Paper II — Q3
(a) Explain the impact of electoral systems and cleavages in shaping party systems with reference to developing countries. (20…
(a) Explain the impact of electoral systems and cleavages in shaping party systems with reference to developing countries. (20 marks) (b) What is globalisation? Why is there an intense debate about globalisation and its consequences? (15 marks) (c) Critically examine the decline of the United States of America as a hegemon and its implications for the changing international political order. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) विकासशील देशों के संदर्भ में निर्वाचन प्रणालियों एवं विभेदों का दलीय व्यवस्थाओं के निरूपण के प्रभाव की व्याख्या कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) वैश्वीकरण क्या है ? वैश्वीकरण एवं इसके परिणामों के संदर्भ में इतनी गहन बहस क्यों है ? (15 अंक) (c) एक प्राधान्यक के रूप में संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के पतन एवं परिवर्तनीय अंतर्राष्ट्रीय राजनीतिक व्यवस्था के लिये इसके निहितार्थों का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण करें । (15 अंक)
Directive word: Explain
This question asks you to explain. 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 question demands explanatory, analytical and critical examination across three distinct parts. Spend approximately 40% of your word budget on part (a) given its 20 marks, with ~30% each on parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then three clearly demarcated sections addressing each sub-part sequentially, followed by an integrated conclusion that ties the themes of domestic political structures, global economic integration and shifting power dynamics together.
Key points expected
- For (a): Explain Duverger's Law linking plurality/majoritarian systems to two-party dominance and PR systems to multipartyism, with application to India (FPTP fostering Congress dominance then BJP rise), Nigeria's ethnic party fragmentation, and Brazil's multiparty presidentialism
- For (a): Analyse how social cleavages (ethnic, religious, caste, class) interact with electoral systems—comparing cross-cutting vs. reinforcing cleavages, with India's caste-based party mobilisation (BSP, SP) and Africa's ethnic party systems
- For (b): Define globalisation as multidimensional process (economic, political, cultural, technological integration) citing Held and McGrew's transformationalist perspective
- For (b): Explain the intense debate through hyperglobalisers vs. sceptics vs. transformationalists, covering distributional consequences (Stiglitz), democratic deficit, cultural homogenisation, and environmental concerns
- For (c): Critically examine US hegemony decline thesis—evaluating economic indicators (GDP share, dollar dominance), military overreach (Afghanistan, Iraq), soft power erosion, and counter-arguments (unipolar moment persistence)
- For (c): Analyse implications for international order—multipolarity, G20 rise, BRICS expansion, institutional fragmentation, and challenges to liberal international order with India's strategic positioning
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | Correctly identifies 'explain' for (a) requiring causal mechanisms, 'what/why' for (b) demanding conceptual clarity and argumentative depth, and 'critically examine' for (c) requiring balanced evaluation with thesis-antithesis-synthesis; maintains appropriate analytical register for each without conflating directives | Recognises different demands but treats all parts similarly, either over-narrating (a) or under-analysing (c); some confusion between 'explain' and 'describe' in execution | Misreads directives—treats (a) as mere description, (b) as definition-only without debate, or (c) as one-sided argument; uniform treatment across parts showing poor exam technique |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates sophisticated grasp of electoral system mechanics (district magnitude, electoral formula, ballot structure), cleavage theory (Lipset-Rokkan, Horowitz), globalisation theories (Held, Strange, Scholte), and hegemony debates (Wallerstein, Kindleberger, Layne); accurately applies concepts to developing country contexts without anachronism | Covers main concepts but with gaps—mentions Duverger without nuance, defines globalisation superficially, or presents US decline uncritically; some theoretical misapplication or outdated frameworks | Major conceptual errors—confuses presidentialism with electoral systems, conflates globalisation with liberalisation only, or asserts US decline without evidence; significant factual inaccuracies on cases |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite structure with visible sub-headings; seamless transitions between parts showing thematic connections (e.g., how domestic party systems shape states' globalisation positions, or how US hegemony shaped electoral interventions); proportional length reflecting marks; integrated conclusion synthesising insights | Identifiable parts but uneven development—(a) overlong or (c) truncated; weak transitions making parts feel disconnected; conclusion merely summarises without synthesis | No clear part demarcation or grossly imbalanced (e.g., 60% on (a)); rambling structure; missing conclusion or introduction; illegible organisation suggesting poor planning |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Rich comparative evidence: for (a)—India's 1952-2019 party system evolution, South Africa's ANC dominance under PR, Indonesia's fragmented presidentialism; for (b)—specific WTO disputes, India's 1991 reforms, UNCTAD data on FDI flows; for (c)—IMF voting share changes, SIPRI military expenditure data, specific sanctions cases (Iran, Russia) | Some relevant examples but limited range—heavy reliance on India alone for (a), generic globalisation references, or assertion without data for US decline; examples mentioned but not elaborated | Few or no examples; inappropriate cases (developed countries for (a) without justification); invented data; examples listed without application to argument; complete absence of empirical grounding |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesises across parts to argue how electoral-cleavage configurations shape states' globalisation strategies and how shifting hegemony creates space for alternative models (e.g., competitive authoritarianism, state capitalism); offers nuanced prediction—neither US collapse nor unipolar persistence but contested multilateralism; demonstrates independent political judgement | Separate conclusions for each part without cross-cutting synthesis; safe restatement of arguments; no forward-looking element or policy prescription; avoids taking evaluative position | No conclusion or abrupt ending; mere repetition of points; contradictory final position; completely misses evaluative demand especially for (c); conclusion irrelevant to question asked |
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 →More from Political Science & IR 2021 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the political economy approach…
- Q2 (a) "The post-colonial state was thought of an entity that stood outside and above societ…
- Q3 (a) Explain the impact of electoral systems and cleavages in shaping party systems with r…
- Q4 (a) The modernization thesis asserts that affluence breeds stable democracy. How do you e…
- Q5 Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the strategic implications of I…
- Q6 (a) "Non-alignment was little more than a rational strategy on the part of a materially w…