renders below this block, the homepage copy came first, so every share of every blog post or PYQ page rendered the homepage card with og:url=upscanswercheck.com. Removed 2026-08-09; do not reintroduce. --> %sveltekit.head%
Political Science & IR 2025 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Paper II — Q2

(a) The world currently has been in the throes of a twin process of 'democratic backsliding' and 'democratic backlash'. How would…

(a) The world currently has been in the throes of a twin process of 'democratic backsliding' and 'democratic backlash'. How would you explain this paradox? (20 marks) (b) The withdrawal of the United States of America from the World Health Organization is set to have far-reaching impacts on global health. Reimagining the existing WHO is vital for the global health agenda. Discuss. (15 marks) (c) Transnational actors have qualitatively transformed the world by the way of their fresh insights and actions. Illustrate your answer with suitable examples. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) वर्तमान विश्व 'लोकतांत्रिक पतन' तथा 'लोकतांत्रिक प्रतिक्रिया' की दोहरी प्रक्रिया से गुजर रहा है। आप इस विरोधाभास को कैसे समझाएँगे? (20 अंक) (b) विश्व स्वास्थ्य संगठन से संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के हट जाने से वैश्विक स्वास्थ्य पर दूरगामी प्रभाव आने निश्चित हैं। मौजूदा डब्ल्यू एच ओ की पुनर्कल्पना करना वैश्विक स्वास्थ्य एजेंडा के लिए महत्वपूर्ण है। विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) बहुराष्ट्रीय अभिनेताओं ने अपनी नवीन अंतर्दृष्टि और कार्यों के माध्यम से दुनिया को गुणात्मक रूप से बदल दिया है। अपने उत्तर को उपयुक्त उदाहरणों से स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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 primary directive is 'explain' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'illustrate' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400-450 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks; ~30% each (~300-350 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure: Introduction framing the paradox of democratic backsliding/backlash → Body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings → Conclusion synthesizing how transnational actors and institutional reform can counter democratic erosion and health governance deficits.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Distinguish 'democratic backsliding' (incremental erosion of democratic norms by incumbents—Hungary, Turkey, India) from 'democratic backlash' (popular rejection of liberal democracy due to perceived elitism/inequality—Brexit, Trump 2016, rise of populist parties in Europe)
  • Part (a): Explain the paradox—both processes coexist: elites dismantle institutions while masses demand accountability through illiberal means; cite Levitsky & Way's 'competitive authoritarianism' and Foa & Mounk's 'democratic deconsolidation'
  • Part (b): Analyze US withdrawal from WHO (Trump 2020, Biden reversal, Trump 2025) and its multifaceted impacts—funding crisis (US contributed ~15% budget), weakened pandemic response, geopolitical vacuum filled by China, and India's rising role in vaccine diplomacy
  • Part (b): Propose WHO reforms—Pandemic Treaty, mandatory funding mechanisms, regional equity in decision-making, and India's advocacy for TRIPS waiver as model of Global South leadership
  • Part (c): Demonstrate how transnational actors qualitatively transformed global politics—TNCs (Apple, Amazon reshaping digital sovereignty), NGOs (Amnesty, Greenpeace creating new norms), terrorist networks (ISIS challenging Westphalian order), and epistemic communities (IPCC, Gates Foundation in health governance)
  • Part (c): Illustrate 'fresh insights and actions'—#MeToo movement, Fridays for Future, Black Lives Matter as transnational advocacy networks redefining citizenship beyond states; India's Chipko movement influence on global environmentalism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), precisely unpacks 'explain' by identifying causal mechanisms linking backsliding and backlash; for (b), 'discuss' is met by presenting balanced arguments on WHO reform necessity; for (c), 'illustrate' is fulfilled through concrete, varied examples of transformation by transnational actorsAddresses directives superficially—describes backsliding/backlash without explaining the paradox, lists WHO problems without discussing reforms, or mentions transnational actors without showing qualitative transformationMisidentifies directives—treats 'explain' as description, 'discuss' as one-sided argument, or 'illustrate' as mere enumeration without analytical depth
Content depth & accuracy20%10Demonstrates command of IR theory—liberal institutionalism for WHO, constructivism for norm entrepreneurship by transnational actors, and democratic theory literature (Levitsky, Schedler, Bermeo); accurate on US funding figures, WHO constitutional provisions, and recent Pandemic Treaty negotiationsCovers basic concepts with minor inaccuracies—conflates backsliding with coup, vague on WHO reform specifics, or treats all non-state actors as transnational without conceptual precisionSignificant factual errors—misidentifies democratic backsliding as military coup, confuses WHO with WTO, or includes domestic NGOs as transnational actors without justification
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite structure with explicit sub-headings for (a), (b), (c); seamless transitions between parts showing interconnection (e.g., how democratic backsliding affects global health governance, or how transnational actors counter both); proportional length reflecting marksIdentifiable structure but uneven—part (a) underdeveloped despite highest marks, or parts (b) and (c) merged confusingly; some transitions exist but connections between sub-parts remain implicitDisorganized narrative without clear part demarcation; disproportionate attention (e.g., excessive detail on WHO history neglecting current US withdrawal); abrupt shifts between unrelated themes
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich, contemporary examples: for (a)—Modi's India (Article 370 abrogation, electoral bonds case), Orbán's Hungary, Bolsonaro's Brazil; for (b)—COVAX failures, India's vaccine maitri, China's Health Silk Road; for (c)—Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion, Gates Foundation's Gavi investment; includes specific data (US $400M+ annual WHO contribution)Generic or dated examples—mentions Venezuela for backsliding without specificity, lists WHO achievements without US withdrawal context, or cites only traditional NGOs (Red Cross) without showing qualitative transformationIrrelevant or invented examples—uses pre-1990 cases for contemporary democratic backsliding, confuses WHO with UNICEF, or includes purely domestic actors (Indian state governments) as transnational
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesizes all three parts: argues that democratic backsliding/backlash and WHO crises reflect broader crisis of multilateralism, while transnational actors offer alternative pathways for democratic renewal and global governance; offers original insight—e.g., India's potential role in democratizing global health governance or need for 'transnational democratic accountability'Summarizes each part separately without synthesis; offers generic conclusion on importance of democracy and international cooperation without specific forward-looking agendaNo conclusion or purely repetitive; introduces entirely new arguments in conclusion; or makes normative assertions ('democracy is good') without analytical grounding in the three parts

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 2025 Paper II