The 12 Mark Analyse is the second of the two 12 Mark questions on Paper 3. For this question there will be no choice and there will be one question that needs to be answered. Like the Examine Question, this question only assesses AO1 and AO2 and not AO2. This has an impact on how the question needs to be structured to ensure the best use of time in order to maximise the marks available.

What will be asked in the 12 Mark Analyse Question?

The 12 Mark Analyse question will ask you to care the view of Liberals and Realists on an issue in global politics. Examples of this might be:

Analyse the divisions between Realists and Liberals on Human Nature (12 Marks)

Analyse the divisions between realists and liberals on Power in global politics (12 Marks)

Analyse the divisions between realists and liberals on the role of IGOs (12 Marks)

In addition, the exam board could ask about the Anarchical States Theory and Society of States Theory. For example, a question might look like:

Analyse the explanations of global politics provided by anarchical society theory (12 Marks)

You must compare to one comparative theory

What should the structure of the 12 Mark Examine Question look like?

The requirement of the question to compare and contrast the theories is an important factor in how it should be structured. It is imperative that you do not simply write about one thing and then the other. If you do this, whilst you may score highly for AO1 it will be hard to comparatively analyse the things to a similar degree. Instead, therefore, you should look to select themes through which to address the question. You should aim to pick three themes through which the two theories can be directly compared and contrasted.

In addition, as there is no AO3 attached to this question, writing an introduction or a conclusion is entirely redundant.

A useful mnemonic that can be used (similar to the Examine Question) in each paragraph is S.E.E.M:

Signpost the point you are making that allows comparison of the two theories

Explain the first thing in relation to the question

Examples can be used to extend your explanation

Make comparison to the other theory

What is the synoptic requirement?

There is a synoptic requirement for this question and that is that ‘in your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas’. This means reference must be made to Socialism, Conservatism and/or Liberalism in your answer. This is undoubtedly a strange requirement and feel utterly superficious (the exam board had to include it to try to keep the global paper comparable to the US Paper. This requirement is not burdensome – you simply have to show the examiner that you have done it.

What will the question assess on?

The specification outlines the global issues that will be assessed as part of the global paper. They are:

This means that with preparation, students can cover much of the question planning for this question.

Exemplar Question – Analyse the Realist and Liberal views towards globalisation (12 Marks)

Liberals and Realists have different views on economic globalisation. Liberals are extremely optimistic about globalisation and its potential to create mutual interdependence between states. This will consequently force states to cooperate, creating greater opportunities of peace and security. For example, Bretton Woods organisations like the WTO regulate trade and create economic prosperity. Consequently, Liberals also believe economic globalisation contributes to the Dell Theory of Conflict Resolution. This states that states that countries that dependent on each other for trade are unlikely to go war. They would argue that the trading ties between the US and China stop the tension in the South China Sea developing into war. Conversely, realists are less optimistic about the ability of economic globalisation to create peace and prosperity. Realists believe that states are only concerned with the maximisation of their power relatively to their rivals. They believe that the world is most predictable with a Hobbesian Leviathan. Realists believe in a winner-takes-all belief in Politics which will see powerful countries and TNCs dominating. They are also less committed to free trade, advocating protectionism to protect the economic interests of their own state. For example, the realist policy of Trump’s 25% steel tariffs on China to ‘make America great again’ would be fair to a realist whilst they would recognise even the EU has over 11,000 tariffs on agricultural goods.

There are also differences on political globalisation. Liberals believe that states and Non-State actors will naturally cooperate over political issues to deal with collective dilemmas. This is in line with the classical liberal views on rationalism. As such, they believe IGOs provide a vital mechanism for dealing with collective issues. For example, Liberals would point to the UNFCC and its success in dealing with Climate Change through enabling treaties like the Paris Climate Agreement. In addition, Liberals believe that globalisation has helped create an international rules-based order that effectively regulates behaviour without the needs for conflict. For example, a liberal would point to the success of the UN in reducing nuclear arms through agreements such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Contrastingly, realists are convinced of the primacy of nation-states over any international bodies and believe that the continuation of the Westphalian System is beneficial. Realists do not believe that international law has much force and that powerful states can and will act outside of it if it is in their interests. For example, the decision of Britain to defy a ICJ ruling that they should return the Chagos Islands or the US assassination of Qassam Solemeini show the willingness of states to ignore international law when it is in its interests.

