Roll No.

R450220057
SAP ID 500085320
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES
Mid Semester Examination, BALLB ,April 2021
Online – Through Blackboard Learning Management System

Course: Political Science II Course Code: CLNL 1012

Programme: BA LLB Semester: II

Time: 02 hrs. Max. Marks: 50

Instructions:
As this examination is in online mode the students are expected to demonstrate a very high degree of Academic Integrity and not
copy contents from resources referred. Instructors would look for understanding of the concept by the students and any
similarity found from resources online/ offline shall be penalized in terms of deduction of marks and even cancellation of paper
in requisite cases. The online examination committee of the School would also look for similarity of two answer scripts and if
answer scripts of two or more students are found similar, both the answer scripts shall be treated as copied and lead to
cancellation of the paper. In view of the aforesaid points, the students are advised that they should desist from using any unfair means.

Instructions:

S. No. Marks CO
1 Discuss the nature and scope of comparative politics
12.5 1
Ans. COMPARATIVE POLITICS: NATURE AND MAJOR APPROACHES

Similar legislative issues is the investigation and evaluation of homegrown

governmental issues across nations.

Near governmental issues has a long and exceptionally famous history going back
not long before the root of efficient political investigations in old Greece and Rome.
Indeed, even antiquated individuals, contrasted their circumstances and those of
others' with whom they came in contact.

The antiquated Greeks played out the soonest deliberate examinations of a more
current also, mainstream.

Relative governmental issues is key region in political theory, categorized by an

observational approach dependent on the near technique. To place it in another
manner, similar legislative issues is the investigation of the homegrown
governmental issues, political establishments, and clashes of nations. It frequently
envelops correlations among nations and through time inside single nations,
underlining significant examples of likeness and contrast. Numerous political
scholars like Arend Lijphart contended that similar legislative issues doesn't have a
practical center in itself, rather a methodological one (Lijphart, Arend,1971). In
straightforward structure, relative governmental issues isn't characterized by the
object of its investigation, yet by the technique it applies to examine political
marvels. Peter Mair and Richard Rose gave current meaning of relative legislative
issues and expressed that similar governmental issues is expounded by a mix of a
considerable spotlight on the investigation of nations' political frameworks and a
technique for perceiving and clarifying similitudes and contrasts between these
nations utilizing basic models (Peter, 1996).

In the field of Comparative governmental issues, the term legislative issues has three
meanings, for example, political exercises, political interaction and political force.
Political action comprises of the endeavors by which the states of contentions are
made and settled in a manner relating to the interest of individuals quite far who have
in their influence in battle for power.

Political cycle is an expansion of political action. Political force is the significant

theme in near legislative issues. The term power has been characterized by various
essayists. Friedrich depicted force as a particular sort of human relationship. While
Tawney clarified power as a limit of an individual or gathering of people to adjust
the lead of others in a way which he wants (J. C. Johari, 1982).

At the point when applied to specific fields of study, similar legislative issues
signifies by different names, like near government (the relative investigation of types
of government) or
similar international strategy (contrasting the international strategies of various
States to set up broad experimental associations between the qualities of the State
and the
qualities of its international strategy).
NATURE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS:

Nature and extent of near legislative issues is fathomable just when one
comprehends the fundamental attributes and meaning of relative government. Albeit
the two
terms 'Near Politics' and 'Relative Governments' are utilized delicately and
reciprocally, there is qualification between them. Traditionally, the near investigation
of legislative issues stands entitled as 'near government'. Relative government
incorporates the investigation of highlights and lawful forces of political
establishments existing in different states. It is the investigation of state and other
political organizations as far as their legitimate powers, capacities, and positions on a
similar premise.

Key attributes of near government are referenced underneath:

 Stress upon the investigation of political foundations of different nations.

 Focus on the investigation of significant constitutions of the world.

 Emphasis upon the investigation of forces and elements of different political

foundations

working in various nations.

 Formal investigation of the association and forces, portrayal of the highlights of

 the

constitutions and political establishments, and legitimate forces of political

organizations structure

the essential substance of near government study.

 To devise a hypothesis of ideal political organizations has been the target.

These characteristics make similar government famous region of study during the
start
of twentieth century. Consequently, Majority of political specialists enormously
disappointed with its slender degree, instinctive system, and formal legalistic-
institutional and standardizing approach. These analysts at that point embrace
extensiveness, authenticity, exactness and logical investigation of the cycles of
governmental issues as their new objective. Their endeavors became marked as
similar legislative issues.

