Electoral Systems and National Decision-Making: 7 Countries

September 25, 2026

Middle East and Asia Strategic Information Institute (MEASII)
Author: Akinobu Kinoshita

Introduction

Yesterday, national leaders from around the world delivered speeches at the United Nations General Assembly. As the challenges confronting the international community become increasingly complex, the diplomatic policies and security perceptions expressed by national leaders have important implications for understanding the future direction of international affairs.

At the same time, a country’s foreign and national security policies are not determined solely by the personal decisions of its leader. Multiple factors interact to shape national decision-making, including the president or prime minister, parliament, political parties, electoral systems, political finance, and various organizations and networks with social and economic influence.

Elections, in particular, constitute an important political process through which the leadership of a country and the composition of its legislature can change. In the United States, with the midterm elections approaching, changes in the composition of Congress could potentially affect the administration’s ability to implement its policies, as well as its foreign and national security policies. In other countries, including Israel, elections may likewise alter the balance of power among political parties and the structure of policymaking.

Changes in national leadership or in the balance of power within a legislature do not constitute merely changes in domestic politics. They may also affect foreign policy, national security policy, international cooperation, economic policy, and alliance or cooperative relationships with other countries. Therefore, in order to understand the current international environment, it is necessary not only to examine the foreign policies of individual countries but also to understand the political systems and decision-making structures through which those policies are formulated.

This paper therefore examines and compares the United States, Russia, Iran, China, India, North Korea, and Israel, focusing on their electoral systems, party systems, methods of candidate selection, relationships between political leaders and legislatures and governments, political finance, information environments, and power structures that operate alongside, or exert significant influence on, legislatures and governments.

The analysis seeks to clarify how leaders are selected in each country, through what processes, and how their authority is institutionally supported or constrained. It then considers how electoral systems and national decision-making structures are connected to foreign and national security policies.

The purpose of this paper is not to evaluate any particular country or political force. Rather, by comparing the institutional and decision-making structures of different countries, it seeks to clarify how electoral processes can influence a country’s foreign and national security policies and to provide one perspective for understanding contemporary international politics.

Executive Summary

1. Electoral Systems Are More Than Mechanisms for Selecting Representatives

Electoral systems are not merely mechanisms through which citizens choose politicians. Behind electoral systems lie the formation of political parties, the selection of candidates, the raising of political funds, the media and information environment, relations between legislatures and governments, the distribution of authority between central and local governments, and the political influence of institutions and organizations such as the military, religious organizations, bureaucracies, and interest groups.

Accordingly, when comparing political systems across countries, it is insufficient to examine only who won the election. More important questions include:

Who determines the candidates?
Who provides the political funding?
Who shapes the information environment?
What organizations, apart from the legislature and government, influence policymaking?
Where, ultimately, is the center of national decision-making located?

2. The Existence of Elections and the Determining Role of Elections in National Decision-Making Are Not the Same

In the United States, the president and Congress are elected, and the transfer of political power through elections is institutionalized. In Russia, by contrast, the president possesses extensive constitutional powers, giving the presidency a particularly significant position in foreign and national security policy.

In Iran, the president and parliament are elected, while the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council, and the Assembly of Experts also play institutionally important roles.

In China, the National People’s Congress is positioned as the country’s highest organ of state power, while the Constitution itself identifies the leadership of the Communist Party of China as a fundamental feature of the country’s political system.

In North Korea, rather than examining the electoral system in isolation, it is necessary to consider the relationships among the Workers’ Party of Korea and the country’s political, military, and state institutions.

In Israel, the proportional representation system allows multiple political parties to enter the Knesset, making coalition formation an important condition for the establishment of a government.

These examples demonstrate that the outward form of an electoral system alone cannot explain a country’s national decision-making structure.

3. Rather Than Asking “What Exists Above the Legislature?”, It Is Necessary to Examine Power Structures Operating Alongside the Legislature and Government

In this paper, the expression “power existing above the legislature” is not used to imply a formal legal hierarchy.

Rather, the analysis focuses on political, social, and organizational structures that exist alongside the legislature and government, or that exert significant influence over their decision-making processes.

These include:

Political party leadership
The presidential office
Religious leadership institutions
Military and national security institutions
Intelligence agencies
Bureaucratic institutions
Business organizations and interest groups
Labor unions
Lobbying organizations
Political finance organizations such as PACs
Local governments
Social groups based on religion, ethnicity, immigration status, and other affiliations
The media, social media, and digital platforms

4. Political Finance Should Be Considered Not Only as an “Election Expense” but Also as a “Cost of Power”

In contemporary politics, resources are required not only for election campaigns themselves but also for the organizations, personnel, advertising, opinion polling, social media operations, legal professionals, lobbying activities, policy research, and media relations necessary to nominate and support candidates.

In the United States, during the 2023–2024 election cycle, the Federal Election Commission reported approximately $2 billion in receipts for presidential candidates, $3.8 billion for congressional candidates, $2.7 billion for party committees, and $15.7 billion for PACs, while independent expenditures reached approximately $4.4 billion.

These figures are not merely a question of how much elections cost. They also raise the broader question of the “cost of power”—that is, the scale of resources required to build and sustain political influence.

5. Understanding Foreign and National Security Policy Requires Analyzing the Entire Chain from Electoral Systems to National Decision-Making

Foreign and national security policies are not automatically determined by election results alone.

This paper analyzes the following chain:

Electoral System
↓
Political Parties
↓
Candidate Selection
↓
Political Finance
↓
Media and Information
↓
Legislature
↓
Government
↓
Military, Intelligence Agencies, Bureaucracy, Religious Organizations, Interest Groups, etc.
↓
National Decision-Making
↓
Foreign and National Security Policy

This analytical framework is intended to show how political institutions, resources, information, and power structures interact before decisions concerning diplomacy and national security ultimately emerge.

