Introduc on to Poli cal Science

1. Introduc on to poli cal science

A. De ni on of poli cal science

Poli cal science is de ned as the study of poli cs using the scien c method. It is known as a phenomenon of
empowerment and fragmenta on of di erent disciplines (also linked to the phenomenon of specializa on), par cularly
in rela on to : Sociology, History, Economics, Philosophy and Cons tu onal Law.

B. History of poli cal science

It is a recent scien c discipline, with its own subject of study, method and theories, and indeed became an established
eld only during the 19th and 20th century. However, the origin of poli cal science can be traced back in ancient history
(The Republic, by Plato (An quity) ; The Prince, by Machiavelli (Renaissance) ; The Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes ;
Montesquieu ; Locke ; Tocqueville ; etc.)

Indeed, it’s in the late 19th and early 20th that poli cal science truly became recognized as a serious science. It was thus at
this period that poli cal science started being ins tu onalized by some high schools or universitates (such as the École
libre de science poli que (Science Po) of Paris, the School of Social Science in 1975 in Florence, London School of
Economics and Poli cal Science in 1895 and the École des sciences poli ques et sociales l’ULB in 1898).

C. Scope of poli cal science

Poli cal science is composed of four major sub- elds, each one being specialized in a certain eld of the discipline :
− Poli cal Theory (which consist in the study history of poli cal ideas, debates on poli cal concepts, etc.)

− Compara ve Poli cs (based on the study of ins tu ons, poli cal par es, electoral system, social movements,
etc.)

− Interna onal Rela ons (based on peace, war, inter-state rela ons, global governance, etc.)

− Public Administra on and Public Policies

D. Methods of poli cal science

The methods of poli cal science can be divided into two major approaches :
− Quan ta ve approach, that a empts to explain poli cal phenomena by collec ng and analyzing numerical data
using sta s cal methods.

− Compara ve approach, which consists in the descrip on (describe di erences and similari es between cases),
controlling (compare to eliminate certain variables in order to isolate the e ects of others) and explaining (use
cases as a way to build stronger theore cal explana on and test hypotheses).

2. State
A. De ni on of state
A state is a poli cally organized and sovereign en ty characterized by de ned geographical borders, a permanent
popula on, a centralized government with the authority to make and enforce laws, and the capacity to engage in
diploma c rela ons with other states. The most fundamental components of a state therefore are : Territory, People,
Monopoly on exercise of force, Legi macy (as perceived by the governed), Sovereignty and Interna onal recogni on.

B. De ni on of na on
The concept of “na on” encompasses three key elements. Firstly, it involves a central belief in territorial control, where
various groups share common cultural characteris cs. Secondly, na ons are characterized by cultural unity and, most
importantly, a shared purpose — to control the territory believed to be their own. This includes a group of individuals
sharing heritage, language, culture (o en with religious aspects), and the ability to discuss shared ancestry. Lastly, a
na on is an imagined poli cal community conceived as both inherently limited (as na ons have “ nite, if elas c
boundaries, beyond which lie other na ons”) and sovereign (as monopoly of poli cal decision).

C. Development of na on-states
The term “na on-state” refers to some large poli cal units which rst developed in Western Europe and in Asia. In
Europe, the na on-states forma on can be divided in three phases :
fi
ti
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ff
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ff
fi
ti
ti
ti
à
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
 1. Consolida on of rule (from the 12th to the 17th century)
During the consolida on of rule, there was a reduc on in the number of poli cal centers, accompanied by an expansion
of territorial reach. Military resources also played a crucial role during this period, emphasizing the idea that “states make
war and war makes states.” There was a premium placed on size, driven by the bene ts of economies of scale. The result
was the emergence of larger, more prominent, and stable en es as containers of state power.

2. Ra onaliza on of rule (from 17th to the 19th century)

The ra onaliza on of rule involved centraliza on, marked by a shi from rulers’ dependence on privileged powers to the
establishment of bureaucracies. As rulers gained more power, its execu on became more impersonal and formal, guided
by the concept of “raison d'état.” Hierarchy played a key role, with bureaucra c organiza ons adop ng a hierarchical
structure, and an increasing emphasis on knowledge, par cularly in the realm of law. The func ons of the system
included di eren a on and specializa on within centralized structures, nancing through taxa on, and a growing
compa bility with the autonomy of civil society.

3. The expansion of rule (19th century)

Originally, states concentrated on securing their posi on in interna onal a airs and ensuring public order and legal
e ec veness. However, in the la er half of the 19th century, their role expanded to include interven on and
management. Possible reasons for this shi include market economy demands, the inherent growth tendency of
bureaucracies, dynamics within representa ve democracies and the increasing demand for redistribu on.

A key problema c ques on about na ons and na on states then appears : “Which came rst, the na on or the na on-
state ?” Response : in some cases, the state precedes the na on (Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia : a state with several
na ons) and in others, the na on precedes the state (Kurds or Jews before 1948 : na ons without a state).

D. Modern na on-states development

It is therefore during the late 19th and 20th centuries that “modern na on-states”, in its aspect as we s ll know it
nowadays, took shape. The main characteris cs of modern na on-states are thus →

− The law played a pivotal role, with state ins tu ons that produced the laws and are bounded by them.

− Centralized organiza on was established, characterized by a hierarchy of legal sources (parliament, senate, etc.),
with the cons tu on at the top.

− A clear dis nc on emerged between the state and society, delinea ng rela onships with religion and the market.

− The forma on of a democra c public sphere, marked by freedom of speech and press, civil and poli cal rights and
increased democra c par cipa on (however there is no guarantee for a na on-state to be also a democra c state).

However, “modern states” changed and evolved from the di erent historical experiences, with di erent models :
− Limited State (late Middle Ages) : primarily concerned with taxes, war, and security.

− Na on-building State (17th to 19th centuries) : focused on educa on, logis cs and communica on to foster na onal
iden ty, with di erent varia ons such as the parliamentary and industrial revolu ons in England which have led to a
mul -na onal union state, American revolu on which has led to a federal state, while the French revolu on has led
to unitary state.

− Welfare State (19th and 20th centuries) : emphasized social security measures.

− Interven onist State (mid-20th century) : adopted economic policies involving ac ve government interven on.

− Regulatory State (late 20th century) : engaged in indirect interven on through regula ons and embraced neo-liberal
economic policies.

E. Globaliza on
Globaliza on profoundly in uences modern states across various dimensions. Economically, it integrates na onal
economies into a global network, therefore impac ng trade, investment and economic policies. Na onal governments
also face the challenges of balancing na onal interests with interna onal obliga ons. The concept of the na on also
undergoes transforma on due to globaliza on, as cultural exchanges and global interac ons blur tradi onal boundaries,
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 and reduce their sovereignty which, tradi onally associated with absolute control, faces adjustments as states par cipate
in global governance structures.

Centripetal globaliza on refers to forces pulling en es together, fostering integra on and interconnectedness. In
contrast, centrifugal fragmenta on represents forces that drive en es apart, causing divergence and disintegra on.
Both dynamics shape the modern state's response to globaliza on, in uencing economic policies, governance structures,
and the very essence of na onal iden ty and sovereignty. The delicate balance between these two forces de nes the
complex interplay of globaliza on and its impact on modern states.

