1
Easy2Siksha
GNDU Question Paper-2023
Ba/BSc 5
th
Semester
POLITICAL SCIENCE
[Comparative Political Systems (UK and USA)]
Time Allowed: 3 Hrs. Maximum Marks: 100
Note: Attempt Five questions in all, selecting at least One question from each section. The
Fifth question may be attempted from any section.
SECTION-A
1. Define Comparative Government and Politics and write its scope.
2. Critically evaluate David Easton System approach.
SECTION-B
3. Compare and contrast the functions of US Senate and UK House of Lords.
4. Evalaute the role of UK King in their political system.
SECTION-C
5. Critically evaluate the declining role of UK Home of Commons in its Constitutional
function.
6. Compare the role of pressure groups in US and UK.
2
Easy2Siksha
SECTION-D
7. Critically analyse Judicial Review power of Judiciary in US.
8. Explain the Unitary features of UK Political system.
GNDU Answer Paper-2023
Ba/BSc 5
th
Semester
POLITICAL SCIENCE
[Comparative Political Systems (UK and USA)]
Time Allowed: 3 Hrs. Maximum Marks: 100
Note: Attempt Five questions in all, selecting at least One question from each section. The
Fifth question may be attempted from any section.
SECTION-A
1. Define Comparative Government and Politics and write its scope.
Ans: Comparative Government and Politics: Definition and Scope
Definition of Comparative Government and Politics
Comparative Government and Politics is a branch of political science that focuses on
understanding and analyzing the political systems, institutions, and processes of different
countries. It involves comparing the political structures, governance models, and decision-
making processes of various nations to identify similarities and differences. By studying how
governments operate across the world, scholars gain insights into why certain political
systems succeed while others face challenges.
3
Easy2Siksha
In simpler terms, comparative government is about looking at how countries run their
governments and politics in different ways and figuring out what works best and what
doesn’t. It is a way of analyzing political systems from a global perspective to better
understand how they function and how different factors influence political outcomes.
Importance of Comparative Government and Politics
The study of comparative government is crucial because it helps us:
1. Understand Political Diversity: The world is made up of diverse political systems.
Some countries have democracies like the UK and the USA, while others have
authoritarian regimes. Comparative politics helps us understand these different
political arrangements and the reasons behind them.
2. Identify Patterns and Trends: By comparing different political systems, scholars can
identify patterns in political behavior, governance, and policy-making. For instance,
the relationship between democracy and economic development can be studied
through comparative politics.
3. Learn from Other Countries: Countries can learn from each other’s successes and
mistakes in governance. For example, a country struggling with corruption can study
the anti-corruption policies of another nation with a successful track record in
curbing corruption.
4. Promote Global Understanding: Comparative government helps in fostering a better
understanding of other countries' political systems. In a globalized world,
understanding how other nations function politically can lead to better international
relations and cooperation.
Scope of Comparative Government and Politics
The scope of Comparative Government and Politics is vast. It encompasses the following key
areas:
1. Political Systems
Comparative politics examines different types of political systems around the world. These
systems include:
• Democracies: Countries like the USA and the UK are examples of democracies where
citizens have the right to elect their leaders.
• Authoritarian Regimes: Some countries have authoritarian governments, where
power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small group, such as North
Korea.
• Monarchies: Certain countries, like Saudi Arabia, have monarchies where a king or
queen holds power, though some monarchies are constitutional (like in the UK) with
a symbolic monarch and an elected government.
4
Easy2Siksha
• Federal and Unitary Systems: Comparative government also studies whether a
country has a federal system, where power is shared between the national and
regional governments (like in the USA), or a unitary system, where power is
concentrated at the national level (like in France).
By comparing these systems, scholars can analyze how the distribution of power affects
governance and the welfare of citizens.
2. Constitutional Frameworks
A country’s constitution provides the legal foundation for its political system. Comparative
government examines:
• Written and Unwritten Constitutions: For example, the USA has a written
constitution that lays out the rules of governance, while the UK has an unwritten
constitution based on historical documents, laws, and conventions.
• Amendability: Some countries, like the USA, have constitutions that are difficult to
amend, while others, like India, have more flexible processes for changing the
constitution.
• Rights and Freedoms: Comparative politics studies how different constitutions
guarantee rights and freedoms for citizens. For instance, the USA’s constitution
protects freedom of speech, while other countries may have stricter controls on this
right.
3. Political Institutions
Political institutions are structures of government that carry out specific functions, such as
law-making, enforcing policies, and providing services. Comparative politics looks at how
these institutions vary across countries, including:
• Legislatures: Legislative bodies, like the US Congress or the UK Parliament, are
responsible for making laws. Comparative government examines how these bodies
operate, their powers, and their structures (e.g., bicameral vs. unicameral).
• Executives: This includes presidents, prime ministers, and monarchs who lead the
government. For example, the USA has a presidential system where the president is
both the head of state and government, while the UK has a parliamentary system
where the prime minister leads the government and the monarch is the ceremonial
head of state.
• Judiciaries: Courts interpret laws and ensure justice. Comparative politics examines
how judicial systems differ in their independence, power, and role in checking the
executive and legislative branches.
5
Easy2Siksha
4. Political Culture
Political culture refers to the set of beliefs, values, and attitudes that shape the behavior of
individuals and institutions in a political system. Comparative government studies how
political culture differs from one country to another. For instance:
• Civic Culture: In democratic societies like the UK or USA, there is a strong belief in
the participation of citizens in the political process.
• Authoritarian Culture: In some authoritarian regimes, citizens may have limited
political participation, and there may be a culture of obedience to authority.
• Political Socialization: This examines how political values and beliefs are passed
down from one generation to the next. Factors like education, media, and family
play a significant role in shaping political socialization.
5. Political Economy
The relationship between politics and economics is another important area of comparative
politics. It studies:
• Economic Systems: Countries may have capitalist, socialist, or mixed economic
systems, and comparative government analyzes how these systems interact with
politics.
• Development and Governance: Comparative politics looks at the role of governance
in economic development. For instance, countries with strong institutions may
experience better economic growth than those with weak governance structures.