Fundamentally, the investigation of near governmental issues includes careful

examinations in considering;

political encounters, foundations, conduct and cycles of significant frameworks of

government. It includes the investigation of even additional sacred organizations
alongside the investigation of formal legislative organs. It is worried about
significant consistencies, similitudes and contrasts in the working of political
conduct.
2 India have opted for parliamentary system of democracy. Discuss the salient features
12.5 2
of parliamentary form of government. Discuss its merits.
Ans. Parliamentary System in India

The vote based arrangement of government can be partitioned into the parliamentary
and the official framework dependent on the connection between the chief and the
lawmaking body. In a parliamentary framework, chief is a piece of assembly, which
carries out the law and assumes a functioning part in outlining it also.

In a parliamentary framework, the top of the state might be a ruler or a president,

however both of these positions are stylized. The top of the public authority, who is
by and large called as the Prime Minister, is the genuine head. Along these lines,
every one of the genuine leader powers are vested in the Prime Minister.

The parliamentary government is additionally called as the Cabinet government

because of grouping of chief forces in the bureau. Articles 74 and 75 arrangements
with the parliamentary framework at the middle and Article 163 and article 164
arrangements with the Parliamentary framework at the states.

Components and Features of Parliamentary System are;

1. Ostensible and Real Head: The top of the state stands firm on a stylized situation
and is the ostensible leader. For instance, the President.
2. In India, the head of government is the Prime Minister who is the genuine leader.
Article 75 of the Indian constitution accommodates a Prime Minister to be named by
the president. As per Article 74, the Prime Minister headed committee of pastors
would help and educate the President in the activity with respect to his capacities.

3.Executive is a Part of Legislature: The Executive structures a piece of the

governing body. In India, the individual ought to be an individual from parliament to
turn into an individual from the leader. Notwithstanding, the constitution gives that
an individual can be selected as a priest for a time of not in excess of six sequential
months in the event that he isn't an individual from the parliament, after which the
individual stops to be a priest.

4. Lion's share Party Rule: The gathering which wins larger part situates in the
appointment of the Lower House frames the public authority. In India, the President
welcomes the head of the lion's share party in Lok Sabha to frame the public
authority. The President chooses the pioneer as the Prime Minister and different
priests are delegated by the President on the exhortation of the Prime Minister. The
President may welcome an alliance of gatherings to shape the public authority, on
the off chance that, no gathering has got larger part.

5. Aggregate Responsibility: The chamber of clergymen are altogether capable to the

parliament. The lower place of parliament has a capacity to excuse an administration
by getting the no certainty movement passed in the house. In India, the public
authority makes due till the time it appreciates backing of most of individuals in the
Lok Sabha. In this way, Lok Sabha is engaged to present no-certainty movement
against the public authority.

6.Prime Minister as the Center of Power: In India, the Prime Minister is the genuine
chief. He is the top of the public authority, the committee of pastors and the decision
government. Consequently, he needs to assume a huge and significant part in the
working of the public authority.

7. A Parliamentary Opposition: No administration in the parliament can get hundred

percent larger part. The resistance assumes a significant part in checking the
subjective utilization of power by the political chief.

8. Free Civil Service: The government employees guidance and execute choices of
the public authority. Government workers hold lasting arrangements dependent on
merit-based choice cycle. They guarantee coherence of work in any event, when the
public authority changes. The common help additionally guarantees proficiency in
execution of obligations and duties.

9. Bicameral Legislature: Most of the nations following parliamentary framework,

including India, have bicameral governing body. The individuals from the Lower
House of every one of these nations are chosen by individuals. The Lower House can
be broken up, on the off chance that, the term of the public authority is finished or
there is no extent of government arrangement because of absence of dominant part in
house. In India, the President can break up the Lok Sabha on proposal of the Prime
Minister.
 10. Mystery: The individuals from the leader in this framework need to follow the
standard of mystery in issue like procedures, chief gatherings, policymaking and so
on In India, the priests make vow of mystery prior to entering their office.

Benefits of Parliamentary System

The parliamentary framework has the accompanying benefits over the official
framework:

1. Addresses Diverse Group: The parliamentary type of government gives freedom

to different ethnically, racially, etymologically and philosophically assorted
gatherings to share their perspectives in outlining of laws and policymaking. Nations,
like India, which have significant degree of variety empowers convenience by giving
political space to different assorted areas of the general public.

2. Better Co-Ordination Between Legislature and Executive: The chief is a piece of

the assembly. As the public authority appreciates the help of lion's share of
individuals in the lower house, the propensity of debates and clashes diminishes. It
makes simple for the public authority to pass the enactment in the parliament and
carry out them.

3. Forestalls Authoritarianism: In a parliamentary framework, the propensity of

tyranny diminishes as the force is vested in the gathering of clergyman instead of a
solitary person. The parliament can eliminate the public authority through no-
certainty movement.

