IB DP Global Politics – Core topic – Legitimacy in global politics Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – the IB holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or the IB store.

These questions practise the core topic Legitimacy in global politics for IB DP Global Politics, SL and HL. It follows the IB Diploma Programme Global politics guide (first assessment 2026, published February 2024), the course examined from the May 2026 session onwards. Source-based questions train Paper 1; the essays train Paper 2 section B.

Learn the content first in the study guide and the revision notes. Course links: Global Politics hub and printable checklist.

Questions

All four sources describe Norland, a fictional country. All names and figures are invented.

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. Statement by the Government of Norland: “Our party has governed Norland for sixteen years. In that time we have kept the peace, built roads and hospitals, and brought electricity to every district. Our founders led the struggle for independence, and we remain the guardians of that history. Norland’s neighbours and the regional council work with us as partners. Stability is the people’s choice.”

Source B – original data written for Marlbridge. Fictional survey of Norland adults.

Year	Agree “the government has the right to govern” (%)	Satisfied with public services (%)
2018	68	64
2020	61	58
2022	44	35
2024	39	33

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge. Statement by an opposition coalition in Norland: “The last election was held while our candidates were in detention and the media was silenced. Fuel queues are now a daily sight. The police broke up peaceful marches in the capital. Norland belongs to its people; this government does not. We ask the regional council to suspend Norland’s government until a fair vote is held.”

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge. Report on the Clearwater Alliance, a fictional NGO: “Clearwater has drilled wells serving hundreds of villages in Norland’s dry north. Funded by overseas donors, it now sits on the government’s water advisory panel. Some village councils say Clearwater decides where to drill without asking them, and that its staff answer to donors abroad rather than to local people.”

1. Define legitimacy. (Paper 1 style – knowledge) [2]

2. Using Source A, identify three sources of legitimacy the Government of Norland claims. (Paper 1 style – source-based) [3]

3. Using Source B, describe how the views of Norland adults changed between 2018 and 2024. (Paper 1 style – source-based) [3]

4. Source C states that “Norland belongs to its people; this government does not”. Explain this claim with reference to the difference between state and government legitimacy. (Paper 1 style – source-based) [4]

5. Using Source D, analyse the legitimacy of the Clearwater Alliance with reference to two of the areas the guide lists for non-state actors. (Paper 1 style – source-based) [4]

6. Compare and contrast the views in Source A and Source C on the legitimacy of the Government of Norland. (Paper 1 style – source-based) [6]

7. Distinguish between formal “top-down” recognition and organic recognition as legitimation processes. Use a real example for each. (Paper 1 style – knowledge) [4]

8. Outline three ways in which external stakeholders can challenge a government’s legitimacy. (Paper 1 style – knowledge) [3]

9. Using all four sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that the Government of Norland has lost its legitimacy. (Paper 1 style – source-based) [12]

10. “Non-state actors depend on states for their legitimacy.” To what extent do you agree? (Paper 2 style – essay) [10]

11. Discuss the view that a government which uses excessive force against its own citizens cannot regain legitimacy. (Paper 2 style – essay) [10]

Answers

1. Legitimacy is broad acceptance of an actor or action as proper or rightful [1] by a population or other audience, which gives it the right to exercise power or authority [1]. [2] Examiner insight: One mark usually needs the idea of acceptance and the second needs who accepts or what it justifies; “being legal” or “having power” earns nothing.

2. Any three: order and stability (“kept the peace”) [1]; government performance or development (“roads, hospitals, electricity”) [1]; history (“guardians of that history” of independence) [1]; international recognition (“neighbours and the regional council” as partners). [3] Examiner insight: Each mark needs the source of legitimacy named in course terms; a bare quotation is unlikely to score.

3. Agreement that the government has the right to govern fell from 68% to 39%, a drop of 29 percentage points [1]. Satisfaction with public services fell from 64% to 33%, a drop of 31 percentage points [1]. Both fell most sharply between 2020 and 2022 (by 17 and 23 points), so the two series moved together [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Use the source’s data and say “percentage points” for a difference between percentages; “it went down” will not reach full marks.

4. State legitimacy is acceptance of the state itself and its right to rule a territory; government legitimacy is acceptance of those currently in office [1]. The coalition accepts Norland as a state (“belongs to its people”) [1] but rejects the governing party [1], citing an unfair election and repression, which damage process sources such as free and fair elections and consent [1]. [4] Examiner insight: An “explain” answer needs reasons, so link the claim to named sources of legitimacy rather than restating the quotation.

5. Efficacy: wells serving hundreds of villages show it achieves its goals, which builds legitimacy with communities that benefit [1]. Interaction: its seat on the government’s advisory panel shows recognition from the state [1]. Representation is weaker: village councils say they are not consulted [1] and staff answer to overseas donors, so its claim to represent local interests is contested [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Name the guide’s areas (representation, interaction, ability, efficacy) explicitly and use both supporting and weakening evidence from the source to show analysis.

