Q. No. 2. To what extent is it true that the President of the United States is more powerful than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK)? Justify your answer with comparative analysis.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Constitutional Framework: U.S. Presidential vs U.K. Parliamentary System
- Powers of the U.S. President
- Powers of the U.K. Prime Minister
- Comparative Analysis (Tabular Form)
- Factors Determining Actual Power
- Limitations on Both Offices
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The political systems of the United States and the United Kingdom differ fundamentally. The U.S. follows a Presidential System where the President is both head of state and government, while the U.K. operates under a Parliamentary System, where the Prime Minister is head of government and the Monarch is the ceremonial head of state. This structural difference has led to a debate over which leader wields more power. A comparative analysis reveals that while the U.S. President appears more powerful on paper, contextual constraints often balance both roles.
- Constitutional Framework: Presidential vs Parliamentary
Feature | U.S. President | U.K. Prime Minister |
System Type | Presidential | Parliamentary |
Head of State | Yes | No |
Head of Government | Yes | Yes |
Term | Fixed (4 years) | Flexible (5 years max, but can change) |
Direct Election | Yes | No (chosen by majority party) |
- Powers of the U.S. President
- Executive Powers: Appoints cabinet, executes laws, directs federal administration.
- Legislative Powers: Can veto bills, suggest legislation via State of the Union.
- Military Powers: Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
- Foreign Affairs: Signs treaties (with Senate ratification), appoints ambassadors.
- Emergency Powers: Executive Orders, national emergency declarations.
- Judicial Powers: Appoints federal judges (with Senate confirmation), grants pardons.
- Powers of the U.K. Prime Minister
- Executive Leadership: Heads Her Majesty’s Government, controls Cabinet decisions.
- Legislative Control: Commands a majority in the House of Commons.
- Foreign Affairs: Represents the UK in international matters, signs treaties.
- Party Leadership: Leads the majority party—ensuring control over the legislative agenda.
- Defense: De facto commander-in-chief through control of the Defense Ministry.
- Comparative Analysis
Aspect | U.S. President | U.K. Prime Minister |
Head of State | ✔️ | ❌ |
Checks by Legislature | Strong (Congress is independent) | Weak (PM often controls Parliament) |
Military Power | Commander-in-Chief | Limited; monarch holds formal title |
Term Security | Stable (fixed term) | Can be removed by vote of no confidence |
Party Role | Separate from Congress | Leader of ruling party |
Cabinet Control | Appoints outsiders | Chosen from Parliament |
Veto Power | Has veto | No formal veto power |
- Factors Determining Actual Power
- Party Support: A strong majority increases PM’s dominance.
- Political Culture: U.K.’s unwritten constitution gives room for prime ministerial dominance during stable majorities.
- Media and Public Image: Presidents often act as national spokespersons with global influence.
- Bureaucratic Reach: U.S. President has limited reach over Congress, unlike the UK PM who controls both Cabinet and legislature.
- Limitations on Both Offices
U.S. President | U.K. Prime Minister |
Congressional gridlock | Backbench revolts |
Impeachment threat | Vote of no confidence |
Judicial review of executive orders | Legal and public scrutiny |
Federalism divides power | Party pressure and press oversight |
- Conclusion
While the U.S. President enjoys broader constitutional powers and global visibility, his authority is heavily checked by Congress, Judiciary, and federalism. On the other hand, the **U.K. Prime Minister, though not head of state, may exercise more practical power in times of strong parliamentary majority, commanding both legislation and execution with minimal checks.
Final Verdict: The U.S. President appears constitutionally more powerful, but the U.K. Prime Minister often enjoys greater control in practice—especially in a stable majority government.
Q. No. 3. Discuss the basic norms of regional politico-economic integration and organizational structure of the European Union.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Norms of Regional Politico-Economic Integration
- European Union (EU) as a Regional Integration Model
- Basic Norms of EU Integration
- Organizational Structure of the EU
- Challenges to EU Integration
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Regional politico-economic integration is the process through which sovereign states coordinate their economic and political policies to achieve mutual benefits. The European Union (EU) is the most advanced example of such integration, having evolved from an economic community into a supranational political and economic union of 27 member states.