4. Mindful Government: The parliament can check the exercises of the chief as the
last is dependable to the previous. In an official framework, the president isn't
dependable to the council. The individuals from the parliament can pose inquiry,
move goals, and examine matters of public significance to compress the public
authority. Such arrangements are not accessible in Presidential framework.

5. Accessibility of Alternate Government: The lower place of the parliament can

present and pass a no-certainty movement. In such a circumstance, the top of the
state welcomes the head of the resistance to frame the public authority. In the United
Kingdom, the resistance shapes a shadow bureau for the bureau of the public
authority, so they can get prepared for the job.
3 Give an account of Aristotle’s classification of classification of government 12.5 3
Ans. Classification of Governments of Aristotle:

A few essayists don't make any differentiation among state and government. They
use government and state in very much the same sense while giving a grouping of
states. Present day journalists disagree with this sort of characterization.

As per them, there can be no arrangement of states, as every one of the states are
equivalent in to such an extent as the four ascribes populace, region, government and
power are fundamental for every one of the states. American essayist Willoughby is
of the view that there can be no characterization of states; the states can be grouped
distinctly based on organization. Truth be told, the order of the administrations is the
characterization of the states. State communicates its will through the public
authority. Leacock and Gilchrist additionally concur that there ought to be the
characterization of governments.

Aristotle's Classification:

Aristotle's arrangement of states depends on two standards:

(1) The quantity of people who practice preeminent force;

(2) The closures they try to serve personal circumstance or advantage of the local
area.

Aristotle was of the view that when the rulers focused on the benefit of the local
area, the states would be an unadulterated type of state. At the point when the rulers
in such a state became narrow minded, the state would be known as a debased state.

Aristotle's Classification

As per Aristotle, if sway lives in a single individual, it is Monarchy. Its distorted

structure is Tyranny. In the event that sway dwells in a little minority of the
populace, it is Aristocracy. On the off chance that this little minority utilizes the
sway for its own childish finishes, it is Oligarchy. On the off chance that the
sovereign force lives in a huge extent of the populace, it is nation. Its debased
structure is Democracy.

Aristotle's Cycle of political change:

Aristotle has not just given the grouping of states or governments, he has likewise
attempted to explore their turn of events and pattern of progress. As indicated by
him, change has occurred on the whole the types of organization as a characteristic
interaction, in light of the fact that the types of state rotate like the wheels of a cycle.

As per him, "The main governments were majesties; most likely therefore, in former
times, when urban communities were little, men of prominent ethics were not many.
They were made rulers since they were made supporters and subsequently
advantages must be gave by highminded men. However, when numerous people
equivalent in merit emerged, against the pre-distinction of one, they framed a
Commonwealth and set up a constitution. The decision class before long decayed
and enhanced themselves out of the public depository. Wealth turned into the way to
respect and subsequently theocracies grew up.

They passed into oppressive regimes, and oppressive regimes into majority rule
governments. The affection for acquire in the decision classes consistently would in
general lessen their number thus it fortified the majority. The majority, eventually,
set upon their lords and set up popular governments".

It is obvious from this assertion of Aristotle that most importantly government war
set up in the general public and the unrivaled individual in the general public was
chosen as lord. After some time when the lords started to abuse the majority for their
narrow minded closures, oppression was set up.
Individuals didn't endure this kind of organization for long and they gave the
sovereign capacity to a couple of educated people. In this way, Aristocracy was set
up. With the slip by of time, the personality of Aristocracy disintegrated and
Oligarchy was set up. In any case, individuals proved unable, for long, endure an
administration, the point of which was the advantage of the decision class-alone.
Whenever opportunity came, residents all in all made an effective rebel against such
position and set up a Polity, the incomparable force being vested in the possession of
a huge extent of the populace.

It was utilized by them for the benefit of everyone, "hen Polity got distorted, it was
subbed by Democracy. Vote based system savages and individuals rise up against it
and in this way popular government vanishes. Again individuals choose a champion
legislator as their head and Monarchy is set up. Thusly, Aristotle's pattern of political
change spins.

Analysis of Aristotle's grouping:

The pattern of political change given by Aristotle is completely substantiated by the

historical backdrop of the Greek city-states. A few models are accessible in current
history which demonstrates that rebellion in majority rules system is annulled by a
military despot. For instance, General Ayub Khan in Pakistan, Col. Nasser in Egypt,
Gursell in Turkey and Ne Win in Burma finished disorder in vote based system.

