Paper I — Q2
(a) Factors like community, culture and nation weaken the hegemony of neo-liberalism today. Discuss. (20 marks) (b) "Equality of…
(a) Factors like community, culture and nation weaken the hegemony of neo-liberalism today. Discuss. (20 marks) (b) "Equality of estates caused equality of power, and equality of power is liberty." Comment. (15 marks) (c) Elitist theory of democracy denies the possibility of democracy as 'rule of the people'. Elucidate. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) वर्तमान में नव-उदारवाद के आधिपत्य को समुदाय, संस्कृति तथा राष्ट्र जैसे कारक कमजोर करते हैं। विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "संपत्ति की समानता शक्ति की समानता का कारण है तथा शक्ति की समानता स्वतंत्रता है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) लोकतंत्र का अभिजन सिद्धांत 'लोगों के शासन' के रूप में लोकतंत्र की संभावना को नकारता है। स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक)
Directive word: Discuss
This question asks you to discuss. 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
This question requires handling three distinct directives: 'discuss' for (a), 'comment' for (b), and 'elucidate' for (c). Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three clearly demarcated sections for each sub-part with internal sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects neo-liberal critique, equality debates, and democratic theory.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Neo-liberalism's core features (market fundamentalism, deregulation, privatization) and how community-based resistance, cultural identity movements, and nationalist economic policies challenge its global hegemony
- Part (a): Specific mechanisms—social movements against WTO/WB policies, indigenous rights frameworks, and state-led developmental models (e.g., India's Atmanirbhar Bharat) as counter-hegemonic forces
- Part (b): James Harrington's republican theory linking agrarian equality (equal estates) to political power distribution and liberty as non-domination, not merely negative freedom
- Part (b): Contemporary relevance—land reform debates in India, wealth inequality's corrosive effect on democratic equality, and critiques from Rawlsian and socialist perspectives
- Part (c): Elitist theories—Pareto's circulation of elites, Mosca's political class, Michels' iron law of oligarchy, and Schumpeter's competitive elitism—and their denial of direct popular rule
- Part (c): Critical engagement with elitism—pluralist responses (Dahl), participatory democratic theory, and Indian experience of competitive party politics mitigating elite closure
- Synthesis: How all three parts interrogate the relationship between economic structures, power distribution, and democratic legitimacy in contemporary political theory
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 15% | 7.5 | For (a), provides balanced discussion showing both neo-liberal hegemony and its contestation; for (b), offers critical commentary evaluating Harrington's thesis with contemporary relevance; for (c), systematically elucidates elitist arguments before critiquing them—each directive handled with precision | Addresses all three parts but conflates directives—treats 'comment' as mere description or 'elucidate' as simple explanation without critical depth; some imbalance in treatment across parts | Misidentifies directives—treats 'discuss' as one-sided argument, 'comment' as agreement/disagreement without analysis, or 'elucidate' as definition; significant parts ignored or misunderstood |
| Content depth & accuracy | 25% | 12.5 | Demonstrates command across all three theoretical domains: neo-liberalism (Harvey, Stiglitz), republican equality (Harrington, Pettit), and democratic elitism (Schumpeter, Michels, Dahl); accurate attribution of arguments with nuanced exposition | Covers main thinkers but with superficial treatment—mentions Harvey or Schumpeter without explaining their specific mechanisms; some theoretical conflation (e.g., treating elitism and pluralism as identical) | Major factual errors—misattributes quotes, confuses Harrington with Locke, or presents elitist theory as endorsement rather than description; significant gaps in theoretical coverage |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite structure with explicit transitions between (a), (b), and (c); each part has internal logical progression (thesis-antithesis-synthesis for discussion, context-analysis-evaluation for comment, exposition-critique-reconciliation for elucidation); effective signposting | All three parts present but poorly demarcated—reader must infer where (b) begins; some internal organization within parts but abrupt shifts between theoretical frameworks; missing or weak transitions | Rambling or fragmented structure; parts merged indistinguishably or one part dominates excessively; no logical progression within sections—random assembly of points |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | For (a): cites Indian farmers' protests (2020-21), Chipko movement, or Kerala's participatory planning; for (b): references India's land ceiling acts or Bhoodan movement; for (c): applies to Indian party system evolution or panchayat reservations—examples precisely illustrate theoretical claims | Some relevant examples but generic or imprecise—mentions 'anti-globalization protests' without specificity, or Indian examples that don't quite fit the theoretical point; over-reliance on Western cases for (a) | Virtually no examples, or inappropriate ones—uses corporate case studies for neo-liberalism critique, or confuses elitist theory with caste elitism without theoretical grounding; examples contradict arguments |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes all three parts into coherent argument about political economy of democracy—how economic equality (b) conditions democratic possibility against elitist closure (c), and how cultural-national resistance (a) opens space for alternatives; original insight on Indian democratic exceptionalism or limits | Separate conclusions for each part without synthesis; or generic summary restating points; no original analytical contribution—merely confirms standard textbook positions | No conclusion, or abrupt termination; conclusion merely repeats question; or fundamentally misreads task—offers policy recommendations when question demands theoretical reflection |
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 2022 Paper I
- Q1 Write on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Systems Approach (10 marks) (b) Cultu…
- Q2 (a) Factors like community, culture and nation weaken the hegemony of neo-liberalism toda…
- Q3 (a) Examine the liberal theory of State in contemporary politics. (20 marks) (b) Human Ri…
- Q4 (a) Dr. Ambedkar's idea of social justice leads to 'egalitarian justice' as compared to R…
- Q5 Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Analyse the workers' movement in India…