- Norms of Regional Politico-Economic Integration
Regional integration operates through certain guiding norms, including:
- Sovereign Cooperation rather than complete sovereignty transfer
- Harmonization of Policies: trade, monetary, and political alignment
- Interdependence: shared prosperity through mutual reliance
- Rule of Law and Institutional Frameworks
- Peace and Stability Promotion
- Free Movement of Goods, People, Services, and Capital (Four Freedoms)
- Democratic Values and Human Rights Protection
- European Union (EU) as a Regional Integration Model
The EU has evolved through various treaties:
- Treaty of Paris (1951) – Established European Coal and Steel Community
- Treaty of Rome (1957) – Formed the European Economic Community (EEC)
- Maastricht Treaty (1992) – Created the European Union
- Lisbon Treaty (2007) – Reformed the EU’s decision-making structure
- Basic Norms of EU Integration
Norm | Explanation |
Supranationalism | EU law takes precedence over national law. |
Economic Convergence | Uniform policies on trade, monetary and fiscal matters. |
Monetary Union | Common currency (Euro) and European Central Bank. |
Political Cooperation | Common foreign/security policies. |
Democratic Governance | Institutions like the European Parliament ensure representation. |
Subsidiarity | Decisions made at the most immediate (local) level possible. |
- Organizational Structure of the European Union
Institution | Role and Functions |
European Council | Heads of state/government set broad policy directions. |
European Commission | Executive branch; proposes legislation and implements decisions. |
European Parliament | Directly elected; co-legislates with the Council; supervises budget. |
Council of the European Union | Ministers from member states; co-legislates policies with Parliament. |
European Court of Justice | Ensures uniform interpretation and application of EU law. |
European Central Bank (ECB) | Manages the Euro and sets monetary policy. |
Court of Auditors | Monitors EU spending for transparency and accountability. |
- Challenges to EU Integration
- Brexit: U.K.’s exit from the EU has questioned integration’s stability.
- Rise of Nationalism: Euroscepticism threatens unity.
- Economic Disparities: Uneven development across Southern and Eastern Europe.
- Immigration Policies: Differing national attitudes toward migration.
- Foreign Policy Fragmentation: Difficulty in aligning all members.
- Conclusion
The European Union exemplifies the highest degree of regional politico-economic integration, based on shared norms, institutions, and goals. Despite facing internal and external challenges, the EU remains a model for peaceful cooperation, collective prosperity, and regional governance. Its organizational structure and foundational norms continue to inspire regional blocs across the globe, including ASEAN, MERCOSUR, and African Union.
Q. No. 4. “A strong political system needs a very strong political economy.” Prove this statement by making a comparative and analytical answer with reference to China and Malaysia.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Theoretical Link Between Political System and Economy
- Case Study: China
- Case Study: Malaysia
- Comparative Analysis (Table)
- Key Insights: Interdependence of Politics and Economy
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The strength of a political system is deeply rooted in the resilience and performance of its economy. A robust political economy enhances legitimacy, ensures stability, and fosters inclusive governance. Conversely, a weak economy can destabilize political systems. The development trajectories of China and Malaysia exemplify how economic strength can reinforce political structures and national coherence.
- Theoretical Link Between Political System and Economy
- Political Economy: The interaction between politics and economics in decision-making and governance.
- Economic Foundations of Politics: Political legitimacy often hinges on economic performance (e.g., growth, employment, equity).
- Governance Efficiency: Strong economies enable investment in education, infrastructure, and welfare—enhancing citizen satisfaction.
- Social Contract Theory: A responsive state delivering economic security earns societal compliance and legitimacy.
- Case Study: China – Authoritarian Political System & State-led Economy
- Model: Communist Party–led authoritarian system with state-capitalism.
- Key Reforms: Since Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 reforms, China shifted to a market-oriented socialist economy.
- Economic Growth: World’s second-largest economy, lifted 800+ million out of poverty (World Bank).
- Political Impact:
- Reinforced CCP’s legitimacy and control.
- Ensured national unity and centralized development strategy.
- Enabled massive infrastructure diplomacy via BRI.
- Case Study: Malaysia – Democratic System with Mixed Economy
- Model: Parliamentary democracy with constitutional monarchy.
