Search results

After years of political crises and negotiations, the deep-rooted conflict between Dutch- and French-speaking parties recently led to the 2011 agreement concerning a further reform of the Belgian state. This reform mainly furthers decentralises the – already federal – state structure, including the allocation of additional competences and fiscal powers to sub-national entities (Regions and Communities). But this new state reform also brings about a radical reform of the upper house: the Belgian Senate. Since 1995, the Senate was composed of three different types of members: Senators directly elected by two linguistically separated electorate (the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking electorates), Senators indirectly elected by the Community parliaments and Senators coopted by the two other types. The French- and German-speaking linguistic minorities had a fixed amount of seats in this assembly. The reform of the state radically changed the legislative competences of the Senate and its composition as its members will now be designated by Regional and Community parliaments (plus 10 coopted senators). Broadly speaking, the appointment of the majority of the Senators moved from a system of direct and language-based election to a system of indirect and mixed regional and language-based designation. This change is not without consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. In May 2014, regional, community and federal elections will be organised in Belgium, testing for the first time this new system of designation of Senators by regional and community parliaments. This paper intends to present the 2013 reform of the Senate in Belgium and its consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. The situations before and after the reform of the Senate will be compared, not only in terms of the way Senators are appointed but in terms of its consequence on the linguistic aspects of the regional and community elections campaign and of the profile of the appointed Senators.

Javne su politike, kao višedimenzionalan i izrazito kompleksan fenomen, nužno multidisciplinaran predmet istraživanja. Cilj je rada istražiti što je specifično politološko znanje o javnim politikama, odnosno koji je jedinstveni doprinos politologa izučavanju i upravljanju javnim politikama u svrhe profiliranja te mlade politološke discipline u Jugoistočnoj Europi. Rad je nastao kao rezultat pregleda temeljnih udžbenika javnih politika u svijetu i regiji, te literature o metodologiji i pristupima istraživanju u društvenim znanostima i politologiji. Kreće se od određivanja što su javne politike i što je politički aspekt javnih politika. Propituju se pristupi istraživanju javnih politika (policy studije). Zatim se identificiraju vrste profesionalne uporabe tih istraživanja (policy analize). Ključna je pretpostavka kako je politologija prvenstveno kompetentna za analizu aktera stvaranja politika. Osnovni je nalaz da temelj profesionalnog profiliranja politologa u javnim politikama, s obzirom da jedini rabe istraživačku perspektivu usmjerenu na aktere, reprezentativnost i legitimnost stvaranja politika, može biti jedan oblik participatorne policy analize. ; Public policies, as a multi-dimensional and highly complex phenomenon, necessarily make a multidisciplinary research subject. The aim of this paper is to examine what is specific political science knowledge about public policy, and what is the unique contribution of political scientists to policy research and governance to enhance consolidating this young discipline in Southeastern Europe. This paper is a result of a review of policy textbooks in Southeastern Europe and worldwide, and literature on approaches and methodologies in social sciences and political science. It starts with determining public polices and their political aspect. Then it explores approaches of policy studies. Finally, it identifies types of professional policy research or policy analysis. The key assumption is that political science is primarily competent to analyze policy actors. The main finding of the paper is that the basis of political scientist professionalization in policy research, given that they are best in actor-centered research, and issues of representativeness and legitimacy of policy-making, can be a form of participatory policy analysis.