First work out what each team actually is. The four teams are the types of democracy from Fig. 6.4, dressed as school councils — that is why the box says these examples “show that systems may differ in how power is shared, who participates in decision-making, and whether checks and balances are in place.”
| Team | What it does | Which model it matches | Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | All students gather and elect a president once a year; the president has very limited powers; for major decisions everyone gathers and votes with ballot papers | Direct democracy (Switzerland) | Every student decides every major issue personally | “Difficult to follow in large countries” — and in a large school, gathering everyone for each decision is slow |
| B | Elections every year; each class elects a representative; the representatives elect the Council President; President and representatives decide together | Parliamentary democracy (India, Canada) | Two layers of election, decisions taken collectively, the head is answerable to those who elected him or her | Students choose the representatives but not the President directly |
| C | Students directly vote for the School President and for Council members; the President is head of the Council and the chief decision-maker | Presidential democracy (USA) | The President has a direct mandate from every student | Head and chief decision-maker are the same person — much depends on how strong the Council's check on the President is |
| D | Elections are held, but only selected candidates may contest; the President holds most of the power; the Council has very limited authority; opposition voices are weak or discouraged | Not a democratic model | — | Fails on choice, on separation of powers and on dissent, even though elections take place |
The one clear judgement. A, B and C are all defensible democratic designs, and reasonable people prefer different ones. D is different in kind, not in degree. Measured against the chapter's own principles it fails three tests at once: candidature is restricted, so there is no real multi-party choice; power is concentrated in one office with a Council that has “very limited authority”, so there is no separation of powers; and opposition voices are “weak or discouraged”, so there is no dissent — the democratic value the page 144 table attaches to the legislative process.
Sample answer: I would select Team B. My reasons: (i) it works at scale — a large school cannot assemble every student for every decision, but every class can send one representative, so nobody is left unrepresented; (ii) power is shared, because “The President and the representatives together make decisions”, so no single office decides alone; (iii) there are two rounds of accountability — a representative must face his or her own class each year, and the President must keep the confidence of the representatives; and (iv) elections are annual, so authority is always temporary. This is the model India follows, and the chapter's reason is the same: representation is how a very large body of people governs itself.