Forms of Government

Learning Outcomes

  • Compare and identify common forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, democracy)
A photograph of Mohandas Ghandi.

Figure 1. After becoming the leader of the Indian National Congress, Mohandas Ghandi employed a range of nonviolent methods to gain better rights and treatment for women and poor people and especially for the independence of India. He used fasting as a form of protest, and was imprisoned by the ruling British government (Credit: Elliot and Fry/Wikimedia Commons)

Most people generally agree that anarchy, or the absence of organized government, does not facilitate a desirable living environment for society, but it is much harder for individuals to agree upon the particulars of how a population should be governed. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, three political philosophers that heavily influenced early sociologists and whose works are widely read across sociology classrooms today, all argued that the role of government is to facilitate a form of “social contract” among individuals living in a society. They presented different views on human nature, relationships, and governance, but they all agreed that government was a necessary mechanism in modern societies. 

Throughout history, various forms of government have evolved to suit the needs of changing populations and mindsets, each with pros and cons. Today, a majority of citizens in Western societies hold that democracy is the most just and stable form of government, although former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once declared to the House of Commons, “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (Shapiro 2006).


Even though people in the United States tend to be most aware of Great Britain’s royals, many other nations also recognize kings, queens, princes, princesses, and other figures with official royal titles. The power held by these positions varies from one country to another. Strictly speaking, a monarchy is a government in which a single person (a monarch) rules until he or she dies or abdicates the throne. Usually, a monarch claims the rights to the title by way of hereditary succession or as a result of some sort of divine appointment or calling. As mentioned above, the monarchies of most modern nations are ceremonial remnants of tradition (traditional authority as opposed to charismatic or legal-rational authority), and individuals who hold titles in such sovereignties are often aristocratic figureheads.

Very few nations today, however, are run by governments wherein a monarch has absolute or unmitigated power. In other words, very few nations today are run by monarchies exercising legal-rational authority. Nations that are run by monarchs with absolute power are called absolute monarchies. Although governments and regimes are constantly changing across the global landscape, it is generally safe to say that most modern absolute monarchies are concentrated in the Middle East and Africa. The small, oil-rich nation of Oman, for instance, is an example of an absolute monarchy. In this nation, Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said has ruled since the 1970s. Recently, living conditions and opportunities for Oman’s citizens have improved, but many citizens who live under the reign of an absolute ruler must contend with oppressive or unfair policies that are installed based on the unchecked whims or political agendas of that leader.

In today’s global political climate, monarchies far more often take the form of constitutional monarchies, governments of nations that recognize monarchs but require these figures to abide by the laws of a greater constitution. Many countries that are now constitutional monarchies evolved from governments that were once considered absolute monarchies. In most cases, constitutional monarchies, such as Great Britain and Canada, feature elected prime ministers whose leadership role is far more involved and significant than that of its titled monarchs. In spite of their limited authority, monarchs endure in such governments because people enjoy their symbolic or ceremonial significance, as well as the pageantry of their weddings, funerals, and public performances of succession. 

alt="A photo of the deceased former Sultan of Oman Qaboos bin Said and a photo of Queen Noor of Jordan."

Figure 2. Qaboos bin Said ruled Oman as its absolute monarch for fifty years, and oversaw the country’s development from a relatively isolated nation to one that uses its vast supplies of oil to build wealth and influence. Queen Noor of Jordan is the dowager queen of this constitutional monarchy and has limited political authority. Queen Noor is American by birth, but relinquished her citizenship when she married. She is a noted global advocate for Arab-Western relations. (Credit A: Wikimedia Commons; B: Skoll World Forum/flickr)

Try It


The power in an oligarchy is held by a small, elite group. Unlike in a monarchy, members of an oligarchy do not necessarily achieve their statuses based on ties to noble ancestry. Rather, they may ascend to positions of power because of military might, economic power, or similar circumstances.

The concept of oligarchy is somewhat elusive; rarely does a society openly define itself as an oligarchy. Generally, the word carries negative connotations and conjures notions of a corrupt group whose members make unfair policy decisions in order to maintain their privileged positions. Many modern nations that claim to be democracies are really oligarchies. In fact, some prominent journalists, such as Paul Krugman, who won a Nobel Laureate Prize in economics, have labeled the United States an oligarchy, pointing to the influence of large corporations and Wall Street executives on U.S. policy (Krugman 2011). Other political analysts assert that all democracies are really just “elected oligarchies,” or systems in which citizens must vote for an individual who is part of a pool of candidates who come from the society’s elite ruling class (Winters 2011).

