AP Comparative Government and Politics Unit 4 Review: Party, Electoral Systems, & Citizen Organizations

Each course country uses a distinct set of rules to select representatives. The key distinctions are between direct and indirect elections, single-member and multimember districts, and plurality versus majority requirements. China's National People's Congress is selected indirectly through a series of local and regional people's congresses, with the Communist Party controlling candidate selection at each level. Iran's Majles has 290 seats filled by direct elections in single-member and multimember districts, with a two-round runoff if no candidate wins a majority; the Guardian Council vets all candidates before the election, and a small number of seats are reserved for non-Muslim minorities. Mexico's Congress of the Union uses a mixed system: the Chamber of Deputies has 300 single-member district seats elected by plurality and 200 seats allocated by proportional representation from party lists, while the Senate uses a combination of three-seat constituencies and 32 proportional representation seats.

Electoral rules are not neutral; they are designed to produce specific political outcomes. Proportional representation tends to increase the number of parties in the legislature and improves the election of women and minority candidates, especially when combined with gender quotas or reserved seats. Single-member district plurality systems, sometimes called first-past-the-post, tend to produce two-party systems because voters engage in strategic voting to avoid wasting their ballot on smaller parties; they also create strong geographic accountability since each district has one identifiable representative. Presidential election rules vary: Mexico's president is elected by a simple plurality of the national popular vote, while Nigeria requires a presidential candidate to win a plurality and receive at least 25 percent of the vote in two-thirds of the states, creating a national mandate requirement. Iran and Russia require an absolute majority, triggering a runoff if no candidate clears 50 percent in the first round. Independent electoral commissions in Mexico and Nigeria are designed to reduce fraud and increase electoral competition.

Party systems describe how many parties compete and how much real competition exists. China operates as a one-party state: the Communist Party of China has held governing power since 1949, and while eight other parties are permitted, they exist only for consultation and hold no real power. Russia uses a set of legal and administrative tools to maintain United Russia's dominance without formally banning opposition: increasing party registration requirements, allowing only registered parties to run, using selective court decisions to disqualify candidates, restricting opposition media access, raising electoral threshold rules, and eliminating direct gubernatorial elections. Mexico transitioned away from PRI one-party dominance through a series of reforms including eliminating el dedazo, reducing patronage through privatization, decentralizing subnational power, and strengthening the National Electoral Institute. Nigeria operates a genuine multiparty system where the People's Democratic Party and the All Progressives Congress compete for power, though ethnic and regional affiliations heavily shape party support.

Party systems link citizens to policy making, but the strength of that link varies enormously. In China, the CPC has controlled the government and military since 1949; minor parties fill limited offices but have no independent policy role. In Iran, formal political parties do not exist; instead, loosely organized factions such as reformists and principlists form electoral alliances, but the Guardian Council's vetting power means these alliances have weak and uncertain connections to constituents. In Mexico, PAN, PRI, and PRD are allowed to form coalitions to nominate candidates, and the INE provides a framework for competitive elections. In Nigeria, multiple parties compete, and ethnic quotas and the federal character principle shape how representation is distributed across the country's diverse regions. In Russia, United Russia dominates the State Duma, and opposition parties face structural barriers that limit their ability to translate voter support into policy influence.

Social movements are large, loosely organized collective efforts pushing for broad political or social change. Interest groups are formally organized to advocate for a specific policy or constituency. The distinction matters because social movements often emerge when formal channels like parties or elections are blocked or ineffective. Iran's Green Movement in 2009 used social media to mobilize protests against alleged fraud in the presidential election, challenging the regime's legitimacy. Mexico's Zapatista uprising in Chiapas in 1994 combined indigenous rights demands with opposition to NAFTA, using armed protest and autonomous municipalities to pressure the state. In Nigeria, MEND used armed tactics in the Niger Delta to demand redistribution of oil revenues, while MOSOP and Ken Saro-Wiwa pursued nonviolent advocacy for Ogoni environmental and political rights. In Russia, anti-LGBT protests emerged in response to the 2013 propaganda law, illustrating how social movements can form around civil rights issues even in restrictive regimes.

Pluralism and corporatism describe two different ways interest groups gain access to policy making. In a pluralist system, autonomous groups compete freely to influence government without state direction; no single group has a monopoly on representing a sector, and lobbying is the primary tool. In a corporatist system, the government controls access to policy making by designating state-sanctioned groups or single peak associations (SPAs) to represent labor, business, and agricultural sectors; these groups negotiate directly with the state in a structured, often tripartite arrangement. The state retains significantly more control over citizen input in a corporatist system. Mexico under the PRI was a classic example of state corporatism: the CTM represented labor, the CNC represented peasants, and the CNOP represented popular organizations, all formally linked to the PRI. As Mexico democratized, it shifted away from this model toward a more pluralist system in which autonomous groups compete independently for policy influence.