• Public Policy: Comparative government examines how different countries approach
policy issues like healthcare, education, and welfare. For example, the USA’s
healthcare system is largely private, while the UK has a nationalized healthcare
system through the NHS (National Health Service).
6. Electoral Systems and Party Systems
Elections are a crucial part of the democratic process, and comparative government studies
how different electoral systems affect political outcomes. It focuses on:
• Majoritarian Systems: Countries like the UK use the "first-past-the-post" system,
where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they don’t secure a majority.
• Proportional Representation: Other countries, like Germany, use proportional
representation, where seats in the legislature are allocated based on the percentage
of votes each party receives.
• Party Systems: Comparative government also looks at how political parties operate.
Some countries, like the USA, have a two-party system, while others, like India, have
multiple parties.
6
Easy2Siksha
7. Political Participation and Representation
Political participation involves how citizens engage in the political process. Comparative
politics examines:
• Voter Turnout: Voter participation varies across countries. For example, voter
turnout in the USA is often lower than in many European countries.
• Political Movements: In some countries, citizens participate in political life through
social movements or protests, especially when formal avenues for participation are
limited.
• Gender and Minority Representation: Comparative government studies the
representation of women and minorities in politics. Some countries have quotas to
ensure greater representation, while others have fewer formal mechanisms for
promoting diversity in government.
8. Governance and Policy Making
Comparative politics looks at how different countries make policies and how governance
systems work:
• Policy Formulation: In democracies, policies are often made through debate and
compromise. In contrast, in authoritarian regimes, policy-making may be top-down,
with little input from the public.
• Public Administration: Comparative government studies how public administration
is structured and how it delivers services to citizens. For instance, the bureaucratic
system in China is different from that in the USA, where local governments have
more autonomy.
9. Globalization and International Politics
Comparative government also examines how countries interact with each other in the
global arena:
• Foreign Policy: Different countries have different approaches to foreign policy.
Comparative government looks at how countries like the USA and China engage with
the rest of the world.
• International Organizations: Countries are part of international organizations like
the United Nations or the European Union, and comparative politics analyzes how
these memberships affect domestic politics.
Conclusion
Comparative Government and Politics is a vital field of study that provides valuable insights
into how different political systems operate and influence the lives of people. By comparing
the political structures, institutions, and processes of various nations, scholars can identify
what makes certain systems effective and others less so. It helps countries learn from each
other, improve governance, and promote better understanding across nations. Through
7
Easy2Siksha
comparative analysis, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of politics and
governance in a rapidly changing world.
2. Critically evaluate David Easton System approach.
Ans: David Easton was a Canadian political scientist who developed a theoretical framework
for analyzing political systems called the "Systems Approach." His approach became one of
the most influential ways to understand how political systems function and interact with
society. The Systems Approach seeks to understand the political process by treating the
political system as a whole, focusing on its inputs (demands and support), outputs (policies
and decisions), feedback loops, and its relationship with the environment.
Key Components of Easton’s Systems Approach
Easton's Systems Approach consists of several critical components, each of which helps to
explain how a political system functions. The primary elements of his model are:
1. Political System: A political system is defined as the set of interactions and
institutions through which authoritative decisions are made for a society. Easton
emphasized that a political system is not just limited to government institutions but
also includes all actors and activities involved in decision-making, such as political
parties, interest groups, and even voters. It operates within a broader environment,
which includes social, economic, and cultural factors.
2. Inputs: Inputs refer to the information, demands, and supports that come into the
political system from its environment. These inputs are essential for the political
system to understand the needs and expectations of society. Easton identified two
major types of inputs:
o Demands: These are requests from individuals, groups, or organizations in
society for the political system to take action. For example, demands may
include requests for new laws, improved services, or policy changes.
o Support: Support refers to actions or attitudes that help sustain the political
system. This could be shown through voting, obeying laws, paying taxes, or
supporting the government.
3. Outputs: Outputs are the decisions and policies made by the political system in
response to the inputs. These could be laws, regulations, or public policies that are
meant to address the demands that were input into the system. The effectiveness of
these outputs influences the public’s continued support for the political system.
4. Feedback: Feedback is a crucial element of Easton’s model. After a policy decision or
output is made, there will be reactions from the public and other stakeholders. This
8
Easy2Siksha
reaction, in turn, becomes new input, feeding back into the political system. The
system uses this feedback to adapt and make necessary adjustments to future
decisions or policies. Feedback helps maintain the system’s stability by continuously
adjusting based on how the environment responds to its outputs.
5. Environment: The political system exists within a broader environment, which
influences its inputs and outputs. The environment consists of external factors like
economic conditions, social structures, culture, international influences, and
technological changes. The environment can either create stability or generate
challenges for the political system, depending on how it interacts with these external
factors.
6. Boundaries: Easton’s model also emphasizes the idea of boundaries. The political
system is seen as having a boundary that separates it from its environment. The
boundary helps to distinguish what is considered part of the political system and
what is part of the broader environment. However, while the political system is
distinct from its environment, it is also dependent on it. The system must
continuously adapt to changes in the environment to survive.
Functions of the Political System
Easton viewed the political system as a dynamic entity that continuously processes inputs
and generates outputs. For the political system to function effectively, it must perform
several key functions:
1. Conversion Function: The conversion function refers to the process by which the
political system transforms inputs (demands and support) into outputs (policies and
decisions). This is the core of the political process. Political actors such as lawmakers,
bureaucrats, and political leaders play an essential role in this conversion process.
2. Adaptive Function: To maintain stability and survive, the political system must adapt
to changes in its environment. If the system fails to adapt to new demands or shifts
in public opinion, it risks becoming ineffective or losing legitimacy.
3. Feedback Function: Feedback is necessary for the system to self-regulate. Positive
feedback encourages the continuation of successful policies, while negative feedback
can prompt the system to reconsider or change its actions.
Criticisms of Easton’s Systems Approach
While Easton’s Systems Approach has been influential, it has also faced several criticisms.
Critics argue that while the model is theoretically sound, it has practical limitations when
applied to real-world political systems.
