CSS Political Science Paper 2019 paper I
SECTION-I
Q. No. 2. Examine the view that the Hegelian spirit is nothing but the evolution of human consciousness to the realization of political maturity for global human co-existence. (20)
Q. No. 3 The growing judicial activism in Pakistan is clearly an expanse of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy. Critically analyze the statement. (20)
Q. No. 4. Explain the concept of Nationality and distinguish between Nationality and Citizenship. (20)
Q. No. 5. Globalization restricts the autonomy of the state and generates domestic social conflicts and inequalities. Discuss the interactions between globalization and domestic politics. (20)
Section-B
Q. No. 6. How far will the 18th Amendment transform the existing federal system in Pakistan? (20)
Q. No. 7. Fascism generally flourishes in countries with strong nationalism and weak democracies. Discuss the enabling conditions for fascism with reference to Germany and Italy. (20)
Q. No. 8. How far is it true to say that the origin of the state lies in force? Discuss critically the Theory of Force regarding the origin of the state.
Summary of Questions
SECTION-I
Q. No. 2: Examine the view that the Hegelian spirit is nothing but the evolution of human consciousness to the realization of political maturity for global human co-existence.
Hegel’s concept of the “spirit” (or “Geist”) refers to the collective consciousness and cultural essence of a people, progressing through history towards greater freedom and self-awareness. According to Hegel, history is the unfolding of the World Spirit, which realizes its freedom and self-consciousness in different forms of social and political institutions, culminating in the modern nation-state.
The view that the Hegelian spirit represents the evolution of human consciousness toward political maturity suggests that human society progresses towards a universal realization of freedom and equality. Political maturity in this context can be interpreted as the global realization of co-existence through political structures that respect individual freedoms, fostering harmony between diverse cultures and nations.
Hegel’s idea of political maturity is seen in the development of rational state institutions where individuals’ rights are recognized within a unified, ethical society. In this sense, Hegelian spirit aims at universal ethical life, wherein the state becomes the ultimate realization of individual freedom. The eventual outcome would be global co-existence, where states would function under the principle of mutual recognition and respect for the common good of humanity.
Q. No. 3: The growing judicial activism in Pakistan is clearly an expanse of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy. Critically analyze the statement.
Judicial activism refers to the proactive role that courts take in interpreting the constitution, especially in cases where the legislature is silent or fails to act. In Pakistan, judicial activism has been a prominent feature, especially in cases concerning the protection of fundamental rights, the accountability of the executive, and ensuring adherence to the Constitution.
The statement that judicial activism expands parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy is paradoxical. Parliamentary sovereignty means that the legislature is the supreme law-making body, and judicial activism, by its nature, challenges or reviews parliamentary laws. Courts, by taking on an active role, sometimes override or question the actions of the parliament, especially when it violates the constitution or fundamental rights, which could be seen as a limitation on parliamentary supremacy.
However, judicial activism can also be seen as a safeguard for democracy and human rights, ensuring that the actions of parliament and the executive do not violate the fundamental principles of the constitution. In this sense, judicial activism can be viewed not as an expanse of parliamentary sovereignty, but as a check on the excessive concentration of power in the hands of elected representatives. Therefore, while judicial activism can enhance the supremacy of the constitution, it does not necessarily expand the supremacy of parliament.
Q. No. 4: Explain the concept of Nationality and distinguish between Nationality and Citizenship.
Nationality refers to the legal relationship between an individual and a state, often denoting membership in a nation. It typically arises from birth within the territory of the state (jus soli) or through descent from national parents (jus sanguinis). Nationality implies an individual’s allegiance to the state and participation in its collective identity, culture, and history.
Citizenship, on the other hand, is a more specific legal status within a nation. It denotes the full membership in a political community, entitling the individual to certain rights and duties, such as the right to vote, work, and receive protection from the state. Citizenship is a formal legal recognition of a person’s status within a state, whereas nationality may reflect broader, cultural, or ethnic ties.
The key distinction is that nationality refers to the broader sense of belonging to a nation, which may not necessarily entail full political participation or legal rights. Citizenship, however, refers specifically to the legal and political rights granted by a state, such as voting or holding office. An individual can have nationality without citizenship in certain cases (e.g., stateless individuals), and some countries allow dual nationality, granting an individual both nationality and citizenship.
Q. No. 5: Globalization restricts the autonomy of the state and generates domestic social conflicts and inequalities. Discuss the interactions between globalization and domestic politics.
Globalization refers to the interconnectedness of economies, cultures, and societies across the world, facilitated by advancements in technology, trade, and communication. This process has both positive and negative implications for the autonomy of the state and domestic politics.
On one hand, globalization restricts state autonomy by increasing interdependence between countries and placing external pressures on domestic policies. States are often forced to adapt to international norms and agreements, sometimes undermining their ability to make independent decisions. This can lead to the erosion of national sovereignty, especially in areas like economic policy, trade agreements, and environmental regulation.