Keywords

Electoral Systems
National Decision-Making Structures
Political Finance and the Cost of Power
Concentration of Power
Foreign Policy and National Security

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Electoral Systems and National Decision-Making Structures

1-1. Viewing Elections as the Entry Point to National Decision-Making

1-2. Presidential Systems, Parliamentary Systems, and Party-State Systems

1-3. Majoritarian and Proportional Representation Systems

1-4. Political Parties and Candidate Selection

1-5. Elections and Political Finance

1-6. Information, Media, and Social Media

1-7. Power Structures Operating Alongside the Legislature and Government

1-8. Connections to Foreign Policy and National Security

Chapter 2. Political Finance and the “Cost of Power”

2-1. Election Expenses and Political Participation

2-2. Political Party Financing

2-3. Individual Contributions, Corporations, and Interest Groups

2-4. PACs and Lobbying Activities

2-5. Government Regulation of Political Finance

2-6. Information Funding, Advertising, and Social Media

2-7. The Concept of the “Cost of Power”

Chapter 3. United States

3-1. State System and Constitutional Framework

3-2. Electoral System

3-3. Relations among the President, Congress, and Government

3-4. Party System

3-5. Candidate Selection

3-6. Campaign Finance and Election Costs

3-7. Election Administration, the Judiciary, and the Media

3-8. Power Structures Operating Alongside the Legislature and Government

3-9. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

3-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

Chapter 4. Russia

4-1. State System and Constitutional Framework

4-2. Electoral System

4-3. Relations among the President, Legislature, and Government

4-4. Party System

4-5. Candidate Selection

4-6. Campaign Finance and Election Costs

4-7. Election Administration, the Judiciary, and the Media

4-8. Power Structures Operating Alongside the Legislature and Government

4-9. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

4-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

Chapter 5. Iran

5-1. State System and Constitutional Framework

5-2. Electoral System

5-3. Relations among the Supreme Leader, President, and Parliament

5-4. Political Parties and Political Forces

5-5. Candidate Selection

5-6. Political Finance and Political Organizations

5-7. Election Administration and the Guardian Council

5-8. Religious, Military, and National Security Organizations

5-9. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

5-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

Chapter 6. China

6-1. State System and Constitutional Framework

6-2. The People’s Congress System

6-3. The President, State Council, and National People’s Congress

6-4. The Chinese Communist Party and State Institutions

6-5. Selection of Leaders and Officials

6-6. Political Finance and Election Costs

6-7. Information, Media, and Propaganda

6-8. Relations among the Party, Military, and State

6-9. Foreign and National Security Policy

6-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

Chapter 7. India

7-1. State System and Federal Structure

7-2. Parliamentary Elections

7-3. Relations among the President, Prime Minister, and Parliament

7-4. Party System

7-5. Candidate Selection

7-6. Campaign Finance and Election Costs

7-7. Election Administration, the Judiciary, and the Media

7-8. Relations between the Central Government and State Governments

7-9. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

7-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

Chapter 8. North Korea

8-1. State System

8-2. Electoral System

8-3. Relations among the Supreme Leader, Party, and State Institutions

8-4. The Workers’ Party of Korea

8-5. Candidate Selection

8-6. Political Finance and Economic Resources

8-7. Information and the Media

8-8. Military and National Security Institutions

8-9. Foreign Policy and Nuclear Policy

8-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

Chapter 9. Israel

9-1. State System and Parliamentary Government

9-2. The Knesset Electoral System

9-3. Party System and Coalition Politics

9-4. Political and Social Networks of European and Ashkenazi Jewish Communities

9-5. Historical Background of Iberian Peninsula and Sephardic Jewish Communities

9-6. Political and Social Networks of Middle Eastern, North African, and Mizrahi Jewish Communities

9-7. Religious and Secular Political Forces

9-8. Arab Citizens and Political Participation

9-9. Political, Economic, and Security Networks with the United States

9-10. Lobbying Activities, PACs, and Political Finance in the United States

9-11. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

9-12. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

10. Comparative Analysis of the Seven Countries

11. Elections, the Information Environment, and Information Security

12. Implications for Japan

Final Chapter. National Decision-Making Structures That Cannot Be Seen from Election Results Alone

Chapter 1. Electoral Systems and National Decision-Making Structures

1-1. Viewing Elections as the Entry Point to National Decision-Making

In democratic politics, elections are a primary mechanism for connecting the will of the people to political institutions.

However, elections themselves do not constitute the entirety of national decision-making. Even among countries that employ elections as a political institution, the pathways through which elections connect to national decision-making differ substantially among the United States, India, Israel, Iran, and Russia.

Furthermore, the mere existence of an electoral system in China or North Korea does not mean that these systems can be regarded as equivalent to the U.S.-style system of choosing a government through elections. Accordingly, this paper positions elections as the “entry point to national decision-making.”

The important question is what institutions, organizations, individuals, financial resources, and information intervene between this entry point and the final policy decisions of the state.

1-2. Presidential Systems, Parliamentary Systems, and Party-State Systems

Political systems can broadly be classified into several types, including:

Presidential systems
Parliamentary systems
Semi-presidential or semi-presidential-type systems
Party-state systems
Systems combining republican institutions with religious authority

The United States is a representative example of a presidential system, in which the president and Congress each derive political legitimacy through elections.

India and Israel are fundamentally parliamentary systems, in which the relationship between the parliamentary majority and the formation of government is particularly important.

In Russia, the president possesses extensive constitutional powers, making presidential-centered national decision-making particularly significant.

Iran combines a republican system in which elections are held with religious and constitutional authority centered on the Supreme Leader.

In China, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is closely integrated with the People’s Congress system.

In North Korea, it is necessary to examine the relationship among the leadership system centered on the Workers’ Party of Korea, state institutions, and the military and national security apparatus.

1-3. Majoritarian and Proportional Representation Systems

Electoral systems can significantly shape political structures through the methods by which legislative seats are allocated.

Under majoritarian systems, the candidate who obtains the greatest level of support within a particular constituency wins the seat. Such systems tend to encourage the consolidation of political parties.

By contrast, under proportional representation systems, seats are allocated according to the proportion of votes received, making it easier for parties representing minorities or particular social groups to gain representation in the legislature.

Israel employs a nationwide proportional representation system. The 120 seats in the Knesset are allocated to party lists that exceed the electoral threshold, in proportion to their share of the vote. The current electoral threshold is 3.25 percent.

While this system allows a diverse range of political forces to be represented in the legislature, it also makes it difficult for a single party to secure a majority. As a result, coalition formation becomes an important stage in national decision-making.

