IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-23 , EPS 09 COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free : EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 , IGNOU EPS 09 Assignment 2022-23, EPS 09 Assignment 2022-23 , EPS 09 Assignment , EPS 09 COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free IGNOU Assignments 2022-23- BACHELOR OF ARTS Assignment 2022-23 Gandhi National Open University had recently uploaded the assignments of the present session for BACHELOR OF ARTS Programme for the year 2022-23. IGNOU BDP stands for Bachelor’s Degree Program. Courses such as B.A., B.Com, and B.Sc comes under the BDP category. IGNOU BDP courses give students the freedom to choose any subject according to their preference. Students are recommended to download their Assignments from this webpage itself. Study of Political Science is very important for every person because it is interrelated with the society and the molar values in today culture and society. IGNOU solved assignment 2022-23 ignou dece solved assignment 2022-23, ignou ma sociology assignment 2022-23 meg 10 solved assignment 2022-23 ts 6 solved assignment 2022-23 , meg solved assignment 2022-23 .
IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-23
We provide handwritten PDF and Hardcopy to our IGNOU and other university students. There are several types of handwritten assignment we provide all Over India. EPS 09 COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free We are genuinely work in this field for so many time. You can get your assignment done – 8130208920
Important Note – IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 Download Free You may be aware that you need to submit your assignments before you can appear for the Term End Exams. Please remember to keep a copy of your completed assignment, just in case the one you submitted is lost in transit.
Submission Date :
- 31st March 2033 (if enrolled in the July 2033 Session)
- 30th Sept, 2033 (if enrolled in the January 2033 session).
All questions are compulsory.
Assignment – I
Answer the following in about 500 words each.
1. Globalisation has eroded the sovereignty of state both externally and internally.
John F. Kennedy said, “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” In today’s global economy, democracy cannot live in a sea of poverty, and as capital and corporations move across national borders to wherever costs are lowest and profits highest, nation-states, far from increasing regulations to eliminate the effects of destructive competition, must instead progressively dismantle the little regulation they already have in order to stay internationally competitive.
The permeability of national borders has tremendously increased in the face of electronic commerce and other technology-driven innovations which have rendered the territorial state more susceptible to external influences. As Ian Douglas observed, it’s “the ascendance of the ‘stateless corporation’, the emergence of the trillion dollar ’24-hour, integrated global financial market-place’, the sharpening of competition under capital mobility and the ‘law of one price’, the proliferation of foreign direct investment, the increase in intercontinental migration, and the emergence of a ‘global information society’. Everything from the rise of neoliberal transnational technocracy to crises of governance, ecology and citizenship, from the fragmentation of institutions and institutional boundaries, to decolonization, democratization, pluralism and sub-nationalism” (in Gills 110).
It is these characteristics that make up the dynamic process of globalization; however with these changes come instability and people feeling anxious about their well-being and security.
To understand the present, we need to examine the past and its impact on current events. A pivotal moment in human history was the Treaty of Westphalia signed in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War in Medieval Europe, and brought about a new world order through the creation of the state system deemed to establish peace and stability. This system defined state sovereignty within a political space by the institution of citizenship, and conceived such concepts as state’s interests, security, and power in determining its behavior and the making of its foreign policy. According to many scholars, globalization is transforming this Westphalian paradigm by changing the notion of state territoriality from state-restrictive to transnational space. State control over space and time is increasingly bypassed by global flows of capital, goods, services, technology, communication, cultural penetration, and information.
Economic globalization has brought about mixed results. On the one hand, it has raised the standards of living for several hundred million people in Asia; and as certain indications have shown, when countries reach a certain level of development, pressures to improve workplace and environmental conditions give those countries a confident voice on the global stage as they challenge inequities and biases of geopolitical structures. On the other hand, international capital movements, impelled by market sovereignty, have created new inequalities of every variety as they concentrate the benefits of growth upon already advantaged sectors within and among societies and worsening the relative and absolute conditions of those more disadvantaged (Richard Falk in Gills 47-49).
Some scholars view globalization as a “paradigm shift” in that it involves a cultural and social shift in our value system, lifestyle, and our recognition and acceptance of the diversity of the ‘other’, whether it is cultural, ethnic, religious, sexual and so on.
