Examiners’ commentaries 2022

Examiners’ commentaries 2022

PS2082 Comparative politics

Important note

This commentary reflects the examination and assessment arrangements for this
course in the academic year 2021–2022. The format and structure of the
examination may change in future years, and any such changes will be publicised
on the virtual learning environment (VLE).
Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading references
Unless otherwise stated, all cross-references will be to the latest version of the
subject guide (2011). You should always attempt to use the most recent edition
of any Essential reading textbook, even if the commentary and/or online reading
list and/or subject guide refer to an earlier edition. If different editions of Essential
reading are listed, please check the VLE for reading supplements – if none are
available, please use the contents list and index of the new edition to find the
relevant section.

General remarks

Learning outcomes
At the end of this course and having completed the Essential reading and Activities,
you should be able to have a good understanding of the way in which different
democratic institutional systems work. Specifically, you should be able to explain:
• why institutional analysis is a key aspect of comparative politics
• how institutional stability and political legitimation interact
• what is meant by political culture and how it influences institutional behaviour
• how presidential systems differ in key respects from parliamentary ones
• the relationship between elective and non-elective dimensions of the democratic
state
• the concept of federalism and how it differs from local government.

What the examiners are looking for

Examiners are looking for critical evaluation of the question. This requires you to
assess it with reference to theories related to the subject. To be able to do this you
should have a good understanding of the literature, which is often possible by moving
beyond the subject guide and referring to the literature listed under Essential reading
and Further reading. In addition to providing a critical assessment of the question,
examiners are also looking for well-informed opinion and coherent arguments often

1
PS2082 Comparative politics

backed by empirical evidence. One common mistake candidates make is to provide

a descriptive essay without engaging in critical thinking.
Answering only one part of the question is also a common mistake that candidates
make. You need to make sure that you answer all parts of the question asked. Finally,
you need to communicate your answer in a well-organised and structured essay
format. In order to achieve this, you can spend a few minutes planning your answer
before starting to write. Examiners tend to prefer well-structured but rather limited
essays to lengthy but unstructured essays.

Key steps to improvement

• Address the question directly and in its entirety.
• Read beyond the subject guide to cover texts in Essential reading and Further
reading.
• Make sure that your essay has a structure, with an introduction, main body and
a conclusion.
• There is no one right answer, so plan in advance what you will say and how you
will say it.
• Make sure to reinforce your arguments with well-chosen, real-world examples.

Examination revision strategy

Many candidates are disappointed to find that their examination performance is
poorer than they expected. This can be due to a number of different reasons and
the Examiners’ commentaries suggest ways of addressing common problems
and improving your performance. We want to draw your attention to one particular
failing – ‘question spotting’, that is, confining your examination preparation to a
few question topics which have come up in past papers for the course. This can
have very serious consequences.
We recognise that candidates may not cover all topics in the syllabus in the same
depth, but you need to be aware that examiners are free to set questions on any
aspect of the syllabus. This means that you need to study enough of the syllabus
to enable you to answer the required number of examination questions.
The syllabus can be found in the Course information sheet in the section of the
VLE dedicated to this course. You should read the syllabus very carefully and
ensure that you cover sufficient material in preparation for the examination.
Examiners will vary the topics and questions from year to year and may well set
questions that have not appeared in past papers – every topic on the syllabus is
a legitimate examination target. So although past papers can be helpful in
revision, you cannot assume that topics or specific questions that have come up
in past examinations will occur again.
If you rely on a question spotting strategy, it is likely you will find yourself
in difficulties when you sit the examination paper. We strongly advise you
not to adopt this strategy.

2
 Examiners’ commentaries 2022

Examiners’ commentaries 2022

PS2082 Comparative politics

Important note

This commentary reflects the examination and assessment arrangements for this
course in the academic year 2021–2022. The format and structure of the
examination may change in future years, and any such changes will be publicised
on the virtual learning environment (VLE).
Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading references
Unless otherwise stated, all cross-references will be to the latest version of the
subject guide (2011). You should always attempt to use the most recent edition
of any Essential reading textbook, even if the commentary and/or online reading
list and/or subject guide refer to an earlier edition. If different editions of Essential
reading are listed, please check the VLE for reading supplements – if none are
available, please use the contents list and index of the new edition to find the
relevant section.

Comments on specific questions

Candidates should answer THREE of the following TWELVE questions. All
questions carry equal marks.

