If you wish to practice, we offer you a selection of mock exam questions on Democracy.
As with the other mock exams, we advise you to build a detailed outlines for as many of the questions as you can from the following list.
A detailed outline includes if we want to do things big and well: the introduction with the question that pinpoints the problem and the plan, then the title of your main parts, the title of your subparts, and dashes inside each subpart that indicate your ideas to develop, and finally a conclusion.
Yes, we ask a lot of you, and yes, this is the best and most complete way to do it! However, we do not forget to be pragmatic and we know that time is precious or simply, in a less obvious way, that you are lazy. In this case, you can just think about the main lines of your assignment, what the problem will be.
Churchill declared in 1947:
‘It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’
For example, here is our favorite topic: Is the state an enemy of democracy? What are your outlines? Your ideas? Write them in the comments of this article to see what others think. Tomorrow, come back here, read your comment, and think: how could you improve on yesterday’s work?
Mock exam on Democracy
- Is democracy self-evident?
- Of all the imperfect regimes that have existed, is democracy the best?
- Can democracy evolve?
- How does democracy cope with being run by a few men?
- Is democracy the power of the people for the people?
- In some cases, can society do without democracy?
- Is the state the enemy of democracy?
- Is there such a thing as a real democracy?
Mixed training subjects: Democracy/School
- Is the State of the school of democracy?
- Does the school contribute to democracy?
- Is the school democratic?
- Can democracy be learned at school?
In 3 steps you can help others and yourself. It is very simple, it is called mutual enrichment:
1. POST your outlines in comments
2. COMPARE your ideas
3. IMPROVE your copy
See also:
→ General Knowledge Mock Exams
→ General Knowledge: Democracy
Next 🙂 Topic 4: How does democracy cope with being run by a few men?. Issue: Has democracy drifted so far from its pure meaning that we will have permission to call it an oligarchy? For what? Outline: – 1) Democracy itself – 2) why an oligarchy? : — a) for — b) against — Topic 6: In some cases, can society do without democracy? Issue: Is democracy necessary for us today? Do we really need it? Maybe we’re old enough to leave her out of the picture and fend for ourselves? 🙂 Outline: – 1) what does democracy do for us – 2) without it we would be us now — Topic 8: Is there real democracy? Problem and plan: we take up those of subject 1. — What do you think? Any criticism is accepted :).
So for the first subject, namely: Is democracy self-evident?. Here is the problem that I mentioned: – What is the vocation of pure democracy and, does it still retain its essence today, or is it no longer the democracy of the time, and if yes, what are the causes? The outline will consist of the following 2 parts: – 1) Democracy in Athens; some principle of pure democracy (based on political philosophy) – 2) Democracy today: forms, transformations, causes… The second question: of all the imperfect regimes that have existed, democracy is she the best of them? The problem is the following: – Does democracy today deserve to be named the best regime, the perfect regime? What are the arguments for and against this? The plan: – 1) the arguments for – 2) the arguments against I did them in 20-25 minutes, it’s not perfect, but what do you think? And what could you add / perhaps change?
Lilith, I find your outline very interesting! For your third part, it seems to me that you can talk about the anarchists, and in particular Bakunin who advocated the end of the state as such. He also advocates the fact that in democratic societies with a low population (villages, neighborhoods, etc.) the State has no place because decisions can be taken by the citizens themselves. You can also talk about Karl Marx, who thought of the state as provisional, ephemeral, as an entity that serves to regulate human behavior (to legislate) and also to regulate production in his idea of a socialist society. Once everything is up and running, the state no longer has any place for him. Finally, I would allude to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract and its principle of common interest; a State is needed to guarantee that rulers act in the common interest (and not in their personal interest) and that it will be their only concern. I hope this will help you and that it is not too politically connoted for you! 🙂
Lilith, pretty name 🙂
Hello, for the question Is the State the enemy of democracy?, I thought as question that pinpoints the problem of Is the authority of a State compatible with the functioning of a democratic society, in which the power belongs to the people? with the plan: 1. The State can be the framework of democracy (institutions, guarantees the rights and democratic principles by laws) 2. The State can also prove to be contrary to democracy (authoritarian State; but also in in so-called democratic societies, the power of the state sometimes supplements the will of the people (surveillance) 3. Is a democracy without a state possible? (Internet, social networks… = possibility of direct participation…) (I’m a little less sure about the content of this part…) Any advice/criticism? THANKS 🙂
@Mellie Thank you so much for your insights I’ll try to rework all that!