- Economic Strategy: New Economic Policy (NEP) after 1969 racial riots promoted inclusive development.
- Economic Success:
- Rapid industrialization (1980s–90s).
- Diversified economy: electronics, palm oil, tourism, Islamic finance.
- Political Stability:
- Economic growth underpinned Barisan Nasional’s long rule.
- Created middle class that demanded transparency (e.g., 2018 Pakatan Harapan victory).
- Vision 2020 promoted by Mahathir as economic roadmap for political modernization.
- Comparative Analysis: China vs Malaysia
Feature | China | Malaysia |
Political System | Authoritarian (Communist Party Rule) | Democratic Parliamentary System |
Economic Model | State-led Capitalism | Mixed Economy |
Growth Rate (Recent) | ~5%–6% (Post-COVID recovery) | ~4%–5% (Moderate growth) |
Poverty Reduction | Massive poverty alleviation | Moderate; ethnic equity focus |
Political Stability | Maintained via growth and surveillance | Achieved through developmental consensus |
Reform Influence | Economic reforms legitimized CCP rule | Economic reforms strengthened democracy |
Challenges | Inequality, aging population | Corruption (e.g., 1MDB), urban-rural gap |
- Key Insights: Political-Economic Interdependence
- Economic Legitimacy: Both countries gained political durability through economic performance.
- Public Satisfaction: Growth ensured social order and compliance.
- Foreign Policy Leverage: Economic weight boosted regional/international influence (e.g., China’s BRI, Malaysia’s ASEAN leadership).
- Institutional Strengthening: Economy enabled investments in bureaucracy, health, education, and digitization.
- Conclusion
The comparative experiences of China and Malaysia affirm that a strong political system cannot function in isolation from a robust economy. Whether under an authoritarian or democratic setup, economic success stabilizes politics, fosters institutional development, and elevates national stature. Thus, political resilience is both dependent on and a catalyst for economic dynamism.
Q. No. 5. Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah were the genuine leaders who led the Muslim Nation towards success through their socio-political visions in South Asia. Discuss their community services rendered for the Muslims of the subcontinent.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Community Services of Allama Iqbal
- Visionary Thought
- Educational Reforms and Religious Philosophy
- Political Awakening
- The Idea of Pakistan
- Community Services of Quaid-e-Azam
- Legal Advocacy and Political Representation
- Protection of Muslim Rights
- Role in Pakistan Movement
- Constitutional and Democratic Leadership
- Combined Impact: Complementary Leadership
- Conclusion
1. Introduction
Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah are two towering personalities who transformed the fate of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. Iqbal envisioned a separate homeland, and Jinnah translated that vision into reality. Their socio-political services—rooted in educational enlightenment, legal activism, and political strategy—laid the foundation of the Muslim nationhood and ultimately the creation of Pakistan.
2. Community Services of Allama Muhammad Iqbal
a. Visionary Thought and Muslim Identity
- Iqbal revived the Muslim consciousness during colonial oppression.
- Through poetry and prose (e.g., Bang-e-Dra, Bal-e-Jibril), he inspired self-respect, unity, and revivalism among Muslims.
b. Educational and Philosophical Contributions
- Advocated reform in Islamic thought—emphasized Ijtihad over Taqlid.
- Called for a curriculum that integrated modern science and Islamic principles.
- Delivered lectures on Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, promoting rationality.
c. Political Awakening
- Criticized the Indian National Congress for failing to represent Muslims.
- Played an active role in the All-India Muslim League (AIML).
- Warned against Hindu-majoritarian politics and the marginalization of Muslims.
d. Idea of Pakistan
- In his famous Allahabad Address (1930), Iqbal envisioned a separate homeland for Indian Muslims in the north-western regions.
“I would like to see Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan amalgamated into a single state.” – Allahabad Address
3. Community Services of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah
a. Legal Advocacy and Political Representation
- Used his legal expertise to defend Muslim interests in legislative assemblies.
- Initially worked for Hindu-Muslim unity, but later became the sole spokesman of Muslim India.
b. Protection of Muslim Rights
- Strongly opposed Nehru Report and the denial of separate electorates.
- Presented the Fourteen Points (1929) demanding autonomy, religion, and culture protection.
c. Role in Pakistan Movement
- Transformed the Muslim League into a mass political party.
