KP FİNAL
BRAZİL
Historical Foundations and the Empire Period
Brazil's political evolution began with a unique experience of independence in 1822,
which was peaceful and orchestrated by the Portuguese Crown itself. This allowed the
new nation to avoid the bloody independence wars that plagued Spanish colonies. Under
the Empire (1822–1889), power was highly centralized in the emperor, who acted as a
“moderating power” between institutions and elites. Although there were elections and a
constitution, true political participation was limited to landowning elites. The vast majority
of Brazilians were excluded from the political process.
The Old Republic and the Rise of Clientelism
The fall of the monarchy in 1889 gave rise to the Old Republic (1889–1930), where
regional oligarchies dominated. Power shifted from the central emperor to state-level
elites. Through the practice of coronelismo, rural elites manipulated peasants into voting
for their candidates. This clientelist structure became a cornerstone of Brazilian politics,
evolving into urban patronage networks over time. The political system remained
exclusive and elitist despite adopting a republican constitution.
Vargas Era and State-Led Development
The 1930 Revolution brought Getúlio Vargas to power, ushering in an era of authoritarian
developmentalism. Vargas centralized authority, replaced state governors with loyalists,
and built a corporatist model that suppressed labor independence while promoting
industrialization. The state led economic planning and created unions that were tightly
controlled. This period laid the foundations of Brazil’s centralized executive and
bureaucratic legacy.
Populism and Democratic Collapse
Post-World War II, Brazil transitioned into a populist republic (1945–1964). Leaders like
Juscelino Kubitschek launched ambitious infrastructure projects and promised rapid
development. However, clientelism persisted and inflation rose. Populist policies
empowered certain social groups but discouraged independent political organization.
Political instability and protests culminated in a military coup in 1964, ending democratic
experimentation.
Military Rule and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism
The military regime (1964–1985) implemented bureaucratic authoritarianism, suppressing
civil liberties to prioritize economic growth. The “Brazilian miracle” (1968–1973) brought
export-led growth and large infrastructure projects, but inequality worsened. Partial
democratic institutions persisted, though heavily controlled. Corruption reemerged within
state-owned enterprises and technocratic patronage networks.
Democratic Transition and the 1988 Constitution
An economic downturn in the 1980s led to a gradual democratization process. The 1988
Constitution marked a return to democratic rule, empowering both the legislature and
judiciary. Civil society, political parties, and labor unions pushed for rights such as
freedom of association and direct elections. Despite progress, Brazil’s political system
remained fragmented and vulnerable to corruption.
Governance and Institutional Structure
Brazil’s presidency holds substantial power, but legislative and judicial oversight has
grown since 1988. The president leads policymaking with support from the powerful
Ministry of Economy. Bureaucratic institutions like BNDES have helped drive development,
although often susceptible to politicization and private interests. The judiciary, especially
the Electoral Court, plays a central role in electoral integrity.
Representation and Political Fragmentation
The Brazilian legislature suffers from extreme party fragmentation. The open-list
proportional representation system weakens party discipline and encourages clientelism.
Political power is often concentrated in regional elites and governors. Coalitional
presidentialism emerged as a way to govern through alliances, but it makes policymaking
complex and vulnerable to corruption.
Recent Developments and 2022 Elections
In 2022, Lula defeated incumbent Bolsonaro in Brazil’s closest presidential race. The
election revealed sharp regional divisions and was followed by riots from Bolsonaro’s
supporters. Legal investigations targeted Bolsonaro and his allies for alleged coup
plotting. These events raised questions about democratic stability in Brazil.
Political Economy and Development Models
Brazil’s economy transitioned from export-based (coffee, sugar) to state-led
industrialization (ISI) and later to market-oriented neoliberalism. The commodity boom of
the 2000s allowed hybrid policies—social spending combined with foreign investment.
After 2011, economic stagnation and corruption scandals (e.g., Lava Jato) exposed the
vulnerabilities of Brazil’s political-economic model.
SOUTH AFRİCA
Colonization, Segregation, and Apartheid
South Africa’s early political history was shaped by colonization, starting with Dutch
settlement in 1652 and later British control. By the early 20th century, white minority rule
institutionalized racial segregation, culminating in the 1948 victory of the National Party
and the official start of apartheid. Black South Africans faced systemic oppression through
laws that restricted movement, land ownership, and political participation. The apartheid
regime used violence to suppress resistance, exemplified by the 1960 Sharpeville
Massacre and the 1976 Soweto Uprising.
The Democratic Transition (1990–1994)
The fall of apartheid was driven by internal resistance, international sanctions, and
changing global politics. The release of Nelson Mandela in 1990 and the unbanning of
opposition parties marked the start of negotiations. The 1993 transitional constitution
established a power-sharing model, and the 1994 democratic elections resulted in an ANC
victory with Mandela as president. This transition is often cited as a model of pacted
democratization, where former enemies negotiate democratic rule rather than winning by
force.
