BPSC 133
COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
IGNOU BPSC 133 Solved Free Assignment
BPSC 133 Solved Free Assignment July 2024 & January 2025
Assignment – I
Q 1. Briefly describe main trends in the study of comparative politics.
Ans. The study of comparative politics has undergone significant evolution over the years, marked by various trends and shifts that reflect the changing political, social, and intellectual environments across the globe.
In its earliest form, comparative politics was largely descriptive.
Scholars focused on the formal structures of government—such as constitutions, legislatures, and executives—and analyzed how different countries organized their political systems.
This approach, often referred to as traditional or institutional comparative politics, was heavily centered on Western democracies and aimed to classify different forms of governments.
During this phase, the emphasis was on understanding how political institutions were designed and functioned, rather than why they operated the way they did or how they affected real political outcomes.
However, by the mid-20th century, especially after World War II, comparative politics began to experience a major shift.
This shift is often associated with the rise of the behavioral revolution, which brought a more scientific and empirical approach to the discipline.
Influenced by developments in psychology and sociology, behavioralists criticized the traditional approach for being overly legalistic and static.
Instead of focusing solely on institutions, behavioral scholars turned their attention to political behavior—how people vote, form political opinions, participate in movements, and relate to political authority.
They emphasized the importance of using data, conducting surveys, and applying statistical methods to uncover patterns in political behavior across different societies.
This marked the beginning of a more analytical and comparative framework that looked beyond formal rules to understand how politics actually functioned on the ground.
Another key trend that emerged in the study of comparative politics was the focus on political development, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, when newly independent nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America were forming their governments.
Scholars began to study issues like nation-building, state formation, economic development, and political stability.
Theories such as modernization theory came into prominence, suggesting that countries followed a linear path of development, transitioning from traditional to modern political systems.
However, this perspective was later challenged for being too Western-centric and for ignoring the unique historical and cultural contexts of different countries.
By the 1970s and 1980s, comparative politics experienced another transformation with the rise of dependency theory and the world-systems approach.
These theories offered a critique of modernization by emphasizing how global economic structures influenced domestic politics in developing nations.
Scholars began to pay more attention to external factors like colonial legacies, international trade, and global capitalism.
This broadened the scope of comparative politics to include international dimensions and raised questions about power imbalances in the global political and economic order.
In more recent decades, the study of comparative politics has diversified further.
One major trend has been the emphasis on democratization and regime change.
Following the fall of authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and parts of Asia and Africa, scholars have tried to understand how and why political transitions occur.
The “third wave of democracy,” a term coined by Samuel P.
Huntington, spurred interest in democratic consolidation, electoral systems, and the role of civil society and political culture in sustaining democratic institutions.
Another contemporary trend is the increased focus on identity politics, including ethnicity, religion, and gender.
Scholars are examining how these identities influence political behavior, shape party systems, and even lead to conflict.
This line of research has become especially important in multi-ethnic societies and post-conflict states, where identity issues play a critical role in the political process.
Similarly, the role of institutions such as political parties, courts, and electoral commissions is being reexamined to understand how they function in different cultural and political settings.
In addition, there is a growing interest in comparative political economy.
This field explores the relationship between politics and economics, analyzing how different political systems influence economic performance and vice versa.
Questions around welfare policies, inequality, labor markets, and globalization are central to this area.
Scholars are comparing how states manage economic crises, respond to neoliberal reforms, and deal with issues like poverty and unemployment.
Lastly, the rise of new methodologies, including qualitative case studies, field research, and mixed-method approaches, has enriched the discipline.
Comparative politics today is more interdisciplinary and methodologically pluralistic than ever before. Scholars draw insights from economics, sociology, anthropology, and history to understand complex political phenomena.
There is also increasing use of big data, experimental methods, and comparative historical analysis to make deeper and more precise observations.
Q 2. The existence of efficient and vigorous civil society is both a precondition for and maker of healthy democracy. Elucidate.
Ans. A vibrant and efficient civil society is not just an accessory to democracy—it is both a foundational precondition and an active driver of a healthy democratic system.
Civil society, which includes a wide range of non-governmental organizations, community groups, trade unions, professional associations, media, and citizen collectives, plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between the state and its citizens.
It allows people to organize themselves, voice their concerns, defend their rights, and hold those in power accountable.