Finally, liberals and realists differ on merits of cultural globalisation. Liberals believe that the flow low of ideas is a benefit to global society. Liberals believe that cultural globalisation allow the spread of liberal values like gender equality and free speech. For example, cultural events like the World Cup in Qatar 2022 allowed for international condemnation of anti-LGBT policies to be heard. There is commonality here with the Rawlesian view of the veil of ignorance, with people not being willing to overlook rights abuses elsewhere just because their right are assured. In particular, they believe that it is likely to lead to the growth and strengthening of liberal democracies, which in turn will make the world a safer place. For example, the Arab Spring saw a wave of pro-democracy protests that quickly spread across North Africa and the Middle-East, toppling a number of dictators. Contrastingly, realists are sceptical of the benefits of cultural globalisation. They are concerned that cultural globalisation creates a monoculture that dampens national identity. For example, the Americanisation of culture may lead to the degradation of local cultural and be a form of cultural imperialism. The growth of right-wing populist movements with strong anti-immigration policies in Europe has been a reaction to fears over cultural globalisation.

In A-Level Politics there are three Assessment Objectives:

AO1 – Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of political institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues (35% of the A-Level).

AO2 – Analyse aspects of politics and political information, including in relation to parallels, connections, similarities and differences (35% of the A-Level).

AO3 – Evaluate aspects of politics and political information, including to construct arguments, make substantiated judgements and draw conclusions. (30% of the A-Level).

What is AO2?

AO2 refers to the ability to analyse information. This means examining the importance of things in relation to the specific question being asked. AO2 builds upon the foundation of AO1. AO2 is what students often find the hardest to do. AO2 also requires students to consider the similarities and differences within Politics. This refers to the ability to make arguments using points and counterpoints.

What is needed for different levels of AO2 according to the Mark Scheme?

Below is criteria for AO2 within the different levels for 30 Mark Essay questions:

Level 1 – Limited comparative analysis of political information with partial, logical chains of reasoning, referring to similarities and/or differences within political information, which make simplistic connections between ideas and concepts.

Level 2 – Some emerging comparative analysis of political information with some focused, logical chains of reasoning, referring to similarities and/or differences within political information, which make some relevant connections between ideas and concepts.

Level 3 – Mostly focused comparative analysis of political information with focused, logical chains of reasoning, drawing on similarities and/or differences within political information, which make mostly relevant connections between ideas and concepts.

Level 4 – Consistent comparative analysis of political information, with coherent, logical chains of reasoning, drawing on similarities and differences within political information, which make relevant connections between ideas and concepts.

Level 5 – Perceptive comparative analysis of political information, with sustained, logical chains of reasoning, drawing on similarities and differences within political information, which make cohesive and convincing connections between ideas and concepts.

What do these descriptors in reality?

The wording of the Mark Scheme is unnecessarily complicated. In reality what they mean is:

Level 1 – The analysis is very limited. The significance and links of different points is limited and simplistic and there is very little focus on the question being asked. There is limited evidence of AO1 being developed. There is no real sense of any argument being made. No real foundation is being made for a substantiated judgement.

Level 2 – Candidates are starting to show that they are analysing information. They are starting to recognise the significance and links between different point, but these might not be well developed. They are starting to show some focus on the question being asked. The AO1 they have deployed is starting to be developed. There is beginning to be a sense of an argument being made which is forming some basis for a substantiated conclusion.

Level 3 – Candidates are showing that they are normally analysing information. They are normally recognising the significance and links between different points, although this could be more consistent. They are normally showing focus on the question and are developing AO1 to drive an argument. There is normally a sense of argument being made and this is forming the basis for a more substantiated judgements.

Level 4 – Candidates are routinely analysing political information. They are routinely recognising the significance and links between different points. They show good focus on the question and develop AO1 well in order to answer the question. There is a clear sense of argument being made throughout and there is a clear basis for a substantiated judgement.

Level 5 – Candidates are not only routinely analysing political information, they are doing this to a high level, often making complex points. They are recognising the significance of key points and make links between them throughout the essay. They show excellent focus on the question and precisely develop AO1 to answer the question. There is a clear argument made throughout and these arguments are consistently cogent. An excellent basis of a substantiated judgement is laid.

What terminology can help signpost AO2 to the examiner?

The use of particular terminology can help to signpost the the examiner that you are doing AO2. Whilst the words themselves are not AO2, they do help to reinforce to the examiner that you are doing so.

