- Read the passage, then answer the question.
Executive term limits set a maximum number of terms an executive leader may serve. Their main purpose is to reduce the risk that one person will consolidate power by controlling state resources, weakening opposition, or shaping rules to stay in office. Term limits can also encourage leadership turnover and signal that offices belong to institutions rather than individuals. At the same time, they may reduce accountability in a leader's final term and can push incumbents to seek informal ways to retain influence.
In the United States, the president is limited to two elected four-year terms under the 22nd Amendment, adopted in 1951 after Franklin D. Roosevelt won four elections. This rule fits a system with competitive elections and strong checks and balances, so the presidency is powerful but regularly contested.
Russia's constitution long set a two-consecutive-term limit for the president, which allowed leaders to step aside temporarily and return. Vladimir Putin served two consecutive terms, became prime minister, then returned to the presidency. In 2020, constitutional changes "reset" presidential term counts for the incumbent, enabling Putin to run again. This illustrates how formal limits can be altered when political competition is constrained.
China once developed an informal norm of leadership turnover and, in 1982, adopted term limits for the state presidency. However, in 2018 China removed the two-term limit for the state president, aligning with a one-party system in which leadership selection is not driven by open electoral competition. The change signaled fewer institutional barriers to a long tenure.
These cases show that term limits can support democratic processes when rules are enforced and elections are meaningful, as in the United States. Where institutions are weaker or competition is limited, term limits may be revised, bypassed, or reinterpreted, which can reduce uncertainty for elites but also weaken public trust and accountability. A comparative data point highlights the contrast: the U.S. limit is fixed at two terms, while China's national term limit for the state presidency has been removed since 2018, and Russia's 2020 reform expanded the incumbent's potential time in office.
Answer: To prevent long-term power consolidation by one leader
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically their primary purpose in political systems. Executive term limits are constitutional or legal restrictions that limit how many terms or years an individual can serve as the chief executive, designed to prevent the concentration of power and promote democratic governance. The passage explicitly states that the main purpose of term limits is 'to reduce the risk that one person will consolidate power by controlling state resources, weakening opposition, or shaping rules to stay in office.' Choice B is correct because it directly reflects this core purpose of preventing long-term power consolidation by a single leader. Choice A is incorrect because term limits are not designed to reduce voter turnout or shorten campaigns—this confuses term limits with other electoral mechanisms. To help students: Emphasize that term limits are fundamentally about preventing authoritarian drift and ensuring regular leadership transitions. Watch for: Students confusing the effects of term limits with their intended purpose, or assuming all democracies implement them the same way.
- A comparative passage explains that executive term limits can be formal (written into constitutions) or informal (norms enforced by parties and elites). It states that the United States has a formal two-term limit for presidents, while China previously followed a two-term norm but removed the formal limit in 2018. The text describes Russia as having formal rules that have been altered through constitutional amendment, including a 2020 change that reset prior terms. The author argues that in systems where courts, legislatures, and parties cannot effectively check executives, term-limit changes can accelerate power centralization. Based on the passage, how do executive term limits in China differ from those in the United States?
Answer: China removed formal presidential limits, while the U.S. retains a two-term cap
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically comparing formal constitutional restrictions across different systems. Executive term limits can be formal (constitutionally mandated) or informal (based on norms), and understanding this distinction is crucial for comparative analysis. The passage clearly states that China 'removed the formal limit in 2018' after previously following a two-term norm, while the United States maintains 'a formal two-term limit for presidents.' Choice B is correct because it accurately captures this fundamental difference - China removed its formal presidential limits while the U.S. retains its constitutional two-term cap. Choice A is incorrect because it reverses the actual situation; the U.S. has the binding cap while China removed its limits. To help students: Distinguish between formal constitutional rules and informal political norms, using examples from different countries to illustrate how both can shape executive tenure. Watch for: Students confusing which country has removed limits versus which maintains them, or misunderstanding the difference between formal and informal constraints.