1-4. Political Parties and Candidate Selection

When examining an electoral system, it is not sufficient to focus solely on election day. How candidates are selected is equally important.

In the United States, candidate selection takes place through processes including primary elections.

In India, state-level political parties, in addition to national parties, play an important role.

In Israel, the methods used to form candidate lists differ among political parties.

In party-state systems, personnel decisions may be made within party organizations before individuals even obtain the opportunity to stand for election to state institutions.

Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between the stage at which voters select among candidates and the stage at which candidates obtain eligibility to stand for election.

1-5. Elections and Political Finance

Modern elections require substantial resources, including organizations, personnel, advertising, opinion polling, social media operations, legal services, and public relations.

In the United States, the scale of political finance is particularly large.

During the 2023–2024 election cycle, substantial amounts of money flowed among presidential candidates, congressional candidates, political parties, PACs, and other political organizations.

Political finance should therefore not be viewed merely as the cost of conducting an election. It should also be examined as a structural factor affecting the conditions for political participation, candidate selection, policymaking, and the formation of public opinion.

1-6. Information, Media, and Social Media

In contemporary elections, television and newspapers are no longer the only channels through which political information circulates. Social media, video-sharing platforms, search engines, online advertising, and AI-generated content have become important components of the political information environment.

For this reason, the study of electoral systems is also closely connected to the study of information security.

In particular, information operations conducted by foreign actors, disinformation, efforts to deepen social divisions, cyberattacks, and the use of AI to manipulate public opinion may potentially affect not only election results but also the national decision-making process itself.

1-7. Power Structures Operating Alongside the Legislature and Government

This constitutes one of the central analytical dimensions of this paper.

Examining only the legislature and government does not provide a complete picture of national decision-making. For example:

In the United States, lobbying organizations, PACs, state governments, corporations, labor unions, think tanks, and other actors
In Russia, the Presidential Administration, national security institutions, the bureaucracy, and military and security agencies
In Iran, the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
In China, the Chinese Communist Party, the Central Military Commission, and various party leadership bodies
In India, state governments, state-level political parties, and religious and social groups
In North Korea, the Workers’ Party of Korea, the military, and national security institutions
In Israel, religious political forces, social groups, political parties, and political networks connected to the United States

all have relationships with the national decision-making process.

These structures do not necessarily constitute formal institutions superior to the legislature or government. Rather, they represent political, institutional, social, economic, or organizational forces that operate alongside them or exert influence on the policymaking process.

1-8. Connections to Foreign Policy and National Security

Foreign and national security policy do not operate independently of domestic politics.

When an election results in a change of government, foreign policy may also change. At the same time, various factors may constrain or shape such changes, including:

The military
Intelligence agencies
The diplomatic bureaucracy
The legislature
Alliances
International treaties
Public finances
Public opinion
Interest groups

Therefore, it is necessary to avoid simplifying the relationship as “election results = foreign policy.”

Instead, the analysis should examine how election results become connected to, and interact with, existing national decision-making structures.

The central question is not simply who wins an election, but how the outcome is translated into national policy through the institutions, organizations, resources, and information structures that mediate the decision-making process.

Chapter 2. Political Finance and the “Cost of Power”

2-1. Election Expenses and Political Participation

Political finance affects the opportunities available for political participation. As the cost of running for office increases, the barriers facing individuals seeking to enter political activity also become higher.

Conversely, where political parties or public financing systems provide substantial support, candidates with limited personal financial resources may have greater opportunities to participate in politics.

Therefore, the important question is not simply whether election expenses are high or low, but who has the ability to provide financial resources.

2-2. Political Party Financing

Political parties are organizations that nominate candidates, conduct election campaigns, develop policy proposals, conduct research, and engage in public communication.

For this reason, party finances are directly connected to the formation and maintenance of political power.

2-3. Individual Contributions, Corporations, and Interest Groups

The systems governing political support from corporations, labor unions, industry associations, wealthy individuals, and other actors differ significantly from country to country.

The important point is not to immediately equate financial contributions themselves with “control” over policymaking. Rather, it is necessary to examine the potential chain through which financial resources may contribute to political influence:

Financial Contributions
↓
Political Access
↓
Policy Advocacy
↓
Public Opinion Formation
↓
Legislative Activity

The existence of such a potential pathway does not, by itself, establish that a particular donor or organization controls a particular policy outcome. Distinguishing between financial support and demonstrable policy influence is essential to objective political finance analysis.

2-4. PACs and Lobbying Activities

In the United States, PACs and organizations involved in independent expenditures constitute important components of the political finance system.

According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), during the 2023–2024 election cycle, PACs reported approximately $15.5 billion in disbursements, while independent expenditures amounted to approximately $4.4 billion.

However, the fact that a particular organization spent a substantial amount of money does not necessarily mean that a particular policy was determined by that organization. Maintaining this distinction is particularly important when analyzing political finance.

What Is a PAC?

PAC stands for Political Action Committee. A PAC is an organization that raises political funds from individuals or organizations and uses those funds, within the framework of applicable law, to support candidates, political parties, or political activities.

Basic Characteristics of PACs

Official name: Political Action Committee
Primary role: Raising and spending political funds to support candidates, political parties, and political activities
Regulatory authority: Federal Election Commission (FEC)
Scope: PACs and other political committees involved in federal elections
Sources of funds: Individuals, corporations, labor unions, industry associations, and other sources, depending on the type of organization and applicable rules

A particularly important distinction is between an ordinary PAC and a Super PAC.

Category	PAC	Super PAC
Formal designation	Political Action Committee	Super Political Action Committee
Direct contributions to candidates	Permitted subject to applicable limits	Generally prohibited
Independent political advertising	Permitted	Permitted on a large scale
Coordination with candidates or parties	Subject to legal restrictions	Operates through independent expenditures and may not coordinate with candidates or parties
Fundraising	Subject to applicable limits and rules	Generally able to raise funds from individuals, corporations, organizations, and other permissible sources without the same contribution limits that apply to traditional PACs

A PAC is an organization that handles political funds, whereas lobbying is an activity through which policymakers are approached and influenced regarding policy issues.

AIPAC and PACs

AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is an organization in the United States that advocates policies emphasizing the U.S.–Israel relationship and engages in policy advocacy and lobbying directed toward members of Congress and other policymakers.

