IGNOU BPSC-109 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU BPSC-109 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU BPSC-109 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. Explain the shortcomings of political culture as an approach of comparative politics.

Ans. The political culture approach, popularized by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba in their seminal work ‘The Civic Culture’ (1963), has been a significant perspective in comparative politics. It emphasizes the importance of a nation’s collective beliefs, attitudes, and values in understanding its political behaviour. However, this approach has been criticized for several significant shortcomings: 1. Vagueness and Difficulty in Measurement: Critics argue that the concept of ‘political culture’ is inherently vague and subjective . It is extremely difficult to empirically measure and quantify the collective values and beliefs of a nation. The reliance on surveys often leads to oversimplification and fails to capture the complexity and diversity of attitudes within a society. 2. Static Nature and Neglect of Change: The political culture approach is often seen as static . It assumes that cultural values are deep-rooted and enduring, and thus it struggles to explain rapid political changes, revolutions, or institutional shifts. The approach fails to explain how political cultures evolve over time or respond to events like economic crises, wars, or social movements. 3. Ethnocentrism (Western-centric Bias): Almond and Verba’s work presents the Anglo-American ‘civic culture’ as an ideal type most conducive to stable democracy. This perspective has been criticized for being ethnocentric , as it implicitly views non-Western political systems and cultures as inherently ‘less developed’ or ‘undemocratic’. It overlooks the possibility of legitimate and successful forms of democracy in diverse cultural contexts. 4. Neglect of Structural and Economic Factors: By focusing on values and beliefs, the political culture approach tends to downplay or ignore crucial structural factors such as economic inequality, class conflict, institutional design , and international influences. Marxist and dependency theorists argue that political behaviour is shaped primarily by economic structures and power relations, not by culture. For instance, political instability in a country may be due to extreme poverty or resource exploitation by elites, rather than its ‘culture’. 5. Problem of Causality: The approach often fails to establish whether political culture is a cause or a consequence of political outcomes. Does a particular culture lead to democracy, or does the successful functioning of democratic institutions create a democratic culture over time? The approach does not provide a satisfactory answer to this ‘chicken and egg’ problem. In summary, while the political culture approach drew valuable attention to the subjective dimensions of politics, its vagueness, static nature, Western bias, and neglect of structural factors make it a limited tool for comparative political analysis.

Q2. What is Sartori’s contribution to analysis of party system ? Explain.

Ans. Giovanni Sartori’s analysis of party systems in his book “Parties and Party Systems” (1976) is a landmark and enduring contribution to the field of comparative politics. He moved beyond the traditional approach of merely counting the number of parties to offer a more sophisticated and analytical framework. Sartori’s main contribution lies in his intelligent and nuanced criteria for classifying party systems. Sartori argued that simply counting the number of parties can be misleading. Instead, he introduced the concept of ‘relevant parties’ . A party is relevant only if it has one or both of the following potentials:

• Coalition Potential: Does a party have a realistic prospect of joining with other parties to form a government?
• Blackmail Potential: Can a party, even if it doesn’t join the government, influence the tactics of competition of other parties through its existence and strategy? For example, a militant communist or fascist party might push other parties towards the centre.

Using this rule of ‘relevance’, Sartori developed a more meaningful classification of party systems. His second major contribution was the inclusion of the concept of

‘ideological distance’

. He argued that the amount of ideological polarization between parties greatly affects the functioning of the party system.

Based on these concepts, Sartori proposed the following classification:

I. Competitive Systems:

• Two-Party System: Two parties dominate and alternate in power (e.g., USA, historically the UK).
• Limited Pluralism: Three to five relevant parties exist with a small ideological distance. This tends towards bipolar coalitions (e.g., Germany).
• Extreme Pluralism: Six or more relevant parties with significant ideological distance. This often leads to unstable coalition governments and the presence of ‘anti-system’ parties (e.g., Italy’s First Republic).
• Atomized System: The number of parties is so large and fluid that no coherent pattern is formed.

II. Non-Competitive Systems:

• One-Party System: Only one party is legally allowed to exist.
• Hegemonic Party System: Other parties are allowed to exist but are not permitted to pose any real challenge to the dominant party.
• Predominant-Party System: One party consistently wins a large majority in a series of free and fair elections (e.g., the Congress Party in India from 1949-1977).

In essence, Sartori’s contribution was to move beyond mere counting to understanding the

dynamics of the system

—power, coalition, and ideology. His criteria of relevant parties and ideological distance gave scholars a powerful tool to analyze how party systems actually work, and how they contribute to political stability or instability.

Q3. Explain the meaning and significance of political modernisation.

