“Full authoritarian control could not be achieved.” With reference to two states, to what extent do you agree with this statement?

The question requires that candidates consider the extent to which full authoritarian control was or was not achieved in two states. The two states may or may not come from different regions. Candidates may offer equal coverage of the two states or they may prioritize their evaluation of one of them. However, both states will be a feature of the response. Candidates may assess the extent of rulers’ constitutional power. In Germany, for example, Hitler could make laws without requiring the approval of a parliament or superior authority. There may be an assessment of the extent of the power of the security forces, such as the NKVD in the USSR, and whether the judiciary’s independence had been removed. Candidates may assess the extent both of opposition and control over the media, culture, education and social activity. The impact of mass mobilisation, such as the Anti movements in China, may be assessed. Candidates’ opinions or conclusions will be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.

The question required that candidates consider the extent to which full authoritarian control was or was not achieved in two states. A very popular question, some excellent responses blended detailed knowledge with good analysis of the limits of authoritarian control. Many candidates were able to present effective and well-supported arguments mostly to demonstrate that full control could not be achieved. Reference was often made to the continued existence of opposition or to sectors of society, such as the economy or religion, that escaped, or were excluded from, government control. Weaker responses tended to be descriptive of methods used to achieve control with only some reference to how effective these were in practice. Almost all, however, attempted to reach a supported conclusion. Again, the vast majority chose China and Germany, though Cuba was also somewhat popular.