Without such spaces for public participation and collective action, democracy risks becoming hollow—limited to periodic elections without meaningful engagement or representation of the people’s will.
As a precondition for democracy, civil society creates the social and political environment in which democratic values can take root and flourish.
It nurtures the norms of tolerance, dialogue, pluralism, and peaceful conflict resolution, which are essential in any democratic setup.
In societies where civil society is weak or suppressed, authoritarian tendencies often gain ground, as there is little resistance to the concentration of power or the erosion of civil liberties.
For instance, during the transitions of Eastern European nations from authoritarian regimes to democracies in the late 20th century, strong civil society movements were instrumental in resisting dictatorship and advocating for democratic reforms.
These movements helped in fostering a political culture that valued participation, dissent, and rights—all cornerstones of a functional democracy.
Moreover, civil society acts as a training ground for democratic citizenship.
Through engagement in various civil society organizations, individuals learn the importance of cooperation, negotiation, leadership, and collective responsibility.
It empowers marginalized groups, amplifies the voices of the underrepresented, and creates platforms where diverse perspectives can be heard.
This inclusive participation ensures that democracy is not just about majority rule but also about protecting minority rights and ensuring social justice.
In this way, civil society contributes to a deeper, more participatory democracy rather than one that merely exists in formal terms.
As a maker of democracy, civil society constantly monitors and challenges the actions of the state.
In doing so, it strengthens the checks and balances necessary for democratic governance.
Civil society organizations often take up causes such as environmental protection, gender equality, corruption control, labor rights, and freedom of expression.
By advocating for transparency and accountability, these groups force governments to act responsibly and stay responsive to public needs.
Investigative journalism, public interest litigation, protest movements, and policy research—all these functions performed by civil society help in scrutinizing power and fostering a culture of openness and responsiveness.
One of the most powerful examples of civil society acting as a maker of democracy can be seen in India.
Organizations like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) played a crucial role in pushing for the Right to Information Act, which has since become a vital tool for citizens to demand transparency from public authorities.
Similarly, civil society was central in the anti-corruption movement of 2011, which brought the issue of governance and public accountability to the forefront of national consciousness.
These instances show how an engaged civil society can shape policy, reform institutions, and revitalize democratic practices.
In addition, civil society acts as a buffer against the excesses of majoritarianism and populism, which can undermine democratic norms.
In many cases, when governments try to bypass constitutional procedures or undermine judicial independence, it is civil society that rises in protest and defends democratic institutions.
For example, legal rights groups, student unions, and activist networks have often stood up for press freedom, secular values, and the rule of law in various democracies under threat.
In doing so, they serve as the conscience keepers of the nation and the guardians of democratic ethos.
Furthermore, civil society plays a crucial role in educating citizens about their rights and responsibilities.
It engages in civic education and public discourse, thereby raising political awareness and encouraging informed participation in democratic processes.
This is particularly important in developing countries, where large sections of the population may be unaware of their legal rights or lack access to institutional mechanisms.
Civil society bridges these gaps, enabling more inclusive and equitable democratic participation.
However, for civil society to be effective, it must remain autonomous, well-organized, and rooted in ethical practices. It should avoid being co-opted by political interests or donor-driven agendas.
A credible civil society must also reflect the diversity of society and avoid becoming elitist or disconnected from grassroots concerns.
When these conditions are met, civil society not only sustains democracy but also deepens it, making it more accountable, participatory, and people-centric.
Assignment – II
Q 1. Describe the essential features of a military regime.
Ans. A military regime is a form of government in which political power resides primarily in the hands of the military or a group of military officers.
This type of regime often comes into existence through a coup d’état, where the armed forces overthrow an existing civilian government, usually on the grounds of restoring order, ending corruption, or stabilizing the nation.
One of the essential features of a military regime is the centralization of power within a small group of high-ranking military officials, often led by a single commander or general who may assume the title of president or head of state.
Unlike democratically elected governments, military regimes are characterized by the absence of public participation in governance, suppression of political opposition, and a heavy reliance on coercion and control.
Another core feature of military regimes is the suspension or manipulation of constitutional norms.
Once in power, military rulers often dissolve legislative bodies, curtail judicial independence, and impose emergency laws that allow them to govern without legal accountability.
