← Introduction to Political Science outline

Week 5 · Chapter

Chapter 5 — Forms of Government & Regime Types

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 4 (compare regime types and constitutional structures — direct and representative, electoral and liberal democracy; authoritarian and totalitarian rule; democratization and backsliding; what constitutions do; the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances), Objective 3 (compare the major political ideologies and normative theories evenhandedly — liberalism, conservatism, socialism and its family, and the smaller families; justice, liberty, equality, and rights; the harm principle; Rawls and Nozick — stating each position in its strongest form and distinguishing empirical from normative claims) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week is about the different ways a country can be ruled, and how to tell them apart. Democracy (rule by the people) turns out to hide two separate questions: do people vote on laws themselves or elect others to do it, and does the system protect rights or only hold elections? You will also learn to tell authoritarian rule (a ruler or small group that answers to no one) from totalitarian rule (a state that tries to remake all of society). You will also tell a slow slide away from democracy from a sudden seizure of power. Then you will read two famous defenses of democracy, one from ancient Athens and one from the British Parliament in 1947, and check exactly what each one says; no one will tell you which form is best, but you will learn to judge the arguments.

Why you already care about this

Picture a campus hiking club with forty members and a small budget. At the first meeting, someone suggests that every member vote on every purchase: the tents, the stove, the van rental. By the third meeting, people are tired, and someone else proposes electing a five-person board to make those calls and report back. Both plans let the members rule. They do it in very different ways.

Now picture a second club whose board keeps postponing its election. A third club's president controls the group chat and deletes any post that criticizes the board. A fourth club holds elections, but only people the president approves may run. Each one still calls itself member-run. You can sense that something has gone wrong in each, even before you have words for it.

Political science gives you those words. This chapter sorts the forms government takes, from full democracy to the most controlling dictatorship, and gives you the tools to describe a regime precisely instead of only calling it good or bad.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

tell direct democracy from representative democracy, and place a referendum or an initiative correctly;
sort a regime as a liberal democracy, an electoral democracy, or a hybrid regime;
tell authoritarian rule from totalitarian rule by its scope;
explain why "republic" and "democracy" answer different questions;
tell democratic backsliding from a coup, and describe Huntington's third wave as his periodization;
read the pinned lines from Pericles and Churchill exactly, sort each by kind, and correct the common misattribution;
state the strongest case for and against the claim that democracy is always best.

Carry this line with you: elections are the floor — not the whole house.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 1 gave you the empirical/normative distinction; Week 2 built power, authority, and legitimacy; Week 3 laid out the ideologies and set totalitarianism aside as a regime type; Week 4 gave you the vocabulary of normative theory and a method for taking a value argument apart.
This week: the forms of government: direct and representative democracy, electoral and liberal democracy, hybrid regimes, authoritarian and totalitarian rule, republics, the third wave, backsliding, and two classic defenses of democracy.
How they connect: Week 2 asked why anyone should obey a government; this week asks what kind of government it is, and Week 4's claim-premise-assumption tools take apart the arguments for democracy.
Where we're going next: Week 6, Constitutions, Constitutionalism & the Rule of Law, asks whether a written rulebook can limit the power this week sorted.

Week 2 defined legitimacy as the widely shared belief that a ruler or a whole system has a right to rule. Keep that idea close, because every regime in this chapter claims legitimacy, and democracy claims it from the consent of the people. Week 3 said that totalitarianism is a regime type, not an economic ideology; this week finally defines it. And Week 4 taught you that finding an assumption is not finding a flaw, which you will need when you weigh the case for democracy in Section 7.

1. Ask two questions: direct or representative?

Go back to the hiking club. When every member votes on every purchase, the members decide each question themselves. When they elect a board, the members choose people who decide for them. Either way, the members hold the final power.

That is the core of democracy: rule by the people. The word comes from two Greek words, dēmos (the people) and kratos (rule). But "rule by the people" can work through very different machinery.

Direct democracy is a mechanism of democracy in which citizens vote on laws and policies themselves rather than electing others to decide for them.
Representative democracy is a mechanism of democracy in which citizens elect representatives who make the laws on their behalf and answer to the voters at the next election.

