Practice Test 8 - AP Comparative Government and Politics

20 questions. Answer them in any order, then submit to see your score and every explanation.

Start practice test

1. A text compares Nigeria (Africa) and India (Asia) to highlight political consequences of economic liberalization. It defines liberalization as reducing state control through deregulation, privatization, and trade and investment openness, with goals of increasing efficiency, lowering inflation, and attracting FDI. India's 1991 reforms reduced industrial licensing, lowered tariffs, and welcomed foreign investment; growth improved over the decade, and coalition politics required bargaining with regional parties and organized labor, producing incremental reforms and expanded social programs in later years. Nigeria's episodic liberalization included currency reforms, subsidy reductions, and privatization efforts, often tied to IMF discussions; however, patron-client networks and federal distributional conflicts made implementation uneven, and subsidy protests became a recurring test of regime legitimacy. The passage argues that long-term political effects include changes in party competition, shifts in state capacity toward regulatory governance, and new cleavages between globally connected sectors and groups left behind. Based on the passage, what are the long-term political effects of economic liberalization based on the examples in the text?
2. Based on the passage below, what does the passage suggest about the relationship between economic performance and legitimacy? In comparative politics, political legitimacy refers to the widely held belief that a regime's authority is rightful and should be obeyed, even when citizens disagree with particular policies. This belief matters because it lowers the costs of governing: compliance becomes more voluntary, coercion becomes less necessary, and institutions can resolve conflict without constant crisis. Legitimacy is therefore not identical to popularity; it is a deeper judgment about the appropriateness of rule. The passage examines authoritarian regimes, using historical and systemic examples from China and Russia, to show how legitimacy can be cultivated without competitive elections. Legitimacy Without Electoral Competition Authoritarian systems often lack open, competitive elections as a primary source of consent, so they tend to rely on alternative foundations for legitimacy. These may include claims of technocratic competence, promises of order, or narratives of national renewal. In such settings, legitimacy is maintained less through procedural fairness at the ballot box and more through performance and symbolic appeals. The passage emphasizes that these strategies can be durable, but they also create distinctive vulnerabilities. China: Performance-Based and Developmental Claims China's modern governing narrative has frequently emphasized economic development, administrative capacity, and social stability as evidence that the ruling party "delivers" public goods. When living standards rise and state capacity appears effective, performance-based legitimacy can strengthen, because citizens may judge the regime as competent and beneficial. Yet the passage notes that performance legitimacy is conditional: it depends on continued delivery and can be strained by slowdowns, inequality, or perceived policy failures. This conditionality shapes how the regime prioritizes growth, infrastructure, and visible competence. Russia: Nationalism, Order, and State Capacity Russia's legitimacy strategies have often drawn on themes of restored state authority, national pride, and the promise of stability after periods of upheaval. Economic performance can reinforce these claims, but the passage highlights that symbolic sources—such as nationalism and narratives of historical continuity—can also substitute when material outcomes are uneven. Even so, the text underscores that legitimacy remains tied to perceptions of state capacity: citizens' belief that the state can provide security, basic services, and predictable rules. In this sense, performance and symbolism interact rather than operate separately. Factors Shaping Legitimacy The passage argues that legitimacy is influenced by economic outcomes, cultural expectations about authority, and historical memory. Societies with recent experiences of disorder may value stability more highly, making "order" a persuasive legitimating claim. Cultural norms can also affect whether citizens expect participatory input or accept paternalistic governance. Historical context matters because regimes can frame themselves as protectors against a return to past crises, thereby converting memory into a political resource. Consequences of Weak Legitimacy When legitimacy erodes, regimes may face rising protests, elite defections, and governance paralysis, increasing the likelihood of instability or abrupt political change. The passage notes that states with low legitimacy often compensate through surveillance or coercion, but these tools can be costly and may further damage public consent. Over time, a legitimacy deficit can make routine policy disputes escalate into systemic challenges. The text concludes that authoritarian legitimacy is possible, but it is often more contingent and more dependent on sustained performance and persuasive narratives than in systems grounded in competitive electoral authorization.
3. Which of the following actions is the clearest example of a court exercising judicial review?
4. A major policy initiative is passed by the central government in China. Which of the following describes the most likely way this policy will be implemented at the local level compared to in Nigeria?
5. The primary demographic challenge that prompted the Chinese government to transition from a one-child policy to a three-child policy is
6. Executive systems vary across democracies. A presidential system (e.g., the United States, influenced by Enlightenment-era constitutionalism) separates executive and legislative branches: the president is separately elected, serves as both head of state and head of government, appoints officials, and may veto legislation, while the legislature cannot be dissolved by the executive. Checks and balances include legislative oversight and judicial review. A parliamentary system (e.g., the United Kingdom, evolving from monarchical government to cabinet responsibility in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) fuses executive and legislative authority: the prime minister and cabinet are drawn from parliament and remain in office only while retaining legislative confidence; early elections may occur if confidence is lost. A semi-presidential system (e.g., France's Fifth Republic, established in 1958) features a dual executive: a directly elected president with significant powers (notably in foreign affairs and defense) alongside a prime minister responsible to the legislature for domestic governance; periods of "cohabitation" can shift practical authority toward the prime minister. How does a parliamentary system differ from a semi-presidential system according to the text?