Question 1
‘The rights that individual people have are those rights that their societies
believe they should have.’ Discuss with regards to the notion of natural rights.
Reading for this question
• Dahl, R.A. On democracy. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000) [ISBN
9780300084559].
• Lijphart, A. Democracy in plural societies: a comparative exploration. (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980) new edition [ISBN 0780300024944].
• Subject guide Chapter 2 “Legitimacy, constitutionalism and political culture”
subsection on “Legitimacy and Constitutionalism”
• Ackerman, B. ‘The rise of world constitutionalism’, Virginia Law Review 83(4) May
1997, pp.771–97.
Approaching the question
This question has to do with the many complex philosophical tensions in the
relationship between human rights and democracy. Solid answers demonstrated an
understanding of the philosophical origins of the concept of ‘natural rights’. The idea
is often associated with Locke and Rousseau and is today more often referred to as
‘human rights’. It is also sometimes associated with the ‘general will of the people’.
However what is in debate is the innate universality of these rights—is every human
born with certain rights regardless of the state they live in? Most political theorists

3
PS2082 Comparative politics

today accept that they are in fact subject to the influence of the particular society that
a person is living in—so for example the right of a murderer to not be put to death is
not present in the United States but is in many other democracies around the world.
Thus these individual rights vary between democracies. They potentially limit a state’s
power (particularly with the intervention of international courts) but are still arguably
also in turn shaped by the local society of each state. Competent answers were able
to demonstrate an understanding about the internal coherence of democratic
principles in light of these complicated philosophical questions around individual
rights.

Question 2
‘The best electoral system to promote minority interests is proportional
representation.’ Discuss.
Reading for this question
• Lijphart, A. Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-
six countries. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999) [ISBN
9780300078930].
• Subject guide Chapter 4 “Party Systems and Electoral Systems” particularly sub-
section “Parties and electoral systems”.
Approaching the question
There is much research and debate into the efficacy of first-past-the-post and
proportional representation (PR) systems in modern democracies. This question
specifically requires a consideration of how well minority interests are represented by
PR. Competent answers were able to explore how PR systems have the potential to
bring into line individual votes cast and broader electoral outcomes. In theory, under
PR systems more parties can develop and play a role in governance, including those
representing minority interests. However the proliferation of parties does not
necessarily mean that minority interests are ultimately better promoted. The process
of building coalitions can be problematic as party leaders (rather than voters)
ultimately decide which coalitions to form. Strong answers were able to explore these
issues through one of the many contemporary or historical examples in which these
dynamics were played out within a PR system.

Question 3
‘Federalism is an effective device to limit the power of government.’ Discuss.
Reading for this question
• Wheare, K.C. Federal government. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963).
• Dahl, R.A. Democracy and its critics. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1991) [ISBN 9780300049381].
• Subject guide “Chapter 5: Levels of government: local, federal and transnational”
and particularly sub-section “federalism”.
Approaching the question
Answering this question requires accurately defining federalism and then further
unpacking the way federalism operates. One reason that federalism may be adopted
is in order to limit the power of government, particularly where there is a distrust of a
strong central administration. However there are alternative reasons for pursuing a
federal system, such as bringing together different linguistic or cultural traditions
within one country. Competent answers were able to consider the potential reasons
for (and also outcomes of) federal systems. Strong answers incorporated examples

4
 Examiners’ commentaries 2022

of countries or regions with a federal system—of which there are many across the
globe.

Question 4
‘Poor economic performance is more threatening to democratic stability than
a problematic institutional structure.’ Discuss.
Reading for this question
A good place to start is with literature on why democracy has not broken down in
wealthy countries since 1945. Relevant is:
• Lipset S.M. Political man: the social bases of politics. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1983) third edition [ISBN 9780801825224].
• Galbraith, J. K. The culture of contentment. (London: Sinclair Stevenson, 1992)
[ISBN 9781856191470].
Approaching the question
Most responses argued that that economic performance does not cause democratic
instability as much as institutional structure—especially since there are many
examples that could be drawn upon where economic crises did not lead to democratic
breakdown. Eastern Europe and Latin America offer potential examples that
candidates could include in answering this question.
Problematic institutional structures, on the other hand, can affect power relations
within a government. The subsequent impacts on political, social and economic
behaviour have been well researched.
Nonetheless, candidates could argue for or against this statement that democratic
instability is influenced by poor economic performance more than problematic
institutional structure. As long as an argument was competently made with an
example/examples, the examiners were open to different positions on the question’s
main statement.