- Which of the following best explains the different functions of executive term limits in Mexico compared to their recent application in Russia?
Answer: In Mexico, a single term limit ensures democratic turnover and prevents personalist rule, while in Russia, term limit rules have been manipulated to extend a leader's rule.
Mexico's single six-year presidential term (sexenio) is a core institutional feature designed to prevent the emergence of a dictator, a legacy of the PRI's long-term dominance. In contrast, Russia's constitutional changes in 2020 reset Vladimir Putin's previous terms, effectively allowing him to circumvent the original intent of the term limits to prolong his hold on power. This illustrates the difference between term limits as a democratic safeguard versus a rule to be manipulated in an authoritarian context.
- Mexico's strict single-term presidency, the sexenio, has which of the following effects on the country's politics?
Answer: It concentrates immense power in the hands of the president during their term but renders them a 'lame duck' toward the end.
The sexenio gives the Mexican president considerable power during their six years, as they are the undisputed leader of their party and the government. However, because they can never be reelected, their influence dramatically wanes as their term nears its end and political focus shifts to potential successors. This creates a powerful 'lame duck' effect. It does not ensure policy continuity (A), has not eliminated corruption (C), and arguably strengthens parties as they are the vehicles for presidential succession (D).
- According to the text: The design of term limits reflects broader political structures. In the United States, the two-term cap in the 22nd Amendment (1951) is a clear legal constraint that supports predictable leadership turnover. Russia's two consecutive-term rule has been modified; in 2020, a constitutional reform reset the incumbent's previous terms, reducing how strongly the rule limits tenure. China removed the presidency's two-term limit in 2018, aligning with a system where the Communist Party's leadership hierarchy concentrates authority beyond the presidency itself. The passage argues that consistent, enforceable limits can strengthen democratic processes, while frequent revisions can weaken checks on executive power. How do executive term limits in the United States differ from those in China?
Answer: The United States maintains a two-term limit, while China removed its presidential term limit
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically comparing the current term limit systems in the United States and China. Executive term limits reflect fundamental differences in political systems, with democratic countries typically maintaining stable limits while authoritarian systems may modify or remove them to concentrate power. The passage clearly contrasts these systems: the United States 'maintains a two-term limit' through the 22nd Amendment while China 'removed the presidency's two-term limit in 2018,' reflecting their different approaches to executive power. Choice B is correct because it accurately describes this fundamental difference: the U.S. maintains its constitutional two-term limit established in 1951, while China eliminated its presidential term limit in 2018 to allow Xi Jinping indefinite rule. Choice A reverses the actual situation, choice C provides incorrect term limits, and choice D incorrectly characterizes both countries' selection methods. To help students: Create clear comparisons between democratic and authoritarian approaches to executive power, emphasizing how term limits serve as indicators of broader political system characteristics. Watch for: Students confusing which country has reformed its system, especially when one country maintains stability while another undergoes significant change.
- An analysis of executive term limits across the six course countries demonstrates that
Answer: presidential systems are more likely than parliamentary systems to have formal term limits for the chief executive.
In presidential systems (Mexico, Nigeria), the executive is elected separately and serves a fixed term, making formal term limits a common feature to prevent the accumulation of power. In parliamentary systems (UK), the executive (Prime Minister) is not directly elected and holds office only as long as they command the confidence of the legislature, making formal term limits less structurally relevant. The other options are overgeneralizations: Russia is a rentier state that has manipulated, not abolished, limits (B); Mexico's democracy uses a single term limit (C); and Iran's authoritarian regime has presidential term limits (D).
- A passage compares executive term limits in the United States, Russia, and China and discusses why leaders might challenge them. It explains that term limits aim to prevent long-term personal rule and encourage predictable succession. The text cites the U.S. adoption of the 22nd Amendment after Franklin D. Roosevelt's four election victories, Russia's 2020 constitutional amendment resetting prior presidential terms, and China's 2018 removal of presidential term limits. The author concludes that altering term limits often signals that other checks on executive power are weak or easily influenced. Based on the passage, which country mentioned in the passage provides an example of term limit reform?
