an important factor in the operation of government without revealing much of the fundamental nature or outward form.

By a combination of these three classifications we may gain a general notion of the chief characteristics of a government. and its resemblances to and differences from other governments.

First Classification

Autocracies. The classification of governments according to the relative number of individuals concerned in governing is as old as Herodotus (5th century B.C.), yet it is still serviceable. An autocracy (or despotism) is a government in which the final supreme control is vested in the will of a single individual. In complex governmental affairs, of course, a vast body of officials is necessarily associated with such an individual in execution and administration, but this fact does not alter the essential character of the government.

Autocratic government was almost certainly the earliest form of government. The unrestricted power of the chieftain in the rudimentary state of primitive times can scarcely be questioned. At an early period in authentic history, autocratic government was the usual government in the states of the world. Such was the government of ancient Egypt and of the mighty states of Asia. Even into a relatively modern period the autocratic government persisted. Whether Louis XIV ever used the words "L'état, c'est moi" or not, the statement accurately characterized the spirit of his government.

Aristocracies.-An aristocracy is a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a limited group or class of the people.

Compared with the number of autocratic governments of the past and of democratic governments of the present, few examples of aristocratic governments are revealed by history. No aristocratic government has shown a çapacity for permanent existence. The reason is to be found in the nature of the aristocratic form. The unity of action demanded by the

government of a great state is greater than can be consistently maintained by a group of men invested with equal authority and equal rank. Either the arrogance of the governing class excites the hostility of the other classes in the state and ends in the overthrow of the rulers, or natural jealousies create factions among the governing class that result in schism and the destruction of the government. Notable aristocracies have, however, existed for a limited period. In relatively modern times, Venice offers the best example of a strictly maintained aristocracy. Once among the most powerful and famous governments of Europe, controlling absolutely certain gateways of commerce, the government of Venice was a closc aristocracy in which on the one hand the mass of the people were of no consideration and on the other the powers of the duke or doge were jealously checked on all sides lest they should be elevated into autocracy. The neighboring state of Fiorence, with its Guelphs and Ghibellines, and later with the famous Medici family, may properly be classed also as an aristocracy, even though a semblance of a popular advisory body existed.

Democracies: (1) Direct and (2) Representative.-A democracy is a government in the organization of which the people exercise an active control.

The people may exercise this control in one of two ways, directly or indirectly. In certain states the mass of the people gather in public assembly and act directly in governmental affairs. Such a system was in effect in the small city-states of ancient Greece and is to-day retained in a few of the small cantons of Switzerland. The enormous population of most democratic states in modern times, however, has made such direct action on the part of its citizens impracticable. Consequently, what is known as the representative system is now established in democracies. According to this system, a relatively small number of persons are delegated to act as the representatives of the mass of the people in affairs of government. Under this system, the people exercise their control

over the government indirectly. In theory, the representatives hold a trust for the mass of the people: the people have a right to expect their representatives to decide for them as they themselves would decide could they be gathered together in a deliberative assembly. In practice, grave abuses of the representative system have at times existed. In England, before the passage of the reform bill, for example, a considerable proportion of the so-called popular house of Parliament owed election to the will of a few great landowners and were naturally influenced by this fact in their deliberations. In the United States the people have upon occasions had a suspicion that the representatives were acting not so much as trustees for the nation at large as promoters of the interests of special individuals or corporations. In general, a disposition on the part of some of the representatives of the people to be influenced in one way or another against the public weal is one of the weaknesses of this representative system of government.

Second Classification

Hereditary and Elective Executive Head.-The second general classification is based on a feature of the structure of government; namely, on the distinction between an hereditary executive head and an elective executive head.

The elective executive head is not a recent development in government, nor has the election of the executive head been restricted to democratic governments. It is probable that in primitive times a form of election was used to choose the chieftains of tribes, and we know that in relatively modern times the autocratic head of the Holy Roman Empire was elected to his office. Yet it is a fact that generally in history the notion of elective executive is associated with democratic government and the notion of hereditary executive is associated with autocratic government. Since early in the nineteenth century, however, the principles of democratic government have made great progress, so that at the present time all the governments in the foremost states of the world, whether

with an hereditary or an elected executive, have important democratic features. Where hereditary executives are retained at the head of such governments, they are survivals from their autocratic predecessors and their powers are strictly limited and subordinated to the political control of the people. Thus in England the hereditary monarch is only a nominal sovereign, and in Italy his prerogatives are limited by constitutional provisions. In states where the hereditary monarch failed to adapt himself to the growing democratic spirit of his times, the whole organization of government was changed to replace the hereditary by an elective head. Thus in France with the throes of a series of bitter revolutions was born a republic. And thus, in our own age, little Portugal and unwieldy China have turned out their hereditary sovereigns to install a new organization with an elective head. And since the World War, Germany has joined the ranks of the republics.

Principles Governing Inheritance. The principles governing the inheritance in hereditary governments differ widely, as do also the principles governing election in elective governments. In hereditary governments, according to one system, priority of birth entitles the oldest member, or the oldest male member, of the family of the deceased ruler to be successor. Thus a brother of a deceased ruler might succeed to the throne. According to a second system, the oldest immediate descendant of the deceased ruler is the successor, or, as modified in many cases, the oldest immediate male descendant of the deceased ruler. Thus in ordinary cases only children of a deceased ruler can inherit. In cases where a ruler leaves no children, the rule may revert to a living descendant of a former ruler.

Principles Governing Election.-In elective governments, according to one system, the executive head is chosen by direct vote of the people. This system is used to-day in the commonwealths of the United States and in certain of the South American republics, as Peru and Brazil. The method of electing the chief executive in the United States, although originally

indirect, is to-day practically direct, for the electors in the electoral college are chosen in the name of the candidate for whom they are pledged to vote. According to the second system, the executive head is named by a body selected by the people, either by a body elected especially for this purpose or by a body existing for other purposes but constitutionally invested with this power. The method of indirect election is used in Chile, the Argentine Republic, France, and Switzerland. In Chile and the Argentine Republic electors directly elected by the people name the executive; in France and Switzerland the legislative bodies are empowered to make the choice.

Each of the methods mentioned above for choosing the chief executive has its adherents and its critics. With reference to the hereditary system as compared with the elective: does the retention of the figure of royalty foster in the people of the state a kind of loyalty and willing obedience to constituted authority, unknown in the states where the people directly or indirectly make their own chief executive? Does royalty lend dignity and prestige to a government and tend to impart stability and continuity of policy? Or is royalty merely an outworn relic of a past age, tending to obstruct the progress of political institutions? With reference to the methods of determining the succession in hereditary governments: does the restriction of the succession to the male members of the family or to the male descendants operate usually to the best advantage for the government? Or is this likewise an outworn tradition? With reference to the distinction between direct and indirect choice in elective governments: does the direct election insure the choice of the man best qualified for the office. Is it wiser to leave the determination of so important an official to a small body of selected representatives of the people? Is it wise to throw the choice of the chief executive into the legislature in view of the subsequent relations that must exist between the executive and the legislature? These questions suggest the nature of the problems.