- Led historic events: Lahore Resolution (1940), Direct Action Day (1946).
- Negotiated with the British and Congress with clarity, earning him the title “Father of the Nation.”
d. Constitutional and Democratic Leadership
- Advocated parliamentary democracy and minority rights.
- In his 11 August 1947 speech, promoted religious tolerance and state neutrality:
“You are free… to go to your temples, mosques, or any place of worship.”
4. Combined Impact: Complementary Leadership
Aspect | Allama Iqbal | Quaid-e-Azam |
Role | Ideologue & Philosopher | Political Strategist & Leader |
Approach | Cultural awakening | Legal-political struggle |
Key Contribution | Idea of a separate Muslim state | Realization of Pakistan |
Legacy | Philosophical foundation | Constitutional statecraft |
Together, they provided vision and direction, addressing both the intellectual and political dimensions of Muslim nationhood.
5. Conclusion
Allama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah rendered invaluable socio-political services to the Muslims of South Asia. Iqbal’s philosophical clarity laid the ideological groundwork, while Jinnah’s unmatched political acumen ensured its materialization. Their combined legacy continues to guide Pakistan’s identity, purpose, and direction in the modern world.
Q. No. 6. Discuss the Major issues during the constitutional making process in Pakistan in 1956, 1962 and 1973.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Historical Context of Constitutional Development
- Constitution of 1956: Issues and Challenges
- Constitution of 1962: Issues and Challenges
- Constitution of 1973: Issues and Challenges
- Comparative Analysis Table
- Conclusion
1. Introduction
The journey of constitutional development in Pakistan reflects its political instability, civil-military tensions, ethnic diversity, and evolving national identity. The three major constitutions—1956, 1962, and 1973—each emerged from distinct socio-political crises, but faced common challenges including civil-military imbalance, provincial autonomy, Islamic identity, and institutional distrust.
2. Historical Context of Constitutional Development
- Pakistan inherited no indigenous constitutional framework post-1947.
- Government of India Act 1935 was adopted as an interim constitution.
- Efforts for constitution-making were delayed due to political instability, bureaucratic dominance, and provincial conflicts, especially between East and West Pakistan.
3. Constitution of 1956 – First Attempt at Republicanism
Key Issues:
- Delay in Framing the Constitution (9 years):
- Prolonged due to disputes over representation, Islamic provisions, and parliamentary structure.
- East Pakistan’s demand for population-based parity conflicted with West Pakistan’s parity formula.
- Nature of State – Islamic or Secular?
- Tension between secular nationalists and religious parties.
- Constitution declared Pakistan an Islamic Republic, yet lacked clarity on the role of Shariah law.
- Centralization vs Provincial Autonomy:
- Strong unitary tilt despite federal claims.
- One Unit Scheme (1955) further alienated smaller provinces.
- Absence of Strong Democratic Institutions:
- Frequent interference by Governor-General, and later President, led to dissolution of assemblies.
4. Constitution of 1962 – Centralized Presidentialism
Key Issues:
- Imposition Without Democratic Consensus:
- Drafted by a commission under Ayub Khan, lacking parliamentary legitimacy.
- No national referendum or constituent assembly approval.
- Presidential Dictatorship:
- Introduced executive presidency—concentrated power in President’s hands.
- Undermined the parliamentary tradition established in 1956.
- Basic Democracies System:
- Introduced a controlled democracy—people had no direct vote for president.
- Criticized for being a rubber-stamp system.
- Islamic Provisions Diluted:
- Dropped “Islamic Republic” title initially (restored in 1963).
- Reduced influence of Ulema and religious parties.
- East-West Inequality Continued:
- No real steps to address Bengali grievances—led to language and autonomy movements.
5. Constitution of 1973 – A Democratic Social Contract
Key Issues:
- Post-Dismemberment Crisis:
- Framed after the 1971 Fall of Dhaka, amid national trauma.
- Needed to restore unity, trust, and legitimacy.
- Negotiation and Consensus Building:
- Achieved through a multi-party consensus, led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
- Religious, liberal, and ethnic groups all participated.
- Islam and State:
- Declared Pakistan an Islamic Republic.
