🔵 YEAR 2 – CORE POLITICAL STUDIES
📝 PAST PAPERS + MARKING SCHEMES
📗 Semester 1
,📝 PAST PAPERS + MARKING SCHEMES
Modern Political Theory
📄 SECTION A: SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS (20
marks)
1. Define the “State of Nature” according to Thomas Hobbes. (5 marks)
✅ Marking Scheme:
● Basic definition (2 marks)
● Description as violent/anarchic (2 marks)
● Key phrase or explanation (1 mark)
✔ Sample Answer:
Hobbes describes the state of nature as a condition without government where
individuals act in self-interest, leading to chaos and conflict.
2. What are the natural rights according to John Locke? (5 marks)
✅ Marking Scheme:
● Identification of rights (3 marks)
● Brief explanation (2 marks)
✔ Sample Answer:
Locke identifies natural rights as life, liberty, and property, which individuals
possess inherently and must be protected by government.
3. Explain the “General Will” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (10 marks)
✅ Marking Scheme:
● Definition (3 marks)
● Collective interest explanation (3 marks)
, ● Link to democracy (2 marks)
● Clarity (2 marks)
✔ Sample Answer:
The General Will refers to the collective interest of all citizens, aimed at the
common good rather than individual desires.
📄 SECTION B: ESSAY QUESTIONS (Choose Any 2) (40
marks)
🧠 Question 1:
“Hobbes and Locke present fundamentally different views of human nature.” Discuss.
✅ Marking Scheme (20 marks):
Introduction (3 marks)
● Define human nature in political theory
● Mention both thinkers
Main Body (12 marks)
● Hobbes:
○ Selfish, competitive (4 marks)
● Locke:
○ Rational, cooperative (4 marks)
● Comparison (4 marks)
Conclusion (5 marks)
● Clear judgement
● Summary of differences
✔ Examiner Tip:
● Use direct contrast → higher marks
🟦 Introduction
, The concept of human nature is central to modern political theory because it shapes how
thinkers justify the origin of the state and political authority. Two of the most influential
theorists, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, present sharply contrasting views of human
nature. While Hobbes views humans as inherently selfish and violent, Locke argues that
humans are rational and capable of cooperation. This essay discusses these differences and
evaluates their implications for political authority.
🟨 Hobbes’ View of Human Nature
Hobbes, in his work Leviathan, describes human beings in the “state of nature” as
fundamentally self-interested and driven by fear and competition. He argues that without a
strong central authority, life would descend into chaos, which he famously describes as
“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
For Hobbes, humans are naturally equal in their ability to harm one another, which creates
constant insecurity and conflict. As a result, individuals willingly surrender their freedoms to a
sovereign authority in exchange for peace and security. This leads him to justify absolute
political authority as necessary to control human selfishness.
🟩 Locke’s View of Human Nature
In contrast, John Locke presents a more optimistic view of human nature in his Two
Treatises of Government. He argues that humans in the state of nature are generally
rational, moral, and capable of cooperation. Although conflicts may arise, they are not
inherently violent or chaotic as Hobbes suggests.
Locke believes individuals possess natural rights—life, liberty, and property—and are
capable of recognizing and respecting these rights. Therefore, government is formed not to
control human nature, but to protect these rights through the consent of the governed.
🟨 Comparison of Hobbes and Locke
The key difference between Hobbes and Locke lies in their assumptions about human
behaviour:
● Hobbes sees humans as selfish, competitive, and fearful, requiring strong authority.
● Locke sees humans as rational and cooperative, requiring limited government.
This difference leads to contrasting political outcomes. Hobbes supports absolute
sovereignty, while Locke supports constitutional government and democracy.
📝 PAST PAPERS + MARKING SCHEMES
📗 Semester 1
,📝 PAST PAPERS + MARKING SCHEMES
Modern Political Theory
📄 SECTION A: SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS (20
marks)
1. Define the “State of Nature” according to Thomas Hobbes. (5 marks)
✅ Marking Scheme:
● Basic definition (2 marks)
● Description as violent/anarchic (2 marks)
● Key phrase or explanation (1 mark)
✔ Sample Answer:
Hobbes describes the state of nature as a condition without government where
individuals act in self-interest, leading to chaos and conflict.
2. What are the natural rights according to John Locke? (5 marks)
✅ Marking Scheme:
● Identification of rights (3 marks)
● Brief explanation (2 marks)
✔ Sample Answer:
Locke identifies natural rights as life, liberty, and property, which individuals
possess inherently and must be protected by government.
3. Explain the “General Will” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (10 marks)
✅ Marking Scheme:
● Definition (3 marks)
● Collective interest explanation (3 marks)
, ● Link to democracy (2 marks)
● Clarity (2 marks)
✔ Sample Answer:
The General Will refers to the collective interest of all citizens, aimed at the
common good rather than individual desires.
📄 SECTION B: ESSAY QUESTIONS (Choose Any 2) (40
marks)
🧠 Question 1:
“Hobbes and Locke present fundamentally different views of human nature.” Discuss.
✅ Marking Scheme (20 marks):
Introduction (3 marks)
● Define human nature in political theory
● Mention both thinkers
Main Body (12 marks)
● Hobbes:
○ Selfish, competitive (4 marks)
● Locke:
○ Rational, cooperative (4 marks)
● Comparison (4 marks)
Conclusion (5 marks)
● Clear judgement
● Summary of differences
✔ Examiner Tip:
● Use direct contrast → higher marks
🟦 Introduction
, The concept of human nature is central to modern political theory because it shapes how
thinkers justify the origin of the state and political authority. Two of the most influential
theorists, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, present sharply contrasting views of human
nature. While Hobbes views humans as inherently selfish and violent, Locke argues that
humans are rational and capable of cooperation. This essay discusses these differences and
evaluates their implications for political authority.
🟨 Hobbes’ View of Human Nature
Hobbes, in his work Leviathan, describes human beings in the “state of nature” as
fundamentally self-interested and driven by fear and competition. He argues that without a
strong central authority, life would descend into chaos, which he famously describes as
“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
For Hobbes, humans are naturally equal in their ability to harm one another, which creates
constant insecurity and conflict. As a result, individuals willingly surrender their freedoms to a
sovereign authority in exchange for peace and security. This leads him to justify absolute
political authority as necessary to control human selfishness.
🟩 Locke’s View of Human Nature
In contrast, John Locke presents a more optimistic view of human nature in his Two
Treatises of Government. He argues that humans in the state of nature are generally
rational, moral, and capable of cooperation. Although conflicts may arise, they are not
inherently violent or chaotic as Hobbes suggests.
Locke believes individuals possess natural rights—life, liberty, and property—and are
capable of recognizing and respecting these rights. Therefore, government is formed not to
control human nature, but to protect these rights through the consent of the governed.
🟨 Comparison of Hobbes and Locke
The key difference between Hobbes and Locke lies in their assumptions about human
behaviour:
● Hobbes sees humans as selfish, competitive, and fearful, requiring strong authority.
● Locke sees humans as rational and cooperative, requiring limited government.
This difference leads to contrasting political outcomes. Hobbes supports absolute
sovereignty, while Locke supports constitutional government and democracy.
