MPS-001 Political Theory Solved Assignment 2019-20

MPS 001 : Political TheoryFree Solved Assignment

1.    Explain the major functions and significance political theory.
MPS-001 Political Theory Solved Assignment 2019-20, Political theory isn't only a theory of/about politics, it's also the science of politics, the philosophy of politics at that. As a theory, Bluhen explains, political orientation “stands for an abstract model of the political order… a guide to the systematic collection and analysis of political data” (Theories of form of government , 1981). Andrew Hacker, enlarging the purpose of view, says that political orientation as a “theory, in ideal terms, is dispassionate and disinterested.
As science, it'll describe political reality without trying to pass judgement on what's being depicted, either implicitly or explicitly. As philosophy, it'll describe rules of conduct which can  secure good life for all of society…” (Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science, 1961).
Political theory isn't fantasy, though it's going to contain a component of political vision. It is not politicking, though it does take under consideration political realities for its study and analysis. It is not all scientism, though it seeks to succeed in the roots of all political activity analytically and systematically. It is not ideology, though it attempts to justify a form of government and condemns another. It is theoretical, scientific, philosophical and at an equivalent time dynamic with a transparent objective of attaining a far better social order. It thus, has in varying degrees, elements of ‘theory’, ‘science’, ‘philosophy’ and ‘ideology’.

Political Theory: Functions
Politics, as a political activity, is typically related to cynicism, and skepticism, demonstrating self-seeking behaviour, hypocrisy, and manipulation of attitudes. This negative connotation hardly holds any ground. political orientation is neither a theory of politicking, nor a theory of political intrigues. it's a disciplined investigation of what constitutes the ‘political’. Its contents have varied from time to time. From the first Greeks, within the Western political tradition, to the top  of the eighteenth century, political orientation concerned itself mostly with what politics ‘ought to be’. Almost during the entire nineteenth century and therefore the half of the 20th century, political theory dealt, largely, with the character and structure of state as a decision-making body. Then came a period when a number of the American political scientists, under the influence of scientism, declared the demise of political orientation as against those, mostly British, the traditionalists, who advocated the worth of political orientation as a guide to political action. With the fast changing complexion of the planet , political orientation , has happily, survived the onslaughts of ‘the end of ideology’, and ‘the end of history’ debates. the priority of political orientation, today, has been both the character and proper ends of the govt . Political theory, as a disciplined investigation of political phenomena, is closely associated with why and what of the institutions of the govt , and therefore the whole form of government during which the government operates. to review political orientation is to review the  context during which it exists. We need to understand political orientation within the realm of the form of government , the form of government within the realm of the social organization , the social organization within the realm of the amount it exists, and in the environment it breeds.
The contents of political orientation include understanding of what's really ‘political’, to link ‘political’ with what's ‘non-political’, and to integrate and coordinate the results of the various social sciences for knowing its own nature. Its scope isn't limited to what it constitutes, but to what exists within the periphery and beyond.
Suggesting that the task of defining what's political may be a continual one, Sheldon Wolin (Politics and Vision 1960) includes the subsequent within the contents of political theory:
(i) a sort of activity centering round the go after competitive advantage between groups, individuals, or societies;
(ii) a sort of activity conditioned by the very fact that it occurs within a situation of change and relative scarcity;
(iii) a sort of activity during which the pursuits of advantage produce consequences of such magnitude that they affect during a significant way the entire society or a considerable portion of it.

Significance of political orientation
The significance of political orientation has been under a cloud by scholars, mostly of the behaviouralist school. John Plamenatz, in his essay entitled “The simple Political Theory” doesn't agree. As he puts it: “Political philosophy (meaning here political theory) is dead, I even have heard man say, killed by the logical positivists and their successors who have shown that a lot of of the problems which exercises the good political thinkers of the past were spurious, resting in confusions of the sight and therefore the misuse of the language.” consistent with him, political orientation has its uses which can be stated as under:
(i) political orientation may be a serious and difficult intellectual activity and therefore the need for this type of exercise,in times , is indeed much greater.
(ii) it's a study of values, norms and goals, though it doesn't produce an equivalent quite knowledge as empirical political orientation does.
(iii) it's a study of theories which have, historically, powerfully influenced men’s images of themselves, and of society, and profoundly determined their social and political behaviour.
(iv) it's a component of socially conditioned ideology. This ideology could also be an illusion, and yet, unless man had these illusions, the course of social development wouldn't are what it is and
(v) It produces a coherent system of political principles which may guide us to an appropriate political action. Its political theorists, as Plamentaz says, “do not, like honest shopkeepers, display an outsized sort of goods, describing all of them accurately and leaving it to the customer to choose what pleases him most. They produce a hierarchy of principles, and check out to elucidate how men should use them to form their choices… they're not mere purveyors of ideas; they're  the preachers and therefore the propagandists.”

mps assignment, mps political theory; mps;

2. Discuss the meaning, nature and evolution of democracy in the 20th century.
The spread of democracy within the 20th century
During the 20th century the amount of nations possessing the essential political institutions of representative democracy increased significantly. At the start of the 21st century, independent observers agreed that quite one-third of the world’s nominally independent countries possessed democratic institutions like those of the English-speaking countries and therefore the older democracies of continental Europe. In a further one-sixth of the world’s countries, these institutions, though somewhat defective, nevertheless provided historically high levels of democratic government. Altogether, these democratic and near-democratic countries contained nearly half the world’s population. What accounted for this rapid expansion of democratic institutions? the meaning, nature and evolution of democracy in the 20th century.

Failures of nondemocratic systems
A significant a part of the reason is that each one the most alternatives to democracy—whether of ancient or of recent origins—suffered political, economic, diplomatic, and military failures that greatly lessened their appeal. With the victory of the Allies in war I, the traditional systems of monarchy, aristocracy, and oligarchy ceased to be legitimate. Following the military defeat of Italy and Germany in war II, the newer alternative of fascism was likewise discredited, as was Soviet-style communism after the economic and political collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990–91. Similar failures contributed to the gradual disappearance of military dictatorships in Latin America within the 1980s and ’90s.

Market economies
Accompanying these ideological and institutional changes were changes in economic institutions. Highly centralized economies under state control had enabled political leaders to use their ready access to economic resources to reward their allies and punish their critics. As these systems were displaced by more decentralized market economies, the facility and influence of top officialdom declined. additionally , a number of the conditions that were essential to the successful functioning of market economies also contributed to the event of democracy: ready access to reliable information, relatively high levels of education, simple personal movement, and therefore the rule of law. As market economies expanded and as middle classes grew larger and more influential, popular support for such conditions increased, often amid demands for further democratization.

Economic well-being
The development of market economies contributed to the spread of democracy in other ways also . because the economic well-being of huge segments of the world’s population gradually improved, so too did the likelihood that newly established democratic institutions would survive and flourish. generally , citizens in democratic countries with persistent poverty are more vulnerable to the appeals of antidemocratic demagogues who promise simple and immediate solutions to their country’s economic problems. Accordingly, widespread economic prosperity during a country greatly increases the probabilities that democratic government will succeed, whereas widespread poverty greatly increases the probabilities that it'll fail.

Political culture
During the 20th century, democracy continued to exist in some countries despite periods of acute diplomatic, military, economic, or political crisis, like occurred during the first years of the good Depression. The survival of democratic institutions in these countries is attributable partially to the existence in their societies of a culture of widely shared democratic beliefs and values. Such attitudes are acquired early in life from older generations, thus becoming embedded in people’s views of themselves, their country, and therefore the world. In countries where democratic culture is weak or absent, as was the case within the Weimar Republic of Germany within the years following war I, democracy is far more vulnerable, and periods of crisis are more likely to steer to a reversion to a nondemocratic regime.

Contemporary democratic systems
Differences among democratic countries in historical experience, size, ethnic and non secular composition, and other factors have resulted in significant differences in their political institutions. a number of the features with reference to which these institutions have differed are the subsequent .

Presidential and parliamentary systems
Whereas versions of the American presidential system were frequently adopted in Latin America , Africa, et al. within the developing world (where the military sometimes converted the office into a dictatorship through a coup d’├ętat), as European countries democratized they adopted versions of English parliamentary system, which made use of both a major minister responsible to parliament and a ceremonial head of state (who could be either a hereditary monarch, as within the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands , and Spain, or a president chosen by parliament or by another body convoked specially for the purpose). A notable exception is France, which in its fifth constitution, adopted in 1958, combined its parliamentary system with a presidential one.

Unitary and federal systems
In most older European and English-speaking democracies, political authority inheres within the central government, which is constitutionally authorized to work out the limited powers, also because the geographic boundaries, of subnational associations like states and regions. Such unitary systems contrast markedly with federal systems, during which authority is constitutionally divided between the central government and therefore the governments of relatively autonomous subnational entities. Democratic countries that have adopted federal systems include—in addition to the United States—Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Spain, Canada, and Australia. The world’s most populous democratic country, India, also features a federal system.

Proportional and winner-take-all systems
Electoral arrangements vary enormously. Some democratic countries divide their territories into electoral districts, each of which is entitled to one seat within the legislature, the seat being won by the candidate who gains the foremost votes—hence the terms first past the post in Britain and winner take beat the us . As critics of this technique means , in districts contested by quite two candidates, it's possible to realize the seat with but a strict majority of votes (50 percent plus one). As a result, a celebration that receives only a minority of votes within the entire country could win a majority of seats within the legislature. Systems of representation are designed to make sure a better correspondence between the proportion of votes cast for a celebration and therefore the proportion of seats it receives. With few exceptions, continental European countries have adopted some sort of representation , as have Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea . Winner-take-all systems remain within the us , Canada, and, for parliamentary elections, in Britain.