These are answers to a question of mechanism: who casts the vote on the law itself? They are not two rival kinds of regime. In fact, most representative democracies also borrow direct tools.

A referendum is a vote in which the whole electorate decides one specific question directly, used as a direct tool inside a representative system.
An initiative is a procedure that lets citizens put a proposed law or measure on the ballot by gathering signatures on a petition, so that voters decide it directly.

Worked example — the mechanism question. Take two of this week's illustrative regimes, Regime A and Regime B. Both are invented; no real country is described.

Regime A: voters elect a parliament, and the parliament makes the laws. Mechanism: representative.
Regime B: voters also elect the lawmakers. Mechanism: representative.
Regime A holds a referendum on one question. The voters decide that single question directly, but the parliament still makes every other law. Regime A has used a direct tool inside a representative system. It has not become a direct democracy.

In words: both democracies among the five regimes are representative, and a referendum does not change that.

Misconception check. Students often treat direct and representative democracy as two rival regimes, as if a country must choose one and reject the other. That is tempting, because the two are usually taught as a pair. But they are two mechanisms, and real systems mix them: a representative democracy can hold a referendum without ceasing to be representative. Ask "who votes on this law?" and you will sort the mechanism correctly every time.

Memory hook: direct or representative is about who casts the vote, not whether the people rule.

2. Set the floor: electoral, liberal, and hybrid regimes

Imagine two countries that both held an election last spring. In the first, the losing party conceded, newspapers reported the result freely, and the courts heard every complaint. In the second, the vote was counted fairly, but a journalist who mocked the winner was later prosecuted, and the new government fired two judges who ruled against it. Both countries held a real election. Are they the same kind of democracy?

Political scientists say no, and they use two definitions to explain why.

Electoral democracy is the minimal definition of democracy: a regime with free, fair, competitive elections that the people in power can lose, whether or not rights, the press, and the courts are fully protected.
Liberal democracy is a regime that meets the electoral floor and adds protected rights, a free press, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law.

Think of the electoral definition as the floor of a house. A liberal democracy builds the walls and the roof on top of it. One more type sits below the floor.

A hybrid regime is a regime that holds real elections on a tilted field, so the opposition can take part but cannot compete on fair terms.

All three are regimes: the basic arrangement of who holds political power in a state, how they get it, and how far that power reaches.

Worked example — the first three regimes. Read each illustrative case and apply the definitions.

Regime A: free, fair, competitive elections, and the governing party lost the last one and handed over power. Courts can strike down laws, newspapers criticize the government without penalty, and minority rights are protected. Result: liberal democracy.
Regime B: free, fair, competitive elections that incumbents have lost before. But the government can remove judges at will and prosecute journalists for "insulting officials". Result: electoral democracy, because it meets the floor and lacks the liberal protections.
Regime C: elections run on schedule, and opposition parties appear on the ballot. But the main television channels belong to allies of the ruling party, opposition candidates are often disqualified on technicalities, and the opposition has never been allowed to win national power. Result: hybrid regime.

In words: A builds the whole house, B has the floor without the walls, and C has an election that looks like a floor but tilts.

Here is a caveat worth keeping. These are classroom models, and real regimes sit along a range. Two careful observers can disagree about where one country falls, and that disagreement is about evidence, not a matter of taste.

Misconception check. Students often think that democracy means elections and nothing more. That is tempting, because elections are the most visible part of democracy. But that is only the minimal definition. The liberal definition adds protected rights, a free press, independent courts, and the rule of law, and a hybrid regime shows that elections alone can be held on a tilted field. Ask what the election sits on before you call a country a full democracy.

Memory hook: elections are the floor — not the whole house.

3. Sort by scope: authoritarian versus totalitarian

Picture two strict apartment buildings. In the first, the landlord makes every rule about the building, holds no tenant meetings, and evicts anyone who complains, but never asks what you do inside your own apartment. In the second, the landlord also decides what you read, which clubs your children join, and what you say at dinner. Both landlords are harsh. Only one is trying to run your whole life.

Political science draws the same line between two kinds of rule by the few.

