory are often surprised that another voting system exists, or that disagreements may exist over the definition of what it means to be supported by a majority. Depending on the meaning chosen, the common "majority rule" systems can produce results that the majority does not support. If every election had only two choices, the winner would be determined using majority rule alone. However, when there are three or more options, there may not be a single option that is most liked or most disliked by a majority. A simple choice does not allow voters to express the ordering or the intensity of their feeling. Different voting systems may give very different results, particularly in cases where there is no clear majority preference.
9a) uninominal/ single district based on the system of having only one member from each district (as of a legislature); "a uninominal electoral system single-member district or single-member constituency is an electoral district that returns one officeholder to a body with multiple members such as a legislature. This is also sometimes called single-winner voting.
Elections for single-member districts are held under a number of voting systems, including plurality (first past the post), runoffs, instant-runoff voting (IRV), approval voting, range voting, Borda count, and Condorcet methods (such as the Minimax Condorcet, Schulze method, and Ranked Pairs). Of these, plurality and runoff voting are the most common.
10a) Proportional representatives
Proportional representation (PR) is a generic term describing the voting systems that try to reproduce into a representative body the proportions of the different parts of the constituents - generally in an assembly election, for which such systems were devised. They are meant to solve the inequalities of party representation that happen with plurality voting systems, especially when there are more than two driving forces or when districts are of different sizes. The proportionality can be altered in many ways. Reducing it combats fragmentation, a well-known tendency of PR systems, and it is attained by the choice of a method for allocating seats, a threshold, or limiting the number of seats at stake (small constituencies, small assemblies).
Although the first recorded use of proportional representation was to distribute the seats of the United States House of Representatives to each State, their electoral function appeared in late 19th century Europe to best represent political parties and universal suffrage, which rose to prominence. They have become the widest form of voting system in the world, mostly in South America, Europe as well as being chosen by most nascent democracies across the world. On the other hand, countries under the Westminster system, New Zealand excepted, have resisted it. Ireland and Malta, with historical ties to this system, have embraced the single transferable vote.
There are a number of PR systems, and these are described below.
11a) Numerus clauses
Numerus clausus in Germany
The numerus clausus is currently used in Germany to address overcrowding and protect specific occupations—while the number of students has increased by 100% to two million since 1980, the number of professors has increased by only 25% in the same time period.
With successful completion of the academically-oriented and state-approved secondary school (usually graduation from a Gymnasium or completion of the highest of the various degrees offered by a Gesamtschule, sometimes graduation from a Kolleg, a Folk high school or a Berufsoberschule), a student passes the so-called Abitur exams. After this is completed, he receives a document that confirms his passing and lists his grades. This is then used to obtain either an implicit or an explicit permission to study at a university. The German state in which an Abitur is granted must honor the permission to study at a university.
There are several quotas at the German universities. * at least 2 percent of students admitted must be so called Härtefälle (disadvantaged students, including those with disabilities and those in a difficult personal situation, such as orphans or people who have to care for a sick family member) * 20 percent of the students admitted must be "talented 20", the students, who graduated with a GPA that put them in the top 20 percent of their class (it should be noted that very few high school age students in Germany receive the highest possible GPA) * 20 of the slots must be granted to the students who have been wait-listed for the longest time * in the rest of cases the college may pick its students. It may apply different criteria. * Although never officially legislated, between 1918 and the 1950s a number of private universities and medical schools introduced numerus clausus policies limiting admissions of students based on their religion or race to certain percentages within the college population. One of the groups affected by these policies was Jewish applicants, whose admission to some New England and New York City area liberal arts universities fell significantly between the late 1910s and the mid-1930s.[4] For instance, the admission to Harvard University during that period fell from 27.6% to 17.1% and in Columbia University from 32.7% to 14.6%. Corresponding quotas were introduced in the medical and dental schools resulting during the 1930s in the decline of Jewish students: e.g. in Cornell University School of Medicine from 40% in 1918–22 to 3.57% in 1940–41, in Boston University Medical School from 48.4% in 1929–30 to 12.5% in 1934–35. During this period, a notable exception among U. S. medical schools was the medical school of Middlesex University, which had no quotas and many Jewish faculty members and students; school officials believed that antisemitism played a role in the school's failure to secure AMA accreditation.[5] * In addition to Jewish applicants, Catholics, African-Americans, Eastern/Southern Europeans, and women were also targeted by admission restrictions. African-Americans, in some instances, were outright excluded (numerus null) from admission: e.g., at Columbia University. The most common method, employed by 90% of American universities and colleges at the time to identify the "desirable" (native-born, white, Protestant) applicants, were the application form questions about their religious preference, race, and nationality. Other more subtle methods included restrictions on scholarships, rejection of transfer students, and preferences for alumni sons and daughters. * Legacy preference for university admissions was devised in 1925 at Yale University, where the proportional number of Jews in the student body was growing at a rate that became alarming to the school's administrators.[4] However, even prior to that year, Yale had begun to incorporate such amorphous criteria as 'character' and 'solidity', as well as 'physical characteristics', into its admissions process as an excuse for screening out Jewish students;[4] but nothing did the trick quite like legacy preference, which allowed the admissions board to summarily pass over Jews in favor of 'Yale sons of good character and reasonably good record', as a 1929 memo phrased it. Other schools, including Harvard, soon began to pursue similar policies for similar reasons, and Jewish students in the Ivy League schools were maintained at a steady 10% through the 1950s. Such policies were gradually discarded during the early 1960s, with Yale being one of the last of the major schools to eliminate the last vestige with the class of 1970 (entering in 1966).[6] While legacy admissions as a way of screening out Jewish students may have ceased, the practice of giving preference to legacies has continued to the present day. In the 1998 book The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions, authors William G. Bowen, former Princeton University president, and Derek Bok, former Harvard University president, found "the overall admission rate for legacies was almost twice that for all other candidates." * The religion preference question was eventually dropped from the admission application forms and informal numerus clausus policies in the American private universities and medical schools were abandoned by the 1950s.