1. Overly Abstract: One of the primary criticisms of Easton’s approach is that it is too
abstract. His model simplifies the complexity of political life and reduces it to a few
components that might not capture the full diversity and richness of political
activities. Political systems in reality are often chaotic, with competing interests,
9
Easy2Siksha
informal power dynamics, and non-linear decision-making processes. Easton’s model
doesn’t always account for these complexities.
2. Lack of Emphasis on Power Relations: Another criticism is that Easton’s model
doesn’t adequately address the issue of power. Political systems are inherently
about the distribution of power, and some critics argue that Easton’s model fails to
fully consider the role of power struggles, conflicts, and inequality within the political
system. By focusing more on processes and structures, the model tends to overlook
how power is distributed and contested within a society.
3. Limited Explanation of Change: While Easton’s model acknowledges the need for
adaptation, some critics argue that it doesn’t provide a sufficient explanation for
how significant political change occurs. Political systems often undergo rapid or
revolutionary changes, but Easton’s model is better suited for understanding stable,
incremental change rather than sudden shifts in power or regime.
4. Focus on Stability: Easton’s model emphasizes system stability and the need for the
political system to maintain itself over time. However, in many political
environments, instability, conflict, and transformation are constant features. Critics
argue that Easton’s approach may not be as useful for understanding political
systems that are characterized by frequent upheaval or where the emphasis is not
on maintaining order.
5. Neglect of Informal Politics: Easton’s model primarily focuses on formal institutions
and structures, such as governments and political parties. However, political life also
includes informal institutions, such as networks of influence, personal relationships,
and behind-the-scenes negotiations. Critics point out that Easton’s model might
overlook these informal dynamics that are crucial to understanding real-world
political systems.
6. Applicability to Non-Democratic Systems: Easton’s Systems Approach was largely
developed with democratic systems in mind, where there is a flow of demands and
supports from the public to the political system. However, some critics argue that
the model may be less applicable to authoritarian or non-democratic systems, where
inputs like demands from the public may be ignored or suppressed.
Strengths of Easton’s Systems Approach
Despite these criticisms, Easton’s Systems Approach has several strengths that have made it
a valuable tool for understanding political systems.
1. Holistic View: One of the main strengths of Easton’s model is that it provides a
comprehensive and holistic view of political systems. By focusing on how the system
interacts with its environment, processes inputs, and generates outputs, the model
allows for a broad understanding of the political process.
2. Emphasis on Feedback: Easton’s emphasis on feedback is another strength of his
model. Feedback loops are crucial for understanding how political systems evolve
10
Easy2Siksha
and respond to societal needs. This feature of the model highlights the importance
of public opinion, elections, and other mechanisms that allow for a continuous
interaction between the public and the political system.
3. Systemic Analysis: Easton’s model allows for a systemic analysis of politics, which
can be useful for identifying patterns, predicting trends, and understanding how
different parts of the system interact with each other. This makes the model
valuable for political scientists who are interested in understanding the broader
context of political activities rather than focusing on individual events or actors.
4. Application to Comparative Politics: The Systems Approach is also useful for
comparative political analysis. It can be applied to different types of political
systems, allowing for a comparison of how inputs, outputs, and feedback functions
differ across countries and political contexts.
Conclusion
David Easton’s Systems Approach is a significant contribution to political science, offering a
framework to understand how political systems function and maintain stability. By focusing
on inputs, outputs, feedback, and the environment, Easton’s model provides a
comprehensive view of political systems. However, it is not without its limitations. Critics
argue that the model is overly abstract, neglects power relations, and is less applicable to
non-democratic systems. Despite these critiques, the Systems Approach remains an
influential tool in political analysis, especially for understanding the relationship between a
political system and its environment.
SECTION-B
3. Compare and contrast the functions of US Senate and UK House of Lords.
Ans: The US Senate and the UK House of Lords are key legislative bodies in their respective
countries, but they have distinct structures, functions, and powers. Below is a comparison
and contrast of the two:
1. Structure and Composition
US Senate:
• The Senate is the upper chamber of the United States Congress, alongside the House
of Representatives.
• It consists of 100 members, two from each state, who are elected by the people for
six-year terms. This system ensures equal representation for each state, regardless
of population.
11
Easy2Siksha
• Senators are directly elected, following the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution
(ratified in 1913), which replaced the original method of appointment by state
legislatures.
UK House of Lords:
• The House of Lords is the upper chamber of the UK Parliament, sitting alongside the
House of Commons.
• It has around 800 members, which includes life peers, bishops, and hereditary peers.
Life peers are appointed for their expertise, and hereditary peers inherit their
position. However, only 92 hereditary peers remain due to reforms in 1999.
• Unlike the Senate, the House of Lords is unelected. Members are appointed, and
there are calls for reform due to concerns about the undemocratic nature of
appointments.
2. Legislative Powers
US Senate:
• The Senate shares equal legislative power with the House of Representatives. A bill
must be passed by both chambers to become law.
• It has unique powers such as confirming presidential appointments (like judges,
ambassadors, and cabinet members) and ratifying treaties by a two-thirds vote.
• The Senate also holds the power to conduct impeachment trials of federal officials,
including the President, with a two-thirds majority required to convict.
UK House of Lords:
• The House of Lords acts primarily as a revising chamber, meaning it reviews and
suggests changes to bills passed by the House of Commons.
• While it can delay legislation, it cannot permanently block most bills, particularly
those tied to government spending. Under the Parliament Act of 1911, its power was
reduced to a delaying mechanism for up to one year.
• It cannot veto budget-related bills, which are controlled by the elected House of
Commons.
• The House of Lords does not have the authority to remove the government from
office, a power vested in the Commons.
3. Role in Government Accountability
US Senate:
• The Senate plays a crucial role in holding the US government accountable. It
exercises oversight through various committees that investigate government
activities, including scandals, spending, and foreign affairs.
12
Easy2Siksha
• Senators frequently question top officials, demand reports, and hold hearings to
ensure transparency.
• The Senate's confirmation power serves as a check on presidential appointments,
ensuring that individuals nominated to high-level positions meet certain standards.
