Comparing Political Systems: a Democracy and a Non-Democracy

The questions you ask of any system

This part of your specification is unusual, and knowing why will help you revise it. It is a single sentence long. It asks you to explain key differences in how citizens can and cannot take part in politics in one democratic and one non-democratic political system outside the UK, and it stops there. It names no countries, gives no examples and lists no features. That is not an oversight. It means your teacher chooses the two systems you study, and different schools will study different ones, so what is actually being examined is not a set of facts about two particular places. It is whether you can compare political systems intelligently. So this module teaches the comparison itself: the questions worth asking of any system anywhere, and what the answers tell you. Learn those questions and you can apply them to whichever pair your course has chosen, and to a system you have never met before, which is exactly what an exam question is likely to describe.

Words for comparing systems

Five terms the comparison needs. Notice that most of them are about whether something is genuinely available rather than whether it formally exists.

Your specification names no countries

A friend asks which two countries they need to learn for this part of the course. What is the accurate answer?

• None are named: the specification asks for one democratic and one non-democratic system, and your teacher chooses which
• There are two set countries that every school studies
• The UK and one other country
• It does not matter, because the question will not ask for examples

Match the question to what it tests

Two systems, one set of questions

Here is a worked pair to show the framework in use. These two systems are illustrations written for this module, not real countries and not examples your specification requires. Apply the same questions to whichever pair your own course studies.

Which two show a meaningful vote

Holding an election does not by itself make a system democratic. Select the TWO things that show a vote is meaningful.

• There is a real choice between candidates or parties offering different things
• The result actually determines who governs, and those who lose give up power
• Turnout is very high
• Elections are held on a fixed and regular schedule

Voting is not the whole of it

It is tempting to make this whole comparison about elections, and an answer that does will be thin. Voting happens rarely; participation happens continuously. So ask what a citizen can do between elections. Can they join an organisation that campaigns against a government policy? Can they attend a protest without risking their job or their liberty? Can they write publicly, or read something the government dislikes? You have studied the free press elsewhere on this course, and it belongs here as one question among several rather than as a separate topic: a system where the press cannot report on those in power has closed off a route of participation even if its elections look ordinary. Two honesty checks before you write. First, democracies are not identical and not perfect: they differ in their voting systems, in how much power is devolved and in how well the rules work in practice, and your own country’s arrangements are examined elsewhere on this specification precisely because they are open to criticism too. Second, the subject here is systems of government, never the people who live under them. Nobody chooses to be born under a particular system, and an answer that treats a population as responsible for its government has stopped doing citizenship and started doing something else.

The framework in words

To compare two political systems, ask the same questions of each. Is there a real _____ between candidates, and does the result decide who governs? Is _____ lawful, so that people who disagree may organise and stand? Can citizens _____ those in power publicly without punishment? Does the _____ of law hold, so that courts can decide against the government? And what can a citizen do _____ elections, which is where most participation actually happens?

The comparison that judges people

Four sentences from an answer comparing two political systems. Select the ONE that stops describing a system and starts judging a people.

• In this system, organising an opposition party is unlawful, so citizens cannot seek office.
• Elections are held, but only one party may stand, so the vote does not decide who governs.
• The people of that country clearly do not want democracy or they would have it.
• Public criticism of the government can lead to arrest, which closes off a route of participation.

Say what the difference is

Assemble a sentence comparing participation in two systems, without overstating it.

Comparing two systems fairly

An exam question describes a political system you have never studied and asks you to compare participation in it with a democratic system. Take the decisions in order.

• The description says elections are held every four years. Is that enough to call it democratic?
• It adds that only one party is permitted to stand. What follows?
• You want to say something about participation between elections. What should you ask?
• How should the answer be phrased to score well and stay fair?

Explain how you would compare

Explain the key differences in how citizens can and cannot take part in politics in a democratic and a non-democratic political system. Use the two examples your own course has studied.

• Name the two systems your course studies, and say that your specification does not prescribe them
• Explain what makes a vote meaningful, and why holding an election is not enough on its own
• Explain whether opposition is permitted in each, and what follows for citizens who disagree
• Explain what citizens can do between elections in each system
• Explain whether citizens may criticise those in power, and what happens if they do
• Explain what the rule of law means and whether it holds in each system
• Note honestly that democratic systems vary and are open to criticism too
• Finish by comparing the systems rather than judging the people who live under them