In conclusion, the core founda ons of sovereign na on-states are thus increasingly challenged by globaliza on, and the
contemporary processes linked to it (e. g. technology, migra ons, etc.).

3. Democracy

A. De ni on of democracy
Derived from the Greek words “demos” (people) and “kratos” (power), democracy therefore involved direct ci zen
par cipa on. Democracy is therefore an ideal for social organiza on, a desired system in which social equality is pursued,
freedoms are treasured, jus ce is achieved, and people respect each other. The basic de ni on of democracy is thus a
system of government by the whole popula on, typically through elected representa ves. However, there exists two
other de ni ons, thought by two professor in poli cal science :
− Joseph Schumpeter and its minimal de ni on of democracy, says that deumocracy is “an ins tu onal arrangement
for arriving at poli cal decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a compe ve struggle
for the people’s vote”.
− Robert Alan Dahl and its pluralist approach to democracy, says that it is divided into two major dimensions :

− contesta on (the possibility to publicly oppose and cri cize the government and compete to replace it with
free and fair compe ve elec ons between candidates) ;

− par cipa on (the possibility for every ci zens to choose who rules and to take part in the poli cal life of
their country).

History had known two major “democra c” period : Ancient Greece and the Modern-Contemporary period.

B. History of democracy : Ancient Greece

Ancient Greece pioneered democra c governance. At that me, Greece was divided in around 1000 city-states (Athens,
Sparta, Thebes, Delphi...), each one ruling over its territory and people with di erent types of poli cal systems :

For instance, Athens became a democracy thanks to a series of poli cal

reforms during the 6th and 5th centuries BC a er facing a period of
poli cal instability. Athenian democracy was not born of popular
insurrec on, but of the commitment of ci zens to poli cs, to ensure
the unity of the city. Indeed, before democracy, Athens was ruled by
monarchs, then evolved into an oligarchy (where power was
concentrated in the hands of a small aristocra c elite), and then in the, a er several crisis, two major Athenian gures
implemented some reforms that led to democracy :
− Solon (in 594 BC)
He was appointed to address social and economic crises, and thus implemented economic reforms and introduced a
classi ca on based on wealth, allowing individuals to par cipate in government based on economic status. Due to him,
the poli cal rights and responsibili es were therefore linked to a person’s nancial capacity. Addi onally to that, Solon
also created the Council of Four Hundred, composed of ci zens from the three wealthiest classes. While it didn't
cons tute full democracy, it indeed marked a shi toward broader poli cal par cipa on.
− Cleisthenes (circa 508-507 BC)
Cleisthenes is o en considered the father of Athenian democracy. Indeed, he introduced far-reaching democra c
reforms, which include the reorganiza on of ci zens into ten local communi es that go beyond the tradi onal
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ft
fi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
 boundaries of family and clan. This thus fostered a sense of civic iden ty and equality among ci zens. He also established
the Council of Five Hundreds, a representa ve body chosen by lot from each of the ten tribes, which played a crucial role
in proposing laws and policies. Cleisthenes also promoted the concept of “isonomia” (equality before the law), which
aimed to reduce the in uence of tradi onal aristocra c families.

During this period, the Athenian democracy was func oned around two central elements that governed the city :
− In Athenian democracy, the Areopagus ini ally served as a council of elders with judicial func ons, possessing
considerable poli cal in uence. Over me, reforms restricted its powers, narrowing its focus to homicide cases.
Despite these changes, the Areopagus maintained historical and judicial signi cance, adap ng its role in
response to evolving democra c structures.

− The Pnyx served as the primary mee ng place for the Assembly, the democra c gathering of ci zens. Located on
a hillside near Athens, the Pnyx provided a space for ci zens to par cipate in decision-making, debates, and
vo ng on important issues. It symbolized the direct involvement of the people in the democra c process, where
they could express their opinions and collec vely shape the policies and laws of the city-state. The Pnyx was thus
a crucial site for the prac ce of direct democracy in ancient Athens.

However, democracy was not considered as a good poli cal system at that me. Indeed, ancient commentators
(philosophers or other intellectuals) cri cized the Athenian regime as the rule of an uninformed mob and argued in favor
of a “mixed” government, combining principles of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The term “democracy” thus
carried a nega ve connota on for most educated readers un l well into the 18th century.

Athenian democracy would be a strange form of rule for any modern observer : it was direct democracy, in the sense
that major decisions were made by ci zens mee ng at a popular assembly, but only a very small minority of the city’s
popula on was granted ci zenship (women, slaves, foreigners and minors were excluded), there was no cons tu onal
protec on of individual rights, and all ci zens were expected to par cipate in the assembly. As a result, popular decisions
were o en arbitrary and incoherent.

C. History of democracy : Medieval founda on of democracy

Modern democracies see their origins in some Medieval aspira ons to fairer socie es. These was due to a poli co-
religious con ict from the high Middle Age (11th and 12th century) between Pope Gregory VII and Holy Roman Emperor
Henry IV over the ability to choose and install bishops, abbots and the pope himself. In consequence, there was a great
delegi ma on of the “divinity” and “divine rights” of Kings, and a growing autonomy of Kingdoms from the Va can rule.
This thus led to a lot of poli cal and economic con ict over self-government, many struggles to limit the power of the
ruler, and the philosophical founda on of the principle of the “rule of the people”.

D. History of democracy : Modern and Contemporary age

All along the modern era, royal and divine rights became increasingly challenged by new philosophical and social
ideologies. The main ques oning was then “who sets up Kings in their Kingdoms ?”, and everyone then agrees to say it
should be a people’s choice, and that the King should rule for the people's good. This idea was of course a major
breakthrough, as the King became accountable to the people, and should now jus fy its choices to the people. This new
idea thus led to a democra za on process in Europe during all the Contemporary period…

Indeed, the 19th century was the century of republics and cons tu onal monarchies… and thus of the development of
democracy ! This was also due to the fact that some elites’ members (intellectuals, poli cians, etc.), such as the historian
George Grote in his book History of Greece (1846), were increasingly interested in the democra c experience of Ancient
Athens. Indeed, this century sees the rediscovery of the Athenian experience, and the will to set up a more or less similar
poli cal system in our modern states. Democracy therefore became more poli cally acceptable and desirable. In 1863,
US President Abraham Lincoln takes up this idea that modern states needed a “government of the people, by the people,
for the people”. It is also during this period that the Classic view on democracy emerged : a decision-making process in
which the people themselves decide for the common good on poli cal issues by elec ng representa ves who carry out
the people’s will. Modern democracy is therefore de nitely not the same than Ancient democracy.