UK House of Lords:
• The House of Lords also holds the UK government to account through debates,
questioning ministers, and conducting investigations via select committees.
• However, it cannot directly remove a government, unlike the House of Commons,
which can force a government to resign through a vote of no confidence.
• Lords often use their expertise to scrutinize and refine policies, offering detailed
reports and critiques of government actions.
4. Political Influence
US Senate:
• Senators are highly influential in shaping national policies. Due to their longer terms
(six years) compared to House members (two years), they are often seen as more
stable figures in politics.
• The Senate has considerable sway in foreign policy, given its role in ratifying treaties
and confirming diplomats.
• Each Senator has substantial political power because of the small size of the body
and the significance of their votes on critical national issues.
UK House of Lords:
• The House of Lords, by contrast, is less politically powerful. Its influence is more
advisory and revisionary.
• Although it cannot block major government initiatives, the House of Lords often
suggests amendments that can lead to substantial changes in legislation. Many of
these suggestions, especially those from experts in fields like law, business, and
science, are accepted by the House of Commons.
• The Lords also play a role in public debates on long-term issues such as climate
change, the National Health Service (NHS), and the judiciary.
5. Democratic Legitimacy
US Senate:
• The Senate is directly elected, which grants it a high level of democratic legitimacy.
Voters elect their Senators every six years, providing citizens a direct say in the
makeup of this legislative body.
13
Easy2Siksha
• As the Senate reflects the federal nature of the US, it ensures representation for
both small and large states, balancing the interests of different regions.
UK House of Lords:
• The House of Lords has faced criticism for its lack of democratic legitimacy because
its members are not elected by the public.
• While some members are appointed based on merit or expertise, others hold
positions through heredity or religious office. This has led to calls for reform, with
critics arguing that an unelected body should not have a role in shaping legislation.
6. Recent Reforms and Calls for Change
US Senate:
• The structure of the Senate has remained largely unchanged since its establishment.
However, debates about the filibuster (a procedural tactic used to delay or block
legislation) and the disproportionate influence of smaller states have been
prominent in recent years.
• Some argue that the Senate gives too much power to smaller, less populated states,
as each state, regardless of size, has two Senators.
UK House of Lords:
• The House of Lords has undergone significant reforms over the years, most notably
in 1911 (when its power to veto bills was curtailed) and 1999 (when the number of
hereditary peers was reduced).
• Further reforms have been proposed, including the possibility of electing Lords or
reducing the size of the chamber. These proposals have gained traction as the House
of Lords continues to face criticism for being undemocratic and too large.
Conclusion
While both the US Senate and the UK House of Lords serve as upper chambers in their
respective political systems, they differ significantly in terms of composition, powers, and
influence. The Senate is a powerful, democratically elected body with significant legislative
and oversight responsibilities, while the House of Lords serves primarily as a revising
chamber, offering expertise and scrutiny but lacking the democratic legitimacy and political
power of its American counterpart.
Both institutions, however, play important roles in balancing the legislative process,
ensuring that laws are carefully considered, and providing checks on their governments. The
future may see continued reforms, particularly in the UK, where calls for democratizing the
House of Lords persist.
14
Easy2Siksha
4. Evalaute the role of UK King in their political system.
Ans: The role of the King (or Queen) in the UK political system is deeply rooted in history
and has evolved significantly over the centuries. Today, the UK operates under a
constitutional monarchy, meaning that while the monarch (currently King Charles III) is the
head of state, their powers are largely ceremonial and symbolic. The real power to govern
lies with elected officials, particularly in Parliament and the Prime Minister, who acts as the
head of government.
Historical Background and Evolution
Historically, British monarchs wielded considerable power, making major decisions without
much interference from Parliament. However, a series of historical events, such as the
English Civil War (1642-1651), the Glorious Revolution (1688), and the signing of important
documents like the Magna Carta (1215) and the Bill of Rights (1689), dramatically reduced
the power of the monarchy, shifting authority towards Parliament and the people.
For example, King Charles I’s attempt to rule without Parliament led to his eventual
execution in 1649. After a brief period where the monarchy was abolished, it was restored
in 1660, but the Glorious Revolution soon after solidified Parliament’s supremacy over the
monarch
Constitutional Monarchy
Today, the UK monarch functions under a constitutional framework where the monarchy is
largely symbolic. The UK has no single written constitution, but historical precedents and
key documents limit the monarch’s powers, ensuring that Parliament and the Prime
Minister hold most of the real political authority. The monarch remains an important
figurehead, representing the continuity and unity of the state.
The Role of the Monarch Today
The monarch’s main responsibilities are ceremonial and include duties such as:
1. Head of State: The monarch is the official representative of the UK both domestically
and internationally. They serve as the symbol of the country’s continuity and
stability. King Charles III, for example, meets with foreign dignitaries, attends state
functions, and represents the UK abroad.
2. Opening Parliament: One of the key roles of the monarch is to formally open each
session of Parliament by delivering the Queen’s (or King’s) Speech, which outlines
the government’s legislative agenda. However, this speech is written by the
government, and the monarch’s role is to read it, not to influence its content.
3. Royal Assent: Although Parliament passes laws, they only come into effect when
the monarch gives their formal approval, known as Royal Assent. This is, however, a
purely symbolic act, as no monarch has refused to give Royal Assent since the early
