Politics define a broad sense of things, but it is ultimately agreed that it rev olves mainly around power and

relationships that associate to power. Thus, polit ics is evident in all social relationships, because in every relationship, there will always be someone who will assert power over the other. It is in the famil y, business organizations, non-government organizations, the church, as well as the formal power politics is often associated with. This said, politics is not exclusive only to the politicians we know we are all politicians in every aspect of the word. Politics, however, is abstract. There m ust be a mechanism through which the idea of politics is realized. Enter the gov ernment. Government is a collection of institutions designed or tasked to create public policies and enforce these collective decisions. As politics, the idea o f government is also broad. It is broad in the sense that it may be embodied in one person, in a few, or to a set of institutions, such as the arms of the Ameri can government: the executive, legislative, and judiciary. Government can theref ore be in various faces; in fact, each of the United-Nations-recognized countrie s has its own unique system of governance. Such as the case in Biology, there is a need to classify governments or politica l systems to better understand politics and government. Understanding these syst ems would allow people to evaluate these systems and to perhaps invent a more ef fective system. Aristotle was the first Carl von Linn of political science. He u sed the questions from the questions, `Who rules?' and `Who benefits from the rule?' He arrived with six forms the rule of one, few, and the many in two variants: the r uler benefits and the ruled benefits; thus, tyranny, oligarchy, democracy; monar chy, aristocracy, polity. These six forms were outdated and replaced by constitu tional republicanism, democratic radicalism, and the parliamentary government. I n the 20th century, the `three worlds typology' emerged. It classified countries int o: a capitalist first world, a communist second world, and a developing third wo rld. Today, in the emergence of democracies, countries fell into two classificat ions: `majority democracies' and `consensus democracies'. These were the few among many other classifications. It is important to note at this point that there existed and has been existing political systems without fo rmal governments and its accompanying institutions. An example would be tribal s ocieties. Contrary to popular belief, tribes were not headed by tribe chiefs or tribe leaders they did not have those. Instead, as with modern republics, it is the law that rules everyone. However, there was no need for a legislature. They see law as an inherited culture of what their ancestors have established. They o nly interpret and enforce the authority of these customs; thus, no need for a co uncil whatsoever. On a larger scale, politics is also not exclusive to sovereign states. There mus t always be relations among these states. However, the world does not have a rea l world government. The UN General Assembly can be regarded as the world parliam ent but there is no adequately-powered executive authority to impose internation al laws. Sovereign states still reserve the power to ultimately get whatever the ir interests are that is if they are powerful enough. Since the worlds superpow ers have seats in the adequately-powered UN Security Council, they can do nearly whatever they want to small states, without the consent of theses smaller state s. In the case wherein not all resources needed by the people are accesible in a states territory, international trade becomes a need. Foreign relationships ar e therefore necessary to produce a more progressive state. Politics is therefore an inevitable part of human beings. However, due to this v ery nature that it is evident everywhere, its defintion and scope becomes ambig uous and too crowded. This presents the need to organize politics in a universal ly understood way. After reading the second chapters of Andrew Heywoods Politic s and Tansey and Jacksons Politics: The Basics, I think that Tansey and Jackson did the transition from the introduction better than Heywood. Heywoods approac

h was to discuss classifications of political systems while Tansey and Jackson p resented the historical roots of modern nation states from tribal societies, feu dalism, kingdoms, and empires then presented the importance of national identity as building blocks for progressive states. Tansey and Jackson also briefly pres ented politics among states as well as international institutions, such as the U N. They also stress the power of multinational enterprises. Then they conclude t hat politics can therefore be defined as a personal and organizational activity but as a universal activity. Politics becomes a universal aspect of life in huma n societies.