The 20th century introduced the Contemporary view on democracy. Indeed, it is during this period that the clear
dis nc on between non-democra c and democra c regime is established, and that democracy truly became
characterized by poli cal compe on. Modern democracies can thus be best described as “mass liberal republic”. For
instance, in 1942, the economist and professor of poli cal science Joseph Schumpeter gave a minimalist de ni on of
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
fl
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
 democracy, saying that it is “an ins tu onal arrangement for arriving at poli cal decisions in which individuals acquire the
power to decide by means of a compe ve struggle for the people’s vote”. This de ni on emphasizing compe ve
elec ons has been praised for its simplicity, but also cri cized for its limited understanding of the democra c process.
Indeed, he sees democracy only an “arrangement” in which the majority is against the “common good” of the people,
and thus think that modern democracies have abandoned their primary objec ve of being a poli cal system governing
according to the will of the people.

In 1871, Robert Dahl (another professor of poli cal science) extended this idea to argue that modern democracy is
de ned by the combina on of open contesta on for power and inclusive poli cal par cipa on. By contrast to
Schumpeter, he had a pluralist approach to democracy. He indeed renamed this system as “polyarchy” (the government
of the many) and argued that this system requires a minimum set of procedures and guarantees to work, such as freedom
of expression, freedom of organiza on, the right to vote, the right of leaders to compete for support, alterna ve sources
of informa on, free and fair elec ons and ins tu ons that make policies dependent on voters’ preferences.

Schumpeter’s “minimalist” de ni on and Dahl’s concep on of polyarchy have shaped in one way or another most
de ni ons of democracy. Those de ni ons vary in their details, but they generally acknowledge four essen al principles :
free and fair elec ons, universal par cipa on, respect for civil liber es and responsible government. All these condi ons
must be present for a country to be called democra c. Indeed, if one of the condi ons is absent, the poli cal system will
fail to meet contemporary standards of democra c rule. We can therefore determine if a country is democra c or not by
regarding if it presents these four a ributes simultaneously.

Both de ni ons however agree that there are true tensions between what democracy is (the real democra c system)
and what democracy should be (the principle). Indeed, modern democracies can be best described as a mass liberal
republic. Indeed, as said by Schumpeter, they are built on republican arrangements, as most policy decisions are not
made directly by ci zens, but they are delegated to representa ve legislatures and execu ve leaders, who are
accountable to the electorate. Moreover, modern democracies are built on the great principles of the eighteenth century
(poli cal rights are recognized for all ci zens ; social and human rights are recognized for non-ci zens as well). The
government is therefore expected to respect such rights and to protect individuals when their rights are threatened by
other actors, such as criminals or corpora ons.

4. Classi ca on of democra c systems

However, the fact that all democracies share these fundamental characteris cs does not mean that all democracies look
alike. Democra c systems can indeed be quite di erent in many regards. Two poli cal scien sts, Duverger and Lijphart,
thus developed two di erent approaches to classify democracies.

A. Duverger : Classic ins tu onalist approaches

According to the Classic ins tu onalist approaches of Duverger, the most important di erence among democracies
involves the dis nc on between parliamentary, presiden al and semi-presiden al systems…
Parliamentary democracies emerged from the historical transforma on of absolu st monarchies into democra c
regimes. Key characteris cs include the indirect elec on of the chief execu ve, a limited separa on of powers, and a
dis nct division between heads of government and state, with exible terms in o ce. Ci zens vote for legislators, and
the majority in parliament determines the head of government, o en a prime minister or chancellor. Coali on forma on
is necessary when no party holds a majority, involving agreements on future policies and ministerial posi ons. While
there is a clear separa on of func ons between the execu ve and the legislature, there's no explicit separa on of powers
among these individuals. Emerging from the transforma on of monarchies, parliamentary democracies maintain a
separa on between the head of government and state. The principle of responsible government implies that the elected
prime minister commands the administra on, with the monarch's role being largely symbolic. Some democracies,
o cially retaining monarchs, e ec vely operate as republics. Others, like Germany, India and Italy, explicitly adopt a
republican cons tu on, appoin ng a poli cally weak president elected indirectly by parliament or an electoral college.
Although parliamentary systems have mandated elec on intervals, early elec ons can occur if the prime minister clashes
with parliament or faces a vote of no-con dence, showcasing the dynamic nature of these democracies in managing
government changes.

Presiden al democracy originated in the e orts of the US to create a con nental republican government in 1787, and
then spread globally to La n America in the 19th century and later to parts of Africa and Asia in the 20th century. This
cons tu onal model involves a popular elec on of the chief execu ve, clear separa on of powers, xed terms in o ce,
ffi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
 but no dis nc on between the head of state and head of government. In presiden al democracies, voters par cipate in
separate elec ons for the legislature and the president. Although these elec ons may occur concurrently, they are
dis nct contests. The president and members of the cabinet are not part of the congress, ensuring a strict separa on of
powers. While coordina on between the execu ve and legislature occurs, it is limited, and execu ve re-elec on is
typically constrained. For instance, in the US, the president serves a four-year term with a single opportunity for
immediate re-elec on, while in Uruguay, the president's term is ve years with a prohibi on on immediate re-elec on.
The structure of presiden al democracies re ects a delicate balance between execu ve and legisla ve powers with
unique varia ons in term lengths and re-elec on possibili es.

Some countries have ins tu onal arrangements that blend elements of presiden alism and parliamentarism. Semi-
presiden al regimes combine a directly elected president, who serves in o ce for a xed term, and a prime minister,
who is responsible to parliament. Such arrangements are common in Western Europe (e.g. Austria, France, Ireland,
Portugal), Eastern Europe (e.g. Bulgaria, Poland, Ukraine), Africa (e.g. Cape Verde, Mali) and Asia (e.g. South Korea,
Taiwan). However, the powers accorded to the president in such regimes vary considerably. Some semi-presiden al
regimes, such as Austria or Ireland, have very weak presidents and e ec vely operate as parliamentary systems. Others,
like South Korea or Taiwan, grant considerable authority to the head of state and e ec vely func on as presiden al
systems.

B. Lijphart : mul -criteria’s approaches

A second set of di erences among democra c systems involves the dis nc on between majoritarian and consensus
democracies. This classi ca on originates in the work of Arend Lijphart who argues that some democra c regimes are
organized to facilitate majority rule, while others are designed to protect minori es (and thus promote decision-making
by consensus). Such di erent concep ons of the democra c process e ec vely translate into unique cons tu onal
features. these di erent concep ons of the democra c process are re ected in divergent cons tu onal features :
− Majoritarian democracies adopt a dispropor onal electoral system for the elec on of legislators. Voters in the UK or
in the US, for instance, elect only one legislator (the candidate with the largest number of votes) to represent each
district. Such an electoral system discourages voters from suppor ng smaller par es, and it makes it easier for the
largest party to win a majority of seats in the parliament or congress, even when the largest party does not win a
majority of the vote at the na onal level. For example, in the 2015 Bri sh elec on, the Conserva ve Party obtained
37 % of the na onal vote and 51 % of the seats in parliament. Unwilling to “waste” their votes on smaller par es
with li le chance of winning, voters will concentrate their support on the two largest par es, sustaining a two-party
system.

