LC Politics & Society common mistakes
LC Politics & Society · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Describing how a parliament, cabinet, or constitution works in general terms but never applying that description to the specific institution or scenario named in the question.
Candidates memorise textbook descriptions of institutions and then reproduce them wholesale, treating the question as an invitation to display knowledge rather than to answer the precise prompt. Under time pressure, the general description feels safer than a targeted application.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the named institution, country, or actor in the prompt and force every paragraph to mention it explicitly. End each paragraph with a sentence that says what the described feature means for that specific case. If a sentence could be pasted into an answer about a different country, delete or rewrite it.
Confusing formal constitutional rules with actual political practice, for example assuming that a written separation of powers guarantees real checks and balances or that federalism automatically produces decentralised power.
Textbooks present institutional design as a clean blueprint, and candidates reproduce the blueprint without asking who actually exercises power. Case examples in teaching often come from stable democracies, reinforcing the assumption that formal rules are followed.
What to do instead
For every institutional feature, write two columns: what the rule says and what happens in practice. Practise with examples where the gap is large, such as dominant-party systems with formal multiparty elections, and use the phrase 'in practice' in answers to signal the distinction.
Using power, authority, and legitimacy as interchangeable synonyms, so an answer claims a government 'has authority' when it merely holds coercive power, or calls a regime legitimate because it won an election.
Everyday language blurs the terms, and candidates absorb the blur. The concepts are also taught together, so recall triggers all three at once without the distinctions being rehearsed.
What to do instead
Memorise one-line definitions and one test question each: power (ability to make others comply, including by force), authority (compliance accepted as rightful, in Weber's traditional, charismatic, or legal-rational forms), legitimacy (justification of rule accepted by the governed, which may be input-based or output-based). In every answer, name which concept you are using and why the others do not fit.
Treating legitimacy as a single yes/no property, so a regime is described as simply 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' rather than analysed by source, audience, and degree.
Simplified revision materials present legitimacy as a checklist item. Candidates then miss questions that ask about legitimacy deficits, contested legitimacy, or legitimacy claimed through performance rather than procedure.
What to do instead
Build a grid of legitimacy sources (election, tradition, performance and delivery, ideology, international recognition) and audiences (citizens, elites, military, foreign states). In answers, specify which source and which audience, and note where legitimacy is strong for one group and weak for another.
Defining democracy only by the presence of elections, so a case with regular multiparty voting but restricted media, captured courts, or suppressed opposition is described as fully democratic.
The minimalist Schumpeterian definition is the easiest to remember and is reinforced by news coverage that labels any election a democratic milestone. Candidates then lack the conceptual tools for hybrid-regime questions.
What to do instead
Prepare a short checklist of dimensions: free and fair elections, universal suffrage, rule of law and independent courts, civil liberties, free media and association, and civilian control of the military. Apply all of them to any case and use graded labels such as electoral democracy, hybrid regime, or authoritarian system, justifying the label with evidence from the case.
Answering participation questions only with voting turnout, ignoring party membership, protest, petitioning, consumer activism, digital participation, and informal or clientelistic participation.
Turnout data is the most visible and most taught indicator, and it is easy to quantify. Candidates therefore treat 'participation' and 'voting' as synonymous and run out of material on questions about non-electoral participation.
What to do instead
Keep a typology ready: conventional versus unconventional, individual versus collective, institutional versus informal. For each type, hold one concrete example and one trend. When a question says 'participation', briefly state which forms you will cover and why the others are less relevant to the case.
Describing an ideology by listing slogans or historical events associated with it instead of reconstructing its core concepts, view of human nature, and stance on the state, equality, and change.
Ideologies are taught through historical narratives, so candidates remember dates and leaders more than the internal logic. Slogans are vivid and easy to recall under exam pressure.
What to do instead
For each ideology, prepare a five-line profile: core concept, view of human nature, role of the state, view of equality and liberty, and attitude to change. Compare ideologies pairwise on the same five axes, and in answers use the profile to explain why the ideology would take a particular position on a policy question.
Treating class as identical to income bracket, so stratification answers ignore occupation, education, wealth, status, and the relational nature of class, and cannot explain mobility or why income alone mispredicts outcomes.
Income data is widely available and easy to cite, whereas class schemes such as occupational or relational approaches require more conceptual work. Candidates default to the simplest measurable variable.
What to do instead
Learn one multidimensional stratification framework (for example occupation-based class schemes plus wealth, education, and status) and use it consistently. When a question mentions class, state explicitly which dimensions you are using and give one example where income and class diverge, such as the asset-rich but low-income homeowner.
Writing about identity as a fixed personal attribute rather than as socially constructed and politically mobilised, so answers cannot explain why ethnic or national categories change or why they become politically salient at particular moments.
Everyday and media usage presents identities as given labels. Constructivist arguments are more abstract and harder to state precisely, so candidates retreat to essentialist descriptions.
What to do instead
Practise the formula: category, boundary, and political entrepreneurs. Explain how a category is defined, how boundaries are maintained or crossed, and which actors mobilise it and for what purpose. Include one example of an identity category that was created or reshaped by state policy, such as census classifications or language standardisation.
Answering questions on globalisation or international relations with only economic globalisation, ignoring security, migration, cultural, and legal dimensions, or conversely treating globalisation as a single unstoppable force with no backlashes or variation across policy areas.
Trade and capital flows dominate textbook treatments and news coverage, and the 'hyperglobalist' narrative is memorable. Candidates then lack the nuance for questions on deglobalisation, regional variation, or the domestic politics of openness.
What to do instead
Prepare a four-dimension grid (economic, political and legal, security, cultural) and, for each, one indicator of globalisation and one example of resistance or reversal. Always distinguish between the extent of globalisation and its distributional effects, and name which state or group gains and which loses.