General Studies 2022 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q14

Critically examine the procedures through which the Presidents of India and France are elected. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत और फ्रांस के राष्ट्रपति के निर्वाचित होने की प्रक्रिया का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । (250 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 General Studies questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'critically examine' requires a balanced presentation of both electoral systems followed by evaluative comparison of their merits and limitations. Structure: brief introduction stating constitutional positions → systematic exposition of Indian (indirect) and French (direct) election procedures → critical comparison of representativeness, stability, and democratic legitimacy → conclusion on suitability for respective political systems.

Key points expected

Indian President: Indirect election via Electoral College (Art. 54) comprising elected MPs and MLAs; proportional representation by single transferable vote; secret ballot; formula for vote value based on population
French President: Direct universal suffrage since 1962 (de Gaulle referendum); two-round system; absolute majority requirement; 5-year term (reduced from 7 years in 2000)
Critical comparison: direct vs indirect mandate; representativeness vs stability; cost and logistics; role in political system (ceremonial vs executive)
Constitutional significance: Indian President as 'rubber stamp' vs French President as real executive head; implications of election method for actual power
Recent developments: 2017 and 2022 French presidential elections; 2022 Indian presidential election (Droupadi Murmu); declining voter turnout in French direct elections as concern

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly distinguishes 'examine' (present facts) from 'critical' (evaluate strengths/weaknesses); treats both systems with balanced depth rather than descriptive overload on one; explicitly addresses 'why' behind procedural choices	Covers both systems but treats directive as mere 'describe'; limited evaluative content or one-sided criticism; confuses 'critically examine' with 'compare' without judgment	Misinterprets as pure description or comparison; ignores 'critical' component entirely; writes only on Indian system or factual errors about French procedure
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Precise on Article 54, 55; vote value calculation; French two-round system mechanics; 1962 and 2000 constitutional changes; correct distinction between political systems (parliamentary vs semi-presidential)	Broadly accurate but vague on specifics (e.g., 'voted by MLAs' without Electoral College nuance); minor errors in French procedure; conflates presidential powers with election methods	Major factual errors (e.g., direct election for India, 5-year French term throughout); confuses President with Prime Minister elections; incorrect constitutional articles
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear parallel structure (India/France) or thematic (procedure/comparison); smooth transitions between descriptive and critical sections; integrated conclusion rather than abrupt ending; manages 250-word constraint effectively	Functional structure but uneven weightage (e.g., 150 words India, 80 France); descriptive and critical sections poorly demarcated; some repetition or abrupt shifts	Disorganised narrative; no clear separation between systems; missing introduction/conclusion; significantly over/under word limit; bullet points without integration
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific instances: 2022 French runoff (Macron vs Le Pen) showing polarization; 2022 Indian election (Murmu) illustrating Electoral College arithmetic; 1962 referendum or 2000 constitutional amendment; turnout data comparison	Generic references ('recent elections') without specifics; no dates or figures; missed opportunity to cite actual presidential elections as evidence for critical points	No examples whatsoever; irrelevant examples (Prime Minister elections); fabricated data or confused elections (legislative vs presidential in France)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes into coherent judgment: indirect election suits India's parliamentary federalism by ensuring consensus and reducing political fragmentation; direct French election reflects Gaullist legacy of strong executive; acknowledges contextual suitability rather than absolute superiority	Weak summary restating points; generic conclusion ('both have merits'); no clear analytical position; abrupt or missing conclusion due to poor time management	No conclusion; contradictory final position; normative judgment without justification (e.g., 'direct election is always better'); introduces new arguments in conclusion

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →