Assignment Brief: POLS305 Comparative Democratic Erosion
Assessment Overview
- Course Code/Title: POLS305: The Crisis of Liberal Democracy
- Task Type: Major Analytic Essay (Research Paper)
- Weighting: 40% of Final Grade
- Word Limit: 2,500 words (+/- 10%) excluding footnotes and bibliography
- Due Date: Friday, Week 10 at 11:59 PM (Local Time)
- Submission Method: Turnitin via LMS (Canvas/Blackboard/Moodle)
Context and Rationale
In previous weeks, we examined the theoretical underpinnings of populism and the structural vulnerabilities of democratic institutions. This assignment bridges theory and practice. You are required to move beyond descriptive narratives of “what happened” and instead construct a causal argument explaining “why” specific institutions failed or endured during a period of executive aggrandizement.
This task assesses your ability to synthesise complex political theory with empirical evidence, a core competency for advanced work in political science, history, and public policy.
The Task
Prompt:
“Democratic backsliding is rarely the result of a single coup; rather, it is the gradual dismantling of institutional checks by elected leaders.”
Critically evaluate this statement by analysing one contemporary case study of democratic erosion (e.g., Hungary, Turkey, Brazil, Poland, or the United States). In your essay, you must:
- Define the specific mechanism of backsliding utilized in your chosen case (e.g., judicial capture, media consolidation, or electoral manipulation).
- Apply two distinct theoretical frameworks discussed in the course (e.g., Levitsky & Ziblatt’s mutual toleration vs. Mudde’s populist ideology) to explain the leader’s success or failure in consolidating power.
- Argue whether institutional weakness or the agency of political actors was the primary driver of the erosion.
Requirements and Formatting
- Thesis Statement: Your introduction must contain a clear, argumentative thesis. Do not simply list the points you will discuss; state your conclusion upfront.
- Evidence: You must engage with at least eight (8) scholarly sources. At least three must be peer-reviewed journal articles published after 2018 to ensure currency.
- Citation Style: Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed), Notes and Bibliography format.
- Formatting: 12-point Times New Roman or Arial font, double-spaced, 2.54cm margins. Include page numbers.
- Academic Integrity: Generative AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) may be used only for brainstorming or outlining. The final drafting and critical analysis must be your own. Undisclosed use of AI for text generation will be treated as academic misconduct.
Grading Rubric (Marking Criteria)
| Criteria | High Distinction (85-100%) / A Grade | Distinction (75-84%) / B+ to A- | Credit/Pass (50-74%) / C to B- | Fail (<50%) / F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argument & Critical Analysis (40%) | Exceptional, sophisticated thesis. Argument is nuanced, anticipating counter-arguments. Theoretical application is seamless and insightful. | Clear, strong thesis. Good integration of theory and case study. Analysis is logical but may lack some depth in addressing counter-points. | Thesis is present but descriptive rather than argumentative. Reliance on narrative over analysis. Theory is applied superficially. | No clear thesis. Assignment is purely descriptive or factually incorrect. Fails to answer the prompt. |
| Research & Evidence (30%) | Extensive use of high-quality, relevant sources. Evidence is critically evaluated, not just reported. Excellent command of recent literature. | Solid research base exceeding minimum requirements. Sources are relevant and support the argument well. Some synthesis of ideas. | Meets minimum source requirements. Reliance on textbooks or general web sources. Evidence is used to pad text rather than prove points. | Insufficient research. Sources are outdated, inappropriate, or missing. |
| Structure & Clarity (20%) | Fluent, professional writing. Paragraph transitions are logical and guide the reader. Introduction and conclusion are powerful. | Clear writing with minor stylistic errors. Structure is logical and easy to follow. Good signposting throughout the essay. | Writing is understandable but clunky. Paragraphs may lack focus. Structure is disjointed or repetitive. | Incoherent writing. Severe structural issues make the argument impossible to follow. |
| Referencing & Formatting (10%) | Flawless execution of Chicago style. Perfect formatting. | Minor errors in citation punctuation or bibliography formatting. | Frequent citation errors. Inconsistent formatting. | Missing citations (plagiarism risk) or complete disregard for style guide. |
The erosion of democratic norms in Hungary under Viktor Orbán exemplifies how executive aggrandizement often masquerades as legal reform. Rather than a sudden coup, Fidesz utilised a supermajority to systematically dismantle checks on power, a process Lührmann and Lindberg (2019) describe as “autocratization by decree.” While cultural grievances provided the populist fuel, the primary mechanism of backsliding was the capture of the judiciary and media regulatory bodies. This supports the institutionalist argument that without robust “soft guardrails” of mutual toleration, constitutional rules alone are insufficient to prevent authoritarian consolidation (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018, 102).
References
- Lührmann, A. and Lindberg, S.I., 2019. A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?. Democratization, 26(7), pp.1095-1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029
- Bermeo, N., 2016. On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), pp.5-19. [Foundational text re-evaluated in recent syllabi]. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012
- Waldner, D. and Lust, E., 2018. Unwelcome change: Coming to terms with democratic backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, pp.93-113. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-110811
- Norris, P. and Inglehart, R., 2019. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108595841
- Haggard, S. and Kaufman, R., 2021. Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954297