Difference Between AIPAC and PACs

Category	AIPAC	PAC / Super PAC
Nature	An organization engaged in policy advocacy and lobbying	A legally regulated organization or committee dealing with election-related political finance
Primary activities	Policy advocacy toward legislators and policymakers and engagement with supporters	Financial support for candidates and election-related political activities
Israel policy	Advocates from a position supporting strong U.S.–Israel relations	Varies by organization
Legal status	An organization engaged in lobbying and political advocacy	A political committee under U.S. election law
Election involvement	May organize political support for candidates who share its policy positions	May make political contributions or independent expenditures, depending on the type of committee

When analyzing contemporary U.S. politics, it is therefore necessary to distinguish AIPAC itself from organizations such as the United Democracy Project (UDP).

The distinction can be summarized as follows:

AIPAC
→ Primarily an organization engaged in policy advocacy and lobbying

United Democracy Project (UDP)
→ A Super PAC that makes independent expenditures in U.S. elections

Accordingly, the relationship can be summarized as:

AIPAC = a lobbying, policy advocacy, political finance, and electoral support network concerning U.S. policy toward Israel

This distinction is important because lobbying organizations and Super PACs have different legal structures and functions within the U.S. political system.

2-5. Government Regulation of Political Finance

Political finance systems differ significantly among countries.

In democratic countries, regulations may include contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and restrictions on campaign expenditures.

In party-state systems, by contrast, the concept and structure of election finance may differ fundamentally from those found in Western democratic systems.

Consequently, comparisons of political finance must take into account not only the amount of money involved but also the institutional framework through which political resources are raised, allocated, regulated, and utilized.

2-6. Information Funding, Advertising, and Social Media

Political finance does not consist solely of direct contributions to candidates.

Financial resources also flow to advertising agencies, social media advertising, data analytics companies, polling organizations, think tanks, media organizations, and other actors.

Consequently, the contemporary “cost of an election” extends beyond the traditional expenses associated with campaign activities.

The resources required to shape the political information environment have become an increasingly important component of the overall political finance structure.

2-7. The Concept of the “Cost of Power”

This paper refers to this broader structure as the “Cost of Power.”

The Cost of Power refers to the human, financial, organizational, and informational resources required to obtain and maintain political positions, implement policies, and shape public opinion.

The concept makes it possible to move beyond a simple comparison of election expenses and instead examine the structures through which political actors gain access to national decision-making.

In this sense, the Cost of Power is not limited to the amount of money spent during an election. It encompasses the broader resources required to establish political influence, maintain political networks, obtain access to policymakers, communicate policy preferences, and translate political support into policy outcomes.

Chapter 3. United States

3-1. State System and Constitutional Framework

The United States is a federal presidential republic. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each possess constitutionally defined powers, while authority is also divided between the federal government and state governments.

As a result, political power in the United States is not concentrated within a single central government.

3-2. Electoral System

In presidential elections, the President is not chosen simply by adding together the nationwide popular vote. Rather, the President is elected through the Electoral College, in which electors are allocated to the individual states.

Elections for the Senate and House of Representatives are conducted separately.

This institutional structure means that presidential elections and congressional elections can operate according to different political dynamics.

3-3. Relations among the President, Congress, and Government

The President is the central figure in the exercise of executive power. However, Congress possesses important powers concerning legislation, appropriations, treaties, and appointments.

Foreign and national security policy is therefore not determined by the President alone. Congressional authority over legislation and public spending is particularly important in these areas.

3-4. Party System

In practice, the Democratic Party and Republican Party dominate political competition as the two major parties.

However, the institutional system does not formally exclude other parties or independent candidates. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between a “two-party-dominated system” and the assertion that “only two parties exist.”

The latter would not accurately describe the U.S. political system.

3-5. Candidate Selection

One distinctive feature of the United States is that candidate selection itself constitutes an important arena of political competition.

Candidates are selected through processes including primary elections. Consequently, political activity before the general election can be as important to the political process as the general election itself.

The process of determining who becomes a candidate is therefore an important component of the broader national decision-making structure.

3-6. Campaign Finance and Election Costs

The scale of campaign finance in the United States is exceptionally large.

During the 2023–2024 election cycle, approximately $2.0 billion in receipts were reported for presidential candidates, approximately $3.8 billion for congressional candidates, approximately $2.7 billion for political parties, and approximately $15.7 billion for PACs. Independent expenditures amounted to approximately $4.4 billion.

These figures illustrate why the concept of the “Cost of Power” is important for understanding U.S. politics.

The issue is not simply the amount spent on elections. It also concerns the financial, organizational, informational, and human resources required to compete effectively for political influence.

3-7. Election Administration, the Judiciary, and the Media

In the United States, state governments, in addition to the federal government, play important roles in election administration.

Election-related disputes may also be brought before the courts, making the judiciary an important component of the electoral process.

The media environment is similarly multilayered, consisting of national media, local and regional media, social media, podcasts, video-sharing platforms, and other digital information channels.

As a result, political information is produced and distributed through a highly decentralized and diverse information environment.

3-8. Power Structures Operating Alongside the Legislature and Government

In the United States, various actors are involved in the policymaking process, including:

PACs
Lobbying organizations
Corporations
Labor unions
Think tanks
State governments
Civic and advocacy organizations
Media organizations

However, it would not be appropriate to describe these actors simply as “powers above the government.”

More accurately, they should be understood as political influences that interact with and operate within the institutional system.

Their influence may take different forms, including political advocacy, campaign support, lobbying, policy research, public communication, litigation, and participation in public debate.

3-9. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

Presidential elections can have a significant impact on foreign and national security policy.

However, foreign and national security policy also involves Congress, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, intelligence agencies, the military, allies, fiscal constraints, public opinion, and other factors.

Therefore, foreign policy cannot be directly inferred from election results alone.

Instead, it is necessary to examine how an electoral outcome interacts with the broader institutional and political structures that shape national decision-making.

3-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

The characteristics of the U.S. national decision-making structure can be summarized as:

Presidential System
+ Federal System
+ Two-Party-Dominated Political Competition
+ Strong Legislature
+ Large Political Finance Market
+ Lobbying and Interest Groups
+ Pluralistic Media Environment

This combination creates a highly pluralistic and institutionally dispersed structure of national decision-making.

