INTRODUCTION
Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few. how to write critical essay

---- David Hume, First Principles of Government
A political environment has been defined by Dahl (1976) as a "persistent pattern of human relationship that involves, to a significant extent, control, influence, power, or authority." Political environments may range from a democratic system to communism with other variations between these ideological extremes. A Political Environment is an environment involving conflicting interactions, between three or more parties, often resulting in the formation of alliances or coalitions and used to resolve the conflict and achieve the goals of the allies or their influential members. Political environments are characterized by the biases alliances and individuals with status interject into the distribution of benefits and the organization of interactions.

Typically these biases work to advance the interests (perceived advantage) of the allies and any others they may favor and to maintain or enhance a balance of power favorable to them.

Criminal justice, because of the criminal component, must be differentiated from civil justice. Civil justice deals with the private rights of persons. When a person’s private rights are violated, the wrong is called a tort. When a person commits an act that violates the rights of all of society as recognized by the law, it is called a crime. The same action can be both a tort and a crime. Since crimes are thought to be against everyone, society, as a whole, prosecutes criminals. In practice, this means that criminal prosecutions are conducted in the name of the state, the commonwealth, the people, and so forth, depending on the traditions of each state (Terrill and Richard, 1999).

Criminal justice is a process, involving a set of steps beginning with a criminal investigation and, if the offender does not leave the system somewhere along the way, ending with the release of the convicted offender from correctional supervision (Jiao and Allan, 2001). This information is presented in the order that cases most often proceed through the three components of the criminal justice system: (1) police, (2) the courts, and (3) corrections. Procedural rules and discretionary decision-making are at the center of this process.

FORMAL POLITICAL SYSTEM
The political systems of a state consist of the formal and informal structures which manifest the state's sovereignty over a territory and people. It is the civil aspect of statehood. But a state through its lifetime may have many different political systems, as have China, Russia, and France. As the political elite exercise more or less coercive power, we can call a state more or less powerful.

What the idea of “formal” politics than refers to are simply the political institutions and rules introduced by this conquest state and its indigenization. Formal rules include political (and judicial) rules, economic rules, and contracts. Political rules broadly define the hierarchy of the polity, its basic decision structure, and the explicit characteristics of agenda control. Economic rules define property rights. Contracts contain the provisions specific to a particular agreement in exchange. Given the initial bargaining strength of the decision making parties, the function of rules is to facilitate exchange, political or economic. Formal rules include political (and judicial) rules, economic rules, and contracts. Political rules broadly define the hierarchy of the polity, its basic decision structure, and the explicit characteristics of agenda control (Laakso, 1999).

Formal political representation has changed little since the days when a only a minority voted, when rural representatives were days or weeks away from their electors and when government constituted a minor component of a nation’s business, Indeed, the concept of ‘sovereign nation’ was still being formulated to general satisfaction when the democratic template was cut. Formal political representation has changed little since the days when a only a minority voted, when rural representatives were days or weeks away from their electors and when government constituted a minor component of a nation’s business, Indeed, the concept of ‘sovereign nation’ was still being formulated to general satisfaction when the democratic template was cut. Democracies remain the ‘least worst’ way of running a complex society. At the same time, the processes which are entailed are weakly fitted to their ultimate purpose. Levels of anomie are high. Only 50.9% of those entitled to do so voted in the US November 2000 elections, similar to the 49% turnout in 1996. Only 17% of the young people entitled to vote did so (Kalecki, 1943).

INFORMAL POLITICAL SYSTEM
Informal political system cannot be as precisely defined as formal rules. They are extensions, elaborations and qualifications of rules that 'solve' innumerable exchange problems not completely covered by formal rules and that in consequence have tenacious survival ability. They allow people to go about the everyday process of making exchanges without the necessity of thinking out exactly at each point and in each instance the terms of exchange. Routines, customs, traditions, and culture are words we use to denote the persistence of informal system. They include conventions that evolve as solutions to coordination problems and that all parties are interested in having maintained (such as rules of the road for example), norms of behavior that are recognized standards of conduct (such as codes of conduct that define interpersonal relationships in the family, business, school, etc.), and self imposed codes of conduct (such as standards of honesty or integrity). Conventions are self enforcing. Norms of behavior are enforced by the second party (retaliation) or by a third party (societal sanctions or coercive authority), and their effectiveness will depend on the effectiveness of enforcement (Douglass, 2000).

In Taiwan, Political representation is found to have been, to a great extent, based on informal systems which undermine democracy (Lauth, Hans. 2000). The relationship between formal and informal system has been largely complementary, substitutive or conflicting meaning that formal and informal system have reinforced each other (Christian, 2001). The changes to the presidential power Mexico are as a result of culmination of factors. The informal powers of the president may be challenged by both the changing composition of the national and state legislatures, and the changing power structure within the party. Both of these may produce political rivals to the president (Zaller, 1992).

POLITICAL SYSTEM IN AMERICA
America may be a young nation, but it is generally seen as the oldest and most developed liberal democracy. The American constitution is the oldest written constitution in existence. It can claim, indeed, to be the first constitution in the modern world, and that it has survived so long is a tribute to the sagacity, moderation, and sense of the possible shown by its makers (Brogan, 1948). Although there is a tendency in modern American political science to treat the political system as an abstract one of inputs and outputs, or of functions and institutions (Easton, 1965), we should not forget that a political system constitutes a balance among competing interests, capabilities, and wills, a specific status quo. And this is a balance among individuals. A specific political system is a particular definition of authoritative roles and law norms and an allocation of rights and duties historically determined through conflict, a balancing of powers. Those who fill these roles, who have the right to command others, are the political elite.

One characteristic is the openness of the authoritative roles to change in incumbency and the law norms to change in substance. That is, does the status quo itself grant members of the state the right to compete for elite status and to change the fundamental laws governing the state? Are there freedom of political opposition and competition for power? For an open system such freedom is statewide. A closed system, however, legally or customarily (Adams, Stuart, 1953) insulates authoritative roles and law norms from change by the nonelite. With this in mind, let us focus on the types of political systems. Those who fill these roles, who have the right to command others, are the political elite. Clearly, many different balances can be struck, as manifested by such varied polities as the United States, Japan, France, China, India, Spain, and Jordan. But these balances of power governing the state share some communalities and vary on certain significant characteristics (Acton, 1967).

Most political systems are a mixture of these types (Adelman and Cynthia, 1967). The United States comprises more a libertarian system, but increasingly is oriented in the totalitarian direction as the modern welfare state and the political elites, with their mixed present and future goals, intervene in the activities of all groups. England, in which loss of group autonomy and the reconstruction of society in some futurist's image has gone much further, reflects even more of a libertarian-totalitarian mixture. Then there is totalitarian-authoritarian Syria or Egypt, and libertarian-authoritarian Brazil or Lebanon. Recognizing that all contemporary empirical political systems reflect such mixtures, some nonetheless closely approximate the pure types. Thus, we can exemplify the libertarian type by Switzerland and West Germany, the traditional by Saudi Arabia and Emperor Selassie's Ethiopia, and the totalitarian by Communist China and the Soviet Union.