Question 10 was:
The Iranian president is elected nationally and directly. The Prime Minister of the UK is elected from one of over 600 constituencies. Does the manner of election affect the power of these two heads of government?
If so, how? If not, what are two major factors that account for the differences between the power of the Iranian president and the power of the British PM?
The answer is:
"10. In Iran, the president is elected nationally and directly, but these elections are largely fraudulent.
"In Britain, the prime minister is elected from one of more than 600 constituencies. British elections, however, are significantly more free and fair than Iranian elections which gives the British prime minister greater legitimacy, but awards the Iranian president more power as he is much less restrained by other bodies or by public opinion.
"The manner of election has a great influence on the perceived legitimacy of a leader, but the fraudulence or freedom with which the election is conducted has a much greater effect. A more relevant question might include evaluating the differences between the US presidential elections and the UK prime minister elections."
This is a three-point question.
It asks whether the "manner of election" affects the power of the two officials (1 point) and its asks for either a reasoned explanation of that effect or two factors that better explain the differences in power (2 points).
My rubric is based on the observable fact that the British PM has more authority and power than the Iranian president. The PM (and the PM's party) is readily, almost without limit, able to implement policy choices the party campaigned for. The Iranian president (notably exemplified by the current president) has little authority and less power to propose and implement policy.
The rubric states that those differences in power and authority are not due to the methods of election.
The reasons for the comparatively greater power of the British PM include:
- the fact that the PM and Parliament's authority is not limited by other constitutional bodies (like Iran's Supreme Leader or the Guardian Council)
- the British PM is virtually guaranteed a legislative majority (while the Iranian president is not)
- free, fair, and transparent electoral processes in Britain confer greater legitimacy on the process there than in Iran and greater likelihood that the British PM and his policy proposals will be accepted as legitimate by the public
- the open competition between parties in Britain allows for a relatively uninhibited expression of public opinion as a guide to the PM's actions (whereas the role of Iranian public opinion is limited by non-representative bodies and therefore not a source of authority for the Iranian president)
- except in rare cases, the British judiciary is bound by laws passed by Parliament under the direction of the PM (while Iranian courts consider more than statutory law and are controlled by the Supreme Leader)
- the wealth and diversity of the British economy gives the PM greater choice in making policy than the Iranian president, who is restricted by the rentier economy and poverty
This answer asserts that Iranian elections are "largely fraudulent" without explanation. While voting fraud is not unknown in Iran, the assertion requires some factual support.
The answer then states that, "British elections... are significantly more free and fair than Iranian elections which gives the British prime minister greater legitimacy, but awards the Iranian president more power as he is much less restrained by other bodies or by public opinion."
Legitimacy is mentioned, but not in relation to the power of the PM. The claim that the electoral process awards the Iranian president "... more power as he is much less restrained by other bodies or by public opinion," is mistaken.
However, the next sentence states that the "manner of election has a great influence on the perceived legitimacy of a leader, but the fraudulence or freedom with which the election is conducted has a much greater effect." That implies that the unrestricted, open elections in Britain confer more power on the head of government.
So, what is this answer's response to the question, "Does the manner of election affect the power of these two heads of government?" Please note that "manner of election," as defined in the question, refers to election by a nation-wide constituency (which most textbooks assert leads to greater legitimacy and power) as opposed to election in a small, single-member legislative district.
This answer does not respond to that question. It instead redefines the "manner of election" to a choice between fair electoral process and fraudulent process. That is not what the question asked about.
This answer also claims that the Iranian president "is much less restrained by other bodies or by public opinion." It also claims that "the fraudulence or freedom with which the election is conducted has a much greater effect" on "the perceived legitimacy of a leader..." which seems to imply that the British PM has more power. Such a complex answer is conceivable, but it requires much more explanation than offered in this answer.
This answer earns no points.
When you answer FRQs on the AP exam, your time is limited. But you must adequately explain your answers and offer factual support for conclusions, generalizations, or assertions in your responses.
The exam is not a place to try to make a case for a complex thesis, even if you recognize complexity or ambiguity implied by the question.
Don't try to answer an FRQ (even in 30 minutes) by redefining the terms in the question or the question itself. That's a task for a paper for which you do research and have time and space to support a complex thesis.
Be as literal and direct as you can be when you're answering the AP exam's FRQs.
No comments:
Post a Comment