12a) Dissent
Dissent is a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to a prevailing idea (e.g. a government's policies) or an entity (e.g. an individual or political party which supports such policies). The term's antonyms include agreement, consensus (when all or nearly all parties agree on something) and consent (when one party agrees to a proposition made by another).
In some political systems, dissent may be formally expressed by way of opposition politics, while politically repressive regimes may prohibit any form of dissent, leading to suppression of dissent and the encouragement of social or political activism.[citation needed] Individuals who do not conform or support the policies of certain states have been described as "dissidents." Several thinkers have argued that a healthy society needs not only to protect, but also to encourage dissent.[1][2]
In a well-known letter to Arnold Ruge, Karl Marx wrote: "if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be."[
13a) REVOLT
14a)DIVIDED GOVERNMENTS
In the United States, divided government describes a situation in which one party controls the White House and another party controls one or both houses of the United States Congress. Divided government is suggested by some to be an undesirable product of the separation of powers in the United States' political system. Earlier in the 20th century, divided government was rare, but in the late 20th and early 21st centuries it has become increasingly common.
Some conservative and libertarian groups see divided government as beneficial, since it may encourage more policing of those in power by the opposition, as well as limiting spending[1] and the expansion of undesirable laws.[2]
In Parliamentary systems such as the United Kingdom, the executive relies on Parliamentary support for its existence. In the United States, however, the constitution is designed to create conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government.
Despite the perceived problems of divided government, the President and Congress are often able, out of necessity, to establish an effective working relationship.

15a)CO-HABITATION
Cohabitation in government occurs in semi-presidential systems, such as France's system, when the President is from a different political party than the majority of the members of parliament. It occurs because such a system forces the president to name a premier (prime minister) that will be acceptable to the majority party within parliament. Thus, cohabitation occurs because of the duality of the executive: an independently elected President and a prime minister who must be acceptable both to this president and to the legislature.
16a)ROLE OF POWER
17a)LEGITIMACY
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing law or régime as an authority. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government — wherein “government” denotes “sphere of influence”. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which, a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite.[1]
The Enlightenment-era British social theoretician John Locke said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent: “The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed.”[2] The German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger said, “Legitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised, both with a consciousness on the government’s part that it has a right to govern, and with some recognition by the governed of that right.”[3] The American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy also “involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society.”[4] The American political theorist Robert A. Dahl explained legitimacy as a reservoir; so long as the water is at a given level, political stability is maintained, if it falls below the required level, political legitimacy is endangered.[5]
In moral philosophy, the term “legitimacy” often is positively interpreted as the normative status conferred by a governed people upon their governors’ institutions, offices, and actions, based upon the belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power by a legally constituted government.
In law, “legitimacy” is distinguished from “legality” (see colour of law), to establish that a government action can be legal whilst not being legitimate, e.g. a police search without proper warrant; conversely, a government action can be legitimate without being legal, e.g. a pre-emptive war, a military junta. An example of such matters arises when legitimate institutions clash in a constitutional crisis.
18a)AUTHORITY
The word Authority is derived mainly from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command. In English, the word 'authority' can be used to mean power given by the state (in the form of Members of Parliament, Judges, Police Officers, etc.), by academic knowledge of an area (someone can be an authority on a subject).
