Suchergebnisse

'Die große Beitrittsrunde im Mai 2004 mit zehn neuen Mitgliedsländern hat gezeigt, dass die Europäische Union gewillt ist, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit, verbunden mit Menschenrechten und Minderheitenschutz im Beitrittsprozess einzumahnen. Gerade deshalb stellt sich die Frage, welche Standards die EU diesbezüglich aufgestellt hat. Nachdem nun eine weitere Erweiterungsrunde abgeschlossen ist (Bulgarien und Rumänien) und die nächste verhandelt wird, gilt es zu überprüfen, wie sich diese auf den Beitrittsprozess auswirken. Bei der Analyse anhand der Fortschrittsberichte der EU-Kommission für Bulgarien und Rumänien kristallisiert sich ein unvollständiges Demokratiebild heraus: (1) zentrale demokratietheoretische Aspekte wie etwa umfassende Partizipation der BürgerInnen und Schutz vor staatlicher Willkür finden keine bzw. wenig Beachtung. (2) Zudem zeigt sich, dass in den Berichten genannte gravierende Defizite keine Auswirkung auf den Beitrittsprozess haben, da die zu allgemein gehaltenen politischen Kriterien von Kopenhagen seit 1998 als erfüllt gelten. (3) Es bleibt festzustellen, dass eine Überarbeitung dieser Kriterien unumgänglich für die folgenden Beitrittsprozesse ist.' (Autorenreferat)

"Diese Studie beschäftigt sich mit der ersten freien Kommunalwahl in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik im Mai 1990. Die DDR war zu diesem Zeitpunkt geprägt vom Übergang eines totalitären sozialistischen Staates in eine Demokratie. In dieser Umbruchsituation wurden das Selbstverständnis und die wechselseitigen Beziehungen der politischen Akteure - Wähler, Parteien, Medien - untersucht. Dazu wurde eine Befragung von Wählern und Parteienvertretern sowie eine Inhaltsanalyse aller lokalen Zeitungen durchgeführt. Begrenzt wurde die Untersuchung auf Leipzig, die Stadt, in der im Oktober 1989 die friedliche Revolution in der DDR ihren Anfang genommen hatte. Bei einem Vergleich der Themenagenden der drei politischen Subsysteme stellten sich deutliche Differenzen der Themenprioritäten heraus, vor allem die Zeitungen unterschieden sich in ihrer Berichterstattung über die Kommunalwahl sowohl von Wählern wie von Parteien sehr stark. Innerhalb der Subsysteme Wähler und Politiker hingegen zeigte sich auch über ideologische Grenzen hinweg eine erstaunliche Homogenität." (Autorenreferat)

This article uses the periodical press, memoirs and archival sources to examine the Conservative thought of Douglas Jerrold and Charles Petrie at the New English Review between 1945 and 1950. It seeks to argue that while there was more continuity than rupture in their political thought, they were able to make a transition from interwar authoritarianism and 'fascism' to postwar anti-communism and democracy. There were similarities between their political Catholicism and Christian democracy, but ultimately their 'real Toryism' and continued sympathy for Franco prevented them from fully aligning themselves with British and west European Christian democrats. ; publishedVersion ; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

This study seeks to shed light on the highly publicized democracy dilemma signaling that encountering disagreement tends to promote deliberative democracy, while the same experience can dampen a citizen's motivation to participate. By assessing the processes wherein the joint workings of cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity are simultaneously associated with the outcomes of deliberative and participatory democracy, we provide a number of key insights into the puzzling quandary. First, our results indicate that cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity interact with each other to predict increased political participation. Second, the relationship between cross-cutting discussion and preference for open dialogue is stronger for those who belong to a congenial primary network. Third, efficacious individuals seem more capable of translating the benefits of an ongoing deliberative orientation into meaningful political behavior. The current research suggests that deliberation and participation can go hand in hand under a particular network context.

