Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Select a real political system and describe its institutional structure
4 weeks
Select a real political system — a national government, a sub-national government (state, province, canton), or a major international institution — and describe its institutional structure: form of government (presidential, parliamentary, semi-presidential), electoral system, legislative structure (unicameral/bicameral), head of state and government roles, federal or unitary character, and key constitutional constraints on power. Use official sources and real constitutional or statutory documents.
Proof required
Institutional structure description document (600+ words) covering: form of government, electoral system, legislative structure, executive arrangements, federal/unitary character, and key constitutional constraints — all with citations to official sources or constitutional documents.
What gets checked
- Political system is real and identified specifically with the country or institution named
- Institutional description is based on official sources or constitutional documents — not secondary summaries
- Key constitutional constraints are identified specifically — not just 'there is a constitution'
Common mistakes
- Describing formal institutions without noting how formal rules differ from actual practice — the de jure structure and de facto operation often diverge significantly
- Using only encyclopaedia sources without accessing official constitutional documents
- Institutional description that does not identify key constraints on power — the constraints are often more politically significant than the structure
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Check citations — confirm at least one official source or constitutional document is cited
- Review institutional description — confirm key constitutional constraints are identified specifically
- Check for de jure vs de facto gap — confirm the description notes any significant divergences
Analyse political dynamics and comparative performance
4 weeks
Extend the M1 institutional description by analysing the political dynamics: how do the formal institutions interact with informal practices (party structures, coalition politics, interest groups, judicial review), what are the system's strengths and weaknesses in delivering governance, and how does it compare to at least one other political system on a specific dimension (political stability, representation of minorities, policy responsiveness, accountability mechanisms)?
Proof required
Political dynamics analysis document (600+ words) covering: interaction between formal institutions and informal practices, system strengths and weaknesses with evidence, and comparison with at least one other system on a named specific dimension with evidence.
What gets checked
- Informal practices are identified specifically — not just 'politics happens'
- Strengths and weaknesses are evidenced — not just asserted
- Comparison with another system is on a named specific dimension with evidence for both systems
Common mistakes
- Comparative analysis that only describes both systems without making a comparison — the comparison must evaluate both on the same dimension
- Not distinguishing formal institutions from informal practices — a political system analysis that only describes the constitutional structure misses how politics actually works
- Strengths and weaknesses asserted without evidence — governance performance must be evidenced
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Review informal practices section — confirm specific practices are identified, not just formal institutions
- Check comparison — confirm both systems are evaluated on the same named dimension with evidence
- Verify strengths and weaknesses are evidenced
Defend system analysis under political scientist challenge
1 week
Present the political system analysis to a political scientist or comparative politics academic for a Q&A. The reviewer must challenge the comparative analysis and institutional interpretation — 'you're using a thin definition of democracy here — does your comparison hold under a more demanding definition?', 'your informal practices section relies on one account — what if that account is contested?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's political science credentials, at least three specific challenges to the analysis with responses, and any updates committed to.
What gets checked
- Reviewer is a political scientist or comparative politics academic
- At least three specific challenges to the analysis are documented
- At least one analysis update is committed to based on the session
Common mistakes
- Reviewer validates rather than probing the conceptual definitions used
- Not being able to defend the comparative dimension choice under challenge
- No updates after a genuine challenge to the informal practices analysis
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm reviewer is a political scientist or comparative politics academic
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific challenges are documented
- Check that at least one analysis update is committed to