En anglais

How democracies get hollowed out

Civics & Economics · Government · ages 15-16

Name ______________________ Date ____________

Which action directly undermines judicial independence?
- Publishing reasons for judgments involving government agencies
- Applying the appointment rules to fill a vacant judgeship
- Threatening judges with dismissal for ruling against the leader
Which list names four warning signs of democratic decline described in the lesson?
- Judges pressured, voting rules biased, reporting silenced, rivals targeted
- Judges protected, voting rules biased, reporting open, rivals competing
- Judges appointed, voting rules revised, reporting checked, rivals charged
A leader saying that a threat against journalists is legal proves that it is lawful.
Circle one: True False
A ruling party redraws voting districts specifically to disadvantage opponents. Which warning sign does this illustrate?
- Restricting how critical news outlets can report political disputes
- Pressuring judges to approve the government's position in court cases
- Changing electoral arrangements to disadvantage political opponents
Why can gradual changes using familiar votes and bills be hard to recognize as democratic decline?
- Because their effects can be judged from the voting procedure alone
- Because familiar procedures can accompany weaker safeguards
- Because debate about a bill delays its passage
A government closes an independent radio station that investigates abuses. Later it bars an opposition party from an election. How could the closure help that later action escape scrutiny?
- It reduces independent reporting that could expose the restriction
- It changes which court has authority over the election
- It changes the party's legal right to appeal the election decision
If Caesar had kept his army from crossing the Rubicon, the Roman Republic would certainly have survived.
Circle one: True False
Evidence shows an opposition politician broke a rule. Comparable government allies broke the same rule but were spared. Which conclusion best fits?
- Evidence of the offence settles whether enforcement was fair
- Evidence of an offence does not resolve the concern about selective enforcement
- The different treatment establishes that the evidence against the opponent must have been fabricated

Answer key

For grown-ups. Fold this page away before handing over the rest.

How democracies get hollowed out W1-mt_DdZ1wfg8yC-s1

Threatening judges with dismissal for ruling against the leader · The dismissal threat pressures judges to favour the leader when deciding cases.
Judges pressured, voting rules biased, reporting silenced, rivals targeted · Pressure, biased rules, silencing and selective targeting match the warning signs. Appointments, revisions, checking reports or charges need further evidence before they establish abuse.
False · A claim of legality must be checked against the applicable law.
Changing electoral arrangements to disadvantage political opponents · Voting districts organize electoral competition. The stated purpose makes this an election-rule abuse.
Because familiar procedures can accompany weaker safeguards · A familiar procedure can look ordinary while its effects weaken checks. Procedure alone does not settle those effects.
It reduces independent reporting that could expose the restriction · Closing an investigative outlet removes a source of scrutiny. The facts do not establish changed court powers or appeal rights.
False · Avoiding that confrontation might have changed events, but other conflicts make survival uncertain.
Evidence of an offence does not resolve the concern about selective enforcement · Evidence can support an accusation while unequal treatment of comparable cases raises a separate concern about selective enforcement.