Answer #13:

Here's the first best answer I've received for Question #13

Question 13 was:
What are two reasons it's useful to comparative political scientists to distinguish between regime and government?

Will's answer is:

"The study of comparative government makes a distinction between regime- the underlying structure, written or unwritten constitution, etc. of a state- and government- the person, group, or party that exerts control over that state. There are several important reasons for this distinction.

"1. A government and its rule may often be largely different from the underlying regime because they do not follow the ideals laid out in the country's constitution. For example, the government in Russia is as important a topic as the regime because Putin and United Russia have exerted powers that extend beyond those laid out in Russia's constitution, and the elections in Russia may be largely fixed.

"2. A state can change its government without changing regime. Tony Blair's idea of what role the government should play in the United Kingdom and Margaret Thatcher's idea of the same are two very different things. However, when the Labour Party took control of Parliament in the UK, the underlying regime of the country did not change."

---

This would be a two-point question.

A vital task for political scientists, like any other scientists, is to precisely define the topics they study. Basic definitions, like regime and government are among the most important for political scientists. Why? Because if you're trying to make generalizations, find correlations and causations, or make predictions about political systems, you need to be as precise as possible or you might be trying to find similarities in groups of unalike things, describing causations when you're looking at correlations, and making faulty predictions.

As Will's response indicates, regime describes structure and process of governance. Government identifies the people and groups that have public authority

Here are the reasons in my rubric for distinguishing between regime and government.

• A regime is relatively stable while government may change frequently therefore variables are more likely to found in government
• Regime is usually an expression of cultural values; actions of government can confirm or contradict the validity of those expressed values
• Governments can be evaluated by how "faithful" they are to the goals, institutions, and processes defined by the regime
• Governments and political actors can be compared over time to their predecessors operating within the same regime
• Changes in government can bring about significant changes in laws and policies without changing the regime allowing comparative case studies to be made within a regime

Will's response earns two points. His first reason matches my rubric's second point. His second reason would fit within my last point.

---

Will's introduction, which includes basic definitions of regime and government, is probably more elaborate than necessary. If you have time to do that much, it's not a problem.

However, his statement that "There are several important reasons for this distinction." is an important element to his answer. Since both elements asked for by the question fall into the same category, the exam rubric might not require an identifying label like that, but it might.

The numbering of his two reasons is a nice touch. It helps the exam reader recognize the important elements of the answer.

---