“Democratic electoral systems led to stable governments.” Discuss with reference to two post-1945 states.

Responses will offer a considered and balanced review of the electoral systems in the candidates’ chosen states, focusing on how democracy led (or failed to lead) to stable governments. Candidates may refer to different types of democratic electoral systems such as proportional representation, electoral colleges and majority rule.

Indicative content

• Assessment of stability may include the longevity of administrations and their ability to tackle political, social and economic challenges.
• Candidates may analyse the outcomes of elections to assess the importance of decisive mandates that may have contributed to stability.
• There may be consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of, for example, coalition governments and how far these may have more accurately reflected political opinion but may have been less stable.
• There may be consideration of the electoral system in a constitutional context: for example, for the US, the relationship between presidential, Senate and Congressional elections, and how that affected the stability of the government could be mentioned.
• To challenge the statement, candidates may argue that democratic systems are too dependent on short-term support and that leaders are less likely to introduce unpopular but, perhaps, necessary policies to address, for example, economic crises or the conservation of resources.
• Furthermore, candidates may argue that the ideology of democracy itself promotes governmental stability because of the belief that change occurs via the ballot box.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

[20 marks]