Rather than being concentrated in a single institution, political influence is distributed among the presidency, Congress, federal and state governments, political parties, organized interests, civil society, the media, and the broader electorate.

Chapter 4. Russia

4-1. State System and Constitutional Framework

Russia is a federal state with a political system centered on the presidency.

Under the Constitution, the President is the head of state and occupies a central position in determining the fundamental directions of domestic and foreign policy.

4-2. Electoral System

The President is elected by the citizens.

The Federal Assembly, Russia’s federal legislature, is bicameral and consists of the State Duma and the Federation Council.

The electoral processes for the presidency and the legislature operate through separate institutional mechanisms, making it necessary to examine presidential and parliamentary politics independently as well as in relation to one another.

4-3. Relations among the President, Legislature, and Government

The President possesses extensive powers in Russia.

The President exercises substantial authority in areas including the appointment of the Prime Minister, foreign policy, national security, and military command.

As a result, the relationship among the President, government, and legislature differs from the relationship between a prime minister and a parliamentary majority typically found in parliamentary democracies.

The presidency therefore constitutes a central component of Russia’s national decision-making structure.

4-4. Party System

Multiple political parties exist in Russia.

However, it is necessary to analyze separately the distribution of political forces within the State Duma and the broader political structure centered on the presidency.

The existence of multiple parties does not, by itself, explain how political influence is distributed within the national decision-making process.

4-5. Candidate Selection

An important issue is who nominates presidential candidates and how political parties and organizations support those candidates.

The institutional conditions governing political competition also include the legal qualifications of candidates, candidate registration procedures, and the rules governing election campaigns.

Accordingly, candidate selection should be examined as part of the broader political process rather than as a process limited to voting day.

4-6. Campaign Finance and Election Costs

Russia’s political finance structure differs from the large private PAC market found in the United States.

Its analysis requires consideration of the relationships among the state, political parties, candidates, corporations, and regional political structures.

The concept of the “Cost of Power” therefore needs to be examined within Russia’s own institutional and political context rather than applying a U.S.-style political finance model directly.

4-7. Election Administration, the Judiciary, and the Media

To assess the effectiveness of an electoral system, it is necessary to examine election administration, the judiciary, the media environment, candidate registration, and the conditions under which political competition takes place as an integrated system.

Election procedures cannot be fully understood by examining voting mechanisms alone.

The broader institutional environment surrounding elections is also relevant to understanding how electoral outcomes are translated into political decision-making.

4-8. Power Structures Operating Alongside the Legislature and Government

In Russia, various institutions and organizations are connected to national decision-making, including:

The Presidential Administration
National security institutions
The military
Intelligence and security agencies
The bureaucracy
Regional governments
Political organizations supporting the President

The important point is not to characterize these actors simply as “above the legislature.”

Rather, they should be understood as components of a national decision-making network centered on the presidency.

This network includes formal state institutions as well as political, administrative, security, and regional structures that interact with the presidential center of decision-making.

4-9. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

In Russia, the President possesses significant constitutional authority in the areas of foreign and national security policy.

Consequently, the selection of national leadership is closely connected to the direction of foreign and security policy.

At the same time, understanding the relationship requires consideration of the broader institutional network surrounding the presidency, including government institutions, the military, security agencies, the bureaucracy, and regional authorities.

Therefore, the relationship between elections and foreign policy should be examined through the broader national decision-making structure rather than through election results alone.

4-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

The characteristics of Russia’s national decision-making structure can be summarized as:

Presidential System
+ Federal System
+ Presidential Administration
+ National Security Institutions
+ Military and Security Agencies
+ Political Parties and Bureaucratic Institutions

These elements overlap to form a national decision-making structure in which the presidency occupies a central position.

Accordingly, understanding Russian political decision-making requires examining not only the formal constitutional distribution of authority but also the institutional and organizational networks through which presidential authority is exercised.

Chapter 5. Iran

5-1. State System and Constitutional Framework

Iran is an Islamic Republic that combines a republican system based on elections with a system of religious authority centered on Islamic jurists.

Article 6 of the Constitution provides that the affairs of the state are to be administered through elections and referendums, including elections for the President, Parliament, and local councils.

5-2. Electoral System

Iran has electoral systems for the President, the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament), local councils, and other institutions. However, the vetting of candidates plays an important role in the electoral process.

5-3. Relations among the Supreme Leader, President, and Parliament

A distinctive feature of Iran’s political system is the existence of the institution of the Supreme Leader within the overall state structure of the Islamic Republic.

The President is the central figure in the exercise of executive power. However, the Supreme Leader is vested with extensive authority concerning national policy, national security, the military, and other major areas of state affairs.

5-4. Political Parties and Political Forces

Iran should not be understood solely through the framework of Western-style party politics. Its political system also needs to be examined in terms of competition among political forces, including conservatives, reformists, and moderates.

5-5. Candidate Selection

An important characteristic of Iran is that candidates undergo eligibility screening before elections take place.

Article 99 of the Constitution grants the Guardian Council authority to supervise elections.

Accordingly, in Iran, the institutional process that determines “who is eligible to be voted for” is as important as the election results themselves.

5-6. Political Finance and Political Organizations

Political finance in Iran differs from the PAC-centered, market-oriented political finance system found in the United States.

It is necessary to examine the relationships among state institutions, religious organizations, political networks, economic organizations, and other relevant actors.

5-7. Election Administration and the Guardian Council

The Guardian Council is involved not only in reviewing legislation but also in supervising elections. It also has the authority to review whether legislation is consistent with Islamic principles and the Constitution.

5-8. Religious, Military, and National Security Organizations

To understand Iran, it is necessary to examine not only the Supreme Leader but also the relationships among national security organizations, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), religious institutions, the judiciary, and other relevant state institutions.

5-9. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

Presidential elections may lead to changes in Iran’s diplomatic posture and negotiating style. However, the country’s national security strategy, military policy, and regional strategy are strongly influenced by the institutional framework centered on the Supreme Leader.

5-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

Iran has a multilayered national decision-making structure consisting of:

Elected Republican Institutions
＋ Supreme Leader
＋ Guardian Council
＋ Religious Institutions
＋ National Security Apparatus

Chapter 6. China

6-1. State System and Constitutional Framework

The Constitution of China defines China as a socialist state and identifies the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) as the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Accordingly, understanding China’s political system requires simultaneous examination of not only its state institutions but also the organizational structure of the Communist Party of China.