18th century
15
Easy2Siksha
4. The Prime Minister: The monarch also plays a role in appointing the Prime Minister.
Technically, the King or Queen invites the leader of the political party that holds the
majority in the House of Commons to form a government. In practice, this is now a
formality, and the monarch is expected to appoint the leader of the party with the
most seats in Parliament
5. The Royal Prerogative: The monarch still has some theoretical powers under the
Royal Prerogative, such as the ability to dissolve Parliament, declare war, or
negotiate treaties. However, in modern times, these powers are exercised on the
advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. For example, while the monarch
formally declares war, this decision is made by the elected government
6. Advisory Role: The monarch meets regularly with the Prime Minister, often weekly,
to be briefed on national and international issues. While the monarch is entitled to
be consulted and to offer advice, they must remain politically neutral and avoid
publicly expressing opinions on government policies
Symbolic and Charitable Roles
In addition to their ceremonial functions, the UK monarch plays a significant role in public
life through their involvement in charities and public causes. Queen Elizabeth II, for
instance, was the patron of over 600 charities, and King Charles III continues this tradition,
lending his name and support to various charitable organizations. This involvement draws
attention to important social issues without involving the monarch in political decision-
making
Limitations of Power
While the monarch retains formal roles, these are largely constrained by the unwritten
constitution and longstanding traditions. Any attempt by the monarch to interfere with
government decisions or to overrule Parliament would be met with public and political
resistance. In fact, the last time a British monarch attempted to impose a Prime Minister of
their choice was in 1834, and it failed
The monarch also does not engage in political debates or discussions and must remain
neutral on political matters. For instance, Queen Elizabeth II, during her long reign, never
openly took sides in political issues, and King Charles III is expected to follow this tradition of
political neutrality
Conclusion
In summary, the role of the UK monarch today is largely ceremonial. The King or Queen
serves as a symbol of the country’s history, unity, and continuity. While they hold formal
titles and perform important ceremonial duties, the real political power rests with elected
officials in Parliament and the Prime Minister. The monarch’s duties are symbolic,
representing the nation at home and abroad, but their influence on actual government
decisions is extremely limited.
16
Easy2Siksha
This arrangement ensures that the UK remains a democracy where power ultimately lies
with the people, through their elected representatives, while the monarchy continues to
serve as a unifying symbol. The monarch's role may seem minimal in terms of day-to-day
governance, but it remains a vital part of the UK's constitutional framework and national
identity
SECTION-C
5. Critically evaluate the declining role of UK Home of Commons in its Constitutional
function.
Ans: The UK House of Commons has historically been the central pillar of British democracy,
playing a key role in shaping legislation, holding the government accountable, and
representing the people. However, in recent years, there has been growing concern about
its declining role in fulfilling its constitutional functions. This is partly due to the increasing
dominance of the executive, changes in parliamentary procedures, and broader shifts in the
political landscape.
The Rise of the Executive
One of the key reasons for the diminishing role of the House of Commons is the increasing
power of the executive. The UK’s political system is a parliamentary democracy, where the
executive (the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) is drawn from and accountable to
Parliament. However, over time, the executive has gained considerable control over
parliamentary business, making it harder for MPs to effectively scrutinize the government.
The government’s control over the parliamentary timetable is a major issue. The executive
has the power to decide what is debated in the Commons and when. This control limits the
ability of MPs to introduce legislation or hold in-depth debates on important issues that may
not align with the government's priorities. Reports suggest that parliamentary reforms are
needed to give MPs greater control over the legislative process and reduce the executive’s
dominance in setting the agenda.
Limited Role in Law-Making
While the House of Commons is responsible for passing laws, the reality is that most
legislation originates from the government, and MPs have limited input. Backbench MPs
(those who are not part of the government or the opposition leadership) often struggle to
influence major legislative decisions. This problem is compounded by the use of party
discipline, where MPs are expected to vote according to their party’s line, leaving little room
for independent judgment.
The use of "guillotine" motions and "programming" in parliamentary debates, which limit
the time available for discussion, has further weakened the role of the House of Commons
17
Easy2Siksha
in scrutinizing legislation. This means that many laws are passed without thorough
examination, reducing the effectiveness of MPs in their legislative role.
Brexit and the Changing Dynamics
Brexit had a significant impact on the role of the House of Commons. During the Brexit
negotiations, there were several instances where MPs felt sidelined by the executive. The
government’s use of "Henry VIII powers" allowed ministers to make changes to laws without
full parliamentary scrutiny. This undermined the traditional role of the Commons in
approving and amending legislation.
Additionally, the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2019, which
was later ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, highlighted tensions between the executive
and Parliament. This incident demonstrated how the government could bypass
parliamentary scrutiny in favor of pursuing its own agenda.
Decline in Accountability
The House of Commons is meant to hold the government to account, but this function has
also weakened. The introduction of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), while designed to
allow MPs to question the Prime Minister, has become more of a political performance
rather than a tool for genuine accountability. The adversarial nature of PMQs often leads to
theatrics rather than meaningful discussions on government policy.
Furthermore, select committees, which are meant to investigate government actions, have
faced limitations. While these committees have become more influential in recent years,
they still lack the power to enforce their recommendations. Ministers can refuse to appear
before committees or ignore their findings, reducing the overall effectiveness of
parliamentary oversight.
Reforms and Proposals
There have been several proposals aimed at restoring the balance between the government
and Parliament. One suggestion is to give the House of Commons more control over its
timetable, allowing MPs to determine what is debated and when. This would empower
backbench MPs to raise issues that might otherwise be ignored by the government.
Another proposal is to strengthen select committees by giving them more power to compel
witnesses to testify and to enforce their recommendations. This would improve the ability
of Parliament to hold the government accountable.
Some have also called for reforms to the voting system to reduce the power of party whips
and encourage more independent decision-making among MPs. A more proportional voting
system could also lead to a more balanced Parliament, where the government does not
have an overwhelming majority and is forced to engage more with opposition parties and
backbenchers.
18
Easy2Siksha
Conclusion
The declining role of the House of Commons in its constitutional functions is a complex
issue, driven by the increasing power of the executive, changes in parliamentary
procedures, and broader political trends. While the House of Commons remains an essential
part of the UK’s political system, reforms are needed to restore its ability to effectively
scrutinize the government and represent the interests of the people. Without such reforms,
there is a risk that the balance of power will continue to shift towards the executive,
undermining the principles of parliamentary democracy.
6. Compare the role of pressure groups in US and UK.
Ans: Comparing the role of pressure groups in the political systems of the United States (US)
and the United Kingdom (UK) provides a fascinating insight into how these two countries,
with different governmental structures, allow interest groups to influence politics. Pressure
groups are organizations formed by people with shared interests, aiming to influence public
policies or decisions made by the government. Though both countries have thriving
pressure group systems, the ways in which these groups operate and the extent of their
influence differ significantly due to the political systems of each country.