Ans. Meaning: Political modernisation is a complex process whereby traditional political systems acquire the characteristics and institutions considered ‘modern’. It is part of the broader societal modernisation, which includes industrialisation, urbanisation, the spread of education, and the growth of mass media. The theory of political modernisation, prominent in the 1950s and 1960s, sought to understand political change in the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa. According to scholars like Samuel P. Huntington, political modernisation involves several key processes:

• Rationalization of Authority: Power shifts from traditional (e.g., hereditary monarchs) and religious sources to secular, legal-rational institutions, such as a bureaucracy and a written constitution.
• Structural Differentiation: Political functions become more specialized. While in traditional societies a single institution (e.g., a king or chief) might perform legislative, executive, and judicial functions, in modern systems these are carried out by separate, specialized bodies (e.g., parliament, government, courts).
• Increased Political Participation: As society modernizes, citizens become more aware and organised. They demand to participate in the political process, leading to the development of voting, political parties, and interest groups.
• Secularization of Political Culture: Politics becomes detached from religious dogma, and political decisions are made based on reason and public interest.

Significance:

The concept of political modernisation is of great significance, particularly in the study of comparative politics and developing nations:

1. Understanding State-Building:

The concept provides a framework for understanding the challenges of state formation and institutional development in the developing world. It explains how new states attempt to legitimize their authority and build effective governing structures.

2. Analysis of Political Instability:

Huntington famously argued that if the demand for political participation (a result of modernisation) outpaces the development of political institutionalization, the result can be

‘political decay’

and instability. This helps explain the military coups, revolutions, and civil strife seen in many developing countries.

3. Link to Democratisation:

Although modernisation does not automatically lead to democracy, it often creates the necessary conditions for it. An educated, urbanized, and politically aware populace is more likely to demand democratic rights.

4. Relevance for Policy-Making:

The theory informs policymakers about the challenges of political development, emphasizing the importance of building strong and adaptable political institutions that can manage the demands of social change.

Despite being later criticized for its linear and Western-centric assumptions by dependency theory and other critical approaches, political modernisation remains a foundational concept for understanding political change, state-building, and the dynamics of democracy and instability.

Q4. Write short notes on the following in about 200 words each : (a) Multiparty system (b) Two and half party system

Ans. (a) Multiparty system A multiparty system is a political system in which more than two political parties have a realistic capacity to gain control of government, either alone or in coalition. This stands in contrast to a two-party system, where only two parties effectively compete for power. Multiparty systems are often found in countries with electoral systems like Proportional Representation, as these systems allow smaller parties to win legislative seats. The key characteristic of this system is that it is rare for a single party to win a parliamentary majority on its own. Consequently, governments are typically coalition governments , where several parties agree to share power and govern on a common programme. India, Germany, Israel, and Italy are prominent examples of countries with multiparty systems. The main advantages of a multiparty system include:

• Broader Representation: It provides more choice for voters and ensures better representation of the diverse interests and ideologies within a society.
• Consensus Building: The need for coalitions encourages parties to compromise and build broader consensus.

However, it also has drawbacks, such as the potential for

governmental instability

, as coalitions can be fragile and break down, leading to frequent elections. Additionally, policymaking can be slow and cumbersome as coalition partners have to agree on every issue.

(b) Two and a half party system

The two and a half party system is a specific category in the classification of party systems. It is a system where two large, dominant parties are the main contenders for power, but a third, significantly smaller party (the “half” party) also exists and plays a crucial, often decisive, role in the formation of government. It occupies a middle ground between two-party and multiparty systems.

In this system, neither of the two large parties is typically able to win an absolute majority on its own. Therefore, to form a government, one of them has to form a coalition with the smaller “half” party. This small party, despite its limited electoral strength, gets to play the role of

‘kingmaker’

and is often able to extract influence and policy concessions far greater than its power would suggest.

The classic example is

Germany

, where for many decades the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD) were the two major parties, and the small Free Democratic Party (FDP) often decided which party would form the government. Similarly, in the

United Kingdom

, dominated by the Labour and Conservative parties, the Liberal Democrats have at times played the ‘half’ party role, as seen in the 2010 coalition government. This system can have a moderating influence on the mainstream parties and provide policy continuity, but it can also give disproportionate power to the smaller party.

Q5. Discuss the procedural and substantive aspects of democracy.

Ans. The concept of democracy can be understood from two main perspectives: procedural and substantive. These two aspects present different views on what democracy is and how it should be measured. Procedural Democracy: Procedural democracy emphasizes how decisions are made, not what the outcomes of those decisions are. It defines democracy as a set of specific procedures and institutions that enable citizens to choose their leaders and hold them accountable. Theorists like Joseph Schumpeter championed this view, defining democracy as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.” The key features of procedural democracy include:

• Free, fair, and regular elections: Universal adult suffrage with open competition for power.
• Civil and political liberties: Freedom of speech, expression, assembly, and association, which are necessary for political competition.
• Rule of law: An independent judiciary that ensures laws apply equally to everyone.
• Majority rule: Decisions are made based on the will of the majority, but with respect for minority rights.