6-2. The People’s Congress System

Under the Constitution, state power belongs to the people, and the National People’s Congress (NPC) and local people’s congresses are positioned as the organs through which that power is exercised.

State institutions are organized according to the principle of democratic centralism.

6-3. The President, State Council, and National People’s Congress

The President, the State Council, and the National People’s Congress each have distinct roles within the state institutional system.

However, in understanding China’s national decision-making process, these institutions cannot be analyzed separately from the leadership structure of the Communist Party of China.

6-4. The Chinese Communist Party and State Institutions

The Constitution of the Communist Party of China positions the Party as the core of political leadership across all areas of the state.

The Party also adopts democratic centralism as one of its organizational principles. Accordingly, in China, it is necessary to analyze the following process:

Party Decision-Making
→ Institutionalization through State Institutions
→ Administrative Implementation

6-5. Selection of Leaders and Officials

Political competition in China is shaped not only through general elections but also through the selection of Party officials, personnel appointments, and relations between the central and local governments.

Therefore, political and personal networks within the Party organization are more significant to the formation of political power than campaign costs in the conventional sense.

6-6. Political Finance and Election Costs

China’s system differs fundamentally from the U.S.-style political finance market.

Rather than campaign finance for individual candidates, Party organizations, administrative organizations, personal networks, and the appointment of officials play important roles in the formation and exercise of political power.

6-7. Information, Media, and Propaganda

The information environment is closely connected to national decision-making.

Media, propaganda, and the management of the Internet constitute important elements supporting political stability and the implementation of government policies.

6-8. Relations among the Party, Military, and State

In understanding China’s military institutions, including the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), it is necessary to examine the relationship between the Communist Party of China and the military.

The Communist Party has a Central Military Commission, and the relationship between the Party and the military is an important element in understanding China’s national security structure.

6-9. Foreign and National Security Policy

China’s foreign and national security policies are shaped not only by state institutions but also through coordination among the Party’s central leadership bodies, the military, diplomatic institutions, economic policy institutions, and other relevant organizations.

6-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

China has a party-state structure characterized by:

Party
↓
State Institutions
↓
Administration, Military, and Local Governments

This structure differs from Western-style systems in which changes in government are primarily determined through electoral outcomes.

Chapter 7. India

7-1. State System and Federal Structure

India is a federal parliamentary system. Not only the central government but also state governments play significant roles in political decision-making.

7-2. Parliamentary Elections

Elections to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, constitute a central foundation of national politics.

Because state-based political parties, in addition to national parties, exercise significant political influence, Indian politics needs to be analyzed by considering both the central and state levels as an integrated system.

7-3. Relations among the President, Prime Minister, and Parliament

The President is the head of state, while the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are at the center of day-to-day government administration.

The presidential election itself is not conducted through a direct popular vote.

According to the Election Commission of India, the President is elected by an electoral college consisting of elected members of both Houses of Parliament and elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the states and certain Union Territories. The election uses proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and a secret ballot.

7-4. Party System

India has both national parties and state parties. Consequently, the configuration of political forces in national elections may differ from that in state elections.

7-5. Candidate Selection

Candidate selection is influenced by internal party processes as well as local communities, caste, religion, language, and state-level politics.

7-6. Campaign Finance and Election Costs

Given India’s enormous population, election campaigns require substantial resources.

Transparency in campaign finance, funding from corporations and organizations, and political party finances are therefore important areas of study.

7-7. Election Administration, the Judiciary, and the Media

The Election Commission of India is an important constitutional institution.

The credibility of the electoral system is shaped through election administration, voting procedures, political parties, the handling of electoral violations, and judicial decisions.

7-8. Relations between the Central Government and State Governments

One of the defining characteristics of Indian politics is its federal structure.

Because state governments maintain their own political bases, coordination between the central government and the states is important when implementing national policies.

7-9. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

India’s foreign and national security policies are primarily led by the central government. However, they are also influenced by domestic politics, border states, and ethnic, religious, and regional issues.

7-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

India has a decentralized national decision-making structure characterized by:

Parliamentary System
＋ Federal System
＋ National Political Parties
＋ State Political Parties
＋ A Vast Electorate
＋ Diverse Social Groups

Chapter 8. North Korea

8-1. State System

In North Korea, the political system centered on the Workers’ Party of Korea occupies the central position in national decision-making.

It is necessary to distinguish between the state institutions established under the Constitution and the leadership structure of the Party when analyzing North Korea’s political system.

8-2. Electoral System

North Korea has an electoral system, including elections to the Supreme People’s Assembly. However, it would not be appropriate to understand this electoral system as a mechanism for choosing a government in the same sense as elections in the United States or India.

8-3. Relations among the Supreme Leader, Party, and State Institutions

The Supreme Leader, the Workers’ Party of Korea, state institutions, and the military constitute the core components of North Korea’s national decision-making structure.

8-4. The Workers’ Party of Korea

The Party organization exercises influence across a broad range of political, economic, military, and social affairs.

Accordingly, an analysis limited to state institutions alone cannot provide a complete understanding of the overall policy-making process.

8-5. Candidate Selection

Candidate selection for elections differs fundamentally from competitive multiparty systems.

The important issue is the process through which candidates are determined by the Party organization before elections take place.

8-6. Political Finance and Economic Resources

North Korea does not have an open political finance market comparable to those found in Western democratic states.

Instead, the relationships among state resources, Party organizations, and military and economic organizations are important to understanding the formation and exercise of political power.

8-7. Information and the Media

The information environment is subject to strong state control.

Accordingly, rather than focusing primarily on free competition among information sources during elections, it is necessary to examine the structure of information control and propaganda exercised by the state and the Party.

8-8. Military and National Security Institutions

The military, nuclear capabilities, and national security institutions constitute important components of North Korea’s national decision-making structure.

In examining North Korea’s nuclear and military policies in recent years, it is also necessary to consider coordination among the Supreme leadership, the Party, the military, and diplomatic institutions.

In September 2026, North Korea also reiterated its position that its status as a nuclear-armed state is “irreversible.”

