Week 5 — Regimes on Paper: Sorting Four Invented Governments and Tracing a Slow Slide

Assignment 5 of the term — invent four governments and sort them, trace a slow slide away from democracy, and explain the difference between holding elections and being a full democracy to someone who mixes them up.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-sorted analysis. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned to sort the forms government takes: direct and representative democracy, electoral and liberal democracy, the hybrid regime, authoritarian and totalitarian rule, the republic, the third wave, and the difference between democratic backsliding and a coup. Week 2 gave you legitimacy, and Week 1 gave you the empirical/normative distinction; this assignment puts both to work on governments you invent. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles.

The task

You will invent four governments for four made-up countries. Treat every regime as illustrative: give each country an invented name or a letter, and keep every real country, real person, and current government out of it.

Work these two problems, showing how you got each count:

1. You describe 4 invented regimes and check each one against 3 marks that a liberal democracy adds to the election floor (protected rights, a free press, and an independent judiciary). How many checks do you record?
2. An invented democracy's governing party takes 1 legal-looking step against the courts, the press, or the election rules at the end of every 2-year stretch, over 6 years. How many steps does it take?

Beside each count, add the interpretation that makes it political science:

• Problem 1, four regimes on paper. Describe four invented regimes in two to four sentences each: one liberal democracy, one electoral democracy, one hybrid regime, and one regime that is either authoritarian or totalitarian. For each regime, record whether it meets the election floor (free, fair, competitive elections that the people in power can lose) and then check it against the three liberal marks, one at a time. For your non-democratic regime, say whether it is authoritarian or totalitarian, and defend the label by scope, not by harshness. For one regime, say whether it is a republic and explain why that is a separate question from whether it is a democracy.
• Problem 2, a slow slide. Take your electoral or liberal democracy from Problem 1 and write the legal-looking steps its governing party takes, one sentence each. Explain, using the two tests of tempo and legality, why the sequence is democratic backsliding and not a coup, then write one sentence describing what a coup in the same country would look like instead. Finally, choose one of this week's pinned fragments, quote it exactly, label it empirical-leaning or normative, and state one limit on using it as evidence about democracy. The two fragments are Pericles, in the Crawley translation (1874) of Thucydides, Book II: "Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy." and Churchill, in the Hansard record of the House of Commons in November 1947, column 207: "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

Explain it to a non-expert

A cousin tells you, "That country holds elections, so it's a democracy, end of story." Write a 3–5 sentence message to that cousin that explains, in everyday words, the difference between the election floor and a liberal democracy, uses one of your four invented regimes as the example, and names one limit of the labels, such as the fact that real regimes sit along a range and observers can disagree about where one falls. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a lifeguard explaining to a new swimmer why the pool has both a lifeguard and posted rules. Model answer: "The posted rules tell everyone what is allowed, but rules alone do not keep anyone safe. Someone has to be watching and able to act when a rule is broken. That is why the pool has both. The limit is that one lifeguard cannot see every corner at once, so swimmers still need to look out for each other."

Use that pattern for your message to the cousin, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both counts, your four regimes, your slow slide, your fragment reading, and your message to the cousin before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show how you got each count when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one regime, step, or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you, and it will not tell you whether democracy is the best form of government.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory political science course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's regime types: direct and representative democracy, electoral and liberal democracy, the hybrid regime, authoritarian and totalitarian rule, the republic, and democratic backsliding versus a coup. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a court case, or a quotation, never quote Arendt, Linz, or Huntington, never take a side on whether democracy is the best form of government, and never bring in a real country, a living politician, a current government, or a party as an example.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. My regimes and countries are illustrative.
PROBLEM P1: You describe 4 invented regimes and check each one against 3 marks that a liberal democracy adds to the election floor (protected rights, a free press, and an independent judiciary). How many checks do you record?
PROBLEM P2: An invented democracy's governing party takes 1 legal-looking step against the courts, the press, or the election rules at the end of every 2-year stretch, over 6 years. How many steps does it take?
After each count, I must interpret it: for P1, four invented regimes (one liberal democracy, one electoral democracy, one hybrid regime, and one authoritarian or totalitarian regime), each checked against the election floor and then against the three liberal marks one at a time, the non-democratic regime labelled by scope rather than harshness, and for one regime whether it is a republic and why that is a separate question; for P2, the legal-looking steps written out, an explanation by tempo and legality of why the sequence is backsliding and not a coup, one sentence describing a coup instead, and one pinned fragment quoted exactly, labelled empirical-leaning or normative, with one limit on using it as evidence. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a cousin who believes holding elections makes a country a democracy, explaining in everyday words the election floor versus a liberal democracy, using one of my regimes, and naming one limit of the labels. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.
Course facts to hold me to: an electoral democracy has free, fair, competitive elections that the people in power can lose; a liberal democracy meets that floor and adds protected rights, a free press, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law; a hybrid regime holds real elections on a tilted field. Authoritarian rule concentrates power and leaves non-political life largely alone (limited pluralism); totalitarian rule also tries to remake society around an official ideology with mass mobilization; the difference is scope, not harshness. A republic is a state whose head of state is not a hereditary monarch. Backsliding is gradual, cumulative, and done through legal-looking steps; a coup is sudden and openly illegal. The pinned fragments are Pericles (Crawley translation, 1874): "Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy." and Churchill (Hansard, November 1947, column 207): "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". Pericles spoke to persuade, and Athenian citizenship excluded women, enslaved people, and resident foreigners; Churchill marked his sentence as repeated, so he did not coin it.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct counts (20 points), regime-classification reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the cousin only with P1.
COUNT UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing count or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, all parts accurate (four regimes of the four required types, each checked against the floor and the three liberal marks, the non-democracy labelled by scope, the republic question kept separate, and the message to the cousin with one limit) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, all parts accurate (the steps written out, backsliding told from a coup by tempo and legality, a coup described, and one fragment quoted exactly, labelled by kind, and limited) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Sorting authoritarian from totalitarian by harshness, treating elections alone as liberal democracy, calling backsliding a coup, or crediting Churchill with coining his sentence earns no unit for that part. Naming a term alone does not earn a unit.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to political science, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation behind the count are visible = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a count alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both counts with their interpretations AND written my message to the cousin AND revised at least one regime, step, or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; never round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my counts and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both counts, your four regimes on paper, your slow slide with its fragment reading, and your message to the cousin — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sorting chart with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 5 skills — sorting regimes by the election floor and the liberal marks, telling authoritarian from totalitarian rule by scope, keeping the republic question separate, telling backsliding from a coup by tempo and legality, and reading a pinned fragment exactly and by kind — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, the four regimes, the slow slide, the fragment reading, and the message to the cousin. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that answers one of two reflection options of equal weight, your choice: (a) which regime or step you changed, what prompted the change, and one question you still have; or (b) which label you first got wrong (for example, harshness instead of scope), why it was easy to get wrong, and how you checked it. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The regimes, the analysis, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment, write your regimes, or add evidence you did not produce, and never ask it to quote Arendt, Linz, or Huntington: their works are in copyright, and this course states their ideas in words. Quote Pericles and Churchill only in the pinned words above. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com