Answer: Russia, which reset prior presidential terms through a 2020 amendment
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically identifying examples of countries that have reformed their term limit rules. Executive term limit reforms reveal much about a country's democratic trajectory and the balance of power between institutions. The passage explicitly mentions three examples of term limit reforms: the U.S. 22nd Amendment, Russia's 2020 constitutional amendment resetting prior presidential terms, and China's 2018 removal of term limits. Choice A is correct because Russia's 2020 amendment that reset prior presidential terms is specifically mentioned in the passage as an example of term limit reform. Choice C is incorrect because the passage makes no mention of Mexico or any lifetime presidency; students must focus on the specific examples provided. To help students: Create comparative charts of term limit reforms and their consequences, emphasizing the importance of using only information provided in the stimulus. Watch for: Students selecting plausible but unmentioned examples, or confusing details between the countries actually discussed in the passage.
- According to the text: Term limits can promote political stability by clarifying when leadership transitions will occur, reducing uncertainty and deterring indefinite rule. The United States' two-term cap is embedded in the 22nd Amendment (1951), making it a durable rule that supports predictable succession. Russia's two consecutive-term rule was altered in 2020 through a constitutional change that reset prior terms for the incumbent, which the passage describes as reducing the limiting effect. China removed the presidency's two-term limit in 2018, aligning with a party-centered political structure that can prioritize continuity over competitive turnover. The passage concludes that stability is strongest when rules are consistent and broadly accepted. What impact do executive term limits have on political stability according to the passage?
Answer: They can support stability by making transitions predictable and limiting indefinite executive tenure
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically analyzing their impact on political stability across different systems. Executive term limits can enhance political stability by creating predictable transitions and preventing the uncertainty associated with indefinite rule, though their effectiveness depends on consistent implementation. The passage explicitly states that term limits 'can promote political stability by clarifying when leadership transitions will occur, reducing uncertainty and deterring indefinite rule,' emphasizing their stabilizing function when properly maintained. Choice A is correct because it accurately reflects the passage's argument that term limits support stability through predictable transitions and limiting indefinite tenure, particularly when rules are 'consistent and broadly accepted.' Choices B, C, and D present extreme negative scenarios (coups, eliminating accountability, military control) that are not supported by the passage's more nuanced analysis. To help students: Focus on how institutional predictability contributes to political stability, and practice analyzing how the same institution can have different effects depending on implementation. Watch for: Students selecting dramatic or extreme answers when the passage presents a more balanced view of institutional effects.
- Unlike the presidents of Mexico and Nigeria, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can have their term ended prematurely through
Answer: a vote of no confidence in the legislature.
This question highlights a key difference between presidential and parliamentary systems. In presidential systems like Mexico and Nigeria, the executive serves a fixed term and can typically only be removed through a complex impeachment process. In a parliamentary system like the UK, the prime minister's legitimacy depends on maintaining the support ('confidence') of the House of Commons. A successful vote of no confidence can force the prime minister and their government to resign or call a new election.
- A passage on executive term limits compares the United States, Russia, and China and highlights historical moments when limits were challenged or reformed. It notes the U.S. adopted the 22nd Amendment after Franklin D. Roosevelt won four elections, creating a two-term cap. It also explains that China removed presidential term limits in 2018, and that Russia's 2020 constitutional amendment reset prior presidential terms, allowing Vladimir Putin to run again. The author argues these reforms reflect how political institutions either constrain leaders or adapt to preserve incumbents' power. According to the text, which country mentioned in the passage provides an example of term limit reform?