Political System Differences: A Foundation for Pressure Groups
To understand the role of pressure groups, it's important to first consider the political
structures of the US and the UK.
1. United States Political System:
o The US follows a federal system, where power is divided between the federal
government and state governments.
o It operates under a presidential system, with separate powers for the
executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
o The US has a pluralist political culture, meaning many groups compete to
influence decisions, creating a more open environment for pressure groups
to operate.
2. United Kingdom Political System:
o The UK is a unitary state, with a centralized government, though it has
devolved powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
o The UK follows a parliamentary system, where the executive (the Prime
Minister and the Cabinet) is drawn from the legislature (Parliament).
19
Easy2Siksha
o The UK has traditionally had a more elitist system, with fewer groups
influencing decisions, though this has evolved over time, especially since the
20th century.
What are Pressure Groups?
Pressure groups, sometimes referred to as interest groups or lobby groups, are
organizations that seek to influence public policy without directly seeking political office.
Their main function is to represent the interests of specific sections of society, whether it’s
businesses, workers, environmentalists, or social groups.
Pressure groups differ from political parties in that they do not aim to win elections or
govern a country. Instead, their goal is to influence those who hold political power.
Pressure Groups in the US
In the US, pressure groups play a very prominent role in politics. This is largely due to the
structure of the political system, which creates multiple points of access for these groups to
influence decisions. Some key characteristics of pressure groups in the US include:
1. Pluralism: The US has a pluralist society, meaning multiple groups have access to the
political system. This makes it easier for pressure groups to exert influence at various
levels of government—federal, state, and local. The separation of powers in the US
system also provides pressure groups with multiple opportunities to affect policy.
They can lobby the executive, the legislature, or even the judiciary through legal
action.
2. Lobbying: Lobbying is a major part of pressure group activity in the US. Lobbyists are
professionals hired by pressure groups to represent their interests to politicians.
Many pressure groups have significant resources, allowing them to hire well-
connected lobbyists to advocate for their causes. This can include organizing
meetings with lawmakers, drafting legislation, or even funding campaigns for
politicians who support their views.
3. Election Campaigns and Funding: Pressure groups in the US often influence
elections by providing financial support to candidates who align with their goals.
Through Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs, pressure groups can
raise and spend large sums of money to support or oppose political candidates. This
has been a controversial issue in the US, especially following the Citizens United v.
FEC Supreme Court ruling, which allowed for unlimited corporate and union
spending in elections.
4. Influence on Congress: Pressure groups in the US often focus their efforts on
influencing members of Congress. Because Congress is responsible for passing
legislation, it is a prime target for lobbying activities. Pressure groups may also
submit amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs to the judiciary, which offer legal
arguments in cases that affect their interests.
20
Easy2Siksha
5. Judicial Influence: In the US, pressure groups have another unique avenue of
influence: the judicial system. They often use litigation to challenge laws or
regulations they find unfavorable. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) frequently use the courts to defend civil rights and liberties.
Pressure Groups in the UK
The role of pressure groups in the UK is also significant but functions differently due to the
nature of the political system. While the UK is also a democracy, its parliamentary system
centralizes power more than the US, meaning pressure groups often have fewer access
points to exert influence. However, they still play an important role in shaping public policy.
Here are some characteristics of pressure groups in the UK:
1. Insider and Outsider Groups: Pressure groups in the UK are often categorized as
“insider” or “outsider” groups. Insider groups, like the Confederation of British
Industry (CBI) or trade unions, have regular access to government officials and are
often consulted when new policies are being developed. Outsider groups, like
Greenpeace or Amnesty International, may not have the same level of access and
must use public campaigns or media to gain attention.
2. Lobbying: As in the US, lobbying is an important part of pressure group activity in the
UK. However, the scale and scope of lobbying are smaller due to the more
centralized nature of the UK government. Pressure groups in the UK typically focus
on influencing Parliament and government ministers rather than engaging with a
wide range of political institutions.
3. Influence on Legislation: Pressure groups in the UK work to influence Members of
Parliament (MPs) and government ministers. Insider groups may have direct
consultations with the government, while outsider groups may use public
campaigns, media attention, and demonstrations to put pressure on the government
from outside.
4. Limited Financial Influence: Unlike the US, where pressure groups have a significant
role in election funding, the UK places stricter regulations on campaign financing.
This means pressure groups in the UK have less direct influence on elections.
However, they may still work to support candidates who align with their interests by
organizing volunteers or promoting policies during election campaigns.
5. Judicial Review: Similar to the US, pressure groups in the UK can also use the courts
to challenge government decisions. Judicial review allows pressure groups to
question the legality of government actions. For example, environmental groups like
Friends of the Earth have used judicial review to challenge government policies on
climate change.
Key Differences Between US and UK Pressure Groups
Now that we’ve looked at how pressure groups operate in both countries, it’s important to
highlight the key differences between the two systems.
21
Easy2Siksha
1. Access Points:
o In the US, pressure groups have multiple access points due to the separation
of powers (executive, legislative, and judicial branches), as well as the federal
structure, which provides opportunities to influence at the federal, state, and
local levels.
o In the UK, access points are more limited due to the centralized nature of
government. Most lobbying is focused on Parliament and the executive.
2. Election Influence:
o US pressure groups play a significant role in funding elections and supporting
candidates through PACs and Super PACs. The US system allows for more
financial influence in elections.
o In the UK, strict campaign finance regulations limit the ability of pressure
groups to financially influence elections. Their focus is more on influencing
policies rather than directly supporting candidates with large sums of money.
3. Insider vs. Outsider Status:
o In the UK, the distinction between insider and outsider groups is more
pronounced. Insider groups have regular access to decision-makers, while
outsider groups must rely more on public opinion and media campaigns.
o In the US, while some groups have more access than others, the pluralist
nature of the system allows a wide range of groups to engage with
policymakers.
