Actors and stakeholders

A political actor is a person or collective body with enough agency and power to influence a political issue. A stakeholder is any person or group affected by that issue, even if they have no way to influence the decisions being made.

This distinction matters because power isn't distributed evenly. Governments, companies and organized groups may determine policy. Meanwhile, displaced people, children or isolated communities can face the consequences without meaningful access to decision-making. A complete political analysis identifies who acts as well as who is affected.

Types of actor

The guide recognizes a wide range of political actors:

• States hold authority over territories and populations. Internationally, they act through diplomacy, law and coercion.
• Subnational and local governments govern regions, provinces, cities and municipalities. The constitutional system and the resources transferred to them determine their authority.
• Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are created by states. They provide forums for cooperation, rule-making or coordinated action.
• Organized civil society includes associations that operate outside government and commercial markets, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
• Private actors and companies shape politics through investment, employment, technology, lobbying and control over resources or infrastructure.
• Social movements mobilize people around shared demands. They often rely on protest, campaigning and public communication rather than formal office.
• Resistance movements challenge an established authority or political order. Their methods and claims to legitimacy vary considerably.
• Political parties seek to shape public policy, usually by contesting elections or exercising government power.
• Interest and pressure groups try to influence decision-makers without usually seeking to form a government themselves.
• Political leaders may set priorities, build coalitions and personify institutions, though rules and other actors constrain their freedom of action.
• Formal and informal political forums create settings for negotiation and decision-making. A legislature is formal; an unofficial diplomatic meeting is informal.
• The media select, interpret and distribute political information. In doing so, they can amplify or marginalize particular perspectives.
• Other individual and collective actors may include voters, community leaders, experts, trade unions, religious organizations and transnational networks.

The categories can overlap. A political leader may lead both a state and a political party. A company might also participate in an industry pressure group and an informal policy forum.

Power and legitimacy depend on context

An actor's category alone doesn't determine its influence. Political systems control access to decision-makers, distribute legal authority and set the limits of permitted action. Power may come from financial resources, public trust, expertise, electoral support or control over information. The importance of each source varies by context.

Legitimacy is contested too. An elected government may base its claim on democratic legitimacy. An NGO may claim moral legitimacy because it represents vulnerable people, while a resistance movement may argue that opposing repression makes it legitimate. Rivals can reject any of these claims by challenging the actor's representation, accountability or methods.

Recent examples

During the Rio Grande do Sul floods in Brazil in 2024, federal, state and municipal governments worked with local volunteers, NGOs, media organizations and private logistics companies to coordinate emergency action. Residents of flooded communities were central stakeholders. However, displacement and disrupted communications left many with less immediate influence than the institutions deciding how assistance would be distributed.

In Myanmar from 2021 to 2024, the military authorities, the National Unity Government, ethnic armed organizations and local resistance groups operated in a fragmented political environment. Civilians affected by conflict remained stakeholders even when they had no secure access to a decision-making forum. Media restrictions and coercion also changed which actors could communicate and organize.

Contested interpretations

A realist interpretation prioritizes states and other actors that command coercive or material resources. A liberal interpretation gives more weight to IGOs, legal channels and civil society, since cooperation can spread influence beyond the state.

Constructivists examine how identities and accepted norms make certain actors seem legitimate while excluding others. Feminist and postcolonial perspectives focus on affected groups whose experiences may be overlooked when formal institutions privilege political, economic or social elites. These approaches support studying stakeholders who can't readily exercise power, rather than focusing only on the most visible actors.

Political systems

A political system is the connected set of structures, relationships and processes through which people exercise power and make collective decisions. It sets the context for interaction and limits the courses of action open to different actors.

Structures are relatively durable arrangements that assign roles and authority. These include constitutions, electoral systems, legislatures and levels of government. Dynamics are the changing interactions that take place within those arrangements, such as competition, cooperation, bargaining, mobilization and conflict.

The two work together. An electoral rule may decide which parties enter a legislature, but those parties must negotiate to form a government. A constitution may protect protest. Whether that protection works in practice, though, depends on the behaviour of police, courts, media and protesters.

How systems regulate interaction

Political systems shape:

• who may make binding decisions
• how leaders are selected or removed
• how authority is divided between national and local institutions
• which actors gain access to formal forums
• how disputes are settled
• which actions are lawful or politically acceptable
• how accountable decision-makers are to affected stakeholders.

Formal authority and practical power aren't always the same. A local government may have legal responsibilities without sufficient funding to carry them out. By contrast, a company or media platform may hold no constitutional office yet still exert strong influence over public debate and policy choices.