Answer: China, which removed presidential term limits in 2018
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically identifying real-world examples of term limit reforms. Executive term limit reforms can either strengthen or weaken democratic institutions, depending on whether they expand or restrict executive tenure. The passage provides three clear examples of term limit reforms: the U.S. adoption of the 22nd Amendment, China's 2018 removal of presidential term limits, and Russia's 2020 constitutional amendment resetting prior terms. Choice B is correct because China's 2018 removal of presidential term limits is explicitly mentioned in the passage as an example of term limit reform. Choice A is incorrect because the passage makes no mention of the United Kingdom or any 1995 reforms; students should focus on the specific countries discussed in the stimulus. To help students: Create timelines of major term limit reforms globally and analyze their impacts on democratic governance. Watch for: Students inventing examples not mentioned in the passage or confusing countries and dates when multiple reforms are discussed.
- Which of the following describes an accurate comparison between the executive term limits in Nigeria and Mexico?
Answer: Nigeria allows for two consecutive terms, while Mexico has a strict single-term limit for its president.
This question requires specific factual knowledge of the term limit rules in two of the course's presidential systems. Nigeria, following a model similar to that of the United States, allows its president to serve a maximum of two four-year terms. Mexico's constitution is unique among the course countries in imposing a strict one-term limit (the sexenio), after which a president can never again hold the office.
- In a comparative passage, the author explains that executive term limits are designed to limit tenure and reduce the risk of leaders using state resources to entrench themselves. The text notes one statistic: Russia's 2020 constitutional changes could allow Vladimir Putin to remain in office until 2036, far longer than the United States' maximum of two elected four-year terms. The passage also states China removed presidential term limits in 2018. The author argues that these differences reflect broader power dynamics: stronger constraints in the U.S. system and greater executive dominance in Russia and China. According to the text, how do executive term limits in the United States differ from those in Russia?
Answer: The U.S. has a fixed two-term cap, while Russia altered rules to extend tenure
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically comparing the stability of term limit rules across different political systems. Executive term limits reflect broader institutional strength and the ability of a political system to constrain executive power through stable rules. The passage contrasts the U.S.'s 'maximum of two elected four-year terms' with Russia's constitutional changes that 'could allow Vladimir Putin to remain in office until 2036,' highlighting how Russia altered its rules to extend executive tenure. Choice B is correct because it accurately identifies this key difference - the U.S. maintains a fixed two-term cap while Russia manipulated its constitutional rules to extend presidential tenure. Choice A is incorrect because it reverses the actual situation; the U.S. has strict limits while Russia found ways to circumvent them. To help students: Compare how different institutional arrangements either protect or fail to protect term limits from manipulation. Watch for: Students confusing which country has stable versus manipulated term limits, or missing the significance of constitutional amendments in changing these rules.
- Based on the passage: Executive term limits restrict how long a leader can hold office to prevent power consolidation and encourage leadership turnover. In the United States, the 22nd Amendment (ratified 1951) limits presidents to two elected terms. In Russia, the constitution long limited presidents to two consecutive terms, but a 2020 reform reset Vladimir Putin's previous terms, allowing him to seek additional terms. In China, the presidency had a two-term limit until it was removed in 2018, aligning with a system where the top leader's authority is centered in the Communist Party. Term limits can support democratic competition by lowering the risk of indefinite rule, yet they can also create "lame duck" periods that weaken accountability near a leader's final term. The United States provides a stability-oriented model by making the rule hard to change; Russia and China show how reforms can concentrate authority by extending or removing limits. Which country mentioned in the passage provides an example of term limit reform?
