Q. "Transnational actors have become driving forces of global politics." Elaborate.
How will you all approach this ques?
1. Explain transnational actors.
2. A few lines about Realist, Marxist, Feminist perspective on them.
3. Transnational actors increasing clout. Substantiate through 3D chess board model, globalization, HR consciousness, global civil society, etc.
4. Then write a paragraph each on MNCs, NGOs and Terrorism
5. MNCs - vanguards of liberal democratic order, promote democratic values (pulling out of Saudi Arabia after Kashoggi assassination) seek good governance and accountability even beyond their home state, MNCs of the west with net-worth more than combined GDP of n states, shaping international negotiations on data and how that connects to sovereignty, Cox -"internationalization of state", humanitarian crisis (slave labour, fast fashion brands paying peanuts in countries like Bangladesh), environmental crisis (Shell in Africa), etc.
6. NGOs - participating in UN, bringing local concerns to global level; NGO as consultative bodies in UNHRC and ECOSOC; Western dominated; interference in internal affairs, driving key debates on environment and human rights at the global level (like Fridays for Future and Amnesty and Greenpeace); blame of acting at behest of home state
7. Terrorism - Iran using proxies to balance Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and how that pushes the others forge ties for possible collective security (maybe cite UAE-Israel, Jordan-Israel), ISIS, US-Taliban deal and Taliban's rise from being a insurgent group to the key political actor in Afghan where vested interests of so many nations coincide
8. Conclude.
Good. Some added points -
- Post-1990s, significance has rose
- Glocalization lead to the development of global composite culture
- Has spread awareness about human rights, malnutrition
Bad
- Toppled the regime in may countries
- Agent of state, Lead to drain of wealth from peripheries to core(Wallerstein) - Marxist
- Made human one dimensional i.e consumer - Herbert Marcuse
Conclusion - Richard Cobden: Delegate sovereignty to transnational actors, however, checks and balances needed because the state is still important in global politics.
Q. "Transnational actors have become driving forces of global politics." Elaborate.
How will you all approach this ques?
1. Explain transnational actors.
2. A few lines about Realist, Marxist, Feminist perspective on them.
3. Transnational actors increasing clout. Substantiate through 3D chess board model, globalization, HR consciousness, global civil society, etc.
4. Then write a paragraph each on MNCs, NGOs and Terrorism
5. MNCs - vanguards of liberal democratic order, promote democratic values (pulling out of Saudi Arabia after Kashoggi assassination) seek good governance and accountability even beyond their home state, MNCs of the west with net-worth more than combined GDP of n states, shaping international negotiations on data and how that connects to sovereignty, Cox -"internationalization of state", humanitarian crisis (slave labour, fast fashion brands paying peanuts in countries like Bangladesh), environmental crisis (Shell in Africa), etc.
6. NGOs - participating in UN, bringing local concerns to global level; NGO as consultative bodies in UNHRC and ECOSOC; Western dominated; interference in internal affairs, driving key debates on environment and human rights at the global level (like Fridays for Future and Amnesty and Greenpeace); blame of acting at behest of home state
7. Terrorism - Iran using proxies to balance Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and how that pushes the others forge ties for possible collective security (maybe cite UAE-Israel, Jordan-Israel), ISIS, US-Taliban deal and Taliban's rise from being a insurgent group to the key political actor in Afghan where vested interests of so many nations coincide
8. Conclude.
Good. Some added points -
- Post-1990s, significance has rose
- Glocalization lead to the development of global composite culture
- Has spread awareness about human rights, malnutrition
Bad
- Toppled the regime in may countries
- Agent of state, Lead to drain of wealth from peripheries to core(Wallerstein) - Marxist
- Made human one dimensional i.e consumer - Herbert Marcuse
Conclusion - Richard Cobden: Delegate sovereignty to transnational actors, however, checks and balances needed because the state is still important in global politics.
Hey, do points such as 1D man & globalisation not disgress from the question?
Yes 1D point can be avoided but not globalisation. State has to accomodate them due to the globalisation only because sovereignty is delegated to them somehow. That's why it's being said that "MacDonald chain" toppled the USSR regime after cold war.