According to this view, if a country follows these procedures, it is considered democratic, even if significant social or economic inequalities exist within its society.

Substantive Democracy:

Substantive democracy moves beyond procedures to focus on the

outcomes

of democracy. It is concerned with the question of whether the political system actually delivers on core democratic values such as

justice, equality, and well-being

for its citizens. Proponents of this view argue that it is not enough to simply hold elections. A true democracy is one that works to reduce social and economic inequalities, provide opportunities for all citizens, and ensure that the outcomes of governance are just and equitable.

Key concerns of substantive democracy include:

• Social and economic equality: Reducing vast disparities in wealth, income, and opportunity.
• Citizen participation: Active engagement of citizens in policymaking beyond just elections.
• Accountability and transparency: Ensuring the government is truly responsive to the people’s interests.
• Human development: Ensuring education, healthcare, and a decent quality of life for citizens.

Discussion and Relationship:

A tension exists between procedural and substantive democracy. A country can be procedurally democratic (e.g., holding regular elections) but substantively undemocratic if wealthy elites dominate the political process and policies favour only them. For example, the United States is a strong procedural democracy, but debates about income inequality and the influence of money on policymaking point to a lack of substantive democracy.

Ultimately, an ideal democracy should encompass both aspects. Procedural democracy is essential because it provides the framework for peaceful transfers of power and the protection of basic freedoms. However, the goal of these procedures should be to create a more just and equal society, which is the essence of substantive democracy. The procedures are the means, and the substantive outcomes are the ends. A healthy democracy strives to strike a balance between the two.

Q6. “The issue of nationalism has resurfaced in 21st century.” How is it related with ideas of nation and state ?

Ans. The statement, “The issue of nationalism has resurfaced in the 21st century,” captures a crucial reality of contemporary global politics. After the end of the Cold War, many assumed that globalization, economic integration, and the spread of liberal democracy would diminish the importance of nationalism. However, recent decades have seen the opposite trend, with nationalism re-emerging as a potent political force. To understand this resurgence, it is vital to understand the relationship between the ideas of nation, state, and nationalism. Nation, State, and Nationalism:

• Nation: A nation is a socio-cultural entity, a group of people who share a collective identity based on common characteristics such as language, religion, ethnicity, history, or shared culture. It is an “imagined community,” as Benedict Anderson termed it.
• State: A state is a political-legal entity. It is characterized by a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and, most importantly, sovereignty (supreme authority within its territory and freedom from external interference).
• Nationalism: Nationalism is the ideology which holds that the nation and the state should coincide. Its core principle is that every nation has the right to form its own state (a nation-state), and that the political boundaries of the state should align with the cultural boundaries of the nation.

The Resurgence of Nationalism in the 21st Century:

The resurgence of nationalism in the 21st century has manifested in several forms:

1. Populist Nationalism:

The rise of leaders like Donald Trump with “America First,” Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalism in India, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil exemplifies this trend. This nationalism is often

anti-globalist, anti-immigration

, and emphasizes a strong, homogenous national identity. It pits “the common people” against corrupt elites and external threats (like immigrants or foreign powers).

2. Secessionist Nationalism:

Certain nations that are part of larger, multi-national states are demanding their own independence. Catalonia in Spain, Scotland in the United Kingdom, and Quebec in Canada are key examples. These movements are driven by the belief that their nation has a right to self-determination.

3. Brexit:

The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union was largely driven by a nationalist desire to reclaim national sovereignty and identity. The slogan “Take Back Control” was a powerful appeal to nationalism.

Causes of the Resurgence:

Several factors lie behind this resurgence, including

economic insecurity

(due to globalization and automation),

cultural anxieties

(about immigration and changing social norms), and

political disillusionment

(a loss of faith in mainstream politicians and international institutions).

Relation to Nation and State:

This new nationalism directly seeks to redefine the relationship between the nation and the state. Populist nationalists argue that the state should serve only the ‘true’ nation (often defined ethnically or culturally), which can lead to the exclusion of minority groups. Secessionist nationalists want to break up an existing state to create a new nation-state. In both cases, nationalism remains a primary force challenging and reshaping state boundaries, the nature of citizenship, and national identity in the 21st century.

Q7. Define Federalism ? Is it antithesis of authoritarian system ?