Post-Apartheid Governance and ANC Dominance
Since 1994, the ANC has remained the dominant party, benefiting from its liberation
legacy. Initial reforms under the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP)
aimed to address inequalities, but the later GEAR policy shifted toward free-market
reforms. Over time, internal divisions, patronage politics, and corruption—especially
under Jacob Zuma—eroded public trust. The concept of “state capture,” where private
interests control state institutions, became central in evaluating ANC’s governance.
The Executive and Institutional Power
The South African president is both head of state and head of government, elected by the
National Assembly. Once elected, the president appoints ministers but is no longer an MP.
Presidents enjoy significant control over parliament due to party leadership, limiting
checks and balances. Patronage appointments by leaders like Mbeki and Zuma worsened
factionalism and reduced administrative efficiency.
Judiciary and Legal Challenges
South Africa’s judiciary is constitutionally independent, and judges are appointed through
a transparent process. While courts have often ruled against the government, access to
justice remains unequal. Legal proceedings are slow, and nearly half of prisoners await
trial. Crime rates remain high, partly due to legacies of inequality, ineffective policing,
and weak trust in institutions.
Subnational Governments and Service Delivery
Though South Africa is a unitary state, provinces and municipalities have constitutionally
defined powers. Provinces often rely on central funds and lack autonomy. Local
governments, especially in major cities, have gained more influence due to taxation
powers. Still, both provincial and municipal governments often struggle with service
delivery and interpreting national policy, leading to protests.
Key Challenges of Democracy in South Africa
Despite the democratic transition, South Africa faces persistent problems:
Corruption and state capture, especially under Zuma
High inequality along racial and class lines
Unemployment, particularly among youth
Service delivery failures in water, electricity, housing, healthcare
Low voter turnout and political apathy, especially among youth
Judicial and media pressure, though independence persists
Crime and gender-based violence remain high
Political intolerance, especially around local elections
Weak education system hinders equal opportunity and informed participation.
Types of Party Systems
Party systems can be categorized into dominant-party systems, two-party systems,
multiparty systems (moderate or polarized), and bipolar systems. In dominant-party
systems, a single party consistently wins over 50% of the vote for decades, effectively
ruling without the need for coalition partners. While other parties are free to contest
elections, none comes close to challenging the dominant one, resulting in no power
alternation.
ANC as a Dominant Party
Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the African National Congress (ANC) has functioned as
a dominant party in South Africa. Its liberation struggle credentials, symbolized by Nelson
Mandela, gave it moral authority and widespread support, especially among black South
Africans. The ANC appealed to a broad range of voters—rural communities, the working
class, business elites, and traditional leaders—by maintaining ideological flexibility from
socialism to neoliberalism.
Institutional and Electoral Advantages
The ANC’s dominance was reinforced by the proportional representation electoral system,
which favors larger and well-established parties. As the ANC shaped early state
institutions and policies, it benefited from structural advantages. Additionally, in rural
areas where state services are limited, the ANC remained the only visible and organized
political presence, further entrenching its influence through social welfare programs and
identity-based politics.
Weak Opposition and Patronage Networks
Opposition parties have remained weak, fragmented, and often racially or regionally
limited. The Democratic Alliance (DA) is often perceived as a “white party,” limiting its
appeal among black voters. Newer parties like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have
gained ground but tend to further fragment the opposition landscape. The ANC also
leveraged its access to state resources and patronage networks, especially at the local
level, to consolidate power.
2024 Elections: A Turning Point
In 2024, the ANC lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since 1994, securing
only 40.18% of the vote (159 of 400 seats), a sharp decline from 2019. This shift was
driven by public frustration over persistent unemployment, infrastructure collapse, rising
crime, and power outages. The emergence of Jacob Zuma’s new party, uMkhonto we
Sizwe (MK), which gained 14.58% and 58 seats, further eroded ANC’s base and
showcased deep political realignment.
Internal Crisis and Coalition Government
The ANC’s internal crisis deepened when former president Zuma was expelled from the
party after openly supporting MK. Lacking a majority, the ANC was compelled to form a
coalition government, bringing in the Democratic Alliance (DA), Inkatha Freedom Party
(IFP), and others into a Government of National Unity. This marked a departure from one-
party dominance and ushered in a more pluralistic and competitive party system.
Future of South Africa’s Party System
South Africa’s political landscape has shifted from a dominant-party model to a multiparty
coalition-based system. The ANC remains influential but must now share power. The
electorate is becoming more fragmented and issue-focused, demanding accountability
and alternative visions. The future points toward more negotiated governance,
institutional reform, and dynamic electoral competition.