Authoritarianism is rule in which political power is concentrated in one person or a small group that answers to no one, while non-political life such as work, worship, and family is largely left alone.
Limited pluralism is Linz's description of authoritarian rule, in which some independent groups such as churches, businesses, or clubs may exist but none may freely compete for power. This course teaches his formulation in words.
Totalitarianism is authoritarian rule plus the attempt to remake society itself around an official ideology, with mass mobilization and state control reaching into schools, work, and private life.

The classic reference on totalitarianism is Hannah Arendt (1951), The Origins of Totalitarianism. Her book is in copyright, so this course names it and teaches its idea in words, and never quotes it.

Worked example — Regimes D and E. Apply the two definitions to the last two illustrative regimes.

Regime D: a military council rules, with no national elections, banned political parties, and critics in prison. Yet people choose their jobs, worship as they like, run businesses, and join clubs; the council asks only that they stay out of politics. Result: authoritarian, with limited pluralism.
Regime E: one party rules under an official ideology. It runs the schools, youth groups, unions, and newspapers, requires attendance at mass rallies, and sets out to remake family life and work around the ideology. Result: totalitarian.
The test that sorts them: Regime D imprisons its critics, so harshness does not separate D from E. Scope does. D leaves work, worship, and clubs alone, and E reaches into all of them.

Now you can tally all five illustrative regimes: 1 liberal democracy + 1 electoral democracy + 1 hybrid regime + 1 authoritarian + 1 totalitarian = 5 regimes, of which 2 are democracies.

Misconception check. Students often use "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" as two words for "bad", or treat totalitarian as "extra harsh". That is tempting, because both describe rule without accountability and both can be cruel. But the difference is scope, not harshness: an authoritarian regime can jail critics and still leave private life alone, while a totalitarian regime sets out to remake that private life. Ask how far the state reaches, not how much it hurts.

Memory hook: authoritarian controls politics; totalitarian tries to control everything.

4. Separate republic from democracy, and preview measurement

Picture two flags. The first belongs to a country with a hereditary monarch, a parliament chosen in free elections, and a free press. The second belongs to a country that calls itself a republic in its official name, where one party has ruled for decades without a fair election. Which one is the democracy? Not the one with "republic" in its name.

A republic is a state whose head of state is not a hereditary monarch; whether a republic is democratic is a separate question.

Democracy is about who rules. "Republic" is about whether the head of state inherits the job. These are different questions, so a country can answer each one either way.

Worked example — the republic question. Use the illustrative regimes again.

Regime A has a hereditary monarch as head of state, so it is not a republic. It is a liberal democracy.
Regime E calls itself a republic and has no monarch. It is totalitarian.

In words: a monarchy can be a democracy, and a republic can be a dictatorship, so you always ask the two questions separately.

You will meet real cases of the first kind in Week 7. Canada and Japan each have a monarch as head of state and an elected parliament, and Freedom in the World 2026, covering 2025, rates both countries Free.

How political scientists measure regimes

Political scientists do not sort real countries by gut feeling. Two well-known projects publish their ratings each year. Freedom House's Freedom in the World rates countries Free, Partly Free, or Not Free. V-Dem sorts countries into four categories: liberal democracy, electoral democracy, electoral autocracy, and closed autocracy. Notice how V-Dem's first two categories echo this week's split between electoral and liberal democracy. This course writes each category exactly as the source spells it and never merges them.

This is only a preview. Week 13 reads both indices in full, including what their scores measure and what they cannot show.

Misconception check. Students often assume that any country calling itself a republic, or a "people's" anything, must be democratic. That is tempting, because in everyday speech the words travel together. But a republic only lacks a hereditary monarch, and a name is a claim, not evidence. Sort the regime by how it actually works, and treat its official name as one more claim to check.

Memory hook: the crown and the ballot are two separate questions.

5. Track change: the third wave and backsliding

Regimes do not stand still. Think of a neighborhood where, over a few decades, many houses get new owners at once, then the change slows, and later a few houses fall into disrepair. A historian of that street might group the changes into waves. Political scientists do something similar with regimes.

Samuel Huntington (1991), in The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, groups modern democratization into waves.

The third wave is Huntington's name, from The Third Wave (1991), for the period of democratization that he dates as beginning around 1974; it is a way of organizing history, not a law that predicts the next case.