Regardless of this, the grouping given by Aristotle has been scrutinized as under:

(1) Aristotle's arrangement is informal and quantitative:

It is contended that his grouping did not depend on any logical standard as it lays
accentuation on quantitative as opposed to subjective perspective. In any case, this
analysis doesn't hold great Aristotle, being a follower of Plato, couldn't disregard its
profound viewpoint. He has underlined the point f the state alongside his
characterization. Burgess has appropriately said that Aristotle's grouping is profound
as opposed to mathematical.

(2) Aristotle doesn't recognize State and Government:

Condemning Aristotle's characterization, Dr. Gather has said, "Aristotle doesn't

recognize state and government, with the outcome that his order is the arrangement
of states, while it should be of governments. This analysis of Aristotle isn't supported
on the grounds that the qualification between the state and the public authority is a
modem idea". As indicated by Burgess, "Aristotle's order is intelligent and the best,
if his words 'State' and 'power' are subbed with government and Rule individually".

(3) Aristotle's characterization doesn't cover all the modem types of Governments:

As per Seeley and Leacock, Aristotle couldn't consider the advanced 'country-states'.
His arrangement is of little city-states and not of enormous states. In the event that
his order is acknowledged, we will need to put Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional,
Elected and Hereditary Monarchy in indeed the very same class.
 This will bring similitude between the Monarchy as it wins in Saudi Arabia and
Great Britain, while both are not the equivalent. Also, current types of government
are Parliamentary, Presidential, Unitary and Federal sorts. Aristotle's characterization
does exclude and clarify these types of governments.

(4) Democracy isn't the most noticeably terrible type of Government:

As per Aristotle, Democracy is the most noticeably terrible type of government and
he has utilized it in the feeling of a Rule of group. This kind of condition won in
Greece in Aristotle's time, however this isn't the condition in present day times. In
current occasions, the term vote based system is utilized from a decent perspective
and it is viewed as the best type of government.

(5) Aristotle's pattern of progress doesn't find a place with the advancement of
current state:

The pattern of political change given by Aristotle is relevant just to antiquated

Greece and Rome and not to current states. For instance, tyranny of the Communist
Party was set up after supreme Monarchy in Russia.

In Germany after the First World War Emperor William II was ousted and
Democracy was set up. Vote based system likewise fizzled in Germany and
Dictatorship was set up. After World War II, Hitler's Dictatorship was finished and
Democracy was set up again in that country's one section (West Germany).
4 An authoritarian government is antithetical to a liberal democracy. Discuss the
12.5 1
salient features of an authoritarian government.
Ans. Important Features of Authoritarianism:

A.R. Ball, specifies the following features of Authoritarianism or Authortarian state:

1. Limitations on Political Process:

Important limitations are imposed on open political process, political parties and

elections.

2. Use of an Ideology:

Ideological principles like racialism or fundamentalism or nationalism often provide

some basis for the exercise of state power over the people.

3. Rulers determine all decisions:

The rulers and not the people determine all decisions.

4. Dependence on Coercion and Force:

Authoritarian rulers mostly use force and coercion to command political uniformity

and obedience.

5. Less importance to Rights and Liberties:

Civil liberties enjoy a low priority. Governmental control over judiciary and mass

media is direct and considered justified in the interest of public good.

6. Authoritarianism can involve Family rule or Military rule:

The basis for rule is found either in traditional family elite or in a new modernising

group, often the army, which seizes power by a coup.

7. A Small Group uses all the powers:

Under authoritarianism one group monopolies political power and control.

8. Based on Power and Manipulations:

Manipulations, suppressions and coercion constitute the basis of the power of the

rulers.

9. Bureaucracy as the main tool of the rule of the rulers:

The rulers use bureaucracy and police as the instruments of their control over the
people.

10. Centralisation of authority in a few hands:

Centralisation of authority is practiced and very often an attempt is made to cover

this centralism with the cloak of power-sharing among several political groups who

are, however, totally loyal to the ruling group/leader.

11. Use of Propaganda:

Legitimacy for the rulers’ authority is secured through declarations, manipulations

and propaganda or by the use of the ideology of peace, development and security.

12. Rulers Control Public Opinion:

In an authoritarian system, public opinion is controlled. Only that opinion is allowed

to move in society as is deemed favorable for the authority of the ruling group or

rulers. In an authoritarian state, the individual and social life is largely controlled by

the state i.e. by the government of the state and which is formed by one party or

group. When the state control over the life of the people is total, the system is

totalitarian, when it is excessive, permitting a limited political participation under

strict control, the system is authoritarian.

I, ……Anmol Sharma………………………………………., understand that

submitting work that isn’t my own may result in failure in this paper and I may
also be subject to Disciplinary Proceedings as per the Academic Integrity
policy of the University.