4. Judicial System:
o Both countries allow pressure groups to influence the judicial system, but the
US system is more open to legal challenges from interest groups due to the
greater power of its judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
Pressure groups in both the US and the UK play a critical role in influencing government
decisions and policies. However, the way they operate and the level of influence they have
are shaped by the political systems of each country. In the US, the pluralist system allows
pressure groups to operate more freely and exert influence at multiple levels of
government, often through financial contributions and lobbying. In the UK, the centralized
parliamentary system provides fewer access points, but pressure groups still manage to
influence decisions through insider relationships, public campaigns, and judicial review.
Ultimately, while pressure groups in both countries aim to influence public policy, the
methods they use and the effectiveness of their strategies vary depending on the political
context of each country.
22
Easy2Siksha
SECTION-D
7. Critically analyse Judicial Review power of Judiciary in US.
Ans: In the United States, judicial review is one of the most powerful tools available to the
judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court. It allows courts to assess the constitutionality of
laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the executive branch. Although not explicitly
mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, judicial review was solidified through the landmark
Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which became a cornerstone of U.S.
constitutional law.
Origin and Foundation of Judicial Review in the U.S.
The concept of judicial review stems from the belief that the Constitution is the supreme
law of the land, as articulated in Article VI. This means that any law passed must align with
the Constitution, and if a law contradicts it, the courts have the authority to strike it down.
The U.S. judiciary’s power to do this was first exercised in Marbury v. Madison, where the
court declared part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. Chief Justice John
Marshall’s ruling established the precedent that the Supreme Court had the final say in
interpreting the Constitution.
While the Constitution itself does not explicitly mention judicial review, it is implied through
Article III, which grants the Supreme Court judicial power over all cases arising under the
Constitution. Furthermore, as legal scholar Alexander Hamilton advocated in The Federalist
Papers (especially in numbers 78, 80, and 82), judicial review was seen as a necessary check
on legislative and executive power, ensuring that no law would violate the Constitution.
How Judicial Review Works
The Supreme Court uses judicial review to evaluate whether a law is in harmony with the
Constitution. To do so, the Court must first receive a legitimate case where the
constitutionality of a law is questioned. In many instances, judicial review is a last resort,
and the Court avoids exercising this power unless absolutely necessary. This is partly
because judicial review can have profound political implications.
When the Supreme Court strikes down a law, it often follows a principle known as “stare
decisis,” which means that courts try to maintain consistency with previous rulings. This
principle ensures that judicial review is not used arbitrarily but in a way that respects
established precedents unless there is a compelling reason to overturn them.
Important Cases of Judicial Review in U.S. History
Beyond Marbury v. Madison, there have been several significant cases where judicial review
has played a vital role in shaping U.S. history:
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): The Court struck down the Missouri Compromise, a
federal statute, stating that the U.S. Constitution did not intend for people of African
descent to be U.S. citizens. This decision was so controversial that it contributed to
23
Easy2Siksha
the tensions leading to the Civil War. Eventually, the 13th Amendment nullified the
ruling by abolishing slavery.
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Judicial review was used to strike down state
laws that enforced racial segregation in public schools. This decision was a turning
point in the Civil Rights Movement, reversing the doctrine of "separate but equal"
established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
• Roe v. Wade (1973): The Supreme Court used judicial review to establish a woman's
right to choose abortion, citing privacy rights under the 14th Amendment. This ruling
has been one of the most contentious uses of judicial review in U.S. history, often
revisited and challenged.
Strengths of Judicial Review
1. Checks and Balances: Judicial review is an essential check on the legislative and
executive branches, preventing unconstitutional laws or executive orders from
standing. It ensures that laws are in compliance with the Constitution, maintaining
the balance of power between the branches of government.
2. Protection of Minority Rights: By interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court
has historically protected the rights of minorities, such as in the Brown v. Board of
Education case, which ended racial segregation in schools. Judicial review provides a
platform for those who may be marginalized by the majority.
3. Preservation of the Constitution: Judicial review upholds the supremacy of the
Constitution, ensuring that no law or executive action can undermine its principles.
The judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution, preserving its integrity for
future generations.
Criticisms of Judicial Review
While judicial review has many strengths, it also has its critics. Some of the main criticisms
include:
1. Undemocratic Nature: Judicial review gives unelected judges the power to overturn
laws passed by democratically elected representatives. This has led some critics to
argue that it is undemocratic, as it allows a small group of appointed judges to make
decisions that affect millions of citizens.
2. Judicial Activism: Some argue that judicial review can lead to judicial activism, where
judges interpret the Constitution too broadly and make decisions based on personal
or political beliefs rather than strict legal interpretation. Critics argue that this
undermines the principle of separation of powers and can lead to unpredictable
rulings.
3. Overturning Precedent: While the principle of “stare decisis” generally ensures
stability in legal rulings, the Supreme Court has occasionally overturned precedents,
which can lead to uncertainty in the law. For instance, the Court’s ruling in Citizens
24
Easy2Siksha
United v. FEC (2010), which struck down campaign finance restrictions, was seen as a
reversal of earlier precedents and opened the door for increased corporate influence
in politics.
Conclusion
The power of judicial review in the U.S. is a crucial element of the country’s system of
checks and balances. It allows the judiciary to serve as a check on the other branches of
government, ensuring that laws comply with the Constitution. Over time, the Supreme
Court’s use of judicial review has shaped key aspects of U.S. society, from civil rights to
electoral laws. While the power is often exercised with caution, it remains one of the
judiciary’s most potent tools in protecting the constitutional order.
However, as with any system, it has its limitations and controversies, with critics pointing to
its undemocratic nature and potential for judicial activism. Nevertheless, judicial review is a
central pillar of American democracy and continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the
nation’s legal landscape.
8. Explain the Unitary features of UK Political system.
Ans: The United Kingdom (UK) has a unitary political system, which means that all legal and
political authority is centralized in the hands of a single central government. In contrast to
federal systems, where power is divided between a national government and various
regional or state governments (like in the USA), the UK's unitary system places most of the
decision-making power with the central government. Let’s break down the unitary features
of the UK political system in simple and easy-to-understand terms.