8-9. Foreign Policy and Nuclear Policy

In North Korean foreign policy, nuclear capabilities, relations with the United States and South Korea, and relations with China and Russia constitute central elements of national security policy.

8-10. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

North Korea has a centralized national decision-making structure characterized by:

Supreme Leader
＋ Workers’ Party of Korea
＋ State Institutions
＋ Military and National Security Institutions

Chapter 9. Israel

9-1. State System and Parliamentary Government

Israel adopts a parliamentary system of government. The Knesset consists of 120 seats, and the government is formed on the basis of political forces represented in the parliament.

9-2. The Knesset Electoral System

In Israel, members of the Knesset are elected through party lists rather than on an individual candidate basis.

According to official Knesset materials, elections are conducted on the basis of nationwide, direct, equal, secret, and proportional representation principles. The current electoral threshold is 3.25%.

The 120 Knesset seats are allocated among party lists that exceed the electoral threshold, in proportion to their share of the vote.

9-3. Party System and Coalition Politics

Because Israel uses a proportional representation system, multiple parties enter the Knesset. As a result, governments are generally formed through coalition negotiations rather than by a single party acting alone.

Accordingly, national decision-making in Israel proceeds through the following stages:

Election
→ Knesset Seats
→ Coalition Negotiations
→ Government Formation

9-4. Political and Social Networks of European and Ashkenazi Jewish Communities

When analyzing Israeli society, it is necessary to consider the historical and social influence of Ashkenazi Jews, particularly those whose communities originated in Europe.

However, there is no single fixed political party representing “Ashkenazi Jews” as a unified political bloc. Rather, political tendencies have developed through a combination of factors, including:

Immigration history
Social stratification
Education
Economic position
Urbanization
Secular culture

These factors should therefore be examined as interconnected elements of broader political and social networks.

9-5. Historical Background of Iberian Peninsula and Sephardic Jewish Communities

Historically, the term Sephardi refers to Jewish communities originating in the Iberian Peninsula.

However, in contemporary Israeli politics, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews should not be treated as completely identical categories. Accordingly, this report distinguishes between the two in terms of their respective historical backgrounds.

9-6. Political and Social Networks of Middle Eastern, North African, and Mizrahi Jewish Communities

The social and political experiences of Jews originating from the Middle East and North Africa, commonly associated with Mizrahi communities, constitute an important element of Israeli politics.

Research has analyzed how the ethnic and social cleavage between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews has influenced political behavior while intersecting with other cleavages, including social class and religious identity.

9-7. Religious and Secular Political Forces

Israeli politics includes a range of religious and secular political positions, including:

Secular
Orthodox
Ultra-Orthodox
Religious Zionist

When religious parties play an important role in coalition formation, political issues extend beyond religious policy to include education, military service, social welfare, and the relationship between religion and the state. Research on Israeli politics likewise identifies the religious–secular cleavage as an important dimension of the political system.

9-8. Arab Citizens and Political Participation

Arab citizens constitute an important component of Israeli society, and their political participation is an important element in understanding Israeli politics.

Accordingly, Israel’s political structure is influenced not only by divisions within Jewish society but also by relations between Jewish citizens and Palestinian-Arab citizens.

Research on Israeli society has identified the relationship between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, alongside religious–secular and socioeconomic divisions, as one of the major sociopolitical cleavages shaping political behavior.

9-9. Political, Economic, and Security Networks with the United States

The relationship with the United States is an important factor in understanding Israeli politics.

However, the following should not be treated as identical entities:

Israeli Government
≠ U.S. Government
≠ Jewish Communities in the United States
≠ Pro-Israel Organizations in the United States

These are distinct actors.

The U.S. government, Congress, corporations, Jewish communities, pro-Israel organizations, research institutions, and other actors engage with Israeli-related policy from different positions and through different channels.

9-10. Lobbying Activities, PACs, and Political Finance in the United States

In the United States, various political organizations, lobbying organizations, PACs, and other groups operate in connection with policies concerning Israel.

Their activities include:

Policy advocacy directed at members of Congress
Political finance
Electoral support
Public opinion formation
Think-tank and research activities
Media and public communications

However, political spending by a particular organization does not, by itself, establish that the organization “controls” the U.S. government or Congress.

The important analytical question is to examine concretely:

What funds flow to which political actors, through which institutional mechanisms, and what forms of policy advocacy are undertaken?

9-11. Election Results and Foreign and National Security Policy

In Israel, the composition of a coalition government may affect foreign and national security policy.

In particular, the following areas are closely connected to both domestic politics and national security policy:

The Palestinian issue
Iran
Relations with the United States
Neighboring Arab states
The situation in Gaza
Military policy

9-12. Characteristics of the National Decision-Making Structure

The characteristics of Israel’s national decision-making structure include:

Proportional Representation
＋ Multiparty System
＋ Coalition Politics
＋ Multiple Ethnic, Religious, and Socioeconomic Cleavages
＋ A Strong National Security Environment
＋ Political, Economic, and Security Relations with the United States

In this context, categories such as “European/Ashkenazi,” “Iberian/Sephardi,” and “Middle Eastern/North African/Mizrahi” should not be treated as fixed political factions.

Rather, they should be analyzed as political and social networks shaped by the interaction of historical migration, ethnicity, social class, religious identity, and other social factors.