− Consensus democracies are designed to protect the power of par san and regional minori es. Therefore, they
embrace coali on governments to favor na onal agreements, and federalism to preserve local autonomy.
Consensus democracies thus adopt propor onal electoral systems that translate the percentage of votes obtained by
each party into a very similar propor on of seats in the legislature. For example, in the 2014 Belgian elec on the
incumbent Socialist Party obtained about 13 % of the na onal vote and gained 15 % of the seats in the lower house
of parliament.

5. Autocracy

A. De ni on of autocracy
fi
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ff
ff
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ff
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ff
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 Autocracy is a system of government by one person with absolute power. An autocra c regime is therefore the contrary
of a democra c regime. As the word democracy, which come from demos (“people”) and kratos (“power”), the word
autocracy comes also from the Greek : auto means “self” and kratos.

B. Di erent forms of autocracy

− Ruling Monarchies (e. g. France under Louis XIV, Saudi Arabia)
Hereditary leadership, like in France under Louis XIV and Saudi Arabia, involves royal descent and familial control over
military, poli cs, and policies. Monarchies, common in the Middle East, gain resilience from religious and tribal
legi macy, large ruling families, and economic patronage. Resembling single-party dictatorships, monarchies mobilize
diverse support networks, penetrate society, and use tradi ons to generate respect.

− Personal Dictatorships (e. g. Kadda in Libya, Kim dynasty in North Korea, Lukashenko in Belarus)
Leaders like Kadda , Kim dynasty, and Lukashenko wield unrestrained power, weakening ins tu ons deliberately.
Cul va ng personality cults, marginalizing opposi on, and using divide-and-rule tac cs, these regimes ensure loyalty
and prolong rule. Their unpredictable nature leads to tumultuous exits, post-collapse confusion, and chaos due to
inten onally weakened ins tu ons. Personalist dictatorships exhibit the lowest democra za on likelihood, relying on
leaders manipula ng uncertainty, vulnerability, and loyalty within inner circles.

− One-Party Authoritarianism (e. g. Communism, Fascism, Nazism)

Single-party regimes, seen in Communism and Fascism, consolidate control over state ins tu ons, local governance, and
media. Examples include China, Laos, and Vietnam. Despite resembling democracies, they di er signi cantly,
manipula ng legislatures, disadvantaging opposi on, and exhibi ng longevity, economic growth, and pragma c
foreign policies.

− Military Dictatorship (e. g. Chili under Pinochet)

Military regimes, as in Chile under Pinochet, involve military o cers assuming poli cal authority. Unlike democra cally
elected military gures, these regimes arise through military seizure, suppressing poli cal par es. Collabora ve
compared to personalist dictatorships, most are short-lived due to internal military divisions, increasing democra za on
likelihood post-military rule.

− Limited Mul -Party Authoritarian System (e. g. Russia)

Limited mul -party authoritarian regimes, like Russia, feign poli cal diversity while ghtly controlling elec ons. Mul ple
par es exist, crea ng the appearance of compe on. However, ruling par es manipulate the electoral context,
ensuring predetermined outcomes through gerrymandering (charcutage electoral) , media manipula on, and opposi on
restric ons. Despite the illusion of democracy, ruling elites adeptly navigate electoral processes to perpetuate dominance
and control.

C. What makes authoritarian regimes durable ?

− Repression
Dictators use repression, from widespread purges to selec ve measures, to maintain control and regime stability. Recent
studies suggest repression is o en more selec ve and a last resort. Highly repressive regimes, like Saudi Arabia, eliminate
opposi on to reduce challenges. Repression deters protests, but poses risks, limi ng accurate informa on and risking
security force loyalty. Purges, like in Stalin's Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, signal ruthlessness and consolidate
power, o en occurring during power consolida on, as seen in Saddam Hussein’s ac ons in 1979.

− Legi macy
Authoritarian regimes aim for legi macy to ensure longevity, relying on historical, religious, and economic factors.
Monarchies o en use historical and religious claims, while economic growth, seen in Singapore, Vietnam, and China,
stabilizes regimes. Propaganda, through mass media and educa on, shapes ideological principles and in uences trust in
government, contribu ng to stability.

− Co-opta on of ci zens and elites

Authoritarian leaders u lize co-opta on, integra ng strategic actors into the regime elite to prevent discontent and
maintain stability. This strategy includes providing jobs, payments, and bene ts to the opposi on, fostering loyalty. By
avoiding repression, authoritarian regimes create a facade of compe on, inhibi ng opposi on unity. To counter internal
threats, regimes focus on co-op ng elites through nancial incen ves and poli cal roles, reducing the risk of coups and
promo ng stability.
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
fl
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 − Use of “democra c” ins tu ons
Contemporary authoritarian regimes strategically u lize democra c ins tu ons, such as poli cal par es and legislatures,
to prolong their rule. Elec ons signal dominance, maintain elite cohesion, and weaken the opposi on. Autocracies boost
public support before elec ons, gauging policy e ec veness. Poli cal par es spread regime ideology, distribute
bene ts, and gain loyalty, while legislatures incen vize opposi on par cipa on, reducing violent resistance. The
adop on of these ins tu ons contributes to the longevity of autocracies.

D. Between democracy and autocracy…

There are several subtypes of regimes “between democracy and autocracy”, such as :
− Defec ve Democracy : awed democra c systems with weakened ins tu ons or electoral processes.

− Illiberal Democracy : democracy lacking liberal principles, o en with majoritarian rule and limited civil liber es.

− Delega ve Democracy : systems where leaders exercise unchecked power, relying on electoral mandates rather than
ins tu onal checks.

− Hybrid Regimes : poli cal systems blending democra c and autocra c features, with varying degrees of
ins tu onalized democracy.

− Compe ve Authoritarianism : regimes that hold mul party elec ons but manipulate condi ons to favor the ruling
party, limi ng true compe on.

6. Democra za on

A. De ni on and history of democra za on

Democra za on is a process of poli cal changes moving in a democra c direc on. It is therefore a movement towards
democracy (quan ta ve approach) and a transi on from an autocra c to a democra c regime (qualita ve approach). It is
thus the opposite of the autocra za on process.

Contemporary history is made of several “waves” of democra za on (and autocra za on)…

fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 B. Causes of democra za on : Structural Approaches
There are several structural approaches to democra za on :
− Moderniza on theory : democra za on depends on economic development.
According to Symour Lipset, economic development precedes democracy. The moderniza on theory therefore considers
democracies as the results of economic development, which indeed generates a complex and plural social structure
favorable to the development of democracy. Lipset thus consider that the wealthier a na on is, the more likely it is to
embrace democracy. Later, Adam Przeworski brings some nuance to this theory in his book Democracy and
Development. He dis nguishes two hypotheses :
− Hypothesis 1 : Moderniza on leads to democra za on

− Hypothesis 2 : Moderniza on favors democra c stability

This theory however has some cri cism. Indeed, the ini al postulate (reaching a certain development level = democracy)
is not always true. It's indeed very di cult to set a threshold, there’s therefore no automa c mechanisms of
democra za on linked to the economic development of a country. For instance, some quite well-developed countries
such as Russia and China are not democracies for all that.

− Social theory : democra za on depends on the interac on among social classes.

