2.7 - Independent Legislatures
Even though legislatures formally hold lawmaking authority, other institutions and processes constrain how independent they really are, and the extent of these constraints depends heavily on regime type.
China: Party Dominance Over the Legislature
China's NPC faces severe constraints from Communist Party institutions that block any real independent function.
The Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC), made up of around 7 top party members including the General Secretary, is the actual center of power. It makes all major policy decisions before the NPC even considers them, determines the legislative agenda and outcomes, and leaves the NPC unable to act independently. The process basically goes: the party decides, the PBSC approves, and the NPC rubber-stamps. When Xi wanted to remove presidential term limits in 2018, the PBSC decided first, then the NPC approved it near-unanimously with no genuine role in the decision.
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, about 170 members drawn from NPC deputies, operates year-round while the full NPC meets for only a week or two each March. It handles most actual lawmaking when the full NPC isn't in session, sets the agenda for what the full NPC considers, supervises the election of NPC deputies, and interprets the constitution and laws, effectively changing legal meaning without a formal amendment. Most Chinese laws are passed this way. The 2020 Hong Kong National Security Law, for instance, was passed unanimously by the Standing Committee after the full NPC voted to authorize it, while the full congress keeps high-profile votes like the 2005 Anti-Secession Law aimed at Taiwan. Combined, the party through the PBSC makes the real decisions while the Standing Committee handles routine legislative business, leaving the full NPC with essentially no independent power.
Iran: Religious Oversight of the Legislature
Iran's Majles operates under multiple layers of religious supervision that seriously constrain its independence.
The Guardian Council, 12 members (6 clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader, 6 legal experts nominated by the head of the judiciary and approved by the Majles), exercises two kinds of control. First, it vets candidates before elections, disqualifying anyone deemed insufficiently committed to the Islamic Republic, politically threatening, lacking religious credentials, or previously involved in reformist activity. Before the 2020 Majles elections, the Guardian Council disqualified more than 7,000 of the roughly 16,000 people who registered, including 90 sitting MPs seeking reelection (a few won reinstatement on appeal), mostly reformists and moderates, resulting in an overwhelmingly conservative Majles that didn't necessarily reflect voter preference so much as who was allowed to run.
Second, the Guardian Council reviews all passed legislation for compatibility with Islamic law and the constitution, and can veto anything it deems incompatible. In 2018, the Majles passed bills to join two international conventions against organized crime and terrorist financing (the Palermo and CFT conventions), hoping to ease Iran's financial isolation, but the Guardian Council rejected them, arguing they contradicted Islamic principles and sovereignty, even though elected legislators supported the economic benefits. The bills then sat with the Expediency Council for about seven years, until the Supreme Leader allowed it to reconsider them and it approved both, with conditions, in 2025.
The Expediency Council, appointed by the Supreme Leader, resolves deadlocks between the Majles and the Guardian Council, and it typically favors the conservative religious interpretation, since the Supreme Leader appoints its members too. Combined, the Guardian Council blocks opposition candidates and vetoes legislation, the Expediency Council blocks efforts to override those vetoes, and the Supreme Leader appoints both bodies, meaning the Majles can debate and pass laws only within limits acceptable to unelected religious authorities.
Other Common Constraints on Legislatures
Beyond China and Iran specifically, legislatures everywhere face various constraints: executive dominance, where presidents or ruling parties control implementation regardless of what's legislated (as in Russia, where Putin's control of United Russia ensures the Duma passes his preferences); constitutional courts that can invalidate legislation through judicial review (like Mexico's Supreme Court or Russia's more politically controlled Constitutional Court); federal structures that reserve certain powers to states or provinces; strong party discipline that controls how individual members vote (as with UK MPs generally following party leadership); and electoral rules, where party-list proportional representation increases party control over candidates while single-member districts give legislators more independence, and appointment systems like Russia's Federation Council eliminate electoral independence altogether.
How Legislatures Can Still Reinforce Legitimacy and Stability
Despite all these constraints, legislatures can still reinforce legitimacy and stability in a few ways, even under authoritarian or hybrid regimes.
Responding to public demand: legislators communicate constituent concerns and can initiate or modify legislation to address them, giving citizens a sense that their voice matters. Even China's NPC deputies occasionally raise concerns about local issues like pollution or corruption during annual sessions, providing a limited outlet for grievances that supports legitimacy even without much real power behind it.
Open debate on policy: legislative deliberation provides transparency and lets multiple perspectives be heard publicly, which can build legitimacy even when outcomes disappoint some citizens. The UK's televised, contentious Brexit debates showed genuine disagreement and demonstrated the democratic process functioning, even though the outcome was divisive.
Facilitating compromise between factions: legislatures give competing parties, regions, or interests a structured venue to negotiate rather than resort to violence. Nigeria's National Assembly negotiates between regional and ethnic interests over resource distribution, helping manage diversity and reduce conflict risk. Even Iran's Majles allows some debate between pragmatic conservatives and hardliners, since the Guardian Council has already excluded genuine reformists, providing limited flexibility while keeping the regime in control.
Extending civil liberties: legislatures can expand rights through lawmaking, codifying protections for speech, assembly, and religion, or advancing gender and minority rights. Mexico's Congress has passed legislation expanding LGBTQ+ rights and indigenous rights, and the UK Parliament has passed anti-discrimination laws and devolution acts, both reinforcing legitimacy by showing the system protects and expands freedoms.
Restricting executive power: legislatures can investigate executive actions, question ministers, block executive overreach, and hold impeachment power as an ultimate check. Nigeria's National Assembly has investigated executive corruption and delayed budgets over concerns, and Mexico's Congress has blocked presidential constitutional reforms (AMLO's 2022 electricity reform and Sheinbaum's 2026 electoral reform both fell short of the two-thirds they needed), both reinforcing legitimacy by demonstrating real accountability mechanisms.
Even heavily constrained legislatures support legitimacy through symbolic representation, giving citizens the sense they have representatives even if those representatives lack real power; through acting as a safety valve, letting some dissent be expressed without threatening the regime; and through policy feedback, since even a mostly powerless legislature can inform leadership about problems on the ground. China's NPC, for example, gives the party useful information about local conditions through deputy reports, helping it govern more effectively even without independently constraining party power.
That said, legislatures that are too obviously powerless can actually undermine legitimacy instead, since citizens recognize the facade and grow cynical, and meaningless institutions can breed contempt rather than trust. The balancing act for authoritarian regimes is giving their legislature enough function to seem meaningful while keeping enough constraints to prevent any genuine challenge to regime control. Democratic systems, by contrast, need genuinely independent legislatures to sustain legitimacy, since citizens actually expect real representation.