Question 5
‘The problem of dual legitimation is the most significant weakness of
presidential systems.’ Discuss.
Reading for this question
• Linz, J. and A. Valenzuela (eds.) The failure of presidential democracy.
(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) (2 volumes) [ISBN
0801846404].
• Subject guide “Chapter 3: Comparing executives: presidential and parliamentary
systems” and particularly the sub-section “The advantages and disadvantages of
each system”.
Approaching the question
Responses required a solid explanation of the ‘problem of dual legitimation’. Linz in
particular wrote about this problem, where both the congress (legislative) and
president (executive) are elected separately and can both therefore claim a
democratic mandate. With both being able to claim legitimacy, they may turn to the
courts (judiciary) to resolve stalemates. However past examples show that the courts
may not be trusted or respected, which may lead to further political conflict and
polarisation. While problems of intractable governance may occur in other systems

5
PS2082 Comparative politics

(such as parliamentary systems), in presidential systems the issue is sometimes

exacerbated because the government is ‘locked in’ until the next election period.
Candidates could either agree or disagree that dual legitimation is the most significant
weakness of presidential systems and examiners were open to either position—but
competent answers were able to focus on what the phenomenon is and how it effects
governance, often with use of examples, of which there are many to draw from
(particularly within Latin America).

Question 6
‘Russia under Putin is best defined as an illiberal democracy.’ Discuss.
Reading for this question
• Zakaria, F. ‘The rise of illiberal democracy’, Foreign Affairs 76 (November–
December) 1997, pp.22–43.
• Subject guide “Chapter 1: Modes of comparing political systems” particularly sub-
section “The survival of institutions over time”.
Approaching the question
The strategy for answering this question was relatively straightforward, with the
opportunity to elaborate and elevate the answer (and subsequent mark). The basic
approach required defining illiberal democracy, which is mainly associated with
Zakaria (1997). Then this definition could be applied to the leadership of Putin to
argue that Russia currently is (or is not) an illiberal democracy.
Stronger answers were able to expand beyond this and address more recent events,
such as the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine. Candidates could
expand to include a range of other relevant issues and concepts: forms of legitimacy
in illiberal democracies; democratic consolidation; authoritarianism and democracy.

Question 7
What, if anything, can be learned from Linz’s critique of presidentialism?
Reading for this question
• Linz, J. ‘The perils of presidentialism’, Journal of Democracy 1 1990, pp.51–69.
• Elgie, R. ‘From Linz to Tsebelis: three waves of presidential/parliamentary
studies?’, Democratization 12(1) 2005, pp.106–22.
• Linz, J. and A. Valenzuela (eds) The failure of presidential democracy.
(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) (2 volumes) [ISBN
0801846404].
Approaching the question
Linz is well known for his insightful and well researched critiques of presidentialism.
A summary of his position is covered in the subject guide. Basic answers to this
question started by highlighting what Linz’s concerns were.
Stronger candidates could then expand upon Linz’s basic critiques in a range of
different ways in order to make their answer more nuanced. Some candidates
engaged further with some of Linz’s writings and added depth and context to his
assertions. Some candidates addressed the counter-arguments against Linz’s
critiques. Some candidates included an example or examples in order to elaborate
upon their main thesis statement.

6
 Examiners’ commentaries 2022

Question 8
‘Consociationalism is an effective way to manage political differences.’
Discuss.
Reading for this question
• Lijphart, A. Democracy in plural societies: a comparative explanation. (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980) new edition [ISBN 9780300024944].
• Subject guide “Chapter 2: Legitimacy, constitutionalism and political culture” and
particularly the sub-section “Consociational politics”.
• Subject guide Chapter 4.
Approaching the question
Answers to this question required a definition of consociationalism. Stronger answers
gave a more in-depth summary of Lijphart’s outline of the concept. Some candidates
also usefully linked consociationalism to political culture.
Competent responses were then able to argue how consociationalism is (or is not)
an effective way to manage political differences. There is no ‘right or wrong’ response
so long as arguments were clearly and competently made.
Some arguments could be made that consociationalism can help in the management
of political differences, particularly when there is an ‘automatic coalition’ with
representatives from multiple groups represented in the central government.
However consociationalism can also have problems that must be weighed up against
the benefits.
Strong answers applied the question of ‘efficacy’ to an example or examples of
countries with consociational arrangements, of which there are many to draw from.

