Unitary System in AP US Government

France redrew its regions, and Britain abolished a city government

In 2016, a national law took effect that cut France's metropolitan regions, including Corsica, from 22 to 13. The national legislature passed the law merging them, and the regional governments had no constitutional power to block it.

Britain offers an even sharper case. In 1986, Parliament abolished the Greater London Council, the elected government for the whole London area, because the national government wanted it gone. Scotland's Parliament, created in 1999, exists because Westminster passed a law creating it, which means Westminster keeps the legal authority to change it.

Now compare the United States. Congress can't merge Ohio and Indiana on its own. Doing so would require the affected states' consent as well as Congress's, and Congress can't dissolve the Texas legislature at all. The Constitution guarantees the states their existence and their reserved powers under the 10th Amendment. That gap between what Paris or London can do and what Washington can't is the core difference between unitary and federal.

How a unitary system changes Topic 1.9's two big ideas

If an environmental group loses a vote in Congress, it can take the same fight to a state legislature, a governor, or a state court. That fallback is what Topic 1.9: Federalism in Action (Unit 1: Foundations of American Democracy) is about. The topic asks you to explain how splitting authority between national and state governments shapes policymaking, and a unitary system is the clearest way to show what that split adds.

The course's first point is that federalism gives interest groups, citizens, and institutions multiple access points. If a group loses in Congress, it can lobby a state legislature, a governor, or a state court instead. In a unitary system, regional access points may still exist (a group could lobby Scotland's Parliament, for example), but their authority does not rest on the same federal division of national and state powers. That authority comes from national law, sometimes backed by the national constitution, and the central government generally controls how much of it regions get.

The second point is that national policymaking is limited because states hold concurrent powers, like taxing and making laws, and reserved powers of their own. Unlike U.S. states, regional governments in a unitary system do not hold powers through a federal division of sovereignty. Their ability to make different policy depends on the country's laws and constitution. In the U.S., that constitutionally protected state authority is part of why policy on things like marijuana, minimum wage, or education standards varies from state to state.

Naming the contrast in Concept Application and the Argument Essay

The term is most useful here as a contrast that helps explain American federalism. It works as a comparison tool.

In multiple choice, expect a definition or comparison check. A stem might describe a country where the national legislature can create or dissolve provincial governments and ask you to identify the system. Or it might ask which feature separates a federal system from a unitary one. The right answer points to state power that the constitution protects through a division of sovereignty, as opposed to regional power whose scope the national government generally controls.

In Concept Application (Question 1), a scenario might describe a state legalizing something the national government restricts, or an advocacy group shifting its efforts from Congress to state capitals. A strong answer explains the effect using federalism vocabulary: multiple access points, concurrent powers, reserved powers. If it's relevant, you can contrast the constitutionally protected authority of U.S. states with the authority of regional institutions in a unitary system, which the national government generally allocates and can adjust.

In the Argument Essay (Question 4), a prompt about whether federalism helps or hurts democracy lets you use the unitary model as the alternative you're arguing against. Federalist 51 gives you evidence here. Madison describes a "compound republic" where power is divided between two distinct governments, creating a "double security" for rights. A unitary system doesn't constitutionally divide sovereignty between national and state governments the way the U.S. federal system does. If you take the opposing view, you could argue that a unitary approach produces uniform rights across the country, then rebut it.

Unitary, federal, confederal: where the power starts

The usual mistake is treating any country with local governments as federal. Britain has local councils and a Scottish Parliament, but it's still unitary because those bodies exist at Westminster's pleasure. The test is where power legally comes from and whether sovereignty is constitutionally divided between levels.

• Unitary: the central government holds primary authority and generally controls what powers go to regional and local governments, though a constitution may protect some local institutions (United Kingdom, France).
• Federal: the constitution divides sovereignty, so neither level can abolish the other (the United States).
• Confederal: the states hold the real power and the central government depends on them (the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation).

One more twist shows up in scenario questions. Each U.S. state is generally unitary toward its own cities and counties. A state legislature can redraw county lines or override a city ordinance in ways Congress could never do to a state. So a question about a state preempting a city's law is about state power over local governments, which works differently from national-state federalism.