7. The transfer of power from one elected president to another in Mexico after a competitive election best represents which of the following?
8. A major political consequence of the rapid economic liberalization policies implemented in both Mexico and Russia during the late 20th century was
9. Read the following text for context. Case Studies: In the UK, voters elect members of Parliament, and the leader who can command a majority becomes prime minister. The monarch serves as head of state, while the prime minister runs the government and can fall after a no-confidence vote. In the US, voters choose a president who serves as both head of state and head of government, and Congress cannot remove the executive through confidence votes. In France, voters elect a president as head of state, while a prime minister leads government and depends on parliamentary backing. Based on the passage, what is a key difference between parliamentary and presidential systems?​
10. Which of the following best explains the difference between the judicial concepts of 'rule of law' and 'rule by law' as they apply to the United Kingdom and China?
11. Which of the following best explains why ethnic and religious cleavages in Nigeria have historically posed a greater challenge to political stability than the significant social cleavages in Mexico?
12. Which of the following is an accurate comparison of the role of the upper legislative house in the United Kingdom and Mexico?
13. Which of the following is the most significant impact of Russia's status as a rentier state on its political culture?
14. How does the process of impeachment differ from a vote of no confidence based on the passage? Passage embedded for this question: <subheading>Systems Compared</subheading> Parliamentary systems link executive survival to legislative confidence. The prime minister governs only so long as a majority (or workable plurality) in the legislature supports the government. Presidential systems separate powers and give the president an independent electoral mandate. <subheading>Removal Mechanisms</subheading> A vote of no confidence is a political mechanism used in parliamentary systems: if a majority votes against the government, the prime minister must resign or seek dissolution and elections, depending on constitutional practice. Resignation may also occur without a formal vote when the governing party withdraws support. Impeachment is a constitutional-legal process common in presidential systems: a legislative chamber brings formal charges, and another chamber holds a trial. Removal typically requires a supermajority conviction. Because it is difficult to assemble, impeachment is infrequent and usually focuses on alleged misconduct rather than routine policy disputes. <subheading>Illustrative Examples</subheading> U.K. (1979): Callaghan lost a confidence vote, leading to an election. U.S. (1998–1999): Clinton was impeached in the House but acquitted in the Senate, remaining in office. <subheading>Implications</subheading> Confidence votes can change governments quickly when coalitions fracture, while impeachment is slower and requires broad agreement across institutions.
15. Read the passage: Economic Cleavages: United States and Brazil. In both the United States and Brazil, class-based economic cleavages structure political competition, yet they do so through distinct institutional channels. In the United States, income and educational stratification increasingly correlates with partisan alignment, with higher-income and higher-education voters often clustering differently from lower-income voters across recent elections; this pattern interacts with a candidate-centered system and primary elections that amplify ideological sorting and mobilize donors and activists. In Brazil, persistent income inequality intersects with a fragmented multiparty system and coalition presidentialism, encouraging parties to bargain over cabinet posts and budgetary allocations while appealing to socioeconomically diverse electorates. In both cases, economic cleavages shape political culture by influencing perceptions of fairness, trust in institutions, and expectations of government responsiveness; they also shape participation by affecting turnout, campaign engagement, and the relative influence of organized interests. Policy-making reflects these cleavages: distributive conflicts appear in debates over taxation, social assistance, labor regulation, and public services. However, the United States often experiences policy gridlock through separated powers and polarization, whereas Brazil's coalition bargaining can produce policy compromises but also raises coordination challenges and bargaining costs. These dynamics affect political stability: intense polarization and institutional veto points can heighten governability concerns in the United States, while coalition fragmentation can strain executive-legislative relations in Brazil without necessarily collapsing democratic procedures. (References: Lipset & Rokkan, 1967; Mainwaring, 1999; Hacker & Pierson, 2010.) Based on the text, how do economic cleavages influence political participation across both countries?
16. An election in the United Kingdom results in the Conservative Party losing its majority in the House of Commons and the Labour Party forming a new cabinet with its leader as prime minister. This event represents a change in
17. The end of the Institutional Revolutionary Party's (PRI) seventy-one-year period of dominance in Mexico in 2000 signaled a significant shift in the country's political culture toward
18. The establishment of gender quotas in party candidate lists in Mexico is a policy adaptation designed to address
19. Which of the following is a common way governments in rentier states like Iran and Nigeria have sustained legitimacy, which is less available to a non-rentier state like the United Kingdom?
20. The 2016 'Brexit' referendum in the United Kingdom, which resulted in a vote to leave the European Union, was primarily driven by popular arguments concerning the need to restore

Practice tests