Answer: Russia, where a 2020 change reset prior presidential terms for the incumbent
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically identifying countries that have reformed their term limit systems. Executive term limits are constitutional or legal restrictions on how long an individual can serve in the highest executive office, designed to prevent power consolidation and ensure democratic turnover. The passage describes three countries' approaches: the United States with its fixed 22nd Amendment, Russia with its 2020 constitutional reform that reset Putin's terms, and China which removed presidential term limits in 2018. Choice B is correct because Russia explicitly provides an example of term limit reform through the 2020 constitutional change that reset the incumbent's previous terms, effectively allowing Putin to circumvent the original two-consecutive-term restriction. Choice A is incorrect because the United States has maintained its two-term limit since 1951 without reform, while choices C and D are not mentioned in the passage at all. To help students: Focus on identifying specific examples of constitutional changes or reforms rather than static rules, and practice distinguishing between countries that maintain versus modify their term limit systems. Watch for: Students confusing the existence of term limits with reforms to those limits, or selecting answers based on general knowledge rather than passage content.
- If a Nigerian president successfully sponsored a constitutional amendment to remove term limits, this action would most likely be interpreted as a threat to
Answer: the country's democratic consolidation, by undermining a key check on executive power.
Democratic consolidation is the process by which a new democracy matures and becomes unlikely to revert to authoritarianism. Predictable, institutionalized transfers of power through elections and respect for constitutional limits, such as term limits, are hallmarks of this process. Removing term limits would be a significant step backward, signaling a move toward personalist rule and away from the institutional rules that sustain democracy, thus threatening its consolidation.
- A passage compares executive term limits in the United States, Russia, and China. It explains that the U.S. president is limited to two elected four-year terms by the 22nd Amendment. In Russia, the text notes that constitutional changes, including a 2020 amendment, enabled a "reset" of prior presidential terms, allowing Vladimir Putin to seek additional terms and potentially stay in office until 2036. In China, the passage states that presidential term limits were removed in 2018, allowing Xi Jinping to serve beyond the earlier two-term pattern. The author argues that term limits can promote predictable succession and democratic accountability when enforced, but can be undermined by legal reforms and party dominance. According to the text, how do executive term limits in Russia differ from those in the United States?
Answer: Russia uses amendments to extend tenure, unlike the U.S. two-term limit
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically comparing implementation across different political systems. Executive term limits vary significantly in their enforcement and manipulation across countries, reflecting different levels of institutional strength and democratic consolidation. The passage clearly contrasts the U.S.'s stable two-term limit under the 22nd Amendment with Russia's 2020 constitutional amendment that 'reset' Putin's prior terms, allowing him to potentially remain in office until 2036. Choice B is correct because it accurately identifies this key difference - Russia uses constitutional amendments to extend tenure, while the U.S. maintains its fixed two-term limit. Choice A is incorrect because Russia does not enforce a strict two-term cap; instead, it manipulated the rules through constitutional changes. To help students: Create comparison charts showing how different countries handle term limits and encourage analysis of why some systems are more vulnerable to manipulation. Watch for: Students assuming all countries with term limits enforce them equally, or missing the significance of constitutional amendments in weakening these restrictions.
- While the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom faces no formal term limits, their tenure in office is most directly constrained by which of the following?
Answer: The necessity of maintaining the support of their party and a majority in the House of Commons.
In a parliamentary system like the UK's, the executive (the prime minister and cabinet) emerges from the legislature. The prime minister's power is contingent on having the 'confidence' of the House of Commons. A loss of support from their own party can lead to a leadership challenge, and a loss of a major vote in Commons can trigger a general election. This is a more immediate and constant check on their power than a fixed election cycle.
- Based on the passage: Term limits can shape political stability by making leadership turnover predictable and by lowering the risk of indefinite rule. The United States uses a firm two-term presidential limit through the 22nd Amendment (1951), creating clear expectations for succession. Russia's two consecutive-term rule has been altered; in 2020, constitutional changes reset the incumbent's previous terms, which critics argue reduces the constraint on executive tenure. China removed the presidency's two-term limit in 2018, a move consistent with a party-led system that emphasizes continuity of top leadership. The passage notes that term limits can strengthen democratic processes by protecting competition, but reforms that extend or remove limits may concentrate power and weaken checks. What impact do executive term limits have on political stability according to the passage?