Oligarchies have existed throughout history, and today many consider Russia an example of oligarchic political structure. After the fall of communism, groups of business owners captured control of the nation’s natural resources and have used the opportunity to expand their wealth and political influence. Once an oligarchic power structure has been established, it can be very difficult for middle and lower-class citizens to advance their socioeconomic status. The line between oligarchies and democracies is grayer than we probably want it to be, and some would even argue that no nation is a true democracy, as it is impossible to have no interest groups, companies, or economically advantaged elites seeking to influence policy. 

Is the United States an Oligarchy?

A mansion with a large green field built during the Gilded Age.

Figure 3. The American Gilded Age was one of lavish parties hosted in the grand mansions of wealthy families. (Photo courtesy of Seniju/flickr)

The American Gilded Age saw the rise and dominance of ultra-rich families such as the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, and Carnegies, and the wealthy often indulged in absurd luxuries. One example is a lavish dinner party hosted for a pampered pet dog who attended wearing a $15,000 diamond collar (PBS Online 1999). At the same time, most Americans barely scraped by, living below what was considered the poverty level.

Some scholars believe that the United States has now embarked on a second gilded age, pointing out that the 400 wealthiest American families now own more than the ‘lower’ 150 million Americans put together (Zucman 2019), and that the top 1% own more than the bottom 50%. Recent movements in the United States have drawn attention to the power and privilege of the extremely wealthy, often referred to as the 1%, and have sought to reform policy due to their lack of proportional contributions in taxes. In 2015, the 1% were those who earned over $480,930 annually, although this varies significantly based on location, with some areas being so costly that a person needs to earn nearly double that to be in the 1%. [1] 

Wealthy individuals and corporations are major political donors. Based on campaign finance reform legislation in 1971 and 2002, political campaign contributions were regulated and limited; however, the 2012 Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission repealed many of those restrictions. The Court ruled that contributions of corporations and unions to Political Action Committees (PACs) are a form of free speech that cannot be abridged and so cannot be limited or disclosed. Opponents believe this is potentially a step in promoting oligarchy in the United States; the ultra-wealthy and those who control the purse strings of large corporations and unions will, in effect, be able to elect their candidate of choice through their unlimited spending power, as well as influence policy decisions, appointments to nonelected government jobs, and other forms of political power. Krugman (2011) says, “We have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, and in which that concentration of income and wealth threatens to make us a democracy in name only.”

How will that threat be fully assessed? And just because a small group of people can exert influence, do they? And does that influence work?

Wealthy people, and the companies and or industries they represent, use lobbying groups, think tanks, and legislative consulting group to directly influence policy. Investigations have compiled the widespread use and promotion of “model legislation,” in which a lobbyist or industry group writes a bill that lawmakers then promote on their own. USA Today/Arizona Republic found that from 2010-18, over 10,000 bills were pushed through legislatures after being written and promoted by outside groups. These laws often thwart the will of the voters, or place the interests of a very small group of people above those of everyone else. For example, the interestingly titled Asbestos Transparency Bill was written by the asbestos industry to help protect it from lawsuits (O’Dell 2019). The same organizations also identify, train, manage, and compensate expert witnesses to testify on their behalf in front of various legislative and regulatory bodies.

Does it work? Political scientists studied who benefits from laws and policies, and found that 78 percent of Congress’s decisions benefit the top 10 percent of Americans. Note that those same laws sometimes benefit other Americans as well. But only 5 percent of laws and policies have been shown to benefit the larger 90 percent of people while not benefiting the wealthiest Americans (Represent.US 2014).


Power in a dictatorship is held by a single person (or a very small group) that wields complete and absolute authority over a government and population. Like some absolute monarchies, dictatorships may be corrupt and seek to limit or even eradicate the liberties of the general population. Dictators use a variety of means to perpetuate their authority. Economic and military might, as well as intimidation and brutality, are often foremost among their tactics; individuals are less likely to rebel when they are starving and fearful. Many dictators start out as military leaders and are conditioned to the use of violence against opposition.