Hence, if we look at globalization as being the new international system, it is not the only thing influencing events in today’s world. As Thomas Friedman noted, “what is new is the system, what is old is power politics, chaos, clashing civilizations, and liberalism;” they are all part of the new world order and “the interaction between this new system and all these old passions and aspirations make this process a very complex one…Under the globalization system you will find both clashes of civilization and the homogenization of civilizations, both environmental disasters and amazing environmental rescues, both the triumph of liberal, free-market capitalism and a backlash against it, both the durability of nation-states and the rise of enormously powerful nonstate actors” (xxi).
The growing challenge to state sovereignty around the world seems to originate from the inability of the modern-state to navigate between the power of global networks and the challenges raised through the increase in ethno-political conflict, the expansion of terrorism, the growth of sophisticated weaponry production, all of which undermine state boundaries and sovereignty, and make us rethink the changing nature of war and peace in the new post-Westphalian world order.
One may wonder whether global security lives in paradise, or whether democracy will enable nation-states to move into a self-contained world of laws and rules, and where transnational negotiation and cooperation can lead to the realization of Kant’s “perpetual peace.” Globalization seems to be the world of competitors whether they are friends or foes, everyone fears not the other as much as the rapid change created by that other we cannot see, touch, or feel.
The contemporary international system offers some intriguing and complex impediments to the historical Westphalian state. What is this system? How does it challenge the state’s sovereignty and security? How do the motivations, intentions, and actions of the actors on the international arena help us understand the outcome of the developments and changes occurring on the global scene? And how far do these developments defy the nation-state’s ability to act? This paper will attempt to answer these questions as it examines these global developments which are challenging our conventional conceptions of the ‘political’ and its position in the new international system.
Globalization has been the buzz-word since the 1990s with an ever-growing diverse literature about its scope and dimension. Anthony McGrew noted that it refers to “the multiplicity of linkages and interconnections between the states and societies which make up the modern world system. It describes the process by which events, decisions, and activities in one part of the world can come to have significant consequences for individuals and communities in quite distant parts of the globe”.Globalization then implies a process which covers most of the globe and operates worldwide, at the same time it implies intensification at the levels of interaction and interdependence between states and societies; these two trends explain the stretching and deepening of this global process. Waters defines it as a “social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding”, and Anthony Giddens says globalization is “action at distance” (in Hay and Marsh 21-22). More importantly, it’s where “the proto-typical citizen of the fin du siècle needs to be ‘agile’, ‘rapide’, ‘mobile’, ‘adaptative’, ‘inventive’, ‘competitive’, ‘self-reliant’ and ‘self-motivated’, ‘self-monitoring’, ‘self-governing’, ‘efficient’ and ‘effective'” (Ian Douglas in Gills 110).
What needs to be highlighted here is that the debate on globalization is obscured by a “pervasive conceptual fuzziness” surrounding the term itself; there seems to be however a set of ‘clusters’ of definitions according to the perspective or issue area from which the definition emanates. This cluster might include economic processes, political processes, world culture processes, and global society processes. Therefore, we may say that globalization is a “multidimensional process” and has a common element across most of the prevailing approaches identified as an ‘epochal shift’; the idea being that “all societies, stimulated by the forces of global change, are taking on ‘new’ forms,” and this brings to focus the idea of “profound discontinuity” as opposed to the idea of “fundamental continuity” (Louise Amoore et al. in Gills 15-16).
Hence, although there are many definitions, what we need to recognize is that globalization is not a new process that followed the Cold War; it would be easy to miss its historical and social dimensions if we focused only on its modern strategy and power. What is new today is the all embracing character of global relationships (technological, economic, social and political) and the speed of reaction through the media and electronic network markets, what some scholars call the “Convergence Phenomenon” which has allowed increasing links between economies of the world, where organizations of different countries transact business in a world market not demarcated by national boundaries and trade barriers. This has also resulted in economic and political integration with the creation of the “supra-state” such as the European Union (EU), the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
However, humans have always adopted several strategies to ensure their survival and well-being; they have migrated, traded, conquered, and technologically innovated. Therefore, globalization is not only about the role of technology in stimulating change; globalization is also about human interconnections that have slowly enveloped humans since the earliest times as they globalized themselves (Robbie Robertson 2003:6). From the agricultural revolution to the industrial revolution, technological changes altered the way humans produced and transformed the nature of human societies, but human interconnectiveness granted these revolutions a substantial dimension as it gave their strategies new forms and scopes thereby generating new dangers and challenges. As interconnections increased and took global dimensions, trade prospered and the power and influence of trading classes increased accordingly. Commerce led to democratization which empowered people to act and transform class structure as well as ensured that modernity was more attainable; but the process of democratization can be hindered by the dominant elite in its desire to monopolize its potential and reorient globalization towards more exclusive strategies.
