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 Comment

Paper II — Q3

(a) Of late, centrist and centre-left political parties have been facing setbacks while centre-right parties have been in…

(a) Of late, centrist and centre-left political parties have been facing setbacks while centre-right parties have been in ascendency the world over. Comment. (20 marks) (b) Collective security and responsibility to protect (R2P) are similar but different in scope, goals and methods. Explain. (15 marks) (c) Global South-sensitive model of globalization would prevent the danger emanating from overcentralized globalization. Discuss. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) हाल के समय में केन्द्रवादी और वामपंथी राजनीतिक दलों को असफलताओं का सामना करना पड़ रहा है, जबकि दक्षिणपंथी दल विश्व भर में बढ़त हासिल कर रहे हैं। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) सामूहिक सुरक्षा और सुरक्षा की जिम्मेदारी (R2P) समान हैं किन्तु कार्यक्षेत्र, लक्ष्य तथा पद्धति में भिन्न हैं। समझाइए। (15 अंक) (c) वैश्वीकरण का वैश्विक दक्षिण-संवेदनशील प्रतिमान, अति-केंद्रित वैश्वीकरण के खतरे को रोकेगा। विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' for part (a) requires balanced analysis with personal insight, while 'explain' for (b) and 'discuss' for (c) demand systematic exposition and critical evaluation respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects the three themes through the lens of shifting global power and governance.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Analysis of decline of centre-left/centrist parties—economic factors (austerity backlash, deindustrialization), cultural backlash (immigration, identity politics), and case studies (Congress in India, SPD in Germany, Labour in UK, Democratic Party realignment in US)
  • Part (a): Centre-right ascendency through populist-nationalist mobilization, welfare chauvinism, and strategic moderation of neoliberalism; exceptions and regional variations (Latin America pink tide resilience, Scandinavian social democracy)
  • Part (b): Conceptual similarities between collective security and R2P—both reject unilateralism, emphasize multilateral institutional frameworks, and invoke sovereignty-limiting principles
  • Part (b): Critical distinctions—scope (state aggression vs. mass atrocities), goals (territorial integrity vs. civilian protection), methods (Chapter VII enforcement vs. graduated response including prevention and rebuilding), and legal basis (UN Charter Article 51 vs. 2005 World Summit Outcome Document)
  • Part (b): Case applications—Kosovo 1999 (pre-R2P collective security tension), Libya 2011 (R2P implementation with NATO controversy), and Syria (failure of both frameworks)
  • Part (c): Critique of overcentralized globalization—IMF-WB-WTO asymmetry, structural adjustment conditionalities, and democratic deficit in global economic governance
  • Part (c): Global South-sensitive model features—special and differential treatment, technology transfer, climate justice financing, regional payment mechanisms (India's UPI expansion, BRICS de-dollarization), and epistemic decolonization
  • Part (c): Institutional proposals—reformed WTO with development flexibilities, UNCTAD revitalization, and South-South cooperation frameworks (IBSA, AIIB, New Development Bank)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), offers nuanced 'comment' with balanced causation rather than partisan assertion; for (b), precisely distinguishes 'similar but different' through systematic comparative framework; for (c), critically 'discusses' rather than merely advocates, acknowledging implementation challengesAddresses all three directives but conflates 'comment' with description, treats 'explain' as list-making, or presents 'discuss' as one-sided advocacy without counter-argumentsMisidentifies directives—treats 'comment' as opinion without evidence, confuses 'explain' with 'define', or reduces 'discuss' to assertion; significant imbalance in treatment across parts
Content depth & accuracy20%10Demonstrates command of party systems literature (Kirchheimer's catch-all thesis, Mair's cartel party), R2P's three-pillar architecture (ICISS 2001 to 2005 reformulation), and globalization theories (Stiglitz's post-Washington consensus, Acharya's multiplex world); accurate on UN Charter provisions and BRICS institutional mechanismsCovers main themes with some conceptual imprecision—conflates R2P with humanitarian intervention, oversimplifies party decline as purely economic, or describes globalization critique without theoretical anchoringSubstantial factual errors—misstates R2P as individual state obligation rather than collective, confuses centre-right with far-right categorization, or presents outdated pre-2008 globalization critique without contemporary updates
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite division with internal coherence; each part has mini-introduction establishing analytical framework and mini-conclusion with evaluative judgment; effective signposting between parts showing thematic connections (e.g., democratic legitimacy deficits linking party decline and globalization critique)Three distinct sections present but uneven development—part (a) overextended at expense of (c), or mechanical separation without integrative elements; some paragraph-level disorganization within sectionsPoorly demarcated parts with significant overlap or omission; stream-of-consciousness writing without paragraph breaks; failure to complete all three sub-parts or severe disproportion (e.g., 70% on (a), minimal (c))
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich empirical grounding: for (a)—Modi's BJP vs. Congress decline, Meloni's Italy, Milei's Argentina with vote-share data; for (b)—ICJ Nicaragua 1986, UNSC Resolutions 1970-1973 on Libya, ICISS report citations; for (c)—AIIB capital structure, India's vaccine diplomacy during COVID-19, AfCFTA provisionsSome relevant examples but limited range—Western European focus for (a) ignoring Global South, generic R2P references without specific resolutions, or globalization critique without institutional specifics; occasional anachronismSparse or inappropriate examples—relies on pre-2010 cases for contemporary party shifts, confuses R2P with peacekeeping generally, or offers purely rhetorical 'Global South' references without concrete mechanisms; no Indian examples where highly relevant
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesizes three parts through meta-theme of democratic legitimacy crisis in global governance—connecting party system fragmentation, R2P's selectivity critique, and Global South demands for voice; offers forward-looking assessment on whether current trends enable or obstruct 'reformed multilateralism'; demonstrates independent critical judgmentSeparate conclusions for each part without synthetic integration; or generic conclusion on 'need for cooperation' without specific institutional pathways; restates main points without analytical advancementAbsent or severely truncated conclusion; or conclusion that contradicts body; purely descriptive ending with no evaluative element; failure to address any of the three question components 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 →

More from Political Science & IR 2025 Paper II