In her pivotal work on Kuwaiti politics, Mary Ann Tétreault provides an
"insider's guide" to the private and public spaces in which struggles over
communal power are pursued by the government, the Parliament, and the people of Kuwait.
Tétreault is careful to call her text "Stories of Democracy," as she realizes
the reflexive nature of what democracy means at different periods in history (before oil, after oil,
under Iraqi occupation, in post-Liberation Kuwait); for different people in Kuwait (women, the
merchants, government officials, tribal leaders, service politicians, opposition leaders); and in
different contexts (the mosque, the diwaniyya or men's social club, the civic
association, Parliament, the government). With this in mind, she argues that
"democracy" is a "concept that 'moves' depending on
one's assumptions" (p. 3). Her basic message is that Kuwaiti politics resembles the
politics of the Greek city-state, and she relies on various forms of Aristotelian comparison to
explore this concept. Moreover, Tétreault illustrates that much of Kuwaiti politics
resembles a high-stakes soap opera. For example, she calls the bad debt crisis "one of the
longest running soap operas in Kuwaiti politics" (p. 164). In Chapter 4, she labels Kuwaiti
politics "a family romance, whose grip on political actors constrains their choices"
(p. 67). Toward the end of her text in chapter 8, Tétreault combines these metaphors
when she observes that in the city-state that is Kuwait, politics are "the product of a
domestic public life that seems all too often like life in a large and contentious family" (p.
206).

A research conducted by Kaspersky in early 2021 showed data in Southeast Asia that the highest percentage of respondents who spread the news without verification were actually in Gen Z (28%), followed by Gen X (21%), and Baby Boomers (19%). Sharing information without verification is very likely to cause the spread of fake news/hoaxes in online media. Indeed, Indonesia pins high hopes on Gen Z (born from 1996-2010) and Gen Y (1980-1995) that are considered part of the upcoming demographic bonus. In various discussions in the digital space, there are also often excuses for using free speech to justify the spread of the Covid-19 hoax in online media. This study aims to discover more about how the role of the younger generation can fight the Covid-19 hoax in the digital space by building democracy and free speech. Hoaxes continuously produced and disseminated by various groups indirectly become part of infodemic production. Even WHO stated that the condition of strengthening infodemics is as dangerous as the current pandemic worldwide. This research uses the method of discourse analysis and social networking analysis (SNA) using big data analysis on Twitter which Gen Z widely use. The results of this study describe how is the role of the younger generation to fight the Covid-19 hoax and find out who are the primary gatekeepers among young Indonesians in this fight against the Covid-19 hoax.

This article explains the relationship between populism and democracy in the left-wing governments of Ecuador and Venezuela, under the leadership of Rafael Correa and Hugo Chávez. For this purpose, a comparative policy exercise of similar cases is carried out, in countries where the samepopulist phenomenon occurs, although the political variables of both, within a polyarchy regime, historically record different behaviors. The relationship between populism and democracy has been analyzed from three different academic perspectives. These perspectives examine the so-called classical populism that occurred between the 30s to the 60s, the neo-populism of the 90s and theradical populism of the first decade of the 21st century. The first perspective argues that this political phenomenon damages democracy because of how it destroys the political system's institutions of liberal democracy; the second considers that populism contains democratizing elements due to the expansion of the political community who concedes the entry of those excluded; and the third argues that populism reflects the state of health of the democracy. ; Este artículo explica la relación entre populismo y democracia en los gobiernos de izquierda de Ecuador y Venezuela, bajo los liderazgos de Rafael Correa y Hugo Chávez. Para el efecto, se realiza un ejercicio de política comparada de casos similares, es decir en países en donde se produce el mismo fenómeno populista, a pesar de que las variables políticas de ambos, dentro de un régimen de poliarquía, registran históricamente comportamientos diferentes. La relación entre populismo y democracia ha sido analizada desde tres perspectivas desde el denominado populismo clásico que va entre los años 30 a los 60, pasando por el neopopulismo de los años 90 hasta llegar a los populismos radicales de la primera década del siglo XXI. La primera sostiene que este fenómeno causa daño a la democracia por cuanto destruye a las instituciones, diluye todo tipo de mediaciones y deja el manejo del Estado a la discrecionalidad del líder; la segunda considera que este fenómeno contiene elementos democratizadores debido a que amplía la comunidad política permitiendo el ingreso de los excluidos en una oferta constante de reivindicación popular y la tercera argumenta que el populismo refleja el estado de salud de la democracia.