Slowly, globalization came to mean different things for different people; for analysts angered at the contemporary power and influence of transnational entities, globalization has become the bête noir that is homogenizing the world, destroying its diversity, and marginalizing its peoples’ hard-won democratic rights (Robbie Robertson 2003: 3). For others, the new form of global integration will enable humans to co-operate more meaningfully with each other, because according to the Kantian concept of “pacific federation”, cooperative relations between democratic states will lead to the creation of a community of interest based on a “cosmopolitan law which adds material incentives to moral commitments”, and that is why they renounce the option to use force in their mutual interactions (Doyle in Viotti and Kauppi 233-244).
Whether we tend to agree with one or the other, globalization is an ongoing process and its key feature is integration. It’s the integration of all people living within the boundaries of a certain space into the political community and their political equality as citizens which make up the essence of a nation-state; and although this seems to be a democratic ideal few nations have reached, it has not been without its share of violent change.
Thomas Friedman observed, “it is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before, in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations, and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach into individuals, corporations, and nation-states farther, faster, deeper, cheaper than ever before. This process of globalization is also producing a powerful backlash from those brutalized or left behind by this new system” (9).
According to this definition, there are three key actors in this process: the state, the global market, and the individual. How they interact with each other helps us better understand the system.
Globalization, Cultural Identity, and the State
Today, globalization is regarded as one of the most important determinant of the human condition. Nicos Poulantzas noted that “what is specific to the capitalist state is that it absorbs social time and space, sets up the matrices of time and space, and monopolizes the organization of time and space that become, by action of the state, networks of domination and power. This is how the modern nation is the product of the state” (in Castells 243).
Manuel Castells maintains that globalization has changed this paradigm as it challenges the state’s ability to capture historical time through the appropriation of tradition and the construction and reconstruction of national identity. Identities are originated from dominant institutions and become identities only when and if social actors internalize them and construct their meaning around this internalization.
In these global times, people are being exposed to diverse possibilities. The expansion, speed, and availability of international trade and global mass media are exposing foreign cultural products and services, different perspectives and experiences at the local level; migration and people moving their cultures across borders, are all causing changes in local cultures, values, and traditions; producing multiple, fragmented, and cosmopolitan identities which can undermine national identity.
Castells argued that “our societies are increasingly structured around a bipolar opposition between the Net and the Self” (in Castles and Davidson 6); however this system has not been able to give meaning to people’s lives that’s why they increasingly seek meaning through particularistic identities based on ethnicity, religion, regionalism or nationalism and this explains why many contemporary conflicts are not concerned primarily with ‘rational’ economic and social interests (Castles and Davidson 6).
Because globalization allowed for a higher mobility of people, Friedman noted, it has forced countries around the world to adapt to this new concept of multiculturalism and having to deal with problems of race and ethnicity. Consequently, one may ask if the social and political construction of national identities can take place without linking it to the concepts of territory and boundaries, and how can we understand the new relationship between the state and its political community, i.e. its citizens, in these transformative times.
Peter Mandaville noted that “the citizen is intrinsically linked to the state insofar as it is only the state which can bestow this status upon an individual” (12); this implies the notion of inclusion and exclusion in the sense that there are those considered to be citizens with rights and obligations as opposed to those who are non-citizens. The state has also traditionally served an important function that of the ethical in that it provides protection and social justice for its citizens (13). Both these structures have been challenged by the process of globalization.
As for the ethical function of the state, globalization threatens the very essence of the Westphalian system: state sovereignty. Transnational non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and Médecins Sans Frontières challenge state activities and its legitimate role to uphold the ‘rule of law’ within its territory as part and parcel of its sovereignty; they criticize and often attempt to interfere in situations of torture, detainment without trial, nuclear testing, and refusal to grant access to those offering humanitarian aid.