19a)NATIONALISM
Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. In the 'modernist' image of the nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity.[1] There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2]
It can also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, or the belief that one state is naturally superior to all other states.[3][4] It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a 'homeland' (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures.[5]
Conversely, nationalism might also be portrayed as collective identities toward imagined communities which are not naturally expressed in language, race or religion but rather socially constructed by the very individuals that belong to a given nation.[6] Nationalism is sometimes reactionary, calling for a return to a national past, and sometimes for the expulsion of foreigners. Other forms of nationalism are revolutionary, calling for the establishment of an independent state as a homeland for an ethnic underclass.
Nationalism emphasizes collective identity - a 'people' must be autonomous, united, and express a single national culture.[7] Integral nationalism is a belief that a nation is an organic unit, with a social hierarchy, co-operation between the different social classes and common political goals. However, liberal nationalists stress individualism as an important part of their own national identity.[8]
National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are often considered sacred, as if they were religious rather than political symbols. Deep emotions are aroused.[9][10][11][12] Gellner and Breuilly, in Nations and Nationalism, contrast nationalism and patriotism. "If the nobler word 'patriotism' then replaced 'civic/Western nationalism', nationalism as a phenomenon had ceased to exist
29a)NAZI-FACISIM
Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5] It is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[6]
Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right and racist German völkisch nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[7] The ideology was developed by Anton Drexler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[8] Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis, focus was shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.[9] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies, though a majority of scholars identify it as a far right form of politics.[10]
Nazism believed in the supremacy of an Aryan master race over all other races.[11] Nazis viewed the progress of humanity as depending on the Aryans and believed that it could maintain its dominance only if it retained its purity and instinct for self-preservation.[12] They claimed that Jews were the greatest threat to the Aryan race.[13] They considered Jews a parasitic race that attached itself to various ideologies and movements to secure its self-preservation, such as: capitalism, democracy, the Enlightenment, industrialisation, liberalism, Marxism, parliamentary politics, and trade unionism.[14] To maintain the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate or impose exclusionary segregation upon "degenerate" and "asocial" groups that included: Jews, homosexuals, Romani, blacks, the physically and mentally handicapped, Jehovah's Witnesses and political opponents.[15]
The Nazis promoted a right-wing socialist economy.[16][17] This socialism promoted the creation of a community of common interest between managers and employees in industry where a factory leader would be selected to act in coordination with a council of factory members, though these members would have to obey the Führerprincip of the factory leader.[18] The economic system rejected egalitarianism and instead supported a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class distinction.[19][20] The economy was to be subordinate to the goals of the political leadership of the state.[21]
30a)THEOCRACY
Theocracy is the rule by people in positions of political authority all of whom share the same religious beliefs and preferences. Theocracy may manifest in a form of government in which a state is understood as governed by immediate divine guidance provided to ruling clergy or other ruling officials.[1]
From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state, [2] hence the term theocracy, from the Greek θεοκρατια "rule of God", a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[3]
A theocracy may have an administrative hierarchy of the government identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.
Theocracy should be distinguished from other, secular, forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

31a) ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE
In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism.[13] In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law. Clarendon, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote, "I don't think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering."[14]
A group calling itself the Manchester Liberals, to which Richard Cobden and Richard Wright belonged, were staunch defenders of free trade, and their work was carried on, after the death of Richard Cobden in 1866, by The Cobden Club.[15] In 1867, a free trade treaty was signed between Britain and France, after which several of these treaties were signed among other European countries.
British laissez-faire was not absolute. The United Kingdom company law,[16] the Limited Liability Act 1855, and the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 were exceptions.
Laissez-faire policy was never absolute in any nation, and at the end of the 19th century, European countries again took up some economic protectionism and interventionism. France for example, started cancelling its free trade agreements with other European countries in 1890. Germany's protectionism started (again) with a December 1878 letter from Bismarck, resulting in the iron and rye tariff of 1879.
[edit] United States
The Federal reserve, headquarters in Eccles Building is criticized by laissez-faireists as the cause of business cycles.
Although the period before the New Deal was notable for the limited extent of the federal government, the Austrian School suggests that there was a considerable degree of government intervention in the economy—particularly after the 1860s. Notable examples of government intervention in the period prior to the Civil War include the establishment of the First Bank of the United States and Second Bank of the United States as well as various protectionist measures (e.g., the tariff of 1828). Several of these proposals met with serious opposition, and required a great deal of horse trading to be enacted into law. For instance, the First National Bank would not have reached the desk of President George Washington in the absence of an agreement that was reached between Alexander Hamilton and several southern members of Congress to locate the capital in the District of Columbia. In contrast to Hamilton and the Federalists was the opposing political party the Democratic-Republicans.
