Democracy, Authoritarianism and Regime Change

The main criteria for assessment on this module is that you demonstrate the abilities to

• accurately describe a case of regime change in a country and period of your choice,
• analyse the main actors and events in the specific case,
• apply a theoretical approach to causally explain the case, and
• form a well-informed argument based on the facts of the case and theoretical literature

There are two separate assessments, but their content will be complementary.

First Assessment:

Individual video presentation of 5-10 minutes content: draft essayrecord your presentation and upload it.

Minimum 5, Maximum 10 minutes

10% of your overall mark

After your submission, the instructor will give you short, written feedback on your ideas. You should take the remarks from the instructor into consideration as you continue to work on your essay and submit it.

Second Component:

Transition of Authoritarian Italy from 1922 till 1943 to a Democratic republic in 1946 till present day.

Essay

2100-word essay including in-text references, excluding bibliography

90%

The main assessment for this module is an individually written essay. This assessment gives the opportunity for you to choose a country and period that you are personally interested in, to do extensive independent research on your particular case, interpret the results of your research, and use the concepts and theories to examine your case.

Liberalism theory will be used for this essay.

The assessment requirements are aligned with the learning outcomes as follows:  

Learning Outcome	Assessment Requirements
Compare democracy, authoritarianism and hybrid regimes	Define and explain whether your case is a transition to democracy, authoritarianism or a hybrid regime
Outline various mechanisms through which democratization or authoritarianization occurs	Determine the mechanism through which the transition in your case occurred: was it a revolution, a gradual transformation, a military coup, an elite pact, etc.? Recite the factual events of the transition
Apply a theoretical approach to examine a case of regime change	Choose one or more theoretical approaches we have discussed in class that you think best explains your case and use it to analyse the transition
Demonstrate analytical aptitude in written form	Present your ideas in a well-organized and clear manner within 2100 words

Democracy, Authoritarianism and Regime Change

Essay Marking Scheme (3 pages). Relevant Presentation Criteria are indicated with an asterisk (*)

(Adopted from the Department of Politics and International Relations Marking Scheme for Final Year Dissertations)

	80+%	70-79%	60-69%	50-59%	40-49%	39-% (Fail)
Argument and understanding     Use of factual and theoretical evidence to sustain argument*             Critical thinking	Highly effective and sustained argument based on a theoretical approach, demonstrating a detailed and impressive level of factual understanding of the case, concepts and debates.   High degree of criticality that by far exceeds normal expectations and of publishable quality	Thorough and articulate argument based on a theoretical approach, demonstrating a high level of factual understanding of the case, concepts and/or debates.     Evidence of critical thinking throughout the essay	Coherent and clear argument based on a theoretical approach, adequate coverage of the facts of the case               Evidence of critical thinking in large parts of the dissertation.	Largely clear and coherent argument, evidence of engagement with a theory and facts of the case, but gaps in knowledge and understanding           Evidence of critical thinking but with inconsistencies	Argument employed is flawed; some understanding of the theories and facts, but key elements are missing; weak grasp of key issues and concepts       Limited evidence of critical thinking	Limited, unclear, incoherent argument; very poor understanding of theories, facts, key issues and concepts           No evidence of critical thinking

Engagement with the Academic Literature     Evidence of research*               Reflection on the theoretical and case study literature             Referencing

Evidence of extensive research using an impressive range of appropriate and up-to-date sources, including books, journal articles and, if appropriate, internet sources and primary data.     Extensive grounding in theory: evidence of critical awareness and use of relevant theoretical approaches, concepts and debates.   Fully and appropriately referenced throughout.

Evidence of extensive research using a large range of appropriate and up-to-date sources, including books, journal articles and, if appropriate, internet sources and primary data.       Engagement with relevant theoretical approaches, concepts and/or debates; effective connection with the analysis.       Very good referencing, i.e. complete and correctly cited in text and bibliography.

Evidence of a good range of reading, including academic sources, such as books and journal articles.               Engagement with relevant theoretical approaches, concepts and/or debates, but not effectively linked with the analysis.       Generally well referenced with minor weaknesses.

Limited engagement with the academic literature, but still sufficient range of sources and evidence of research.           Only limited engagement with relevant theoretical approaches, concepts and/or debates, and not linked with analysis.     Competent referencing but some inconsistencies.

No engagement with academic literature, but there still is sufficient evidence of research (e.g. internet resources).           Focus on (empirical) analysis without any engagement with relevant theoretical approaches, concepts and/or debates.       Poorly referenced.

No engagement with the academic literature and hardly any evidence of research.               See above.                   No references.

Presentation and Organization     Quality of Writing and Presentation*             Structure

Exceptional work of the highest quality, demonstrating accuracy and excellent presentation skills, close to publishable standard.

Clear use of formal language, free of typing and spelling mistakes as well as grammatical errors.         Logical structure that clearly supports the argument; paragraphs are used in a clear way to support reading comprehension.   Begins with an introduction that clearly introduces the case and theoretical approach of the study, and provides an overview of the structure of the dissertation. Ends with conclusions that provide a clear summary of the findings.

Clear use of formal language with minor errors.               Logical structure that supports the argument, but with minor weaknesses.   Begins with an introduction that appropriately introduces the reader to the dissertation, though with minor omissions. Includes conclusions that summarize some of the findings, but not all.

Clear use of language with some errors and some informal language.           Mainly logical structure, but with weaknesses.   Includes an introduction, however, omits relevant information. Includes conclusions that, omit the most significant findings.

Mostly clear use of language but with significant errors and too much informal language.           Partly flawed structure. Weak introduction. Weak conclusions.

Unclear language with serious errors.               Completely illogical structure, such as jumps from one idea to another within a paragraph. No introduction. No conclusions.