Worked example — the dates. Huntington's book appeared in 1991. The wave it names began around 1974. So 1991 − 1974 = 17. Huntington was writing 17 years into the wave he named, which is one reason to treat the "wave" as his way of organizing the record so far, not as a forecast.

Movement can also run the other way, and political scientists separate two very different routes out of democracy.

Democratic backsliding is the gradual, cumulative weakening of a democracy from inside, as courts are weakened, the media pressured, and the rules tilted, often through legal-looking steps.
A coup is the sudden, openly illegal seizure of state power, often by the military, that overthrows the existing government.

Worked example — backsliding or coup? Both cases are illustrative.

Regime B over eight years: the governing party packs the top court, revokes the licenses of critical broadcasters, and redraws the election rules, each step by a legal-looking vote. Tempo: slow. Legality: each step looks legal. Result: backsliding, gradual, cumulative, and done from inside.
A neighboring illustrative state: soldiers seize the broadcaster overnight and suspend the constitution. Tempo: overnight. Legality: openly illegal. Result: a coup.

In words: you tell them apart by tempo and legality. Notice where Regime B is heading. If its steps continue, it could end up looking like Regime C, the hybrid regime.

Here is an honesty note about how this course uses the idea. Backsliding is taught as a comparative pattern across many cases, with invented examples. Whether any particular current government is backsliding is a contested empirical question, and this course never hands you that verdict.

Misconception check. Students often picture the end of a democracy as a coup: tanks in the street, a broadcast at dawn. That is tempting, because coups are dramatic and easy to see. But backsliding is the opposite in tempo and legality: it happens slowly, step by step, and each step can look lawful on its own. If you only watch for tanks, you will miss the slow route.

Memory hook: a coup is a crash; backsliding is a slow leak.

6. Read two defenses: Pericles and Churchill

Imagine finding two notes in a time capsule, both praising the same idea. One was written for a funeral, the other was spoken in a heated debate. Before you trust either one, you would ask who wrote it, for whom, and why. Political scientists read famous lines about democracy the same way.

Pericles, as Thucydides renders him

The first text comes from Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book II, in the Crawley translation (1874). In a speech at a public funeral, Pericles says of Athens: "Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy." The edition keeps the British spelling "favours". He also regards the citizen who takes no part in public duties "not as unambitious but as useless".

Read this as persuasion. It is a funeral speech praising a city to its own people. Thucydides is candid that the speeches in his history are reconstructions, not transcripts. And "the many" had a limit: Athenian citizenship excluded women, enslaved people, and resident foreigners. That is why Periclean Athens is not "a democracy like ours".

One more caution. A popular modern rendering of the second line comes from a different, in-copyright translation, so this course does not quote it. If you see a version that does not match the words above, check which translation it comes from.

Churchill, in the Hansard record

The second text is the Hansard record of the House of Commons in November 1947, column 207. Hansard cites a debate by its date and column, so "column 207" tells you exactly where to look. There, Winston Churchill says "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".

Look at the first four words: "it has been said". Churchill marked the line as one he was repeating. So crediting him with coining it is a misattribution, and who coined it first is uncertain.

Worked example — sort the three fragments by kind. Apply the empirical/normative distinction from Week 1.

Fragment 1, Pericles: "Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy." Kind: empirical-leaning, a claim about how Athens was governed, made inside a speech meant to persuade.
Fragment 2, Pericles: the non-participating citizen is "not as unambitious but as useless". Kind: normative, a judgment of how a citizen ought to act.
Fragment 3, Churchill: "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". Kind: normative, a comparative ranking of forms of government, marked as repeated, not coined.

Tally: 1 empirical-leaning + 2 normative = 3 pinned fragments.

In words: Pericles offers a proud case for democracy, and Churchill offers a reluctant, comparative one. They are two data points in one long argument.

Misconception check. Students often write "Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others" and credit him with inventing it. That is tempting, because the line is famous and he is the person usually quoted. But his own words begin "it has been said", which marks it as repeated. Chatbots make this slip often, so check any quotation against the Hansard column before you use it.

Memory hook: read the first four words before you credit the speaker.