Some dictators also possess the personal appeal that Max Weber identified with a charismatic leader. Subjects of such a dictator may believe that the leader has special ability or authority and may be willing to submit to his or her authority. The late Kim Jong-Il, North Korean dictator, and his successor, Kim Jong-Un, exemplify this type of charismatic dictatorship.


North Korea is the least democratic country in the world, and exemplifies a modern dictatorship. 

Some dictatorships do not align themselves with any particular belief system or ideology; the goal of this type of regime is usually limited to preserving the authority of the dictator. A totalitarian dictatorship is even more oppressive and attempts to control all aspects of its subjects’ lives, including occupation, religious beliefs, and number of children permitted to each family. Citizens may be forced to publicly demonstrate their faith in the regime by participating in marches and demonstrations.

Some “benevolent” dictators, such as Napoleon and Anwar Sadat, are credited with advancing their people’s standard of living or exercising a moderate amount of evenhandedness. Others grossly abuse their power. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, for instance, are heads of state who earned a reputation for leading through fear, violence, and intimidation.

Kim Jong-Il of North Korea is shown wearing sunglasses, standing among a group of uniformed North Korean soldiers.

Figure 4. Dictator Kim Jong-Il of North Korea was a charismatic leader of an absolute dictatorship. His followers responded emotionally to the death of their leader in 2011. (Photo courtesy of babeltrave/flickr)


A democracy is a form of government that strives to provide all citizens with an equal voice, or vote, in determining state policy, regardless of their level of socioeconomic status or other attributes. Another important fundamental of the democratic state is the establishment and governance of a just and comprehensive constitution-like document that delineates the roles and responsibilities of leaders and citizens alike.

Democracies, in general, ensure certain basic rights for their citizens. First and foremost, citizens are free to organize political parties and hold elections. Leaders, once elected, must abide by the terms of the given nation’s constitution and are limited in the powers they can exercise, as well as in the length of the duration of their terms. Most democratic societies also champion freedom of individual speech, the press, and assembly, and they prohibit unlawful imprisonment. Of course, even in a democratic society, the government constrains citizens’ total freedom to act however they wish—a sacrifice that individuals must make in order to have other rights protected, as the social contract theorists first posited. A democratically elected government does this by passing laws and writing regulations that, at least ideally, reflect the will of the majority of its people.

Although the United States champions the democratic ideology, it is not a “pure” democracy. In a purely democratic society, all citizens would vote on all proposed legislation, and this is not how laws are passed in the United States. There is a practical reason for this: a pure democracy would be hard to implement. Thus, the United States is a constitution-based federal republic in which citizens elect representatives to make policy decisions on their behalf. The term representative democracy, which is virtually synonymous with republic, can also be used to describe a government in which citizens elect representatives to promote policies that favor their interests. In the United States, representatives are elected at local and state levels, and the votes of the Electoral College determine who will hold the office of president. Each of the three branches of the U.S. government—the executive, judicial, and legislative—is held in check by the other branches.


The Electoral College is one of the hotly debated topics in today’s political arena, and a rather complicated system to untangle. It has benefits and drawbacks, but watch this video to better understand its role in our democracy. 

Further Research

The Tea Party is among the highest-profile grassroots organizations active in U.S. politics today. What is its official platform? Examine the Tea Party website to find out more information.

Think It Over

  • Do you feel the United States has become an oligarchy? Why, or why not?
  • Explain how an absolute monarchy differs from a dictatorship.
  • In which form of government do average citizens have the least political power? What options might they have for exerting political power under this type of regime?

Try It


absolute monarchies:
governments wherein a monarch has absolute or unmitigated power
the absence of any organized government
constitutional monarchies:
national governments that recognize monarchs but require these figures to abide by the laws of a greater constitution
a form of government that provides all citizens with an equal voice or vote in determining state policy
a form of government in which a single person (or a very small group) wields complete and absolute authority over a government or populace after the dictator rises to power, usually through economic or military might
a form of government in which a single person (a monarch) rules until that individual dies or abdicates the throne
a form of government in which power is held by a small, elite group
representative democracy:
a government wherein citizens elect officials to represent their interests
totalitarian dictatorship:
an extremely oppressive form of dictatorship in which most aspects of citizens’ lives are controlled by the leader

  1. Konish, Lorie (July 2018) "Here’s how much money those 1 percenters really make." CNBC. Retrieved from