- Included Islamic clauses like Ahmadis’ status (1974), ban on un-Islamic laws.
- Federalism vs Centralism:
- Recognized provincial autonomy, but Centre still dominant (e.g., concurrent list).
- Provinces continued demanding more powers—leading to 18th Amendment (2010)
- Military and Judiciary:
- Civil-military balance remained fragile.
- Future amendments and suspensions by military regimes (Zia, Musharraf) weakened its spirit.
6. Comparative Analysis Table
Feature / Issue | 1956 Constitution | 1962 Constitution | 1973 Constitution |
Legitimacy | Elected Constituent Assembly | Dictated by Ayub Khan | Broad consensus in Parliament |
System | Parliamentary Republic | Presidential System | Parliamentary Federal Republic |
Islamic Status | Islamic Republic | Initially dropped “Islamic” | Strong Islamic identity |
Provincial Autonomy | Weak – One Unit Policy | Centralized | Improved – 4 provinces recognized |
Public Participation | Limited | Controlled democracy | Universal franchise |
Longevity | 2 years (1956–1958) | 7 years (1962–1969) | Still in force (with amendments) |
7. Conclusion
The constitutional development of Pakistan reflects its struggles with identity, power sharing, and governance models. While the 1956 and 1962 Constitutions failed due to centralization and lack of legitimacy, the 1973 Constitution emerged as a landmark, offering a democratic and Islamic framework. Yet, persistent issues—civil-military imbalance, judicial overreach, and provincial tensions—continue to test its spirit. True constitutionalism demands genuine federalism, institutional continuity, and political maturity.
Q. No. 7. How far do you agree that the Political Parties and Interest Groups have established and demolished the political system of Pakistan? Critically analyze.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Role of Political Parties in Establishing the Political System
- Role of Interest Groups in Nation-Building
- Demolishing Effects of Political Parties
- Negative Role of Interest Groups
- Case Studies & Examples
- Critical Analysis
- Conclusion
1. Introduction
Political parties and interest groups are vital for any democratic system as they channel public will, shape legislation, and ensure representation. In Pakistan, however, they have played a dual role: on one hand, they have contributed to state formation and democratization, and on the other, they have also undermined institutional integrity, fostered polarization, and eroded public trust.
2. Role of Political Parties in Establishing the Political System
- Muslim League was the vanguard of the Pakistan Movement and laid the ideological foundation of the state.
- Political parties like PPP (1970s) and PML-N (1990s) played a role in institutionalizing parliamentary democracy.
- The 18th Amendment (2010), a result of bipartisan consensus, marked a milestone in provincial autonomy and federalism.
“Political parties are indispensable for a functioning democracy.” — Giovanni Sartori
3. Role of Interest Groups in Nation-Building
- Trade unions, professional bodies (like PMA, SCBA), religious boards have voiced sector-specific concerns.
- Media and civil society organizations acted as pressure groups for reforms (e.g., Lawyers’ Movement 2007–09).
- Religious lobbies have influenced legislation on family laws, blasphemy, and education.
4. Demolishing Effects of Political Parties
- Dynastic politics (Bhuttos, Sharifs) converted parties into personal fiefdoms, weakening internal democracy.
- Frequent floor-crossing, vote-buying, and electoral engineering (e.g., IJI 1988) undermined legitimacy.
- Parties have often colluded with military regimes, damaging civil supremacy (e.g., PML factions under Zia, Musharraf).
Consequences:
- Weak parliamentary performance
- Frequent government dissolutions
- Delayed policy implementation
5. Negative Role of Interest Groups
- Sectarian groups and ethnic lobbies like SSP, TLP, and MQM have fomented violence and social unrest.
- Economic cartels (sugar, oil, real estate) manipulate markets, distort state subsidies, and influence policymaking.
- Foreign-funded NGOs are often accused of agenda-driven activism, compromising national interests.
6. Case Studies & Examples
Example | Positive Role | Negative Role |
PPP (1973) | Gave a consensual Constitution | Later weakened institutions under autocracy |
PML-N (2010) | Passed 18th Amendment | Involved in confrontations with judiciary |
TLP (2021) | Mobilized mass political support | Paralyzed state function through violent protests |
Lawyers’ Movement | Restored judiciary independence | Later co-opted by political ambitions |
7. Critical Analysis
While political parties are pillars of democracy, their lack of internal democracy, ideological bankruptcy, and short-term interests have weakened democratic consolidation. Similarly, interest groups that should serve constructive advocacy often resort to coercive tactics, becoming tools of anarchic mobilization or elite capture.