On the other hand, globalization generates domestic social conflicts and inequalities. As states open up to global markets, the distribution of wealth becomes more uneven. While some sectors and regions may benefit from globalization, others, especially in developing countries, may experience job losses, reduced wages, or cultural alienation. This can lead to increased social tensions, as marginalized groups feel the negative impacts of global integration.
The interaction between globalization and domestic politics is complex. In some cases, globalization leads to the strengthening of state power as governments negotiate trade agreements, influence international organizations, or assert national interests. In other cases, it fosters political instability, as citizens protest against the negative effects of global economic policies, such as austerity measures or the loss of jobs to international competition.
Section-B
Q. No. 6: How far will the 18th Amendment transform the existing federal system in Pakistan?
The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, enacted in 2010, is a significant step towards decentralizing power and enhancing the federal structure. It limits the powers of the central government, transfers more authority to provincial governments, and strengthens democratic institutions.
One of the most transformative provisions of the 18th Amendment is the devolution of powers to the provinces, particularly in areas such as health, education, and local government. This shift gives provinces more autonomy over policy-making and resource allocation, reducing the control of the central government.
Additionally, the amendment also strengthens provincial representation in the Senate, ensuring better regional balance. The amendment also aimed to provide greater political independence by curbing the powers of the president and restoring the parliamentary system, thus aligning the federal system with democratic principles.
However, challenges remain in terms of implementation. Provincial disparities, political rivalry, and resource distribution issues continue to impede full realization of the amendment’s goals. Despite these challenges, the 18th Amendment is an essential step in the transformation of Pakistan’s federal system, promoting provincial autonomy and a more balanced federal structure.
Q. No. 7: Fascism generally flourishes in countries with strong nationalism and weak democracies. Discuss the enabling conditions for fascism with reference to Germany and Italy.
Fascism emerged in Europe during the early 20th century, particularly in countries like Germany and Italy. Both of these countries shared certain enabling conditions that facilitated the rise of fascism.
- Economic instability: Both Germany and Italy faced severe economic challenges after World War I. In Germany, the Treaty of Versailles (1919) imposed harsh reparations, leading to hyperinflation and mass unemployment. Italy, on the other hand, struggled with economic fragmentation and social unrest. Economic instability created a sense of national crisis and disillusionment with existing political systems.
- Weak democratic institutions: Both Germany and Italy had weak democratic traditions. In Germany, the Weimar Republic struggled with political fragmentation and lacked public support. Similarly, Italy’s post-WWI democratic government was unstable, and its political system was plagued by corruption and inefficiency. This created an environment ripe for authoritarian leaders who promised to restore order and national pride.
- Strong nationalism: Fascism capitalized on the prevailing sense of nationalism, exploiting sentiments of national humiliation and the desire for power. In Germany, Adolf Hitler used nationalist rhetoric to appeal to the frustrations of the populace over the Versailles Treaty, while Mussolini’s Italy saw the rise of a fascist movement promising to restore Italy’s imperial glory.
- Social unrest: Both countries faced significant social unrest. In Germany, political violence between communist and fascist factions created a volatile environment, while in Italy, Mussolini capitalized on the unrest and presented fascism as a solution to Italy’s political and social problems.
Fascism thus flourished in these countries due to a combination of economic turmoil, weak democratic structures, extreme nationalism, and social instability, which allowed authoritarian leaders to promise stability, national strength, and a return to greatness.
Q. No. 8: How far is it true to say that the origin of the state lies in force? Discuss critically the Theory of Force regarding the origin of the state.
The theory of force, proposed by figures like Hobbes and later supported by thinkers like Marx, argues that the state originates through the imposition of power or force by a ruling entity. According to this view, early human societies formed around the need for protection from external threats or internal disorder, with power being concentrated in the hands of a few, who exercised control through coercion or violence.
Hobbes, in his work Leviathan, argued that in the state of nature, individuals acted out of self-interest, leading to chaos and violence. The establishment of the state, he believed, was a result of individuals surrendering their natural rights to a sovereign authority in exchange for security and protection.
Critics of the theory argue that it is overly simplistic, as it overlooks the role of social contracts, culture, and mutual cooperation in the formation of states. The theory also fails to account for the evolution of democratic systems where the state’s authority is derived from consent rather than coercion.
Moreover, Marxist theory suggests that the state arises as an instrument of class oppression, where the ruling class uses force to maintain its dominance over the working class. This interpretation aligns with the view that force plays a crucial role in the state’s origin, especially in the context of social and economic power struggles.
However, the theory of force is not universally accepted, as modern theories of the state often emphasize the importance of social, cultural, and ideological factors in the development of political authority, highlighting that force alone cannot explain the legitimacy and longevity of the state.
In conclusion, while force may play a role in the origin of the state, it is not the sole determining factor. The origin of the state is likely the result of a combination of force, social organization, and the desire for collective order.