Civil liberties such as freedom of speech, press, and assembly are typically restricted under military rule, with dissenters being subject to surveillance, arrest, or even violence.
The justification given for such actions is often the need for national security, stability, or unity, especially during times of crisis or political unrest.
Military regimes also tend to suppress political parties and limit democratic institutions. In many cases, political parties are banned or allowed to function only under tight restrictions.
Elections, if held, are often stage-managed to produce outcomes favorable to the ruling military elite.
The regime may create puppet parties or co-opt certain groups to legitimize its rule, but genuine political competition is usually absent.
Civil society, the media, and independent organizations are also placed under strict control to prevent any form of organized resistance.
A significant characteristic of military regimes is their hierarchical and disciplined structure, which reflects the command-and-obey nature of military organizations.
Decision-making is top-down, and policies are often formulated without consultation with the public or stakeholders.
This authoritarian style of governance leads to a lack of transparency and accountability, as military rulers are not answerable to the electorate.
Moreover, policies may prioritize military interests, including defense spending and internal security, over social welfare or economic development.
Despite their authoritarian nature, some military regimes attempt to gain legitimacy by implementing modernization programs, economic reforms, or nationalistic campaigns.
In certain cases, they claim to be temporary caretakers who will return power to civilians after achieving specific goals.
However, in practice, many military regimes extend their rule indefinitely, using state propaganda, institutional changes, or rigged elections to maintain control.
Q 2. Describe the features of parliamentary system of government.
Ans. The parliamentary system of government is a form of democratic governance where the executive branch derives its legitimacy from, and is accountable to, the legislature or parliament.
It is characterized by a close relationship between the executive and legislative branches, in contrast to the presidential system where these two branches are separate and independent.
One of the most essential features of a parliamentary system is the presence of a dual executive—consisting of a head of state and a head of government.
The head of state, such as a monarch or president, usually performs ceremonial duties, while the head of government, typically the prime minister, exercises real political power and is responsible for running the country.
In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is the leader of the majority party or coalition in the lower house of parliament.
He or she is formally appointed by the head of state but must enjoy the confidence of the majority in the legislature to remain in office.
This means that the government can be removed from power if it loses a vote of confidence or fails to pass key legislation such as the budget.
This feature ensures that the executive is directly accountable to the legislature, thereby strengthening the principle of responsible government.
Another notable feature of the parliamentary system is the fusion of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
Unlike the separation of powers seen in presidential systems, members of the executive, including the prime minister and cabinet ministers, are usually drawn from the legislature.
This allows for a more coordinated approach to lawmaking and governance, as the executive and legislature often work in tandem.
However, this fusion can also lead to excessive control by the ruling party if it enjoys a strong majority, potentially limiting meaningful debate or opposition.
The cabinet plays a crucial role in the parliamentary system.
It is composed of senior ministers chosen by the prime minister, often from among experienced members of the legislature.
The cabinet is collectively responsible for making policy decisions, drafting legislation, and ensuring its implementation.
The principle of collective responsibility means that all ministers must support government decisions publicly, even if they privately disagree.
If the government fails, the entire cabinet, including the prime minister, may have to resign.
Another important feature of parliamentary government is regular accountability.
Ministers are expected to answer questions in parliament, and parliamentary committees are empowered to scrutinize government actions and policies.
This ongoing oversight keeps the government in check and promotes transparency.
Moreover, parliamentary systems tend to offer more flexibility in governance.
Since the executive depends on the confidence of the legislature, it is easier to remove an ineffective or unpopular government through a no-confidence motion, without having to wait for fixed terms or hold nationwide elections.
This adaptability can be a strength during times of crisis or political deadlock.
Q 3. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of plurality and majority based electoral systems.
Ans. Plurality and majority-based electoral systems are two of the most commonly used methods for electing representatives in democratic systems across the world.
Both systems aim to translate votes into seats, but they do so in different ways and with distinct implications for political representation and governance.
Each has its own strengths and weaknesses that affect the nature of democracy, political competition, and voter satisfaction.
Plurality systems, often referred to as “first-past-the-post” (FPTP), are simple and straightforward.
In this system, the candidate who secures the highest number of votes in a constituency wins, regardless of whether they achieve an absolute majority.
One of the main strengths of plurality systems is their simplicity.
Voters easily understand the process, and results are usually quick to determine.