2) What are the core features of the systems theory? Evaluate its usefulness in studying politics.
Systems analysis, which was influenced by the Austrian Canadian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy and the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902–79), is a broad descriptive theory of how the various parts and levels of a political system interact with each other. The central idea of systems analysis is based on an analogy with biology: just as the heart, lungs, and blood function as a whole, so do the components of social and political systems. When one component changes or comes under stress, the other components will adjust to compensate.
Systems analysis studies first appeared alongside behavioral and political culture studies in the 1950s. A groundbreaking work employing the approach, David Easton’s The Political System (1953), conceived the political system as integrating all activities through which social policy is formulated and executed—that is, the political system is the policy-making process. Easton defined political behaviour as the “authoritative allocation of values,” or the distribution of rewards in wealth, power, and status that the system may provide. In doing so, he distinguished his sense of the subject matter of political science from that of Lasswell, who had argued that political science is concerned with the distribution and content of patterns of value throughout society. Easton’s conception of system emphasizes linkages between the system and its environment. Inputs (demands) flow into the system and are converted into outputs (decisions and actions) that constitute the authoritative allocation of values. Drawing on cybernetics, the Czech-born American political scientist Karl Deutsch used a systems perspective to view the political system as a communications network. Following Deutsch, some political scientists tried briefly to establish communications as the basis of politics.
Systems analysis was applied to international relations to explain how the forces of the international system affect the behaviour of states. The American political scientist Morton Kaplan delineated types of international systems and their logical consequences in System and Process in International Politics (1957). According to Kaplan, for example, the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union brought about a bipolar international system that governed much of the two countries’ foreign and security policies. Locked in a zero-sum game (when one country wins, the other loses), the two superpowers watched each other vigilantly, eager for gains but also wary of the threat of nuclear war.
In Man, the State, and War (1959), the American international relations theorist Kenneth Waltz applied systems theory to the study of international conflict to develop a view known as structural realism. Waltz argued that the underlying cause of war is an anarchic international system in which there is no recognized authority for resolving conflicts between sovereign states. According to Waltz,
with many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with each state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own reason or desire—conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur.
By the 1970s, systems approaches to domestic politics were criticized and generally abandoned as unverifiable abstractions of little explanatory or predictive power. (In international politics, however, systems approaches remained important.) On closer examination, the “conversion process” of systems theory—i.e., the transformation of inputs into outputs—struck many as simply plain old “politics.” Another problem was that much of systems theory took as its norm and model an idealized version of American politics that did not apply universally to the domestic politics of all societies. Systems analysis also was unable to explain certain policy decisions that were made despite the absence of predominating favourable inputs, such as the decision by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to deepen U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam. Finally, systems theorists unrealistically reified the systems of the countries they studied, portraying them as durable and stable because they were supposed to correct and reform themselves. They were thus unable to explain defective systems or systemic upheavals, such as the collapse of communist regimes in eastern and central Europe in 1989–91.
Other approaches employing systems analysis flourished briefly in the late 20th century. Decision-making theory is based on systems theory but also borrows from game theory, which was devised by mathematicians during World War II. Decision-making theory supposes that actors behave rationally to achieve goals by selecting the course of action that will maximize benefits and minimize costs. This assumption has been contradicted by some studies, such as Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision (1971), which found that the decision-making process of the administration of U.S. President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis could not be adequately explained in terms of a strict rational calculation of costs and benefits; instead, decisions often depended on the standard operating procedures of organizational actors and the information that subordinates fed to their superiors, which itself was skewed by “bureaucratic politics.” Allison argued that one key determinant of Kennedy’s decision to impose a naval blockade on Cuba rather than to invade the island was the delayed flight of a spy plane, which resulted from a quarrel between the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Air Force over who was to pilot the plane. (Allison’s view was refuted by subsequent studies that showed that Kennedy had decided in advance not to bomb or invade Cuba.) Bureaucratic-process models, which maintain that policy decisions are influenced by the priorities of bureaucrats who compete with each other to protect their programs, budgets, and procedures, became prominent during the 1970s, but research failed to identify a consistent pattern of influence resulting from bureaucratic infighting.