1. Centralization of Power
One of the most important features of a unitary system is that power is concentrated at the
center. In the UK, the Parliament and the executive (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) hold
most of the power to make and enforce laws across the entire country. There is no
constitutional division of power between the central government and regional governments
like in federal systems. Although the UK has devolved some powers to regions like Scotland,
Wales, and Northern Ireland, these powers are granted by the central government and can
technically be taken back. This shows that the central government still has the ultimate
authority.
2. Parliamentary Sovereignty
A key feature of the UK political system is parliamentary sovereignty. This means that
Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK and can create or end any law. No court
or other body can overrule Parliament, and the UK does not have a written constitution that
limits its powers. This gives the central government a high degree of control over the entire
25
Easy2Siksha
country. In contrast, federal systems like the USA have constitutions that limit the powers of
the national government.
3. No Constitutional Division of Powers
In a unitary system, there is no formal constitutional division of powers between the central
government and regional governments. In the UK, this means that the central government
can decide what powers, if any, it wants to give to regional authorities. For example, the UK
has devolved certain powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but these are not
guaranteed by a constitution. The central government could, in theory, revoke these powers
if it wished to do so.
4. Control Over Local Governments
The UK central government also controls local governments. Local councils and authorities
in the UK manage certain local issues like housing, transportation, and education. However,
they operate under the authority of the central government and must follow national laws
and regulations. The central government can change the powers of local governments or
even dissolve them if necessary. This highlights the subordinate role that local governments
play in the unitary system of the UK.
5. Devolution: Not Federalism
Although the UK has devolved some powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, these
arrangements are not the same as federalism. Devolution in the UK refers to the delegation
of certain powers from the central government to regional governments. However, these
powers are granted by the UK Parliament and can be taken back. This is different from
federalism, where regional governments have constitutionally protected powers. In the UK,
the central government retains ultimate control over the powers of devolved governments.
6. Uniformity of Law
In a unitary system like the UK's, laws passed by the central government apply to the entire
country. While Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems for certain
matters (such as criminal law), the majority of laws passed by Parliament apply uniformly
across the UK. This is in contrast to federal systems, where different regions or states might
have their own laws. In the UK, the central government ensures that there is legal
uniformity across most areas.
7. Strong Role of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
In the UK's unitary system, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet play a central role in
policymaking and governance. The Prime Minister is the head of the government and is
chosen by the majority party in the House of Commons. The Cabinet, made up of senior
ministers, works closely with the Prime Minister to make important decisions. Since power
is concentrated in the central government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have a significant
amount of authority over the entire country. Their decisions are binding across the UK, and
they have control over most aspects of governance.
26
Easy2Siksha
8. No Regional Representation in the Upper House
In a federal system like the USA, the upper house of the legislature (the Senate) represents
the interests of individual states. In the UK, however, the upper house, known as the House
of Lords, does not represent regions or devolved governments. Instead, members of the
House of Lords are appointed and serve as individuals rather than representatives of specific
regions. This further highlights the centralized nature of the UK’s political system.
9. Lack of Legal Autonomy for Regional Governments
The devolved governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do have some powers
to pass their own laws, but they do not have full legal autonomy. The UK Supreme Court
remains the highest legal authority, and it can overrule decisions made by regional
governments if they conflict with UK law. In addition, the UK government controls areas like
foreign policy, defense, and immigration, which are critical aspects of national governance.
This means that the central government retains control over the most important areas of
policy, reinforcing the unitary nature of the system.
10. Financial Dependence on the Central Government
In a unitary system, regional and local governments often depend on the central
government for funding. In the UK, the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland receive funding from the central government through a system called the
Barnett Formula. This means that they rely on financial support from the central
government to carry out their functions. While they can raise some money through taxes,
most of their budgets come from the central government. This financial dependence limits
their ability to act independently.
11. Control Over Constitutional Changes
In federal systems, changing the constitution usually requires the approval of both the
national and regional governments. In the UK, however, the central government can make
changes to the political system without needing approval from regional governments. For
example, the UK Parliament could theoretically abolish the devolved governments in
Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland if it wanted to. This shows the ultimate authority of the
central government in the UK’s unitary system.
12. Devolved Governments' Limited Powers
Although the UK has devolved powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, these
governments have limited areas of authority. For example, they can make decisions about
health, education, and transportation, but they cannot make decisions about foreign policy,
defense, or immigration. These key areas remain under the control of the central
government. Additionally, devolved governments cannot overrule decisions made by the UK
Parliament. If there is a conflict between a regional law and a UK-wide law, the UK law takes
precedence.
27
Easy2Siksha
13. Central Control Over the Judiciary
The UK has a unified legal system, except for Scotland, which has some differences in
criminal and civil law. However, the ultimate judicial authority lies with the UK Supreme
Court, which can interpret and apply the law across the entire country. Even though
Scotland and Northern Ireland have some control over their legal systems, the central
government has the final say in important legal matters. This centralization of judicial
authority is another example of the unitary nature of the UK political system.
14. Absence of a Federal Constitution
Unlike federal systems, where there is a written constitution that divides powers between
different levels of government, the UK does not have a codified (written) constitution.
Instead, it relies on conventions, laws, and historical documents like the Magna Carta and
the Bill of Rights. This means that the UK Parliament has a lot of flexibility to change laws
and political arrangements. There are no constitutional guarantees for regional or local
governments, which makes the system more unitary because the central government has
the power to change the rules at any time.
Conclusion
The unitary features of the UK political system demonstrate a strong concentration of
power in the central government. Despite some devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales,
and Northern Ireland, the UK remains a unitary state where the central government has
ultimate authority. Parliamentary sovereignty, the control of local and regional
governments, and the absence of a constitutional division of powers all contribute to the
unitary nature of the system. While regional governments have some autonomy, they
operate within a framework controlled by the central government, ensuring that power
remains centralized.
In simple terms, the UK political system is designed so that the central government in
London has the most control over decisions affecting the whole country. This unitary
structure allows the UK to have consistent laws and policies across most areas while
maintaining some flexibility through devolved governments for specific regions.
Note: This Answer Paper is totally Solved by Ai (Artificial Intelligence) So if You find Any Error Or Mistake . Give us a
Feedback related Error , We will Definitely Try To solve this Problem Or Error.