Barrington Moore’s theory consider that democra za on doesn’t depend on a single causal factor, but on social
interac ons based on three key actors : peasantry, bourgeoisie and aristocracy. As shown in his book Social Origins of
Dictatorship and Democracy (1966), this interac ons produce three di erent outcomes :
− Bourgeois Revolu ons : clash between aristocracy and new bourgeoisie that leads to liberal democracy
(such as the England Glorious Revolu on, French revolu on and American Independence war) ;

− Revolu on from above : alliance between aristocracy and bourgeois middle class that leads to fascism (as in
Italy, Japan or Germany) ;

− Revolu on from below : weak bourgeois middle class and dominant landed aristocracy that leads to
communist regimes (such as in revolu ons in Russia and China).

This theory is thus based on the idea of “no bourgeoisie, no democracy”, and thus also have some cri cism. Indeed, in
1977, Göran Therborn developed another theory, saying that Moore gave too much importance given to structures (as in
the theory of moderniza on) and that this theory cannot explain 20th century democra za on : he says that the
bourgeoisie plays a decisive role in the rst process of democra za on (in 18th and 19th minimal democracies, mainly
based on civil liber es and poli cal rights), but other classes and other types of interac on should be considered for
understanding contemporary democracies. He indeed talks about the role of the working class, saying that their role was
crucial for the late 19th and early 20th democra za on waves, based on universal su rage and economic and social rights.
This theory thus consider that modern democracies is indeed more likely when income distribu on is more egalitarian.

C. Causes of democra za on : Strategic Approaches

On the other hand, the strategic approach of democra za on considers that there are no structural precondi ons for
democracy. Indeed, in contrast to the structural approaches which are based on socio-economic factors, the strategic
one is based on the strategic ac ons of poli cal actors and the role they have in democra c transi ons. This approach
indeed sees democracy as the result of strategic interac ons. According to this theory, democra za on could be divided
into three major phases : liberaliza on, transi on and consolida on. They dis nguish several modes of transi ons :
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 Strategy Mul lateral Unilateral
(working together on issues that (deciding without considering the
Agent of change concern numerous players) point of view of others)

Power Elite Pacted transi on Imposi on (transi on from above)

Counter-elite / mass Reform from below Revolu on

7. Execu ves

A. De ni on
The execu ve is the branch of government responsible for implemen ng and enforcing laws. It consists of the head of
state (like a president or monarch) and the government or cabinet. The execu ve carries out policies, manages
government agencies, and oversees the day-to-day func oning of the state. It’s dis nct from the legisla ve branch (which
makes laws) and the judicial branch (which interprets laws). In essence, the execu ve turns laws into ac on, ensuring the
smooth func oning of a country's governance.

B. Types of government
There are several di erent types of governments :
− Presiden alism (e. g. USA)
In presiden al systems, the president is both the head of state and head of government, elected separately from the
legislature. The president serves a xed term and has signi cant execu ve powers.

− Parliamentarism (e. g. UK)

In parliamentary systems, the head of government (prime minister) is typically the leader of the majority party in the
parliament. The head of state and head of government roles are separate, with the monarch or a ceremonial president
serving as the head of state.

− Semi-presiden alism (e. g. France)

Semi-presiden al systems have both a president and a prime minister. The president is elected by popular vote and
serves as the head of state, while the prime minister is responsible for the day-to-day administra on and is accountable
to the parliament.

− Directorial government (e. g. Switzerland during the Helve c Republic (1798-1803))

Directorial government involves a collec ve execu ve, where several individuals or a commi ee share execu ve
authority.

− Directly elected prime minister (e. g. Israel)

In some parliamentary systems, the prime minister is directly elected by the public. Israel is an example where voters cast
their ballots for a poli cal party, and the leader of the winning party becomes the prime minister.

C. Internal working of governments

Presiden alism o ers a “simple” and “basic” way of governing, as it is indeed not a collec ve decision-making system :
execu ve power is thus exclusively concentrate in a single, directly elected person for a xed term (the president), and
cabinet only executes his guidelines and advises him.

On the other hand, parliamentarism o ers a broader range of types of governments :

− Cabinet government : cabinet discuses and decides collec vely, and the PM is the “chairman” of the group.

− Prime ministerial government : closer to presiden alism, decision-making by prime minister.

− Ministerial government : the power is dispersed among individual members, the government is thus
fragmented and ministers acts as policy dictators.

D. Poli cal capacity

The poli cal capacity of execu ves is in uenced by :
− Government's unity or division : In divided governments, common in semi-presiden al systems, the president's
ins tu onal empowerment determines poli cal capacity, poten ally leading to gridlock. (impasse)
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ff
ti
ti
fi
ff
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
 − Majority or minority government : While theory expects instability in minority governments, they are o en
stable in prac ce, as they may occupy the ideological center, dividing the opposi on.
− Single-party or coali on government : Single-party governments are homogeneous, enabling quick decisions,
while coali on governments involve a me-consuming internal decision-making process.

E. Autonomy of governments
The level of autonomy between government and par es varies based on three types of party-government rela ons :
− Dominance model, in which one of the two en es holds sway over the other.

− Autonomy model, that re ects coexistence without signi cant mutual in uence.

− Fusion model, in which party and government become poli cally indis nguishable, blurring the lines between
the two en es.

F. Bureaucra c capacity
Bureaucracies, characterized by merit-based recruitment, are seen as poli cally neutral due to their emphasis on
quali ca ons and competence rather than poli cal a lia ons. However, bureaucracy also in uence considerably
government’s autonomy. Indeed, some theories suggest bureaucracies tend to expand con nually, and bureaucrats may
have a personal interest in increasing their budget, leading to poten al ine ciencies and growth beyond necessity.
Bureaucracies thus face challenges by public opinions.

Poli cians thus respond to bureaucracy's power through di erent strategies :

− Spoil systems, which involve appoin ng numerous administra on members aligned with the victorious party's
goals, fostering commitment but risking organiza onal knowledge gaps, corrup on, and cronyism.

− New public management, which introduces compe on and merit-based appointments for top posi ons,
aiming to enhance e ciency through managerialism and entrepreneurship, fostering a more compe ve and
transparent bureaucra c system.

8. Legislatures

A. De ni on
The legislature is a branch of government responsible for making and passing laws. It is typically composed of elected
representa ves who debate and vote on proposed laws, also known as legisla on. The legislature therefore plays a
crucial role in the democra c process by represen ng the interests of the people and ensuring that laws are created in a
transparent and accountable manner.

B. Roles of legislatures
The roles of legislatures can be put into the following categories :
− Linkage and Representa on (legislature as an agent)
In this role, the legislature serves as a representa ve of the people, ac ng on their behalf. It establishes a crucial link
between ci zens and the government, re ec ng the diverse needs and opinions of the popula on.

− Oversight and Control (legislature as a principal)

The legislature acts as a check on the execu ve branch, ensuring that it operates within legal and ethical boundaries.
This oversight func on involves scru nizing government ac ons, expenditures, and policies to prevent abuse of power.