- Structural Problems:
- Weak electoral regulations (no party audit)
- Military’s interference creates dependency politics
- Inadequate civic education creates voter apathy or emotional polarization
8. Conclusion
In conclusion, political parties and interest groups in Pakistan have been both architects and adversaries of democratic development. Their constructive potential remains immense, but only if they embrace institutional norms, reject violence, and prioritize national over parochial interests. A mature democracy requires not just elections, but responsible political actors and accountable interest groups.
Q. No. 8. Write comprehensive notes on the following: (10 each) (a). Foreign policy making process in Pakistan. (b). Global Civil Society
(a) Foreign Policy Making Process in Pakistan
(b) Global Civil Society
(a) Foreign Policy Making Process in Pakistan
1. Introduction
Foreign policy is a strategic roadmap through which a state interacts with the international system. In Pakistan, the process reflects a mix of civil-military influence, ideological concerns, geopolitical compulsions, and economic realities.
2. Key Institutions Involved
Institution | Role |
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) | Primary formulator and executor of foreign policy. |
Prime Minister & Cabinet | Final decision-making authority; sets policy direction. |
Parliament | Debates key treaties, provides policy oversight (limited in practice). |
Military Establishment | Strong influence, especially on India, Afghanistan, US, and China relations. |
Intelligence Agencies (ISI) | Play indirect role in security-related foreign policy. |
Presidency | Ceremonial in practice; sometimes engaged in diplomacy. |
3. Influencing Factors
- Geostrategic Location: Near India, China, Afghanistan, and Persian Gulf.
- Security Concerns: India-centric strategy, Kashmir conflict.
- Ideology: Islamic identity impacts ties with Muslim states.
- Economic Constraints: IMF, CPEC, GSP+ status influence decisions.
- Public Opinion & Media: Rising role in shaping diplomatic discourse.
4. Recent Trends
- China-Pakistan Strategic Relations (CPEC)
- Shift towards Geo-Economics (under NSC 2022)
- Balancing Act between US and China
- Middle East Engagements (e.g., Saudi-Iran mediation role)
5. Challenges
- Lack of institutional coordination
- Civil-military imbalance
- Weak parliamentary oversight
- Reactive, not proactive diplomacy
Conclusion
Pakistan’s foreign policy process is shaped by both domestic power structures and international alignments. A more inclusive, transparent, and institutionalized process is essential for long-term global credibility.
(b) Global Civil Society
1. Definition
Global civil society refers to transnational networks of non-state actors—NGOs, activists, social movements, academics—working across borders to promote democracy, justice, human rights, and sustainability.
2. Characteristics
Feature | Explanation |
Non-state & voluntary | Operates outside government frameworks. |
Transnational scope | Functions globally (e.g., Amnesty International, Greenpeace). |
Normative agenda | Promotes global ethics like gender equality, anti-corruption, environmental justice. |
Accountability pressure | Holds states and global institutions (e.g., IMF, UN, WTO) accountable. |
3. Key Actors
- International NGOs (INGOs): Oxfam, Human Rights Watch
- Global Movements: Fridays for Future, BDS
- Academic & Research Networks: Climate change advocacy groups
- Digital Activists: WikiLeaks, Anonymous
4. Functions
- Advocacy: Lobbying for global policies on climate, arms, gender.
- Humanitarian Work: Disaster relief, education, health.
- Policy Influence: Shaping treaties (e.g., Paris Climate Agreement).
- Watchdog Role: Exposing corruption and rights abuses.
5. Challenges
- Funding dependency (often Western-centric)
- Legitimacy questions in authoritarian regimes
- Cyber surveillance and restrictions
- Fragmentation of global agenda
Conclusion
Global civil society is a critical pillar of international governance. Despite challenges, it remains a powerful voice for global justice, peace, and sustainability, bridging gaps left by nation-states and formal institutions.
. . Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017 Political Science -II 2017