AP® Comparative Government and Politics review sheet from Aim for Five (aimforfive.com/comp-gov/units/2/2-9)
Unit 2 · Topic 2.9
2.9 Independent Judiciaries
An independent judiciary can rule against the government without fear of punishment. Independence depends on how judges are chosen, how long they serve, how they can be removed and whether courts can overturn laws. The course countries range from the strongly independent UK courts to China's party-led courts.
Key terms
- judicial independence
- judicial review
- judicial appointment
- tenure
- separation of powers
What makes courts independent
- Selection: are judges chosen on merit by an independent body, appointed by politicians, or elected?
- Tenure: long or lifetime terms protect judges from pressure; short terms or reappointment can make them cautious.
- Qualifications: requiring legal training and experience produces more professional judges who can rule with confidence.
- Removal: if it's hard to remove judges for their rulings, they can rule freely.
- Pay and budget: governments that can cut judges' pay or court budgets have leverage.
- Powers: courts with judicial review can check the other branches more strongly.
Mexico's reform: both sides of a live debate
Supporters of Mexico's 2024 reform say electing judges makes them answer to voters, opens a judiciary they saw as distant and elitist, and helps fight corruption and favoritism in the courts.
Critics, including many judges and legal groups, say elections tie judges to parties and campaigns, that candidates were screened by committees appointed by each branch of government, two of them elected, and that the very low turnout in June 2025 (about 13%) gave the new judges a weak mandate. They argue the reform reduces the courts' ability to check the governing party.
A 2026 amendment added professional exams for candidates and moved the next judicial election to 2028, partly in response to criticism of the first round.
On the exam, present both sides fairly and use the concept of judicial independence to explain the stakes.
Comparing the six
| Country | Independence | Why |
|---|---|---|
| UK | High | Judges chosen by independent selection commissions; judges serve until retirement; Supreme Court separated from the Lords in 2009 |
| Mexico | Debated | Judges now elected after the 2024 reform; supporters and critics disagree on the effect |
| Nigeria | Moderate | Judges recommended by the National Judicial Council; courts have overturned some election results but face pressure and corruption claims |
| Russia | Low | Judges appointed on the president's nomination; since 2020 the president can propose their removal |
| Iran | Low | Judiciary head appointed by the Supreme Leader; Revolutionary Courts try political cases |
| China | Very low | Courts are led by the Communist Party; no judicial review |
Why independence matters
Independent courts protect rights, settle election disputes and enforce limits on the government, which is the heart of the rule of law. They matter for the economy too, since investors want contracts enforced fairly. Courts that lack independence may still handle ordinary disputes, but they can't check those in power. That's the line between rule of law and rule by law (see 3.4).
Worked examples
Try each one yourself first, then open the solution.
- Example 1
Explaining how selection affects independence
Explain how the way judges are selected in Russia affects judicial independence.
Show the solutionHide the solution
- Step 1: Describe selection: Constitutional Court and Supreme Court judges are appointed by the Federation Council on the president's nomination.
- Step 2: Add removal: since the 2020 amendments, the Federation Council can remove these judges on the president's proposal.
- Step 3: Explain the effect: judges who owe their seats to the president, and can be removed at the president's request, have strong reasons not to rule against the president.
Answer: Because the president nominates judges and can propose their removal, Russian judges depend on the executive, which weakens their willingness to rule against it.
Common mistakes
- Assuming elected judges are automatically more independent. Elections can make judges answer to voters but also to parties.
- Equating judicial independence with judicial review. The UK has independent judges but no power to strike down Acts of Parliament.
- Taking sides on Mexico's reform in an answer. Explain both arguments and connect them to independence.
On the exam
- Comparative analysis questions often pair a country with independent courts and one without. Explain the mechanism (selection, tenure, removal), not just the result.
- Mexico's judicial reform is a strong, current example for argument essays about independence or democratic institutions.
Connected topics
Videos
Check yourself
4 questions on 2.9 Independent Judiciaries. Pick an answer to see if you got it, and why.
Which reform would most increase a country's judicial independence?
Russia's 2020 constitutional amendments allow the Federation Council, at the president's request, to remove judges of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court. This change most likely
Under the UK's Human Rights Act 1998, if a court finds that an Act of Parliament conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights, the court can
In September 2019, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the prime minister's advice to the monarch to suspend (prorogue) Parliament for five weeks was unlawful, because it stopped Parliament from carrying out its role without a reasonable justification.
The court treated the suspension as void, and the House of Commons sat again the next day. The ruling did not strike down any Act of Parliament; it concerned an action taken by the executive.
Summary written for this practice set
Compared with the UK Supreme Court, Nigeria's Supreme Court has greater power to
0 of 4 answered