Most of the early opponents of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States subscribed to the American School. This school of thought was inspired by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who proposed the creation of a government-sponsored bank and increased tariffs to favor northern industrial interests. Following Hamilton's death, the more abiding protectionist influence in the antebellum period came from Henry Clay and his American System.
In the mid-19th century, the United States followed the Whig tradition of economic liberalism, which included increased state control, regulation and macroeconomic development of infrastructure.[17] Public works such as the provision and regulation transportation such as railroads took effect. The Pacific Railway Acts provided the development of the First Transcontinental Railroad.[17] In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872).
Following the Civil War, the movement towards a mixed economy accelerated. Protectionism increased with the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Dingley Tariff of 1897. Government regulation of the economy expanded with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
The Progressive Era saw the enactment of more controls on the economy, as evidenced by the Wilson Administration's New Freedom program.
Following World War I and the Great Depression, Keynesian policies[citation needed] turned the state into a mixed economy. The United States, in the 1980s, for example, sought to protect its automobile industry by "voluntary" export restrictions from Japan.[18] Pietro S. Nivola wrote in 1986:
By and large, the comparative strength of the dollar against major foreign currencies has reflected high U.S. interest rates driven by huge federal budget deficits. Hence, the source of much of the current deterioration of trade is not the general state of the economy, but rather the government's mix of fiscal and monetary policies– that is, the problematic juxtaposition of bold tax reductions, relatively tight monetary targets, generous military outlays, and only modest cuts in major entitlement programs. Put simply, the roots of the trade problem and of the resurgent protectionism it has fomented are fundamentally political as well as economic.[19]

32a)ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF MIXED CAPITALISM
Mixed economy is an economic system in which both the state and private sector direct the economy, reflecting characteristics of both market economies and planned economies.[1] Most mixed economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight, in addition to having a variety of government-sponsored aspects. See (Elements of a mixed economy).
The underlying premise of the mixed economy is that the means of production are mainly under private ownership; that markets remain the dominant form of economic coordination; and that profit-seeking enterprises and the accumulation of capital would remain the fundamental driving force behind economic activity. Additionally, the government would wield considerable influence over the economy through fiscal and monetary policies designed to counteract economic downturns and capitalism's tendency toward financial crises and unemployment, along with playing a role in social welfare interventions.[2] Subsequently, some mixed economies have expanded to include indicative economic planning or large public enterprise sectors.
There is not one single definition for a mixed economy,[3] but the definitions always involve a degree of private economic freedom mixed with a degree of government regulation of markets. The relative strength or weakness of each component in the national economy can vary greatly between countries. Economies ranging from the United States[4] to Cuba[5] have been termed mixed economies. The term is also used to describe the economies of countries which are referred to as welfare states, such as Norway and Sweden. Governments in mixed economies often provide environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, a standardized welfare system, and maintenance of competition.
As an economic ideal, mixed economies are supported by people of various political persuasions, typically centre-left and centre-right, such as social democrats[6] or Christian democrats. Supporters view mixed economies as a compromise between planned socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.
33a)ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF NEO-LIBERALISM
Neoliberalism is a term describing a market-driven[1] approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state. The term is typically used by opponents of the policy and rarely by supporters.[2][3]
The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships

34a)COMMUNIST PLANNED ECONOMY
Planned economy is an economic system in which the state directs the economy.[1] It is an economic system in which the central government controls industry such that it makes major decisions regarding the production and distribution of goods and services.[2] Its most extensive form is referred to as a command economy,[3] centrally planned economy, or command and control economy.[4]
In such economies, central economic planning by the state or government controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about the use of resources and the distribution of output.[5] Planners decide what should be produced and direct lower-level enterprises to produce those goods in accordance with national and social objectives.[6]
Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, i.e. the market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their individual interests rather than upon a macroeconomic plan. Less extensive forms of planned economies include those that use indicative planning, in which the state employs "influence, subsidies, grants, and taxes, but does not compel."[7] This latter is sometimes referred to as a "planned market economy".[8]
A planned economy may consist of state-owned enterprises, private enterprises directed by the state, or a combination of both. Though "planned economy" and "command economy" are often used as synonyms, some make the distinction that under a command economy, the means of production are publicly owned. That is, a planned economy is "an economic system in which the government controls and regulates production, distribution, prices, etc."[9] but a command economy, while also having this type of regulation, necessarily has substantial public ownership of industry.[10] Therefore, command economies are planned economies, but not necessarily the reverse.
Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, many governments presiding over planned economies began deregulating (or as in the Soviet Union, the system collapsed) and moving toward market-based economies by allowing the private sector to make the pricing, production, and distribution decisions. Although most economies today are market economies or mixed economies (which are partially planned), planned economies exist in very few countries such as Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, and Myanmar.[11]