7. Weigh the question: is democracy always best?

Back at the hiking club, a member grumbles after a two-hour meeting about stove fuel: "Wouldn't it be faster if one experienced person decided for us?" Another answers: "Faster, sure, until that person decides something we all hate and we can't remove them." Both have a point. That small argument is this week's open question in miniature.

Is democracy always the best form of government, and by what measure? This is a normative question, so the course gives each side its strongest case and hands the verdict back to you.

Proponents of democracy argue that it is the only form that rests rule on the consent of the people, which Week 2 tied to legitimacy. They add that elections let a people remove bad rulers without violence, that a free press and open debate expose mistakes so they can be corrected, and that liberal democracy protects rights that other regimes can take away at will. Pericles offers the proud version of this case: rule that favors the many, judged by ordinary citizens. Churchill offers the reluctant version: whatever democracy's faults, the alternatives that have been tried look worse.

Critics respond that "best" depends on the measure. They argue that majorities can override minorities, that voters often lack the time or knowledge to judge complex policy, and that leaders who face frequent elections may favor the short term over the long term. Some add that people under some non-democratic governments value order, speed, or prosperity above political participation, and judge their rulers by results rather than by elections. Even Athens, Pericles' model, kept most of its residents out of citizenship.

Here is a caveat worth keeping. Some of these claims are empirical: whether democracies correct mistakes faster, or decide more slowly, can be checked against evidence. Others are normative: whether consent matters more than results is argued from values. A strong answer labels each claim by kind, the way you learned in Week 1 and Week 4.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two:

(a) State the strongest case for the answer you find less convincing, as fairly as its best defender would state it.
(b) Name the one measure you think matters most when judging a form of government (consent, rights, stability, or results) and say whether it is an empirical or a normative choice.

Misconception check. Students often treat Churchill's line as proof that democracy is best, or treat any criticism of democracy as support for dictatorship. Both are tempting, because the debate is often staged as two teams. But Churchill's sentence is a comparative judgment, not evidence, and a critic of democracy's weaknesses may still prefer it overall. The real question is which measure you use and how you weigh it.

Memory hook: best by what measure — consent, rights, stability, or results?

Key terms

democracy — Rule by the people, from the Greek words dēmos (the people) and kratos (rule); whether the people decide laws themselves or through representatives is a separate question of mechanism. (first used: 1. Ask two questions: direct or representative?)
direct democracy — A mechanism of democracy in which citizens vote on laws and policies themselves rather than electing others to decide for them. (first used: 1. Ask two questions: direct or representative?)
representative democracy — A mechanism of democracy in which citizens elect representatives who make the laws on their behalf and answer to the voters at the next election. (first used: 1. Ask two questions: direct or representative?)
referendum — A vote in which the whole electorate decides one specific question directly, used as a direct tool inside a representative system. (first used: 1. Ask two questions: direct or representative?)
initiative — A procedure that lets citizens put a proposed law or measure on the ballot by gathering signatures on a petition, so that voters decide it directly. (first used: 1. Ask two questions: direct or representative?)
electoral democracy — The minimal definition of democracy: a regime with free, fair, competitive elections that the people in power can lose, whether or not rights, the press, and the courts are fully protected. (first used: 2. Set the floor: electoral, liberal, and hybrid regimes)
liberal democracy — A regime that meets the electoral floor and adds protected rights, a free press, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law. (first used: 2. Set the floor: electoral, liberal, and hybrid regimes)
hybrid regime — A regime that holds real elections on a tilted field, so the opposition can take part but cannot compete on fair terms. (first used: 2. Set the floor: electoral, liberal, and hybrid regimes)
regime — The basic arrangement of who holds political power in a state, how they get it, and how far that power reaches. (first used: 2. Set the floor: electoral, liberal, and hybrid regimes)
authoritarianism — Rule in which political power is concentrated in one person or a small group that answers to no one, while non-political life such as work, worship, and family is largely left alone. (first used: 3. Sort by scope: authoritarian versus totalitarian)
limited pluralism — Linz's description of authoritarian rule, in which some independent groups such as churches, businesses, or clubs may exist but none may freely compete for power. (first used: 3. Sort by scope: authoritarian versus totalitarian)
totalitarianism — Authoritarian rule plus the attempt to remake society itself around an official ideology, with mass mobilization and state control reaching into schools, work, and private life. (first used: 3. Sort by scope: authoritarian versus totalitarian)
republic — A state whose head of state is not a hereditary monarch; whether a republic is democratic is a separate question. (first used: 4. Separate republic from democracy, and preview measurement)
third wave — Huntington's name, from The Third Wave (1991), for the period of democratization that he dates as beginning around 1974; it is a way of organizing history, not a law that predicts the next case. (first used: 5. Track change: the third wave and backsliding)
democratic backsliding — The gradual, cumulative weakening of a democracy from inside, as courts are weakened, the media pressured, and the rules tilted, often through legal-looking steps. (first used: 5. Track change: the third wave and backsliding)
coup — The sudden, openly illegal seizure of state power, often by the military, that overthrows the existing government. (first used: 5. Track change: the third wave and backsliding)