− Policy-making (legislature as legislator)

One of the primary func ons of the legislature is to create, amend, and pass laws. As legislators, members of the
legislature propose, debate, and vote on legisla on, shaping the legal framework that governs society.

C. Internal organiza onal structure

Internal organiza onal structures provide a nuanced measure of a legislature’s in uence. Key factors include :
− Chamber Con gura on
The chamber con gura on in legislatures can be one or two, represen ng either the general popula on (lower house) or
speci c groups (upper house). The rela onship however between chambers varies : Symmetric Bicameral Systems
feature equally shared or divided powers with the same selec on mode, while Asymmetric Bicameral Systems have
unequally distributed powers and di erent selec on modes.

− Legislature Characteris cs
fi
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ffi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
 The characteris cs of a legislature, such as its size, degree of professionaliza on, and member turnover, signi cantly
impact its in uence and e ec veness.

− Commi ees
Commi ees in a legislature wield in uence through indicators like permanency, specializa on, and their role within the
legisla ve body. The ability to engage in policy-preparing work enhances a commi ee’s impact on plenary sessions.
Moreover, the availability of resources contributes to the overall e ec veness of commi ees in ful lling their func ons.

− Hierarchical Structures
In hierarchical structures of a legislature, the distribu on of internal posi ons can be propor onal or follow a “winner
takes it all” approach. The decision-making dynamics within these structures vary, with op ons ranging from a slow and
compromise-oriented process to a polarizing yet e cient one, depending on the level of party cohesion.

D. Assessing power
The ac ve or passive role of a legislature hinges on its level of autonomy, considering two key aspects :
− Ins tu onal independence

− Parliament : limited legisla ve prospects ; its power to elect or dismiss the execu ve reduces autonomy,
requiring support for the execu ve.

− Congress : enjoys more autonomy, but success is not guaranteed.

− Member Independence in rela on to par es

− Party-Organiza on : higher centraliza on and party’s role in candidate selec on limit members' independence.

− Party System Characteris cs :

− Electoral System : more in uen al in PR-systems (party-centered systems).

− State Funding: increases members’ autonomy.

The autonomy determining the legislature’s role depends on ins tu onal and par san independence, in uenced by
poli cal system structures and party-related factors.

E. Architecture and poli cs

The legislature’s architecture is o en linked to the func ons and values the countries’ state want to promote :
− Semicircle (most common ; such as in France, Italy, Germany, EU) : in reference to an quity, members are fused into
a single en ty for na onal unity.

− Opposing benches ( t for majoritarian or bipar san compe on ; such as in UK) : for open debate and confronta on
between two par es of society.

− Circle (more rare ; such as in Slovenia) : representa on of extreme democra c equality.

− Horseshoe (such as in Bangladesh or South Africa) : hybrid between “semicircle” and “opposing bench”.

− Classroom (o en in authoritarian regimes such as Russia, North Korea or China) : regimented rows focused on a
single speaker in the hall.

9. Elec ons

A. De ni on
The process of elec on is an essen al requirement of any poli cal system that hopes to be regarded as possessing
democra c creden als. The elec on is the main mechanism by which the people are able to express their views about
how their country should be governed.

B. Electoral system
However, not all elec ons are the same. Indeed, elec ons are governed by rules that determine what kind of choices
people can make when they turn out to vote and how those choices are converted into seats in parliament or the
elec on of a president. Iden cal sets of voter preferences in two adjacent countries could therefore be expressed
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
tt
ti
ti
fl
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fl
ti
ti
fi
 di erently if the electoral rules are di erent, or, even if the ballot papers capture their preferences in the same way, the
coun ng rules might deliver di erent results. Here are thus the di erent types of electoral system :
− Majoritarian (Maj) System
A majoritarian electoral system is a vo ng method where the candidate or party that receives the most votes in each
cons tuency wins the elec on. For instance, this system is commonly used in United Kingdom for single-member district
elec ons.

− Plurality (Plur) System

The plurality electoral system is a type of majoritarian system. In a plurality system, a candidate or party only needs to
receive more votes than any other compe tor. As for presiden al elec ons in the USA, this system is simple and o en
results in a clear winner, but it can some mes lead to a lack of propor onal representa on.

− Propor onal (PR) System

A propor onal electoral system aims to allocate seats in propor on to the overall percentage of votes each party
receives. It ensures that the composi on of the legisla ve body re ects the diverse opinions of the electorate. There are
various methods of propor onal representa on, such as the party-list system or the single transferable vote (STV).
Countries like Germany and Sweden use propor onal representa on to varying degrees.

− Mixed System
A mixed system combines elements of majoritarian and propor onal systems, o en using both cons tuency and party-
list vo ng. In place in countries such as Japan, this system thus aims to balance representa on and stability, o ering a
mix of local and na onal focus.

C. E ects of electoral system

The di erent electoral systems can have several di erent e ects :
− Mechanical e ect
− Electoral formula : The type of electoral formula used, whether it's Propor onal Representa on,
Majoritarian or Plurality, signi cantly impacts the distribu on of seats.

− Magnitude of cons tuencies/districts : In PR systems, the size or magnitude of cons tuencies plays a crucial
role. Higher magnitude tends to result in greater propor onality, meaning that the distribu on of seats
more accurately re ects the overall vote share.

− Thresholds : The presence of a threshold (a minimum percentage of votes required for a party to gain
representa on) a ects propor onality. A higher threshold tends to reduce propor onality by excluding
smaller par es from representa on.
− Psychological e ect
o On Par es and Candidates :
− Fewer Compe tors : Certain systems may lead to a reduced number of compe ng par es, par cularly in
majoritarian systems.

− More Alliances : In response to the electoral rules, par es may form alliances to enhance their chances of
success.

− Catch-All Par es vs. Ideological Par es : Majoritarian systems may encourage catch-all par es (dif pov),
while Propor onal Representa on (PR) systems may favor ideological/niche par es.

− Lower Par san Cohesion : In PR systems with open lists, where voters can choose individual candidates,
there might be lower cohesion within the same party.

o On Voters :
− Strategic vs. Sincere Vote : Majoritarian systems o en lead to strategic vo ng, where voters may not cast a
sincere vote but strategically choose a candidate. PR systems, especially with thresholds, can also prompt
strategic vo ng.

− In uence on Government Forma on : PR systems can in uence government forma on, as par es may
strategically posi on themselves to a ract a broader voter base. ????????????????
− E ect of the ballot in Candidate-Centered Systems and Party-Centered Systems
ff
ff
ff
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ff
ti
ff
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ft
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ff
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ft
 o On Elec on Campaigns :
− More Contacts in a Candidate-Centered System, as the focus is more on individual candidates, there thus
tends to be a higher number of direct contacts during elec on campaigns.
o On Ci zen-Elected Rela ons :
− More Rela ons in Candidate-Centered Systems, as there is generally a greater emphasis on personal
connec ons between ci zens and candidates.

o On Par san Discipline :

− More Party Discipline in Party-Centered Systems, as par es o en experience higher levels of discipline in
this systems, unlike to Candidate-Centered Systems which priori ze more individual candidates (more
independence from party direc ves) over party a lia ons.
− E ect of the vo ng system on the quality of democracy
− Quicker government forma on and more stable government in Majoritarian and Plurality systems, as the
winner president or prime minister mainly choose members from their own par es to help them governing
the country.
− Higher par cipa on rate in Propor onal systems, as the “li le par es” representa ves have more chances
to be elected, and thus a wider range of people’s opinion can be represented in the parliament.
− Greater woman representa on in Propor onal systems.