Chapter 10. Comparative Analysis of the Seven Countries

Analytical Category	United States	Russia	Iran	China	India	North Korea	Israel
State System	Federal Presidential Republic	Federal Presidential System	Islamic Republic	Party-State Socialist System	Federal Parliamentary System	Party-Centered System	Parliamentary System
Political Competition	Two-Party-Dominated	President-Centered	Competition among Political Forces	Party Leadership-Centered	Multiparty System	Party-Centered	Multiparty System
Legislature	Strong	Exists but President-Centered	Parliament + Religious Institutions	People’s Congress System	Strong	Limited	Strong
Government Formation	Presidential Election	Presidential Election	President + Supreme Leader	Party and State Personnel Appointments	Parliamentary Majority	Party Leadership	Coalition
Candidate Selection	Primaries and Other Processes	Political Parties and Political Organizations	Guardian Council Vetting	Party and Organizational Processes	Parties and Regional Politics	Party Organization	Party Lists
Political Finance	Very Large-Scale	State, Parties, and Other Actors	Political and Religious Organizations	Party-State System	Large-Scale	State and Party-Centered	Political Parties and Social Networks
Power Structures Operating Alongside the Legislature and Government	PACs, Lobbying Organizations, etc.	Presidential Administration and National Security Institutions	Supreme Leader, Guardian Council, and Other Institutions	Communist Party and Military	State Governments and State Parties	Party and Military	Religious and Social Groups, Networks with the United States
Information Structure	Pluralistic	Strong State Influence	State, Religious, and Political Forces	Strong State and Party Control	Pluralistic	State Control	Pluralistic
Foreign and National Security Policy	President + Congress + Relevant Institutions	President-Centered	Supreme Leader-Centered	Party-State-Centered	Prime Minister and Central Government-Centered	Leader + Party + Military	Government + Military + Coalition
Characteristics of National Decision-Making	Decentralized and Competitive	President-Centered	Dual and Multilayered	Party-State System	Federal and Decentralized	Centralized	Coalition-Based and Pluralistic

Comparative Analysis

What is important from this table is not simply whether a country is classified as a “democracy” or a “non-democracy.”

Even when countries share the institution of elections, the pathways through which elections are connected to national decision-making differ significantly.

In other words, elections should not be analyzed solely as mechanisms for selecting political leaders. It is also necessary to examine how electoral outcomes are connected to political parties, candidate selection, political finance, information structures, legislatures, governments, military and security institutions, religious organizations, regional governments, and other political and social organizations.

The comparison of these seven countries therefore demonstrates that the same institutional label— “elections”—can function through substantially different national decision-making structures.

Chapter 11. Elections, the Information Environment, and Information Security

11-1. Elections as Targets of Information Warfare

In contemporary elections, not only candidates’ policies but also information about the candidates themselves can become a political resource.

Because large volumes of information can spread rapidly through social media, misinformation, selective editing, AI-generated videos, fake accounts, and other forms of manipulated content may have political effects.

11-2. Influence by Foreign Actors

Foreign interference in elections can take a variety of forms, including:

Cyberattacks
Social media operations
Disinformation
Financial support
Relationships with political organizations
Information theft
Social and political polarization

Accordingly, it is necessary to address the entire information environment as a national security issue rather than focusing solely on conventional counter-espionage measures.

11-3. Elections in the Age of AI

Generative AI has made it possible to produce large volumes of:

Audio
Video
Photographs
Documents
Social media posts

As a result, mechanisms for monitoring and analyzing the political information environment are needed not only during election periods but also in ordinary times.

11-4. National Intelligence Strategy

In considering national security, an integrated process is essential:

Information Collection
→ Information Analysis
→ Information Integration
→ Policy Judgment
→ Explanation to the Public

The objective should not simply be to establish more intelligence organizations. It is also necessary to integrate information held by different institutions and develop analytical capabilities that enable political leaders to use that information in national decision-making.

Chapter 12. Implications for Japan

12-1. Japan’s Political System Should Not Be Discussed Solely in Terms of Its Electoral System

When considering Japan’s political system, it is insufficient to focus only on issues such as whether to adopt single-member districts or proportional representation, or how political finance should be regulated.

What is necessary is to examine the following as an integrated structure:

Electoral System
＋ Political Parties
＋ Candidate Selection
＋ Political Finance
＋ Media
＋ Social Media
＋ Bureaucratic Institutions
＋ Foreign and National Security Institutions
＋ Local Governments
＋ Private-Sector Policy Networks

12-2. Transparency in Candidate Selection

Candidate selection by political parties is as important as the election results themselves.

It is necessary to clarify how the range of candidates from which voters can choose is determined.

12-3. Transparency in Political Finance

With regard to political finance, it is necessary to establish mechanisms capable of tracing not only the amount of money involved but also:

Who provides the funds
Through which organizations the funds are transferred
For what purposes the funds are provided
To which political activities the funds are directed

12-4. Information Security

In the age of social media and AI, electoral policy and information security cannot be treated as separate issues.

In particular, national-level analytical capabilities need to be developed with regard to:

Foreign influence operations
Disinformation
AI-generated content
Cyberattacks
Political advertising
Social media algorithms

12-5. Parliamentary Capacity to Support Foreign and National Security Policy

There are limitations to concentrating specialized expertise on foreign and national security policy exclusively within the government.

Parliament also requires specialized analytical capabilities in areas including:

Intelligence analysis
National security
Economic security
Cybersecurity
AI
Energy
International finance

12-6. Making the “Cost of Power” Visible

In Japan, it is necessary to analyze not only the costs incurred by politicians to win elections but also the flows of political resources involving:

Human Networks Supporting Politicians
Policy Experts Supporting Policy Formation
Media and Social Media
Political Finance
Industry and Business Organizations
Local Political Organizations

Such an approach makes it possible to examine the broader “Cost of Power” required to build and sustain political influence and participate in national decision-making.

Final Chapter. National Decision-Making That Cannot Be Seen from Election Results Alone

This report has compared the national decision-making structures of seven countries—the United States, Russia, Iran, China, India, North Korea, and Israel—using their electoral systems as the starting point of analysis.

The comparison demonstrates that electoral systems do not, by themselves, determine national decision-making.

In the United States, presidential and congressional elections, political parties, PACs, lobbying organizations, the media, state governments, and other actors interact to shape political power.

In Russia, the President, government, legislature, national security institutions, military, bureaucracy, and other structures interact within a national decision-making system centered on the presidency.

In Iran, an elected republican system coexists with a multilayered religious and national security structure centered on the Supreme Leader.

In China, the leadership of the Communist Party of China is closely integrated with state institutions.

In India, the central and state governments, as well as national and state political parties, interact within a federal political system.

In North Korea, the Supreme Leader, Workers’ Party of Korea, state institutions, and military form a centralized decision-making structure.

In Israel, proportional representation, a multiparty system, coalition politics, multiple political cleavages involving religion, ethnicity, and social class, and political and security relations with the United States overlap to shape the national decision-making structure.

Accordingly, when comparing political systems, it is insufficient to ask only:

“Who won the election?”

Comparative Analysis of Electoral Systems and National Decision-Making Structures Worldwide