Examples of AO2 signpost phrases within paragraphs might include:

• This shows that
• This indicates tat
• This is important because
• This is significant because
• This highlight that
• What this means is
• This suggests that
• This supports the idea that
• This questions the idea that

Examples of AO2 that might highlight that you are considering similar or differing points include:

• Similarly
• Likewise
• Correspondingly
• Furthermore
• Moreover
• Additionally
• Equally
• Contrastingly
• Alternatively
• Conversely
• However
• Nonetheless

How is it decided where in the Level the mark should be placed?

Put simply, the marking in A-Level Politics is ‘best fit’. An examiner will look at the description of the Level above and the level below. If the mark is closer to the Level above than the level below, it will move up within the level. If it is closer to the level below than above, it will be placed further down in the level. If the distance is the same, it will stay in the middle.

What might the different levels look in reality?

In order to see what the different levels might look like in reality, the following question is going to be used:

Q. Evaluate the view that the Executive dominates Parliament in the UK political system (30 Marks)

Below is the first half of a single section of the essay written at each level:

Level 5 AO2

In normal circumstances the government can dominate the House of Commons. The primary cause of this is the First Past the Post voting system which is heavily disproportional and provides the winning party with a ‘winners bonus’. For example, in 2019 it took just 38,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP but 853k to elect a Green MP. This is significant as it means FPTP produces significant majorities, even with less than a significant proportion of the vote. For example, in 2019 the Conservative Party won 56.1% of seats from 43.6% of the vote and the average majority since 1945 is 58.5 seats. This parliamentary arithmetic is enhanced also by the power political parties have over their MPs. It is almost impossible to be elected without the support of a party and MPs rely on their party of their position. Consequently, few MPs are willing to rebel against their party and risk the withdrawal of the whip (as happened to 21 Conservative MPs in 2019) or deselection, as happened to Sam Tarry in 2022. Taken together, these things mean that the government is normally able to pass its agenda without much resistance. For example, both Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher only suffered four Commons defeats each in over a decade as Prime Minister. Alternatively, nonetheless, it is important to note that this dominance of the Commons is not always the case and sometimes there are minority governments that cannot force through their agenda. The best example of this was between the 2017 and 2019 elections when neither Theresa May nor Boris Johnson were able to push their agenda, including their policies on Brexit, through Parliament. During this period Theresa May had her Brexit deal rejected three times, including by a modern record defeat of 230 votes. This shows that when party dominance is challenged, governments can no longer dominating Parliament. This can also be illustrated by the fact that even under majority government there are sometimes significant backbench rebellions. For example, in 2021 there were 99 Conservative MPs who rebelled against Boris Johnson’s Plan-B COVID measures which were only able to be passed with the support of Labour. This indicates that Governments cannot always rely on their party to enforce their domination of Parliament. Ultimately, whilst there are periods where Governments are not dominant, these are rare and circumstantial. Instead, Lord Hailsham’s ‘elective dictatorship’ is normally in operation and the Executive can comfortably dominate the House of Commons.

Rationale: The candidate is clearly made an argument in this section. Not only is there a clear point (normally the government can dominate the commons) and a counter-point (this dominance is not always the case), but these points are very cogent. It is clear that they are routinely explaining the significant of the points they make and making clear links between them to answer the question. There is a very consistent focus on the question throughout and AO1 is precisely developed. Argument flows throughout the section and lays a very clear basis for a well substantiated judgement.

Level 4 AO2

The government can often dominate the House of Commons. One of the reasons for this is the First Past the Post voting system which is heavily disproportional and provides the winning party with a ‘winners bonus’. For example, in 2019 it took just 38,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP but 853k to elect a Green MP. FPTP can even produce significant majorities without a significant proportion of the vote. For example, in 2019 the Conservative Party won 56.1% of seats from 43.6% of the vote. The power of being the largest party is also enhanced by the power political parties have over their MPs. MPs cannot usually get elected without the support of a party and MPs rely on their party of their position. Consequently, few MPs are willing to rebel against their party and risk the withdrawal of the whip, as happened to 21 Conservative MPs in 2019. These things mean that the government is normally able to pass its agenda without much resistance. For example, both Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher only suffered four Commons defeats each in over a decade as Prime Minister. Alternatively, it is important to note that this sometimes Governments do not have their own way and cannot force through their agenda. This is the case with minority governments. The best example of this was between the 2017 and 2019 elections when neither Theresa May nor Boris Johnson were able to push their agenda, including their policies on Brexit, through Parliament. During this period Theresa May had her Brexit deal rejected three times. is can also be illustrated by the fact that even under majority government there are sometimes significant backbench rebellions. For example, in 2021 there were 99 Conservative MPs who rebelled against Boris Johnson’s Plan-B COVID measures. These instances show that governments cannot always rely on their parties in order to dominate Parliament. Ultimately, whilst there are periods when governments do not dominate Parliament, these are rare. Normally, Governments can use the size of their majority to comfortably control the House of Commons.