Plurality / majority →
− First-past-the-post FPTP / SMP = US / UK
− Two-rounds system TRS: absolute majority (2nd chance) (tradeo s) (France)
− Block vote BV: mul -member district / voters as many votes as there are candidates
− Party block vote PBV: mul member/ party list gets elected
− Alterna ve Vote AV : single member districts / rank candidate preferences (Australie)
Propor onal →
− List PR: mul member district / re ect propor onality / smaller par es
− Single Transferable Vote STV: voters choose individuals and par es
Mixed →
− Mixed Member Propor onal MMP: Combines the geographical representa on of single-member districts
with addi onal adjustment or compensatory seats allocated in terms of propor onal representa on.
− Parallel : Similarly combines single-member districts with PR, but there is no direct rela ons between the
two votes.

10. Poli cal par es

A. Origins of par es
Par es have di erent socio-poli cal origins, di ering in terms of ming, organiza on, and social basis. Indeed :
− Earlier par es primarily originated within parliamentary systems : their success was then measured by their ability to
gain control over the execu ve branch, contribu ng to the rise of parliamentary government.

− More recent par es mostly have extra-parliamentary origin : they emerged to mobilize individuals tradi onally
excluded from poli cal par cipa on, pressuring established par es to expand su rage.

B. Func ons of par es

Par es perform a number of central func ons :
− Coordina on
Par es facilitate coordina on by aligning e orts within government and parliament, o ering a structured pla orm for
collabora on on policies and legisla on. They organize poli cal ac vi es in society, mobilizing ci zens and ensuring
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ff
ff
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
tf
 democra c par cipa on through campaigns and grassroots e orts. Ac ng as intermediaries, par es also bridge the gap
between government and society, anchoring democracy by transla ng public needs and aspira ons into policy
ini a ves, thereby re ec ng the collec ve will of the people.

− Contes ng elec ons

In the electoral sphere, par es provide candidates who embody the party's values, goals, and policies, presen ng voters
with choices rooted in ideological or policy dis nc ons. Par es support candidates by o ering organiza onal and
nancial assistance during campaigns, aiding in reaching voters and naviga ng the intricacies of running for o ce.
Addi onally, poli cal par es formulate clear policy posi ons on crucial issues, serving as a guide for candidates and
o ering voters a transparent representa on of the party's agenda and vision for governance.

− Recruitment and selec on

In the realm of party organiza on, recruitment involves ac vely seeking individuals, including candidates and experts,
who align with the party's values and objec ves. This process entails iden fying poten al contributors to the party's
goals. Subsequently, the selec on process concentrates on placing individuals in suitable posi ons within the party,
op mizing the u liza on of skills and resources to enhance overall e ec veness. Furthermore, par es promote
inclusivity by integra ng new ci zens into their ranks, with ini a ves such as youth movements providing opportuni es
for younger members to par cipate and contribute to a diverse and dynamic poli cal landscape.

− Representa on
In the sphere of representa on, poli cal par es act as the "spokesperson" for the electorate, ar cula ng ci zens'
interests, concerns, and preferences. They serve as a voice in the poli cal arena, conveying collec ve aspira ons. Par es
o en align with speci c social groupings, such as classes or religious communi es, fostering a sense of representa on for
diverse segments of society through shared values and interests. Addi onally, par es develop and communicate dis nct
ideological posi ons, shaping their stance on issues and policies. These ideological frameworks guide party decision-
making and assist voters in aligning their choices with the party that best re ects their values.

C. Models of par es
There are di erent types of poli cal par es :
− Cadre (or elite) par es
Origina ng in parliamentary systems, cadre par es (also called elite par es) emerged during the early stages of modern
party development. Opera ng in mes of limited su rage, they catered to a select group with vo ng rights, reducing the
need for extensive grassroots structures. These par es exhibit a subordina on of the central o ce to the party in public
o ce, concentra ng decision-making among elected representa ves. Notably, cadre par es emphasize personal
clientele mobiliza on, fostering a direct and personalized rela onship between party leaders and their supporters.
Overall, they re ect a historical context, evolving within parliamentary systems and tailored to restricted su rage,
focusing on direct connec ons between leaders and a select clientele.

− Mass par es
Mass par es emerged in the second half of the 19th century with an extra-parliamentary origin. They aimed to represent
speci c social classes or groups, deriving power from mobilizing large numbers of individuals. Frequently, these par es
were constructed upon exis ng organiza ons, such as trade unions, and featured extensive organiza onal structures
dominated by the party's elite. Re ec ng a period of social and poli cal change, mass par es sought to bring together
and amplify the voices of diverse segments of the popula on, emphasizing broad mobiliza on and o en rooted in pre-
exis ng social ins tu ons like trade unions.

− Catch-all par es
Catch-all par es evolved from the transforma on of mass par es, featuring increased prominence of professionals over
members, a diluted ideological stance, and a strategy to appeal across diverse group boundaries. This model weakened
the tradi onal connec on between the party and its associated interest organiza ons. Over me, catch-all approach has
led to fundamental changes, transforming par es into state en es, reducing the in uence of ac vists, priori zing
professional exper se and forming a cartel-like structure for self-protec on, known as the “cartel party”. This
development re ects more general trends in the dynamics of modern poli cal par es.

− An -cartel par es
An -cartel par es emerge in response to frustra on with mainstream poli cal par es and are organized around speci c
ideas rather than social groupings (such as le -libertarian, green, etc.). These par es o en posi on themselves as
fi
ff
ft
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ff
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
 alterna ves to established poli cal structures, focusing on speci c issues or ideologies that resonate with segments of
the popula on dissa s ed with tradi onal party poli cs. An -cartel par es aim to challenge the perceived cartel-like
behavior and dynamics of mainstream par es, o ering a dis nct approach and vision for addressing societal challenges.

− Light par es
A light party is ini ated by a wealthy individual, o en from the business sector, with a speci c agenda (such as En
Marche in France). These par es are characterized by their founder’s vision, signi cant nancial support, and strategic
approach to address par cular issues or concerns.

11. Party systems

A. De ni on
A party system refers to the organiza onal and structural arrangement of poli cal par es within a speci c poli cal
landscape. It encompasses the number of par es present, their rela ve strengths, and the pa erns of compe on and
coopera on among them. The party system is a key component of a poli cal system, in uencing the dynamics of
elec ons, governance, and representa on.

