Patrimonialism
 |
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Sociology or the Sociology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (October 2011) |
|
|
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Political Science may be able to help recruit an expert. (October 2011) |
Patrimonialism is a form of governance in which all power flows directly from the leader. This constitutes essentially the blending of the public and private sector. These regimes are autocratic or oligarchic and exclude the upper and middle classes from power. The leaders of these countries typically enjoy absolute personal power. Usually, the armies of these countries are loyal to the leader, not the nation.
Contents |
[edit] Various definitions
[edit] Max Weber
Max Weber wrote of Patrimonialism as a form of traditional domination. Initially it was centered on family structures, particularly on the authority of fathers within families, in other words patriarchy. But patriarchy only describes the earlier, smaller form. For Weber, patrimonial monarchies and similar forms of government were projections of patriarchy (the rule of the father within the family) onto a broader set of social relationships. There are two main forms of patrimonialism in Weber's analysis of traditional authority (domination). One form of patrimonialism is characterised by a top-down structure where the emperor or sultan rules on the basis of his own legitimate authority through traditional bureaucratic officials (e.g. eunuchs). In principle the Roman Catholic Church is patrimonial in this traditional sense, with the Pope the Patrimonial Ruler. The other form of patrimonialism is still top down but it approaches the Ideal Type of Western European Feudalism, with a basis for legitimate authority outside of the central ruler's authority. In 12th century France or England, for example, it could have consisted of the knightly aristocracy. This feudal form of patrimonialism eventually evolved into Constitutional Monarchy. The U.S. Senate is a vestige of the House of Lords in England. The Lords were literally the peers of the realm. Weber's overarching argument was that with modernity, traditional bureaucratic patrimonial forms of government eventually gave way to modern capitalist bureaucratic rationalism as the main principle of both government and governance.
[edit] Nathan Quimpo
Nathan Quimpo[1] defines patrimonialism as "a type of rule in which the ruler does not distinguish between personal and public patrimony and treats matters and resources of state as his personal affair."[2]
[edit] Julia Adams
Julia Adams, a sociologist at Yale University, argues for increased application of the term. [3]
[edit] J. I. (Hans) Bakker
J. I. (Hans) Bakker, a sociologist at The University of Guelph, has applied the ideal type to the history of Indonesia in pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial days.
[edit] Examples
 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (August 2010) |
Modern and Contemporary Hungarian achademics support the postulate that in the Middle Ages the Kingdom of Hungary existed as a Patrimonialistic Kingdom (in Hungarian Language: Patrimoniális királyság) where the King was the supreme owner of the Kingdom's lands. Indonesia, before and during the Suharto administration, is often cited as being patrimonial in its political-economy.[4][5]
A strikingly large proportion[who?] of 20th century praetorian regimes emerged in countries that had been occupied by the USA.[citation needed] Examples include Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's regime after the American intervention in 1953, the regimes of the Somozas, Duvaliers and Trujillo (their countries were occupied by US marines 1912-33, 1915–34 and 1916–24), and Batista's regime in Cuba.
An enormous irony is that by toppling the native landowners, officers and bourgeoisie, the Americans created just the sort of regime that could be overthrown by Communist and Islamic revolutionaries. Attempts at Islamic revolution in Egypt and Communist revolutions in Colombia have failed because of the strength of native institutions. The revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran would have almost certainly not happened if it were not for American interventionism.[6]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Political Scientist at the University of Tsukuba
- ^ Quimpo, p. 2
- ^ Interview with Julia Adams http://aapss.org/the-annals/recent-volumes/2011/08/11/julia-adams-and-liping-wang-bridging-the-gap-between-china-and-europe
- ^ Schwarz, Adam. 2004. A Nation in Waiting. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
- ^ Bakker, J. I. (Hans). 1988. Patrimonialism, Involution, and the Agrarian Question in Java: A Weberian Analysis of Class Relations and Servile Labour. State and Society. London, UK: Unwin Hyman.
- ^ Guerrillas and revolution in Latin America By Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley
- Adams, Julia. "The Rule of the Father: Patriarchy and Patrimonialism in Early Modern Europe." Working paper. Russell Sage Foundation. [1] Accessed September 6, 2007.
- Bakker, J. I. (Hans). "Patrimonialism." Entry in The Encyclopedia of Governance [hrrp:www.semioticsigns.com/hans' publications]
- Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert "Trapo Parties and Corruption" KASAMA Vol. 21 No. 1, January–February-March 2007.[2]