There was no consensus among political scientists concerning the system that developed after the end of the Cold War. Some scholars believed that there was a return to a 19th-century balance-of-power system, in which multiple states make and remake alliances. Others argued for the existence of a multipolar system consisting of trade blocs that were neither mutually hostile nor totally cooperative with each other. Some argued that the international system became unipolar, the United States being the single dominant world power. Huntington, in a controversial article published in 1993 and a book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, published in 1996, used cultural theory to propose that the emerging international system constituted a “clash of civilizations.” Several civilizations, each based mostly on religion, variously clashed and cooperated. The worst clashes, he argued, took place between Islamic and other civilizations. Many scholars rejected Huntington’s analysis as simplistic and ill-informed, but others found it persuasive, especially after the September 11 attacks of 2001 and the U.S. military attacks on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
Assignment – II
Answer the following questions in about 250 words each.
3. Analyse the Women’s movements in the non-western context.
4) Examine the features of republican form of government bringing out its distinction from democratic government.
5) What are the differences between Elitism and Pluralism in their understanding of power?
6) Describe the features and functions of the colonial state.
IGNOU Handwritten Hardcopy , WhatsApp – 8130208920
IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 We provide handwritten PDF and Hardcopy to our IGNOU and other university students. There are several types of handwritten assignment we provide all Over India. EPS 09 COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free We are genuinely work in this field for so many time. You can get your assignment done – 8130208920
IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-23
GET IGNOU Handwritten Hardcopy , WhatsApp – 8130208920
Assignment – III
Answer the following questions in about 100 words each.
7. Foucault on Power
8) Features of Totalitarian regime
Get IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free Now here from this website.
IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 get here all ignou solved assignment 2022-23 , ignou guess paper , ignou help books and ignou exam related material. We help students to get their assignment done with our handwritten services, EPS 09 COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free you can access our all material and services through WhatsApp also , 8130208920
GET SOLVED PDF – Click Here
IGNOU Instructions for the EPS 09 COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Solved Assignment 2022-23
IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 Download Free Before attempting the assignment, please read the following instructions carefully.
- Read the detailed instructions about the assignment given in the Handbook and Programme Guide.
- Write your enrolment number, name, full address and date on the top right corner of the first page of your response sheet(s).
- Write the course title, assignment number and the name of the study centre you are attached to in the centre of the first page of your response sheet(s).
- Use only foolscap size paperfor your response and tag all the pages carefully
- Write the relevant question number with each answer.
- You should write in your own handwriting.
GUIDELINES FOR IGNOU Assignments 2022-23
IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-23 You will find it useful to keep the following points in mind:
- Planning: Read the questions carefully. IGNOU EPS 09 Assignment 2022-23 Download Free Download PDF Go through the units on which they are based. Make some points regarding each question and then rearrange these in a logical order. And please write the answers in your own words. Do not reproduce passages from the units.
- Organisation: Be a little more selective and analytic before drawing up a rough outline of your answer. In an essay-type question, give adequate attention to your introduction and conclusion. IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 Download Free Download PDF The introduction must offer your brief interpretation of the question and how you propose to develop it. The conclusion must summarise your response to the question. In the course of your answer, you may like to make references to other texts or critics as this will add some depth to your analysis.
- Presentation: IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 Download Free Download PDF Once you are satisfied with your answers, you can write down the final version for submission, writing each answer neatly and underlining the points you wish to emphasize.
The top of the first page of your response sheet should look like this: Get IGNOU Assignment Front page through. And Attach on front page of your assignment. Students need to compulsory attach the front page in at the beginning of their handwritten assignment.
ENROLMENT NO: …………………………………………………….
COURSE TITLE: ………………………………………………………
ASSIGNMENT NO: …………………………………………………
STUDY CENTRE: …………………………………………….……..
IGNOU EPS 09 Solved Assignment 2022-23 – We provide handwritten PDF and Hardcopy to our IGNOU and other university students. EPS 09 COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free Download PDF There are several types of handwritten assignment we provide all Over India. EPS 09 COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free Download PDF We are genuinely work in this field for so many time. You can get your assignment done –8130208920
Related Material Also –
BUY PDF & Handwritten
- Solved PDF Cost – @50 rs per Paper / Subject
- Handwritten Hardcopy – @350 rs per paper/ subject
WhatsApp – 813020892