B. History of party systems

Two factors induced the forma on of modern par es : Na onal Revolu ons (late 18th and early 19th century ; restricted
electorates) and Industrial Revolu ons (middle and late 19th century ; su rage extension). These revolu ons indeed
created socio-economic and cultural con icts (also called cleavages) in the socie es, that led to the forma on of di erent
modern party families, which were in fact the poli cal transla ons of those cleavages…

1. Na onal Revolu ons thus introduced two cleavages :

− Centre-periphery cleavage
The center-periphery cleavage involves divisions between the central governing authority and peripheral regions within
a country. This cleavage manifests through administra ve centraliza on (such as scal integra on policies), cultural
standardiza on measures like compulsory schooling and o cial language regula ons, and the presence of regionalist
par es. Examples of such par es include the Sco sh Na onal Party in the United Kingdom and the Swedish Party in
Finland. This cleavage re ects tensions between the central government and regions seeking greater autonomy, o en
driven by cultural, economic, or poli cal di erences.

− State-church cleavage
The state-church cleavage is characterized by tensions between the state and religious ins tu ons, par cularly relevant in
the context of a shi toward liberal ideologies and the Na onal Revolu on's call for secular ins tu ons. This cleavage
involves con icts between the state and the church, o en resul ng in the aboli on of church privileges. In response,
conserva ve and religious par es emerged to defend tradi onal values, while liberal par es advocate for the separa on
of church and state, suppor ng a more secular poli cal landscape. The state-church cleavage thus re ects ideological and
ins tu onal struggles between religious in uence and secular governance.

2. Industrial Revolu ons also introduced two cleavages :

− Rural-urban cleavage
The rural-urban cleavage centers mainly on con icts related to trade policies. Indeed, agrarians advocate for trade
barriers, while industrialists support free markets. This cleavage is further reinforced by cultural di erences. Par es such
as the Polish People’s Party and the Australian Country Party align with agrarian and peasant interests, re ec ng the
tensions surrounding trade policies and the contras ng perspec ves of rural and urban communi es.

− Workers-employers cleavage
The workers-employers cleavage emerged around the con ict between “capital” and “labor”, with workers advoca ng
for social rights and welfare provisions. This cleavage is represented in workers and social-democra c par es (such as
the Bri sh Labor Party), and is a crucial aspect of the le -right poli cal alignment. The 1917’s Soviet Revolu on further
complicated this cleavage within the worker’s movement, giving rise to socialist and communist fac ons with dis nct
ideologies and objec ves.

3. Post-industrial Revolu ons nally also introduced two cleavages :

− Post-materialism cleavage
The post-materialism cleavage emerged during the 1960s-1970s and centers on a genera onal con ict with younger
genera ons embracing “post-materialist values”. This shi gave rise to various social movements, although its impact on
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
fl
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
fl
ff
ti
ff
ti
ti
fl
tti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ft
ft
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
fl
tt
ti
fi
ti
ti
ff
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
 party systems remained minor, except for the emergence of Green Par es, which aligned with the values and concerns
associated with post-materialism and ecology.

− Globaliza on cleavage
The globaliza on divide is based on the dis nc on between the “winners” and “losers” of globaliza on. This dynamic has
given rise to neo-populist protest par es, o en leaning extremists’ par es (such as right-wing and xenophobic, or le -
wing movements). Addi onally, new par es with either pro or an -European sen ments have emerged, re ec ng the
complex and mul faceted impacts of globaliza on on poli cal landscapes.

However, not all cleavages exist in all countries. Indeed, party-systems exists, the two major types of constella ons are
dis nguished : homogenous constella ons (predominant cleavage, namely le -right, such as USA or UK) and
heterogeneous constella ons (various overlapping cleavages exist, such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium or
Netherlands).

C. Types of party system in democracies

Two main elements de ning format of a party system are the number of compe ng par es and their size.

12. Social movements

A. De ni on
Social movements are speci c forms of collec ve behaviors : they are thus di erent from poli cal par es and di erent
from interest groups. Increasingly relevant in contemporary poli cs, social movements are made up by :
− A group of people with a con ictual orienta on towards an opponent
− A collec ve iden ty (common ideas, common aims)

− A repertoire of non-ins tu onalized collec ve ac ons (such as manifesta ons), which can be divided between :

− Protest ac ons (events aimed at crea ng a public debate), giving visibility to their movement ;

− Informa on ac ons (constant e ort of informa on to the public), giving visibility to their ideas.

B. Di erent models of social movements

There are three major models of social movements :
− The Classical Model
The Classical model of social movements posits that a breakdown in social order leads to a disrup ve psychological state,
giving rise to social movements. These movements are considered a consequence of a system experiencing a “loss of
ff
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fl
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ff
ft
 equilibrium”. In this model, social movements are viewed as excep ons or something “unusual”, emerging in response to
a disturbance in the regular func oning of the societal order.

− The Resource Mobiliza on Model

The Resource Mobiliza on model of social movements adopts an actor-focused approach, viewing social movements as
normal and ra onal phenomena. It asserts that social movements develop when there's a rise in resources suppor ng
collec ve protest ac vi es, emphasizing the importance of collec ve iden ty and network density. Higher levels of
organiza on contribute to be er mobiliza on and success prospects. Key factors in this model include solidarity among
par cipants, organiza onal structure, and external support, highligh ng the signi cance of available resources in shaping
the dynamics of social movements.

− The Poli cal Process Model

The Poli cal Process Model of social movements builds upon the Resource Mobiliza on model by introducing two key
elements. First, it emphasizes the impact of poli cal opportuni es and constraints in shaping social movements, referred
to as the poli cal opportunity structure. Second, it considers the subjec ve meaning a ributed to the situa on by the
actors, termed “cogni ve libera on”. This model recognizes that social movements are in uenced not only by available
resources but also by the poli cal context and the interpreta on of the situa on by those involved, highligh ng the
importance of both external factors and internal percep ons.

C. Analysis of social movements

Unlike poli cal campaigns that are rela vely limited in their thema c range and dura on, social movements aim at, or
resist, fundamental changes of society. Inevitably, such changes would also a ect the given power structures.
Consequently, social movements are engaged not only in social, but also in poli cal struggles.

The analysis of social movements involves examining the con gura on of power dynamics among di erent actors :
− Protagonists : primary actors or groups leading and advoca ng for the social movement's goals, they ac vely
engage in mobilizing support and pushing for change.

− Antagonists : opposing forces or en es that resist or work against the social movement's objec ves, they may
include ins tu ons, governments or individuals who seek to maintain the status quo.

− Bystanders : individuals or groups who are not ac vely involved in either suppor ng or opposing the social
movement, they may observe from the sidelines without taking a clear stance.

Analyzing social movements also involve several phases :

− Emergence, when the social movements arise from a combina on of underlying structural condi ons and
situa onal factors. The interplay between these elements contributes to the movement's emergence.

− Mobiliza on, which refers to the process of gathering support and resources for the social movement. The form
and size of mobiliza on depend on various factors, including the movement's goals, organiza onal capacity, and
external support.

− Success : contrary to a direct link between the level of mobiliza on and success, the outcome depends on the
alignment between social movements and the poli cal opportunity structure. Success is in uenced by how well
a movement seizes favorable opportuni es within its socio-poli cal context.
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ff
ti
ti
tt
fl
fl
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti