{"id":342293,"date":"2025-07-07T23:13:18","date_gmt":"2025-07-07T17:43:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=342293"},"modified":"2025-07-16T17:01:08","modified_gmt":"2025-07-16T11:31:08","slug":"psir-power-50-day-29-capsule-state-in-comparative-perspective-nsm-practice-qs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/psir-power-50-day-29-capsule-state-in-comparative-perspective-nsm-practice-qs\/","title":{"rendered":"PSIR Power 50 \u2013 Day 29 Capsule: STATE IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE & NSM + Practice Qs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Download the PDF<\/a><\/p>\n

Hello aspirants,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Today\u2019s revision capsule of PSIR optional preparation covers POLITICS OF REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION and NSM.<\/strong> There are six 20-markers, six 15-markers, and ten 10-markers<\/strong> from this topic in the last 12 years.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Political Parties<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    WHAT<\/strong><\/td>\nCORE POINTS & SCHOLARS<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Functions<\/strong><\/td>\nLaski \u2013 parties avert dictatorship; Burke \u2013 shared principles; Somjee \u2013 link rulers\/ruled. Direction of govt \u00b7 elite recruitment \u00b7 interest aggregation \u00b7 mass mobilisation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Marxist lens<\/strong><\/td>\nLenin \u2013 vanguard, democratic-centralism; \u201cdictatorship of the proletariat.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Classic Taxonomies<\/strong><\/td>\nDuverger<\/strong> \u2013 Elitist (European\/American) \u00b7 Mass (Socialist, Communist, Fascist) \u00b7 Intermediate.
    \nHitchner & Levine<\/strong> \u2013 Pragmatic \u00b7 Doctrinal \u00b7 Interest.
    \nOthers \u2013 cadre vs mass (Weber); branch vs caucus (Michels).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Party-system typologies<\/strong><\/td>\nDuverger<\/strong> \u2013 single, dominant, two, multi.
    \nBlondel<\/strong> \u2013 2, 2\u00bd, multi-predominant, multi-balanced.
    \nSartori<\/strong> \u2013 count relevant<\/em> parties + ideological distance \u279c predominant, two-party, limited pluralism, polarized pluralism.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Sub-types<\/strong><\/td>\nTwo-party (US\/UK) \u00b7 2\u00bd-party (Germany, Canada) \u00b7 Moderate vs Polarized multi (Netherlands vs Italy) \u00b7 Dominant-party (LDP-Japan, ANC-SA, Cong-India) \u00b7 Single-party (CPC-China). Institutionalised vs inchoate (Mainwaring).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Drivers of system shape<\/strong><\/td>\nElectoral rules (FPTP \u2192 two-party; PR \u2192 multi); social cleavages; federal\/unitary design; ideological polarization; economic level; globalization.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Special concepts<\/strong><\/td>\nCatch-all party<\/em> (Kirchheimer; Ware\u2019s 4 causes); Spoils system<\/em> (Jackson \u2192 Pendleton Act).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Third-World patterns<\/strong><\/td>\nWebb \u2013 personal\/family parties; Pennings \u2013 civic education; Sundquist \u2013 media; Bienen & Herbst \u2013 weak class cleavage; Sartori \u2013 religion (ISF Algeria); funding asymmetry (Malaysia, Taiwan).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Pressure \/ Interest Groups<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      DIMENSION<\/strong><\/td>\nDETAILS & NAMES<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Definitions<\/strong><\/td>\nMackenzie, Finer, Shipley, Hunt \u2013 organised, non-electoral, policy-seeking.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Almond\u2019s 4 types<\/strong><\/td>\nInstitutional \u00b7 Associational (CII, AITUC) \u00b7 Non-associational (caste, VHP) \u00b7 Anomic (NBA, IAC).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Blondel<\/strong><\/td>\nCommunity \u2192 customary<\/em> & institutional<\/em>; Associational \u2192 protective<\/em> & promotional<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Duverger<\/strong><\/td>\nExclusive (pure lobbies), Partial, Public\/Private, Pseudo<\/em> (experts, media).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Tactics<\/strong><\/td>\nLobbying (US regulation), opinion-shaping, publicity, strikes\/bandhs\/gheraos.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      System roles<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201c4th branch\u201d (US); cabinet-centric lobbying (UK\/India). Positives: representation, expertise, participation. Negatives: inequality, opacity, inconvenience, capture.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Developed vs Developing<\/strong><\/td>\nHigher foreign-policy impact & tech mobilisation in North; suspicion, ethnic fear and democratizing push (Myanmar 88 generation, Nigeria NLC) in South.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      India vs West<\/strong><\/td>\nTarget executive vs legislature; caste\/religion\/region vs business\/professional dominance; limited foreign-policy focus.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

       <\/p>\n

        \n
      1. (New) Social Movements<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        CONTRAST<\/strong><\/td>\nOLD (18-19 C labour\/peasants)<\/strong><\/td>\nNEW (post-1950, post-industrial)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Goals<\/td>\nmaterial security, class<\/td>\nidentity, environment, rights, lifestyle<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Base<\/td>\nworkers, peasants<\/td>\nstudents, women, minorities, \u201cnew middle class\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Form<\/td>\nhierarchical, party-linked<\/td>\ndecentralized networks, non-violent civil disobedience<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Scholars<\/td>\nMarx, Engels<\/td>\nTouraine, Habermas, Offe, Melucci, Inglehart<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        Competing Theories<\/strong><\/p>\n