Impeachment is a formal legislative process for charging a high-ranking executive (like a president) with wrongdoing and potentially removing them from office. In AP Comp Gov, it's a key check on executive power in presidential systems like Nigeria, Mexico, and Russia (Topic 2.5).
Impeachment is the process a legislature uses to formally accuse an executive of wrongdoing and, if the charges stick, remove them from office. The accusation part and the removal part are usually separate steps, often handled by different chambers or even different institutions.
In AP Comp Gov, impeachment is one of the procedures covered under LO 2.5.A, which asks you to describe how institutions can remove executive leadership to control the abuse of power. The course countries handle this very differently. Nigeria's National Assembly can impeach the president with a two-thirds supermajority. Mexico has a similar legislatively-driven removal process. Russia technically allows impeachment, but the process is so layered (the Duma brings charges, the courts must confirm them, and the Federation Council votes on removal) that it functions as a check on paper more than in practice. The UK, a parliamentary system, doesn't use impeachment at all. Parliament removes a prime minister through a vote of no confidence instead. That contrast between presidential impeachment and parliamentary no-confidence votes is one of the most testable distinctions in Unit 2.
Impeachment lives in Topic 2.5 (Removal of Executives, Unit 2) and directly supports LO 2.5.A, which says executive leaders across the course countries can be removed by the legislative branch through different procedures that control the abuse of power. But it also feeds Topic 1.3 (Democracy vs. Authoritarianism, Unit 1). Whether an impeachment process actually works, or just exists on paper, is evidence for how much a state follows rule of law under LO 1.3.A. A country where impeachment is a real threat (Nigeria) signals stronger horizontal accountability than one where the process is designed to be nearly impossible (Russia). So impeachment isn't just a procedure to memorize. It's a diagnostic tool for classifying regimes, which is exactly the kind of cross-unit reasoning the comparative analysis FRQ rewards.
Keep studying AP Comparative Government Unit 1
Accountability (Units 1-2)
Impeachment is horizontal accountability in action. One branch of government checks another. When you're asked how legislatures constrain executives, impeachment is your go-to example for presidential systems.
Hybrid Regime (Unit 1)
Russia is the classic case where impeachment exists in the constitution but is engineered to fail. The Duma brings charges, courts must validate them, and the Federation Council votes, with supermajorities required at multiple stages. A removal procedure that can't realistically remove anyone is a hallmark of hybrid and authoritarian regimes.
Assembly of Experts (Unit 2)
Iran shows that removal doesn't have to run through an elected legislature. The Assembly of Experts has the formal power to remove the Supreme Leader. Comparing this religiously-grounded process to Nigeria's legislative impeachment is a favorite comparative question setup.
Constitutional Court (Unit 2)
In Russia, the courts are written into the impeachment process itself, since judicial confirmation of the charges is required before removal can proceed. It's a reminder that removal procedures can involve more institutions than just the legislature.
Impeachment shows up most often in comparative MCQs that make you contrast removal procedures across course countries. Think questions like why Nigeria's impeachment requires a higher legislative threshold than a UK vote of no confidence, or what the procedural differences between Russia and Mexico reveal about their regime types. The 2023 comparative analysis FRQ asked about executive selection and restrictions on executive power across two course countries, and impeachment is exactly the kind of restriction that earns points there. The move the exam wants from you is two-step. First, accurately describe the procedure in a specific country. Second, connect it to a bigger concept like rule of law, checks on executive power, or regime classification. Just defining impeachment in the abstract won't get you full credit.
Both remove executives, but they answer different questions. Impeachment is about wrongdoing. It requires formal charges, usually a supermajority, and exists in presidential systems like Nigeria, Mexico, and Russia. A vote of no confidence is about political support. The UK's House of Commons can remove a prime minister with a simple majority for purely political reasons, no crime required. That's why impeachment thresholds are higher. In a presidential system, voters elected the president directly, so the legislature needs a stronger justification to override that mandate.
Impeachment is a legislative process for charging an executive with wrongdoing and removing them from office, and it supports LO 2.5.A on procedures that control the abuse of executive power.
Impeachment belongs to presidential systems like Nigeria, Mexico, and Russia, while the UK's parliamentary system removes prime ministers through a vote of no confidence instead.
Impeachment usually requires a supermajority and proof of wrongdoing, while a vote of no confidence needs only a simple majority and a political reason.
Russia's impeachment process involves the Duma, the courts, and the Federation Council with supermajority requirements at multiple steps, making removal nearly impossible in practice.
Whether impeachment actually functions, not just whether it exists on paper, is evidence for how democratic or authoritarian a regime is under Topic 1.3.
On the exam, name the specific country's procedure and then link it to a concept like rule of law or checks on executive power. Description plus connection is what earns points.
Impeachment is the formal process where a legislature charges a high-ranking executive with wrongdoing and can remove them from office. It's covered in Topic 2.5 as one of the procedures legislatures use to check executive power in countries like Nigeria, Mexico, and Russia.
No. Impeachment is the charging step, not the removal itself. In Nigeria, removal requires a two-thirds vote of the National Assembly, and in Russia the Duma's charges must be confirmed by the courts and approved by the Federation Council before the president is actually removed.
Impeachment requires alleged wrongdoing and typically a supermajority, and it's used in presidential systems like Nigeria and Mexico. A vote of no confidence, used in the UK's parliamentary system, removes a prime minister with a simple majority for purely political reasons, with no misconduct needed.
Technically yes, but the process is built to fail. The Duma must bring charges, the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court must confirm them, and the Federation Council must approve removal by a two-thirds vote. On the exam, this is evidence that Russia's formal checks on executive power are weak in practice.
Nigeria, Mexico, and Russia all have impeachment processes for their presidents. The UK uses a vote of no confidence instead, and in Iran the Supreme Leader can only be removed by the Assembly of Experts, not through legislative impeachment.
Connect this key term to the AP exam workflow: review the course, practice questions, and check related study tools.
Review units, study guides, and course resources.
Check this vocabulary in multiple-choice context.
Apply key concepts in written AP responses.
Estimate the exam score you are working toward.
Review the highest-yield facts before practice.
Put the full course together before test day.