Answer: They make leadership transitions more predictable, which can support political stability
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically how these limits affect political stability in different systems. Executive term limits create institutional frameworks that can either enhance or undermine political stability depending on their design and implementation. The passage emphasizes that term limits 'can shape political stability by making leadership turnover predictable and by lowering the risk of indefinite rule,' suggesting they provide structure to political transitions. Choice A is correct because it accurately reflects the passage's argument that term limits make leadership transitions more predictable, which supports political stability by reducing uncertainty about when power will change hands. Choice B is incorrect as it contradicts the passage by claiming term limits always create instability; choices C and D introduce concepts about automatic succession and economic policy not discussed in the text. To help students: Focus on how institutional rules create predictability in political systems, and practice analyzing how different implementations of the same concept (term limits) can have varying effects on stability. Watch for: Students making absolute statements about political institutions when the reality is more nuanced and context-dependent.
- Based on the passage: In comparative politics, executive term limits are often justified as guardrails that help prevent personalist rule. The United States limits presidents to two elected terms under the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 after Roosevelt's four victories highlighted the possibility of extended tenure. Russia's constitution long limited presidents to two consecutive terms, yet a 2020 reform reset the incumbent's previous terms, allowing longer rule within the legal framework. China removed the presidency's two-term limit in 2018, a change that fits a system where the Communist Party's top leadership holds decisive authority. The passage argues that stable democracies often rely on clear, enforceable rules, while frequent revisions can weaken democratic competition. How do executive term limits in Russia differ from those in the United States?
Answer: Russia's limits were effectively weakened by a 2020 reset, while U.S. limits are fixed by amendment
This question tests understanding of executive term limits within AP Comparative Government and Politics, specifically comparing how Russia and the United States implement and maintain their term limit systems. Executive term limits can be either stable institutional features or subject to manipulation through constitutional reforms, reflecting different levels of democratic consolidation. The passage describes how Russia's 'two consecutive-term rule' was 'altered' through a '2020 reform' that 'reset the incumbent's previous terms,' while the U.S. maintains a 'two-term presidential limit' that is 'difficult to change' due to the amendment process. Choice B is correct because it accurately captures this key difference: Russia's term limits were effectively weakened through the 2020 constitutional reset allowing Putin to run again, while U.S. limits remain fixed by the hard-to-amend 22nd Amendment. Choice A incorrectly claims Russia has no limits, choice C reverses the actual systems, and choice D introduces enforcement mechanisms not discussed in the passage. To help students: Emphasize how the difficulty of changing constitutional rules affects their effectiveness as democratic safeguards, comparing amendment processes across countries. Watch for: Students missing the subtle but crucial difference between having term limits on paper versus having effective, unchangeable term limits in practice.
- Which of the following is a significant political consequence of the absence of executive term limits in the United Kingdom's parliamentary system?
Answer: It allows for greater policy stability and continuity when a party maintains its majority over several election cycles.
Because a prime minister can serve as long as their party commands a majority in the House of Commons, long-serving leaders like Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair were able to pursue long-term policy agendas. This stands in contrast to systems with strict term limits, where policy can change dramatically with each new executive. While long tenures can occur, they are not guaranteed and are always subject to electoral and intra-party politics.
- Which of the following accurately compares the methods used by Vladimir Putin in Russia and Xi Jinping in China to extend their executive tenure?
Answer: Putin exploited a loophole by temporarily switching to the prime minister role, while Xi formally amended the constitution to remove presidential term limits.
This question tests the specific methods used. Putin initially adhered to the consecutive term limit by becoming prime minister (2008-2012) before returning to the presidency. He later used constitutional amendments (2020) to formally reset his term count. Xi Jinping, on the other hand, used the CCP-controlled National People's Congress in 2018 to directly amend the state constitution and remove the two-term limit on the presidency, a more direct and formal alteration of the rules.