6. Similarity: both treat popular acceptance as the test, as A says stability is “the people’s choice” and C says Norland “belongs to its people” [1]. Similarity: both refer to the regional council as an audience that matters [1]. Difference: A stresses performance (roads, hospitals, electricity) while C stresses failures of welfare (fuel queues) [1]. Difference: A claims legitimacy through history and long rule; C denies it through an unfair election [1]. Difference: A presents order as peace; C presents it as repression of peaceful marches [1]. A running comparison, with each point referring to both sources throughout [1]. [6] Examiner insight: The top marks require a running comparison; two separate summaries of A and C limit the response even if each point is accurate.

7. Formal top-down recognition is granted by an actor in an authority role through an established process [1], e.g. South Sudan’s admission to the UN in 2011 [1]. Organic recognition grows from stakeholders or audiences without a formal grant [1], e.g. the mass participation and public support that Fridays for Future gained among young people from 2018 [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “Distinguish” needs the difference made clear, so state who grants the recognition in each case, not two separate definitions.

8. Non-recognition of a government or an election result [1]; sanctions on the state or named officials [1]; suspension or exclusion from a regional or international body, e.g. ASEAN excluding Myanmar’s military leaders from its summits after the 2021 coup [1]. [3] Examiner insight: “Outline” needs a brief account of each way; a bare list may lose marks.

9. Indicative points (the real question is marked against the IB markbands, holistically):

• Defines legitimacy as acceptance and names the audiences: citizens, the regional council, NGOs [1].
• Source B: acceptance of the right to govern fell from 68% to 39%, strong evidence of lost domestic legitimacy [1].
• Source C: unfair election and repression damage process sources and consent [1].
• Source A: the government still claims history, order and development [1].
• Evaluates A: it is self-legitimation by an interested actor, so its reliability is limited [1].
• Evaluates B: a survey, useful for trends, but 39% still accept the government, so legitimacy is reduced rather than gone [1].
• Evaluates C: also partisan; its claims need corroboration [1].
• Source D: the government shares policy with an NGO, a sign it still interacts and governs [1].
• Distinguishes government from state legitimacy: the state is not rejected [1].
• Own knowledge: a real case such as Sri Lanka in 2022, where failing performance led to the president’s resignation [1].
• Own knowledge: external recognition can sustain a government, as A suggests; contrast Belarus in 2020, where the EU refused to recognise the result [1].
• Supported judgement, e.g. legitimacy is seriously reduced with citizens but not fully lost externally [1]. [12] Examiner insight: The top markband asks for own knowledge synthesised with the sources and perspectives evaluated, so a response using only the sources, however detailed, is capped.

10. Model plan; the real essay is marked against the Paper 2 markbands (0 to 15), not point by point.

• Introduction: defines legitimacy and states a clear line of argument [1].
• For: formal recognition often comes from states or IGOs, e.g. NGO consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council [1].
• For: interaction with governments gives access; Médecins Sans Frontières negotiates entry with states [1].
• For: states can delegitimise actors by listing them as terrorist organisations, as several states do with Hezbollah [1].
• Against: representation gives legitimacy from members and communities, not states [1].
• Against: efficacy earns legitimacy from those served, as Source D’s wells show [1].
• Against: social movements such as Fridays for Future gained organic recognition first [1].
• Against: some actors gain legitimacy by opposing states, e.g. rights NGOs documenting abuses [1].
• Evaluates: dependence varies by actor type and by audience [1].
• Conclusion: supported judgement on the extent [1]. [10] Examiner insight: “To what extent” needs a justified, evaluated judgement; the top band also asks for diverse perspectives to be evaluated.

11. Model plan; the real essay is marked against the Paper 2 markbands (0 to 15), not point by point.

• Defines excessive force and government legitimacy; links to peace and conflict, rights and justice [1].
• Excessive force damages consent and often international recognition [1].
• Myanmar after 2021: force against protesters, regional exclusion and continued resistance [1].
• Belarus 2020: crackdown after a disputed election, EU non-recognition and sanctions [1].
• Counterclaim: legitimacy is dynamic; the guide says it can be regained [1].
• A government may rebuild through performance or elections [1].
• Legitimacy can pass to a new government while the state stays accepted, as in Sri Lanka after 2022 [1].
• Different audiences judge differently: some states keep recognising a repressive government [1].
• Evaluates evidence: recovery is harder where force was severe and prolonged [1].
• Conclusion: “cannot” is too absolute, but recovery is uncommon without change of leaders or reform [1]. [10] Examiner insight: “Discuss” needs a balanced review, so an essay listing only cases of repression, ignoring how legitimacy is regained, stays in the middle bands.

Where marks are usually lost

• Defining legitimacy as legality or power.
• Quoting a source without naming the source of legitimacy it shows.
• Giving percentages without the change in percentage points.
• Writing about the state when the source criticises only the government.
• Judging an NGO on efficacy alone and ignoring representation.
• Separate summaries in compare-and-contrast instead of a running comparison.
• Treating a partisan source as neutral fact, or using no own knowledge in the 12-mark question.
• Essays without a clear judgement, or with absolute conclusions no evidence supports.

Next steps

• Legitimacy revision notes
• Legitimacy study guide
• Peace and conflict practice and Rights and justice practice
• Global Politics course hub
• Printable checklist
• All free 10-minute diagnostics
• Book a free trial class

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Global politics guide, first assessment 2026 (published February 2024). Prescribed topic: “Legitimacy in global politics”, within the core topics “Understanding power and global politics”.