Differences in power and legitimacy

The position of similar actors can vary sharply between systems. A political party may compete freely in one state while facing legal restrictions in another. In a federal system, local government may have substantial fiscal autonomy. In a highly centralized system, it may function mainly as an agent of central government.

Perceptions matter too. Supporters may see close cooperation between a government and a private company as an efficient partnership. Critics may view the same relationship as privileged access or regulatory capture. One system may treat organized civil society as a legitimate source of public participation, while another sees it as a threat to state authority.

Recent examples

In South Africa's 2024 general election, the African National Congress lost its national parliamentary majority. The proportional electoral structure helped produce a legislature where inter-party bargaining became essential. The resulting Government of National Unity showed how an enduring electoral structure can create new dynamics of coalition-building, compromise and competition over legitimacy.

In Indonesia's 2024 presidential election, candidates competed in a direct national vote with the support of broad party coalitions. The Constitutional Court considered challenges to the result. This illustrates how electoral rules, party relationships and adjudicative institutions channel political competition instead of leaving disputes entirely to informal pressure or coercion.

Perspectives on systems

Realists focus on struggles for power within and between systems, particularly the continuing importance of state authority and coercive capacity. Liberals argue that representative structures, checks on power and institutionalized cooperation can make political interactions more predictable and accountable.

Constructivists look at how shared expectations influence what actors consider an appropriate political role. Feminist and postcolonial approaches ask whose participation the system enables and whose knowledge it recognizes. They also examine whether apparently neutral structures reproduce unequal access to power.

This framing applies across the thematic studies. Rights rely on systems that can recognize and enforce them. Development and sustainability require coordination among levels of government and non-state actors. Peace or conflict is shaped by whether systems offer legitimate ways to manage competing claims.

Core distinctions

A legal framework consists of binding rules and procedures that govern conduct within a particular political field. These may include constitutions, legislation, treaties, regulations and judicial decisions.

A norm is a shared expectation about appropriate behaviour. Even without legal enforcement, norms can influence actors because compliance affects legitimacy, reputation and political support.

Institutions include formalized organizations or agencies, as well as social structures made up of rules and norms that shape—and constrain—individual and collective behaviour. A court is an institution, for example, but so is an established practice such as regular competitive elections.

The three concepts overlap, but they aren’t interchangeable. When an IGO makes or implements decisions, it acts as an actor. At the same time, it forms part of the institutional setting in which other actors operate. A norm may eventually be written into law; repeated compliance with a legal rule may also strengthen a broader norm.

How they shape political action

Legal frameworks set out authority, rights, duties and procedures. Norms create expectations about how actors should behave. Institutions help keep those rules and expectations stable over time. Together they can:

• create forums for participation and negotiation
• authorize or prohibit particular actions
• distribute decision-making power
• provide procedures for resolving disputes
• supply standards for judging legitimacy
• constrain actors or give them new opportunities to act.

These arrangements can generate political issues too. A legal framework may exclude a group, while an institution may concentrate authority. Competing norms can also produce disagreement about which behaviour counts as legitimate. Formal rules may exist without being implemented effectively if institutions lack resources or powerful actors refuse to cooperate.

Recent examples

The European Union Artificial Intelligence Act entered into force in 2024, establishing a legal framework that assigns obligations according to the risks linked to different uses of artificial intelligence. As a result, EU institutions, national regulators and private technology companies have distinct roles. The example shows how law can restrict commercial choices while creating common conditions for market activity.

The Escazú Agreement entered into force in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2021 and set regional commitments on environmental information, public participation and access to justice. It links environmental governance to rights and sustainability. Its implementation, however, depends on domestic institutions and on the capacity of communities and civil society organizations to use the opportunities it provides.

In South Africa v Israel in 2024, the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures under the Genocide Convention. The proceedings show how treaties and courts give states formal channels for framing disputes. Yet the practical effect of legal decisions still relies on state compliance, international pressure and wider political relationships.

Contested interpretations

Liberals tend to see law and institutions as mechanisms that reduce uncertainty and allow interdependent actors to cooperate. Realists argue that institutions still depend on states and cannot consistently constrain governments that possess sufficient material power or political support.

Constructivists emphasize the power of norms to reshape interests by changing which conduct is seen as acceptable. Feminist and postcolonial perspectives focus on who first created legal rules and institutions, whose experiences those arrangements recognize, and whether formally universal standards work equally across different social and historical contexts.

Legal frameworks, norms and institutions aren’t simply neutral background conditions. They structure interactions and distribute power and legitimacy. In doing so, they may help address political issues or become part of the problem being studied.