Ans. Definition of Federalism: Federalism is a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and various constituent units (such as states, provinces, or cantons). Unlike a unitary system, where all power is vested in the central government, a federal system has two levels of government (central and state) which are both sovereign in their respective spheres and exercise authority directly over the people. The key features of federalism are:

• Written Constitution: The division of power is clearly specified in a written constitution, which acts as the supreme law for both levels of government.
• Division of Powers: The constitution distributes legislative, executive, and financial powers between the centre and the states. Some powers are exclusive to the centre (e.g., defence, foreign affairs), some to the states (e.g., local police, agriculture), and some are concurrent (can be exercised by both).
• Dual Polity: Both the centre and the states have their own governments, legislatures, and bureaucracies.
• Supremacy of the Constitution: No level of government—neither central nor state—can violate the provisions of the constitution.
• Independent Judiciary: There is an independent judiciary that has the authority to interpret the constitution and to settle disputes between the centre and the states, or between the states themselves.

The United States, India, Canada, Germany, and Australia are leading examples of federal systems.

Is it the antithesis of an authoritarian system?

Yes, federalism is fundamentally the

antithesis

of an authoritarian system. The two systems are based on completely opposite principles regarding the organisation and distribution of power.

1. Concentration vs. Dispersal of Power:

Authoritarianism is identified by the

extreme concentration of power

. In an authoritarian regime, power is centralized in the hands of one individual (a dictator) or a small group (like a military junta or a single party). In contrast, the core principle of federalism is the

division and dispersal of power

. It deliberately spreads power across multiple levels and branches of government to prevent any single entity from becoming too powerful.

2. Checks and Balances:

Federalism creates a vertical system of checks and balances within the government. State governments can act as a significant check on the power of the central government, thereby protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens. An authoritarian system seeks to eliminate any independent centres of power that could challenge its absolute control.

3. Protection of Diversity and Autonomy:

Federalism is particularly suited to large and diverse countries because it grants significant

autonomy

to regional, linguistic, or ethnic groups. It allows these groups to preserve their identities and interests. Authoritarian regimes often view diversity as a threat and seek to impose uniformity and centralized control, often leading to the suppression of minority groups.

4. Prevention of Tyranny:

The dispersal of power inherent in a federal structure makes it much more difficult for one person or group to establish total control over the entire country. Regional governments can serve as bulwarks of resistance against dictatorial tendencies.

In short, while authoritarianism is based on the centralization of power, uniformity, and unchallenged authority, federalism is based on the division of power, diversity, and constitutional limits. Thus, the very nature of federalism negates the principles of authoritarian rule and is a crucial component of democratic and liberal governance.

Q8. Write short notes on the following in about 200 words each : (a) Socialisation (b) Pressure group

Ans. (a) Socialisation Political socialisation is the lifelong process through which individuals acquire their political beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviours. It is the way a society transmits its political culture from one generation to the next. The process begins in childhood and continues throughout a person’s life, shaping how people view the political world, what they feel about the political system, and how they participate in politics. There are several key agents of political socialisation:

• Family: This is the earliest and often most influential agent. Children often adopt the political leanings and party loyalties of their parents.
• School: Schools provide formal instruction on national identity, patriotism, and the functioning of the political system through civics, history, and social studies.
• Peer Groups: Friends and colleagues, especially during adolescence and young adulthood, can influence and reinforce an individual’s political views.
• Mass Media: Newspapers, television, and now increasingly social media, play a crucial role by disseminating information about political issues and candidates and shaping public opinion.
• Political Parties and Interest Groups: These organisations actively promote their ideologies and attempt to socialise their members and the public to their viewpoints.

Political socialisation is crucial for the stability of a political system, as it builds a base of support and legitimacy among citizens. At the same time, it can also be a source of political change when new generations challenge old values.

(b) Pressure group

A pressure group, also known as an interest group or a lobby group, is an organised group that seeks to influence public policy and government decisions without trying to directly contest elections or capture government. Unlike political parties, which aim to win power, the main goal of pressure groups is to promote or defend the specific interests of their members or a particular cause.

Pressure groups can be broadly classified into two types:

• Sectional Groups: These represent the interests of a particular section of society. Examples include trade unions (representing workers’ interests), professional associations (like organisations of doctors or lawyers), and business groups (like chambers of commerce).
• Promotional Groups: These work to promote a particular cause or issue that is not limited to their members. Examples include human rights organisations (like Amnesty International), environmental groups (like Greenpeace), and animal rights groups.

Pressure groups use various methods to achieve their goals, including

Lobbying

(contacting policymakers directly), running public campaigns, organising protests and demonstrations, using the media, and taking legal action. In democratic societies, pressure groups act as vital intermediaries between citizens and the government, helping to articulate the diverse interests in society and ensure representation.