Question 9
‘Party activists are antagonistic to representative democracy.’ Discuss.
Reading for this question
• Sartori, G. Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. (Colchester:
ECPR Press, 2005) 2nd revised edition [ISBN 9780954796617].
• Downs, A. An economic theory of democracy. (New York: Princeton Hall, 1997)
[ISBN 9780060417505].
• Subject guide “Chapter 4: Electoral systems and party systems” and particularly
sub-section “Democracy within parties and between parties”.
Approaching the question
This question was intentionally provocative and gave candidates the opportunity to
engage with a controversial issue as people around the world feel strongly about this
issue. There are clear arguments for why activists enhance democracy, and indeed
one of the cornerstones of democracy is the ability of individuals to speak their minds
and protest. However there are also arguments that party activists tend to not
represent the wider population yet project a disproportionate voice in politics—thus
potentially undermining representative democracy.
Responses on either side of this debate were welcomed by examiners, as long as
the position was academically argued. Some stronger candidates augmented their
responses by addressing Downs’ Model. Others introduced an example or examples
of party activists and their impact on democracy.

Question 10

7
PS2082 Comparative politics

Why do states struggle to find a balance between the accommodation of

cultural difference and the goal of political integration?
Reading for this question
• Bowen, J. Why the French don’t like headscarves: Islam, the state and the public
sphere. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008) [ISBN
9780691138398].
• Lijphart, A. Democracy in plural societies: a comparative exploration. (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980) new edition [ISBN 0780300024944].
• McGarry, J. and B. O’ Leary ‘Introduction: the macro-political regulation of ethnic
conflict’ in McGarry, J. and B. O’ Leary (eds) The politics of ethnic conflict
regulation: case studies of protracted ethnic conflict. (London: Routledge, 1993)
pp.1–41.
• Subject guide “Chapter 2: Legitimacy, constitutionalism and political culture” and
particularly sub-section “Constitutionalism, political culture and cultural conflict”
Approaching the question
It is not controversial to say that cultural differences should be respected in a
democratic society. However, if cultural sub-groups develop a strong sense of
nationalism, this can pose challenges for governments. Respecting individual rights
may become antagonistic to goals of political integration. This political dilemma raises
both ethical and also practical concerns.
Candidates were not expected to address all angles of this issue, but strong answers
did engage with one or more of some key elements: what happens if sub-cultures
decide they want to secede from the state and become independent (or joint a
different state); the role of inequality amongst different sub-cultures in many countries
and the political tensions that arise from this; the political goal of having a
cosmopolitan tolerant society where sub-cultures co-exist.
There are many potential examples of successes, failures, compromises, oppression,
and integration regarding sub-cultures and political integration that the best
candidates were able to draw upon in order to support their position.

Question 11
Downs’ model is too abstract to be useful in explaining the behaviour of
specific political parties over time.’ Discuss.
Reading for this question
• Downs, A. An economic theory of democracy. (New York: Princeton Hall, 1997)
[ISBN 9780060417505].
• Sartori, G. Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. (Colchester:
ECPR Press, 2005) 2nd revised edition [ISBN 9780954796617].
Approaching the question
All answers need to first outline Downs’ model: if voting is compulsory and there are
only two parties, both of whom are genuinely interested in winning, then the two
parties would position themselves to capture as much of the vote as possible. Under
those circumstances, the party closest to the centre ground would win.
Once Downs’ model is articulated, the challenge becomes applying it: asking whether
it has been successful in actually explaining behaviour of specific political parties over
time. Downs himself acknowledged that his model was abstract. Strong answers
were able to address complications around this model, including how most voters do
not consider themselves to be left-wing or right-wing, and how the definition of ‘left-
wing’ and ‘right-wing’ has changed over time.

8
 Examiners’ commentaries 2022

Question 12
‘The European Parliament has undermined European democracy.’ Discuss.
Reading for this question
• Ackerman, B. ‘The rise of world constitutionalism’, Virginia Law Review 83(4)
1997, pp.771–797.
• Subject guide “Chapter 2: Legitimacy, constitutionalism and political culture”
particularly the sub-section “The breakdown of pure majoritarianism”
Approaching the question
Since the formation of the European Parliament in 1958, there have been debates
about whether it enhances or undermines European democracy. There are valid
arguments on both sides and candidates could argue either position, so long as their
points were made with academic acumen.
Candidates could make specific arguments about how the European Parliament has
undermined European democracy. An example of an argument in favour of the
statement in the question include Policy being made through international institutional
arrangements.
However a counter-argument is that countries who aspire to join the EU must first
achieve democratic requirements—which thus overall enhance democracy amongst
EU member states.
Alternative arguments could be included by candidates, such as highlighting how the
EU has led stronger human rights amongst member countries—but these points need
to be related back to the core issue of democratic practices within the EU.