Executive Term Limits Practice Test

In a passage comparing the United States, Russia, and China, term limits are presented as guardrails that restrict executive tenure to reduce the risk of power becoming personalized. The text notes that the U.S. president is limited to two elected four-year terms, while Russia’s 2020 constitutional changes reset prior terms and could allow Vladimir Putin to stay in office until 2036. It also states China removed presidential term limits in 2018. The author argues that where political institutions are less able to constrain leaders, changing term limits can shift power further toward the executive. According to the text, how do executive term limits in China differ from those in Russia?​

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.