RUSSIA
Critical Junctures in Russian History
Russia’s political evolution can be divided into four key periods. The Tsardom of Russia
(1547–1721) saw the centralization of power under Ivan IV and modernization under Peter
the Great and Catherine the Great. The Russian Empire (1721–1917) faced internal
unrest, wars, and early political reforms like the 1905 October Manifesto. The Soviet
Union (1917–1991) was marked by the Bolshevik Revolution, Stalin’s authoritarian rule,
and Gorbachev’s reforms leading to the USSR’s dissolution. Post-Soviet Russia (1991–
present) has been dominated by centralized leadership under Yeltsin and especially Putin.
Soviet Institutions and Legacy
Despite having a constitution, Soviet governance was dominated by the Communist Party
(CPSU). Power resided in unelected organs like the Politburo, and the federal system was
merely symbolic. However, institutional structures from the USSR were carried into the
Russian Federation with modifications.
Transition and New Constitution
Gorbachev’s reforms—like glasnost and perestroika—introduced pluralism and elections.
The 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation established liberal democratic principles
on paper, such as civil liberties, federalism, and separation of powers, but also granted
strong authority to the president.
Executive System
Russia has a semi-presidential system. The president is powerful, controls foreign policy,
issues decrees, and can declare emergencies. The prime minister is appointed by the
president and confirmed by the Duma. Putin has frequently rotated between president
and prime minister, maintaining control.
Bureaucracy and Clientelism
The bureaucracy consists of ministries and federal agencies. Despite reforms, it suffers
from inefficiency and corruption. Many officials are chosen through personal loyalty
networks, particularly those close to Putin (siloviki).
Judiciary
Judicial independence is weak. Although the Constitutional Court was established in 1995,
it is cautious about challenging the executive. Judges are appointed by the president,
making them vulnerable to political pressure.
Subnational Governments
Federalism in Russia is limited. Putin’s reforms abolished direct elections for governors,
instead allowing presidential appointment. The idea of a “power vertical” concentrates
authority at the top and weakens regional autonomy.
Legislature
The Duma uses a mixed electoral system. Although it has formal powers, the president
can bypass it via decrees. The Federation Council represents regions but lacks real
legislative impact. Party loyalty and elite dominance reduce pluralism.
Party System
Post-Soviet Russia shifted to a multiparty system, though many parties are built around
personalities. United Russia, closely linked with Putin, has been dominant since 2003. It
combines nationalism, social conservatism, and state-led economic policy.
Electoral Authoritarianism
Russia is considered an electoral authoritarian regime. Elections exist but are not free or
fair. Key features include media control, repression of opposition, cooptation of elites, and
reliance on nationalism and foreign conflict for legitimacy.
Comparative Angle (Russia & Turkey)
Both Russia and Turkey exhibit electoral authoritarian traits, but differ in mechanisms.
Russia relies more on executive centralization, silencing dissent, and elite cooptation. The
comparison shows variations within the broader authoritarian model.
IRAN
Theocratic System
Iran’s political system blends theocracy and democracy. The Supreme Leader, a cleric,
oversees all three branches of government. The Guardian Council can veto laws and vet
candidates, ensuring clerical dominance. While elections exist, clerical institutions
maintain ultimate control. This theocratic rule remains legitimized among traditional
classes like the bazaaris, the rural population, and the urban poor.
Democratic Elements and Authoritarianism
Iran holds regular elections for the president, parliament (Majles), and Assembly of
Experts. However, opposition candidates are often disqualified by the Guardian Council.
While some institutions appear democratic, Iran functions as a hybrid regime—a mix of
formal democratic procedures and authoritarian control, with significant limits on media,
judiciary independence, and civil liberties.
Critical Junctures in Iranian Political History
Qajar Dynasty (1794–1925): The 1906 Constitutional Revolution established a
parliament (Majles), limited monarchy, and civil liberties. However, foreign interference
and internal weakness continued.
Pahlavi Dynasty (1925–1979): Reza Shah’s modernization and authoritarianism
provoked opposition. Mossadeq’s 1951 oil nationalization was reversed by a 1953 CIA-
backed coup. Despite development, the dynasty faced resentment due to repression.
Islamic Revolution (1979): Ayatollah Khomeini led the Islamic Revolution, replacing the
monarchy with a theocracy. A theocratic constitution was adopted in 1979, giving clergy
supreme authority.
Executive Structure
The Supreme Leader is the most powerful figure, elected by the Assembly of Experts. He
controls the military, judiciary, and Guardian Council. He can dismiss presidents and
intervene in all branches of government. The President, elected every four years, handles
daily governance, foreign policy, and economic planning, but remains subordinate to the
Leader.