This system tends to produce stable governments by favoring larger, well-established parties and often results in a clear majority in the legislature.
As a result, decision-making and policy implementation become more efficient, and coalition politics—which can be fragile and unstable—is generally avoided.
This system has been particularly effective in countries like the United Kingdom and India, where strong party systems and stable governments have historically been seen as essential to governance.
However, the plurality system also has notable weaknesses. One of the most significant criticisms is its potential to distort representation.
A candidate can win with less than 50% of the vote, meaning a majority of voters may have supported other candidates.
This can lead to “wasted votes,” where ballots cast for losing candidates have no impact on representation.
It can also discourage smaller parties and independents, thereby limiting the diversity of views in the legislature.
Additionally, regional imbalances can arise when certain parties dominate specific areas, marginalizing national minorities and underrepresented communities.
On the other hand, majority-based electoral systems require a candidate to secure more than 50% of the votes to win.
If no candidate achieves this in the first round, a second round is often held between the top contenders—a process known as a runoff election.
This system ensures that the winning candidate has broader support among the electorate, enhancing the legitimacy of the elected representative.
It encourages candidates to build broader coalitions and appeal to a wider section of voters, which can contribute to more inclusive governance.
Majority systems are commonly used in presidential elections, such as in France, and are praised for promoting consensus-building and reducing political polarization.
Despite these strengths, majority systems are not without flaws.
The need for a second round can lead to voter fatigue and lower turnout in the runoff phase.
They are also more expensive and time-consuming compared to plurality systems.
Furthermore, like the plurality system, majority voting can still marginalize smaller parties, especially in single-member districts, where only one candidate emerges victorious.
Assignment – III
Q 1. In what ways do international organisations affect state sovereignty?
Ans. International organisations influence state sovereignty by shaping national policies, laws, and economic decisions through global agreements, rules, and pressure.
Bodies like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund set international norms and standards that states are expected to follow.
While membership is voluntary, adherence to their rules often becomes necessary to maintain legitimacy, trade benefits, and diplomatic standing.
This limits a state’s freedom to act solely in its self-interest. However, states also benefit through cooperation, security frameworks, and global problem-solving.
Thus, sovereignty is not eliminated but redefined through shared authority in a globalized world.
Q 2. Examine the role of pressure groups in a democracy polity.
Ans. Pressure groups play a vital role in a democratic system by representing various interests and influencing public policy without seeking direct political power.
They provide a voice to different sections of society—such as workers, environmentalists, business communities, and minority groups—and help in holding governments accountable.
These groups engage in lobbying, public campaigns, and legal actions to pressurize policymakers.
By doing so, they deepen democracy, encourage civic participation, and ensure diverse opinions are considered in the decision-making process.
Q 3. Describe the neo-Marxist approach to state.
Ans. The neo-Marxist approach views the state as an instrument not just of the capitalist class but as a complex entity influenced by economic structures, ideology, and class struggle.
It argues that the state maintains capitalist dominance by managing contradictions within the system—such as unemployment or inequality—without truly resolving them.
Thinkers like Antonio Gramsci highlighted the role of cultural institutions in shaping consent, making the state’s control more subtle and pervasive.
Thus, the state serves the interests of the capitalist system while appearing neutral.
Q 4. What do you understand by multiculturalism?
Ans. Multiculturalism is a political and social philosophy that recognizes, values, and promotes the coexistence of diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious groups within a society.
It emphasizes the equal rights of all communities to preserve their cultural identity while participating in the broader national life.
Multiculturalism encourages respect for diversity and inclusion, aiming to build societies that are more tolerant, just, and representative.
In practice, it involves policies that support minority rights, anti-discrimination laws, and cultural accommodation within education, law, and governance.
Q 5. Describe the features of an authoritarian regime.
Ans. An authoritarian regime is characterized by centralized power, limited political freedom, and minimal checks on the authority of the ruling elite.
Political opposition is often suppressed, civil liberties are restricted, and independent media and judiciary are curtailed. Elections, if held, are usually manipulated or lack real competition.
The leadership often rules through force, propaganda, and patronage networks, ensuring loyalty through fear or rewards.
Decision-making is top-down, with little public input, and dissent is discouraged or punished.
While such regimes may offer stability or economic growth, they do so at the cost of individual rights and democratic governance.
IGNOU BPSC 132 Solved Free Assignment