(a) Success of contemporary democracies lies in the State limiting its own power. Explain. (20 marks) (b) Rawls' idea of the…

(a) Success of contemporary democracies lies in the State limiting its own power. Explain. (20 marks) (b) Rawls' idea of the 'liberal self' is too individualistic. Explain, in this context, the communitarian critique of Rawls' theory of justice. (15 marks) (c) 'Credo of Relevance' in post-behaviouralism advocates the importance of action science. Analyze. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) समकालीन लोकतंत्र की सफलता, राज्य द्वारा अपनी शक्ति को सीमित करने में निहित है। स्पष्ट कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) रॉल्स के 'उदार स्व' का विचार बहुत अधिक व्यक्तिवादी है। इस संदर्भ में रॉल्स के न्याय सिद्धांत की समुदायवादी आलोचना को स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) उत्तर-व्यवहारवाद में 'प्रासंगिकता के नियम' क्रिया-विज्ञान की महत्ता का समर्थन करते हैं। विश्लेषण कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Political Science & IR questions

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 explanation across three distinct theoretical domains. Spend approximately 40% of your word budget on part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 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 a synthesizing conclusion that connects the themes of democratic governance, justice, and scientific relevance in political inquiry.

Key points expected

Part (a): Conceptualization of limited government through constitutionalism, rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review; distinction between negative and positive liberty; reference to Berlin, Montesquieu, and contemporary Indian constitutional mechanisms like Article 13 and Kesavananda Bharati
Part (a): Analysis of how self-limitation prevents democratic backsliding and authoritarianism; examples from Indian constitutional history (Emergency period, 44th Amendment) and comparative democracies
Part (b): Rawls' original position, veil of ignorance, and the unencumbered self; communitarian critique by Sandel (encumbered self), MacIntyre (narrative self), Taylor (situated self), and Walzer (spheres of justice)
Part (b): Evaluation of whether Rawls' theory adequately accommodates community, tradition, and shared values; the tension between universalism and particularism in justice theory
Part (c): Post-behaviouralism's emergence as reaction to behaviouralism's value-neutrality; Easton's 'Credo of Relevance' and the shift toward action science
Part (c): Analysis of action science: problem-oriented research, policy relevance, value commitment, and the scientist-as-citizen; comparison with behaviouralism's pure science approach and contemporary relevance for Indian political science

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	18%	9	For (a), explains 'limiting own power' through multiple mechanisms (constitutional, institutional, legal) rather than merely describing; for (b), situates the critique within Rawls' broader architecture before analyzing communitarian objections; for (c), distinguishes 'action science' from applied research and behavioral pure science, showing how 'analyze' demands critical examination, not mere description	Addresses each directive superficially—describes self-limitation without explaining mechanisms, lists communitarian critics without contextual critique, defines action science without analytical depth on its implications	Misidentifies directives—treats (a) as description of democratic features, (b) as summary of Rawls without critique, (c) as explanation of behaviouralism rather than post-behaviouralism; confuses 'explain' with 'list'
Content depth & accuracy	22%	11	For (a), accurately deploys constitutional theory (negative/positive liberty, neo-liberal vs. social democratic variants); for (b), precisely distinguishes Sandel's encumbered self from Taylor's situated self and MacIntyre's narrative critique; for (c), correctly identifies Easton's 1969 APSA presidential address, distinguishes action science from policy analysis, and references Indian political science's engagement with relevance	Covers major thinkers with minor inaccuracies (e.g., conflating Sandel and Taylor, misdating post-behaviouralism); misses nuances like Rawls' later political liberalism response to communitarians; generic treatment of constitutional limitations without theoretical grounding	Substantial factual errors—attributes communitarian critique to wrong thinkers, confuses behaviouralism with post-behaviouralism, misunderstands 'self-limiting power' as external checks only; omits core concepts like veil of ignorance or original position
Structure & flow	20%	10	Clear tripartite division with proportional length; each part has internal thesis-antithesis-synthesis or problem-analysis-evaluation structure; smooth transitions between parts showing thematic connections (e.g., self-limitation in democracy connects to Rawls' procedural justice, which connects to relevance in political knowledge production)	Three distinct sections present but unevenly developed; internal organization within parts is chronological or descriptive rather than analytical; transitions between parts are abrupt or missing; conclusion merely summarizes rather than synthesizes	No clear demarcation between parts or conflation of (b) and (c); stream-of-consciousness writing; missing introduction or conclusion; disproportionate allocation (e.g., 60% on (a), 15% each on others despite marks)
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	For (a): Kesavananda Bharati (basic structure doctrine), 44th Amendment, RTI as transparency mechanism, comparative examples (German Constitutional Court, US checks and balances); for (b): specific Rawlsian passages (Theory of Justice §33) and Sandel's Liberalism and the Limits of Justice; for (c): Easton's 1969 address, Indian political science's shift toward policy studies (e.g., Centre for Policy Research)	Generic references to Indian Constitution without specific articles or cases; mentions thinkers without textual grounding; no contemporary or Indian examples for post-behaviouralism; examples illustrative rather than analytically deployed	No examples or case law for (a); no textual references for Rawls or communitarians; confuses examples (e.g., cites behaviouralist studies for post-behaviouralism); irrelevant examples (e.g., ancient Indian republics for contemporary democracy)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes the three parts through the meta-theme of democratic theory's practical challenge: how to constitute legitimate authority (a), just distributions (b), and relevant knowledge (c); offers critical assessment—e.g., whether self-limitation is sufficient against populism, whether communitarian critique necessitates abandoning Rawlsian framework, whether action science risks politicization of research	Summarizes main points of each part without synthesis; offers generic optimism about democracy, justice, and science; no critical self-assessment or recognition of tensions between the three theoretical positions	Missing conclusion or conclusion merely restates question; introduces new information in conclusion; contradictory or confused final assessment; no analytical engagement with the question's underlying tensions

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 →