SR has asked in her Home Assignments - "Difference in direct and radical democracy?" (sic)Are we talking about MN Roy's Radical Democracy here? If so, can you list the differences? From my understanding of it, Radical Democracy is only a model of direct democracy.
Macpherson model is also called the radical theory of democracy. MN Roy model od democracy is also closed to it.
Its based on the humanity at the centre. In their views, different types of systems which undertake to fulfil the aspirations of
the masses, enjoy support of the masses and provide for an opportunity for the amelioration of
the condition of the masses, qualify as democracies irrespective of the structures and
procedures adopted by them for serving these purposes.
Direct democracy however, have an explicit view that political parties are also necessary even when they advocate for direct people participation.
What are the weaknesses of representative democracy? Hit me with points. I have some points of my own but I wanna see if I'm missing something.
Called an illusion of democracy, propagate civil disengagement with the unresponsive nature of modern government.
Rousseau's "general will" can be used to understand.
Can quote Amartya Sen that unless there is civic participation, its not possible to have good governance.
Hannah can be quoted as how@whatonly told.
Fellow lol-mates, how would you approach the question “critically assess the changing nature of the concept of national security.” (2014/15 marks) what critics would you quote?
Kenneth Waltz - State as security maximizers. National security is still the primordial agenda of any country's internal politics. E.g, stringent trade norms over Pakistan and China after the Uri attack and Galwan deadly standoff respectively.
But,
Liberals talk about ‘security regimes’ in the international context, talking majorly about "International security" through collective security and not "self-help". Liberal institutions like the UN, WTO have been strengthened on this line.
Reflectivist theorists of human right - can be observed how refugee has been provided home and citizenship despite historical events of them as a threat to national security. UN Peacekeeping operations etc.
Globalization and functionalism have opened up trade, diluting the importance of national security. Barry Buzan seconded the "securitization" idea, calling security "a speech act", when we have other major issues to handle.
feminists suggest bringing ‘human security, rather than the political version of national security. Can quote Tickner about the gendered concept of national security.
However,
Virus(Covid) that has crossed the boundaries between two species, is going to be the reason that the border between states will become a bit higher. SIPRI report that nuclear weapons and warheads are increasing, give impetus to the concept of national security. Often called "timeless wisdom", it will remain relevant till the concept of nation and boundaries are there.
Should you use terms like Judicial Barbarism , ineffectual angel, Weimaranian Judiciary etc in your answers.
Also about that book, it's not worth the buying imo. Except for chapters by MP Singh , others are pretty static and lacking depth. Important ones can be read from pdf in a matter of a week or even less
Yes, why not if they are backed by scholars?
What do you do when a quote is popularly misattributed?eg Voltaire never said "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it". It was first produced in the book "Voltaire and Friends" published after his death.eg2 Sir John Seeley is given credit for "History is past politics. Politics is present history" but was this originally said by Edward Freeman (this is common knowledge for Victorian historians but hasn't percolated down to PolSci)
TINA
If teachers and toppers are dictating the same thing, we have to consume it as it's tough for both us and copy checkers to google each and every such thing.
"You Either Die A Hero(and qualify UPSC), Or You Live Long Enough(by examining everything) To See Yourself Become The Villain"
Hello, Guys please help me out here!
Especially the ones who are not fond of SR paper 2 notes. I went through the notes and consulted Andrew Heywood as well. I find too much overlap in both and personally, I found SR notes to be better as it has many thinkers too to quote in answers although I felt Heywood can be used for concept clarity but for exam orientation I found SR much better maybe I am missing something or I am not in sync with exam needs but can anyone explain why do people consult other books for paper 2. Also, I think contemporary events anyhow have to be covered by reading articles and crash course so how would reading heywood or baylis smith add value to the notes, and even if we get extra 2-3 points, is it worth investing time in reading complete textbooks.
Heywood was not very helpful for me either. Toppers notes and SR mam notes are good enough to comprehend the essence in paper 2.