Bureaucracy and Judiciary
Clergy dominate key ministries like Intelligence, Interior, and Justice. Judiciary is heavily
influenced by religious law (shari’a), with judges appointed by the Leader. The Guardian
Council can block laws inconsistent with Islamic principles. The IRGC plays a powerful role
in politics and the economy.
Legislature (Majles)
The Majles has 290 members elected by citizens over 18. It can pass laws (qanuns), but
these must be approved by the Guardian Council. It can also approve budgets, treaties,
and investigate ministers. However, real legislative power is limited due to clerical
oversight.
Political Parties
Iran does not have traditional Western-style political parties. Instead, factional politics
dominate, with competition between reformists and conservatives within the system. The
Guardian Council vets all candidates, often disqualifying reformists, limiting true political
pluralism.
Political Economy and Rentier State
Oil revenues fund over 80% of Iran’s budget, making it a rentier state. “No taxation, no
representation” applies—citizens rely on state oil wealth rather than taxes. This reduces
democratic pressure. However, sanctions and oil price volatility have caused economic
hardship.
Social Stratification and Dual Society
Iran exhibits a dual society: one modern and state-connected elite sector, the other
traditional, tied to bazaars, rural communities, and clerics. Inequality between and within
these sectors is significant, exacerbating social divisions.
Cleavages and Factional Conflict
Post-Khomeini Iran has experienced a split between reformists (e.g., Khatami, Rouhani)
and conservatives (e.g., Ahmadinejad, hardliners). Reformers promote civil society and
pluralism; conservatives emphasize clerical authority and Islamic conformity.
CHINA
Regime Structure
China is a single-party socialist republic officially governed by the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP). It is considered a closed authoritarian regime, meaning there are no
meaningful elections or political pluralism. The CCP monopolizes political power and
ideology is rooted in Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and “Socialism with
Chinese Characteristics.” While eight minor parties are legally recognized, they are
subordinate to the CCP and function more as a symbolic endorsement of pluralism.
Executive and Party Control
Real executive power lies not with the President, but with the General Secretary of the
CCP, who typically also serves as President and Chairman of the Central Military
Commission—currently Xi Jinping holds all three positions. The CCP’s Politburo and its
Standing Committee (7 members) make all key decisions. The Premier manages state
administration but is subordinate to the party leadership. Political appointments are made
internally within the CCP, ensuring complete alignment with central power.
Legislature and Judiciary
The National People’s Congress (NPC) is China’s legislature and is technically the highest
state organ, but in practice, it functions as a rubber-stamp body, merely approving CCP
decisions. Judiciary is not independent; rule of law is absent, and rule by law—where law
serves political control—is the norm. Judges are CCP members and serve party directives.
Media and Civil Liberties
All major media outlets are state-owned and promote CCP ideology. Independent
journalism is not tolerated. Internet platforms are censored, and surveillance is pervasive.
Political dissent is criminalized. Civil society is weak due to tight restrictions and state co-
optation of NGOs.
TURKEY
Regime Structure
Turkey is classified as a competitive authoritarian regime. While elections are held and
opposition parties exist, the government uses legal and informal mechanisms to tilt the
political playing field. Media control, judicial interference, and institutional centralization
have weakened liberal democracy. The 2017 constitutional referendum officially replaced
the parliamentary system with an executive presidency, significantly increasing
presidential power.
Executive and Presidential Power
The President, elected through national vote, is both head of state and government. The
president appoints ministers, judges, and senior officials without parliamentary approval.
Decrees issued by the president can bypass the legislature. Parliament’s role is
weakened, particularly in oversight.
Judiciary, Media, and Civil Liberties
Following the 2016 coup attempt, mass purges and restructuring diminished judicial
independence. The media is heavily polarized, with pro-government outlets dominating.
Independent media face legal pressure and closures. Civil liberties like freedom of
expression and assembly are restricted.
HUNGARY
Regime Type and Fidesz Dominance
Hungary under Viktor Orbán and the Fidesz party has shifted from liberal democracy to
electoral authoritarianism. Though elections occur, they are manipulated via
gerrymandering, media capture, and legal restrictions on the opposition. The ruling party
dominates the political arena through patronage and constitutional engineering.
Executive Power and Institutions
The Prime Minister is the dominant executive actor. The President is ceremonial. Orbán
has used constitutional amendments to reduce checks and balances, extend terms, and
centralize authority. State institutions are filled with loyalists, weakening institutional
neutrality.
Judiciary, Media, Civil Society
Judicial independence is under threat. Courts have been packed with pro-Fidesz judges.
Media pluralism has declined as independent outlets are bought or closed. Civil society,
especially foreign-funded NGOs, are targeted with restrictive laws and accused of
undermining sovereignty.
