Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?

Political stability is desired by every state. But is it contingent upon regime types or party systems? Existing studies on political stability suggest that regimes such as authoritarianism, democracy, and dictatorship and their variants have variously influenced political stability. Some have prove...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Md. , Moniruzzaman
Format:	Conference or Workshop Item
Language:	English English
Published:	2014
Subjects:	JA Political science (General)
Online Access:	http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/10/FINAL_Program_Schedule_for_AABSS_Conference_2014_Kuala_Lumpur_%281%29.pdf http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/13/moniruzzaman.pdf

id	iium-40251
recordtype	eprints
spelling	iium-402512018-06-19T02:36:55Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/ Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world? Md. , Moniruzzaman JA Political science (General) Political stability is desired by every state. But is it contingent upon regime types or party systems? Existing studies on political stability suggest that regimes such as authoritarianism, democracy, and dictatorship and their variants have variously influenced political stability. Some have proved to be friendly with political stability in certain countries, while counterproductive for some other. However, the existing literature has exclusively focused on regime types alone neglecting the factor of party systems. This article argues that not only regime types but party systems also influence political stability. Based on data from Asia, Africa and Latin America this article examines the following four assumptions. Firstly, absolute monarchy and absolute authoritarianism together with no or one party system generally maintain political stability. Secondly, constitutional monarchies together with multiparty system generally maintain political stability. Thirdly, presidentialism together with dominant party system generally maintains political stability. And finally, parliamentarianism together with multi-party system is generally negatively related with political stability. 2014-08-25 Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/10/FINAL_Program_Schedule_for_AABSS_Conference_2014_Kuala_Lumpur_%281%29.pdf application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/13/moniruzzaman.pdf Md. , Moniruzzaman (2014) Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world? In: The Australian Academy of Business and Social Sciences Conference 2014 (in partnership with The Journal of Developing Areas), 25-26 August 2014, Kuala Lumpur. https://www.aabss.org.au/research-papers/regime-types-or-party-systems-what-matters-more-political-instability-developing
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Local University
institution	International Islamic University Malaysia
building	IIUM Repository
collection	Online Access
language	English English
topic	JA Political science (General)
spellingShingle	JA Political science (General) Md. , Moniruzzaman Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?
description	Political stability is desired by every state. But is it contingent upon regime types or party systems? Existing studies on political stability suggest that regimes such as authoritarianism, democracy, and dictatorship and their variants have variously influenced political stability. Some have proved to be friendly with political stability in certain countries, while counterproductive for some other. However, the existing literature has exclusively focused on regime types alone neglecting the factor of party systems. This article argues that not only regime types but party systems also influence political stability. Based on data from Asia, Africa and Latin America this article examines the following four assumptions. Firstly, absolute monarchy and absolute authoritarianism together with no or one party system generally maintain political stability. Secondly, constitutional monarchies together with multiparty system generally maintain political stability. Thirdly, presidentialism together with dominant party system generally maintains political stability. And finally, parliamentarianism together with multi-party system is generally negatively related with political stability.
format	Conference or Workshop Item
author	Md. , Moniruzzaman
author_facet	Md. , Moniruzzaman
author_sort	Md. , Moniruzzaman
title	Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?
title_short	Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?
title_full	Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?
title_fullStr	Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?
title_full_unstemmed	Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?
title_sort	regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?
publishDate	2014
url	http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/10/FINAL_Program_Schedule_for_AABSS_Conference_2014_Kuala_Lumpur_%281%29.pdf http://irep.iium.edu.my/40251/13/moniruzzaman.pdf
first_indexed	2023-09-18T20:57:44Z
last_indexed	2023-09-18T20:57:44Z
_version_	1777410417073586176

Regime types or party systems: what matters more for political instability in the developing world?

Similar Items