Instead, I liked OP Gauba very much for Paper 1 as it has surely much content, not being available in SR mam notes.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Institutionalisation as in how dehyphenation is done between state and national elections, rise of regional parties etc
De-institutionalisation as in how parties are lacking internal/Intraparty democracy. For eg, no intra-party elections after 1974 in Congress.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Actually no yogendra yadav doesn't talk about the allegiance of party members here. He is talking about the relationship between voters and political party which lacks depth and intensity.
Changing voters and parties relation is the further impact of institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties and not the actual meaning of it.
Institutionalisation - Because the essence of federalism is upheld (regional parties), multi-party system, etc
Deinstitutionalisation - Because intra-party democracy is withering away. Zoya Hassan highlighted the same issue how Congress as well as BJP(because of RSS influence) are going towards de-institutionalisation because they lack any substantial intra-party democracy.
Has anyone written this pyq?"Why does global human security need to be emphasized along with economic security? Explain with examples."
I would give a try.
General intro of security like security is a foundational value(Hobbes).
Realists state centric views upon security.
However, state security and human security cant be dehyphenated. Especially in the post cold war world where security has become multi-faceted. Aristotle gave in his "theory of revolution" that inequalities and human crisis can lead to an upsurge of the state.
Marxists for this reason emphasized human and economic security. Post colonialists also talked about the insecurity dilemma culminating from the human and economic security crisis.
Can be given recent Lebanon protests as an example happening because of economic crisis.
Kant - universal rights of mankind, also asked for liberal trade to deal with the economic security of the state.
R2P Summit of 2005 - all Heads of State and Government affirmed the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Feminists and Barry Buzan theory additionally, to give alternative viewpoints as to how security discourses are created neglecting human security.
Examples of Overground workers, stone pelters, etc as by-product of neglect of economic and human security.
@Villanelle @whatonly More points please
Where is everyone doing Gramsci and Arendt from besides SR notes?If I can remember Mam's notes, that will be sufficient for me. So I won't refer to anything more.
Besides, you can refer to last year's mam crash course notes of Hannah Arendt.
I found that the version of the SR notes I have didn’t have any scholars per se, which is why I asked.
Hannah_Theory.pdfRefer it
Good points. I meant to ask about the "West Bengal vis-a-vis Bangladesh" part though..
Oh. Well West Bengal and Bangladesh even I am aware of only those two points. Maybe others will have something to add on these.
Edit : If I would have to answer these questions I would have focused more on the first part and as the question asked about explaining wrt to west bengal and bangladesh I would have mentioned these two points more specifically .
You will have to detail more about Bengal-Bangladesh relation though
Also, this one "Federal units are critical in the making of India's foreign policy. Examine wrt the role of West Bengal vis-a-vis Bangladesh" This was asked for 15 marks in 2014. I know some points- in contemporary context- Teesta Agreement under UPA regime was stalled by coalition partners from Bengal; in historical context- India's intervention in the 1971 war was also influenced by Pan-Bengali feelings.What other points can you think of?
Paradiplomacy - No longer seen as an obstacle but the driver of growth and resource management.
West Bengal can have better paradiplomatic relations with Bangladesh and Bhutan than an MEA official stationed at the country’s capital (Harsh Pant)
Teesta water agreement, 100th CAA, 1971 War - State parties role
Mango Diplomacy - Dhaka sent mangoes to Bengal to strengthen the cultural relation
Cultural pocket and regionalism will help in linking diaspora, driving the foreign relation.
States division in MEA is limited to economic issues while there is a vast scope of political and strategic ties with Bangladesh, considering the danger lurking with China-Bangladesh relations.
Federalization of India foreign policy - Needed especially in sizeable countries like India
HOWEVER, According to Prof. S.D. Muni, narrow domestic interests should not come in the way of strategic national interests.
(Not any advertisement) I got a coupon of a 70% discount through the Edukemy PSIR scholarship test for the "Foundation course of 2022". Anyone wants it, Please take it for free from me. Some needy will get the help as its of no use to me currently.Anyone planning to take him up on this beware that the Edukemy PSIR test series has been my worst experience out of the 3 that I've joined. I get that they're new so they might get better year by year but they're currently pretty shitty.
Yes, chances would be there...New coaching takes time to establish..Shubra mam or Piyush sir would be always more reliable for the next 2-3 years at least