Rationale: The candidate is making an argument throughout this section. There is a clear point (governments usually dominate the House of Commons) and a counter-point (there are circumstances in which they do not). These points are usually well made and, normally, they are considering the significance of each point they make. Sometimes, they are clearly making links between them focused on the question. The question is well focused on and AO1 is developed very well. There is argument through the question laying the basis for a substantiated judgement.

Level 3 AO2

The government can often dominate the House of Commons. One of the reasons for this is the First Past the Post voting system which creates majority governments. For example, the Conservatives won the 2019 General Election with a majority over 80 seats. Such big majorities bring enormous power as they can win most votes in Parliament. This is the case because in Parliament when their is a vote it is simple the side with the most votes that wins. That means that the government are not likely to lose a vote in the House of Commons if they have a big majority. This is particularly the case because political parties are also able to control their MPs by using the whip. Almost all MPs belong to a political party and MPs are therefore unlikely to rebel against their party leaders. If they do, they may not be allowed to be a member of their party anymore. This means that government are able to pass laws in Parliament without much much problem. On the other hand, government do not have their own way and do not get what they want. This happens when there is a minority government as happened for Theresa May. During this period, she was not able to get her laws passed including the law she wanted to make Brexit happen. This was one of the reasons that she was eventually replaced as Prime Minister by Boris Johnson. In addition, governments often face rebellions by their own MPs. For example, a number of Conservative MPs voted against Boris Johnson’s COVID Plan B measures. This shows that governments cannot always get their own way. Ultimately, whilst there are times when governments do not dominant parliament, they usually do. This is because of the size of their majority and the fact they can keep all their MPs onside.

Rationale: The candidate is making an argument throughout this section. There is a point made (governments usually dominate the House of Commons) and a counter-point (this is not always the case. These points are sometimes well made and there is some consideration of the significance of different points, but this is not always well developed. There is also some commentary on issues that start to lose focus on the question. However, at other points AO1 is well chosen to develop the argument made. There is enough argument n the section to create a clear judgement.

Level 2 AO2

The government are in charge of the House of Commons. They are always the biggest party and this is why they are the government in the first place. For example, the Conservatives form the government currently because they won the last General Election. General Elections happen every five years and then a new government will be in charge. If a government wins the election they are able to win votes in the House of Commons and push through the ideas that they want – this is because in Parliament you just have to have the most votes to win. Governments are also helped because of the whip. The government is able to keep their MPs onside and making them vote the way they want to. They do this using a paper with three lines on it that they give to MPs to tell them how to vote. As a result of this they are able to pass laws easily and rarely lose laws to the opposition. However, its important to note that this does not always happen. Sometimes government are not very powerful and can’t get what they want. The best example of this in recent years is Theresa May. As Prime Minister she wasn’t able to get Brexit through because she wasn’t powerful enough. Ultimately, governments do dominate the House of Commons because of how powerful they are.

Rationale: The candidate is starting to make an argument in this section, however, this is clearly unbalanced. There is an attempted point and counter-point, but they are not considered in the same depth. The significance of different points is not particularly well considered and there are few links between the different points being made. Lots of the commentary is not focusing on the question being asked. There is some knowledge developed, but this is limits in scope. Whilst there are elements of argument, this is far from consistent. There is an attempt at a judgement, but this cannot be substantiated from the previous commentary.

Level 1 AO1

The party that wins the most seats in a General Election becomes the government and is in charge of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is different from the House of Lords because the MPs that sit in are different from the MPs that sit in the Lords because they are elected and the Lords are not. The MPs vote by walking into rooms and the Government have the most MPs so they can make more of their MPs walk into the right room that the opposition. This means MPs can pass whatever laws they want. Sometimes governments are not in control, that was the case with David Cameron who was not able to get his Brexit Deal passed and had to call a referendum because of UKIP. He lost this referendum which shows a weak he is. Overall, governments are very powerful.

Rationale: There is very little analysis in this section. There is little building on the knowledge displayed to answer the question. The sense of argument is very limited and there is not attempt to make a balanced approach to the question. This means that there is no significant judgement being made of any sort.