@Brutusse, I have the impression that your problem does not encompass your subject enough to see the notion of for the people which is missing. Otherwise, the outline follows the thread of the problem perfectly, only it votes and chooses its representatives and can overthrow, if necessary, non-democratic regimes yes and no because it is the representatives of the people who can overthrow a government and a regime. I’m posting this here, and I hope it’s useful if not correct me 🙂
For the question Is democracy the power of the people for the people I was thinking of a problem of the type Do the people really hold the power in a democracy? I- Yes because it votes and chooses its representatives and can overthrow, if necessary, undemocratic regimes. II- No, because power ends up being concentrated in the hands of a few. Loss of public confidence in politicians. III- The power of the people remains fragile and democracy can quickly turn into an anti-democratic regime. Hence the need for the people to remain vigilant and ensure that they maintain their power over their leaders. All sprinkled with a few quotes from some thinkers and politicians. 😉 So sorry if I spread a little but I couldn’t make my titles more concise. I appreciate all of your criticisms, advice and opinions. Have a nice weekend and good end of revisions! 😉
@Laura: If all your posts are on the same subject, remember to include everything in one comment next time, the thread of the conversation will be even more readable! Similarly, for the attention of all users, an effort with the language and a quick proofreading to limit careless mistakes will further motivate your readers to discuss your ideas with you! THANKS 🙂
@Fanny: Your outline seems relevant to me and, in my opinion, a first part on the historical aspect is a necessary framework, which would complete your introduction (the risk would be, on the other hand, of no longer having material to feed the introduction, or to be redundant then it will be necessary to dose). The form yes, no, yes but is coherent and therefore sweeps the whole subject. However, after re-reading the issue, I wonder if parts I and II are not going in the direction of yes, ultimately abandoning the idea of a completed democracy, which perhaps should then be taken into consideration in a sub -part (because who says reforms, says evolution and frozen democracy, which could not evolve does not seem to appear in your reflection). The last part also remains in this idea of a search for the different possible evolutions of democracy. In the end, I think it’s the way you focused on your problem that gradually takes the reflection away from the initial subject (according to my own sensitivity, maybe it’s just an impression). You focused on democracy, does it manage to adapt […], but the question was about can it do it, I don’t know if the nuance is very clear, but after re-reading (yes, I may have read your comment 4 times BEFORE starting to answer you…!) the discrepancy is subtle but noticeable. Well, I hope I was able to enlighten you so that you can improve!
Hello, For democracy can it evolve? , I thought of the following problem: in the face of changes in today’s society, we may think that we are in the midst of a democratic crisis, can we resolve it? What do you think ? I have the outline if you want
Fanny, I would rather have asked to what extent democracy, when it tries to evolve, loses/gains in democracy (what does it say?) with direct, indirect, liberal republican democracy, and the variation in freedom and equality, what do you think?
Hello, Pr the first subject I thought of: Is democracy in the nature of men? It came to me like that I admit that it may seem far-fetched and I can’t find any appropriate outlines…(so it’s possibly off the mark) But it seems to me to be a possible line of thought, also if you have any ideas, remarks or suggestions do not hesitate! 😉
the state does not have a monopoly on the democratic form haha that’s all for me! (EU, Mercosur…)
even only on the fact of inculcating the democracy in fact, it is light. Rather The state actor of democracy? 🙂 we could include more things, the fact for example that the State has a certain responsibility certainly vis-à-vis the transmission of democratic thought and the training of the citizen but also at the level of respect for the law, at the level of the protection of citizens against the harmful effects of globalization…
have trouble with your subject, is the State the school of democracy… it seems far-fetched to me all the same, a whole dissertation on the role of the State in democracy? come on
Hello for the question: Can democracy evolve?, I thought to put in question: although democracy is a regime whose vocation is to adapt to the different mutations of society in order to improve continuously, does it succeed for all that ? with as a plan: I- Since its origin, democracy has changed its face, which shows that it is capable of change (a historical part relating the old forms of democracy and the representative democracy of the current Western world); II- But today it seems broken down and, under certain aspects, in crisis, despite attempts at reform (I cannot make the wording more explicit); III- Nevertheless, there are new forms and means of democracy that encourage us to rethink democracy in order to continue to advance it (I was very hesitant to devote a whole section to the historical aspect of the question, is that too much?) Opinions/advice?
@Alice: It is great to lead the thinking towards the concept of ‘universal’. You hit the real issue there. This is exactly what needs to be done: behind the question, ‘Is Democracy self-evident?’”, what did the author of the problem really think about? What is behind this question? What does the corrector or teacher have in mind? Gaël’s remark is quite relevant. For the plan, do not hesitate to indicate the titles of your parts. A 2 × 2 outline or a 3 × 2/3 × 3 outline agree on the form: everything depends on the content, and the logic you want to put in it.
Hello, the problem seems good to me but maybe instead of the best diet I would have put an effective diet or something like that. This opens up other avenues of reflection I find.
Hello, for the first subject, is democracy self-evident? What do you think of the issue? Is democracy the best of regimes, and as such universal? with a 2×2 plan? THANKS!