Summary

Democracy is rule by the people; direct and representative are two mechanisms, and a referendum is a direct tool inside a representative system.
Electoral democracy is the floor of free, fair, competitive elections; liberal democracy adds rights, a free press, independent courts, and the rule of law.
A hybrid regime holds real elections on a tilted field.
Authoritarian and totalitarian rule differ in scope, not harshness.
A republic lacks a hereditary monarch; whether it is a democracy is a separate question.
Freedom House and V-Dem measure regimes in their own categories, read in full in Week 13.
Huntington's third wave, beginning around 1974, is his periodization, not a law.
Backsliding is slow and legal-looking; a coup is sudden and openly illegal.
Pericles' lines are persuasion from a limited citizenship; Churchill's line begins "it has been said".
Whether democracy is always best depends on the measure; state each side fairly and decide for yourself.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

Sort the mechanism in each invented case. Case (a): a mountain village of 300 adults meets once a year in the square and votes on every local law. Case (b): a national assembly of 120 members is elected every four years and passes the laws. Case (c): the government in case (b) asks all voters to decide one question about a new bridge.
Two made-up countries held fair elections last year. In Selvana, the losing party handed over power, and judges and journalists work without interference. In Tarnholm, the vote count was fair, but the government can fire any judge and has shut two newspapers for criticizing ministers. Sort each country, and say what Tarnholm would need to become a liberal democracy.
In the invented country of Corvane, a ruling council bans all parties but leaves churches, shops, and sports leagues alone. A neighboring invented country requires every child to join the ruling party's youth league and rewrites school lessons, union rules, and family law around the party's ideology. Which is authoritarian and which is totalitarian, and what single test sorts them?
A made-up republic's governing party spends six years extending the president's term limits by constitutional amendment and filling the election commission with loyalists. A different invented state's generals take over the capital in one night. Name each route out of democracy, and give the two tests you used.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

Case (a) is direct democracy: the 300 adults vote on the laws themselves. Case (b) is representative democracy: voters elect the 120 members who pass the laws. Case (c) is a referendum, a direct tool inside a representative system; one popular vote on a bridge does not turn case (b) into a direct democracy. The question "who votes on this law?" sorts all three.
Selvana is a liberal democracy: it meets the electoral floor, and its courts and press are protected. Tarnholm is an electoral democracy: the elections are free and fair, but judges and the press are not protected. To become a liberal democracy, Tarnholm would need independent courts, a free press, protected rights, and the rule of law on top of its fair elections. Calling Tarnholm a full democracy because it holds elections is the "democracy means elections" mistake.
Corvane is authoritarian: political power is closed, but churches, shops, and sports leagues are left alone, which is limited pluralism. The neighbor is totalitarian: it reaches into schools, unions, and family life to remake society around its ideology. The single test is scope, how far the state reaches, not how harsh it is.
The six-year process is democratic backsliding: it is slow, and each step uses a legal-looking amendment or appointment. The overnight takeover is a coup: it is sudden and openly illegal. The two tests are tempo (gradual or sudden) and legality (legal-looking or openly illegal).

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Next week, the rule of law asks whether a constitution can bind the regimes sorted here.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com