Search results

3.1 Prezidencializace politiky a politických stran3.2 Výběr kandidátů; 3.3 Personalizace volebních systémů; 3.4 Institucionální personalizace v České republice; 3.4.1 Prezidencializace; 3.4.2 Výběr kandidátů; 3.4.3 Personalizace českého volebního systému; 4. MEDIÁLNÍ PERSONALIZACE; 4.1 Celebritizace politiky; 4.2 Personalizace mediálních obsahů; 4.3 Mediální personalizace v České republice; 4.3.1 Celebritizace; 4.3.2 Personalizace mediálních obsahů; 5. BEHAVIORÁLNÍ PERSONALIZACE; 5.1 Preferenční hlasování; 5.2 Efekt lídra; 5.3 Behaviorální personalizace v České republice.

This article focuses on a comparative analysis of the organization of contemporary Czech parliamentary parties. It emphasizes the structural and functional differences between the new parties—ANO (meaning "yes" in Czech) and Dawn of Direct Democracy—and older parties. The theoretical section presents the basic organizational types – in particular, the concept of the business-firm party. The following organizational aspects of parties are then compared: membership, form of funding, the role played by ground organizations, the position and composition of top party bodies, the role played by the party leader, and media resources. This analysis reveals that ANO and Dawn have a more exclusive membership than older parties and have centralized more power into the hands of the party leader, who is supported both by formal statutes and by informal structures. In the case of ANO, the central leadership dominates over lower-level ground organizations; Dawn forgoes them altogether. Its missing institutional base accelerated Dawn's implosion in 2015. ANO is characterised by a high degree of professionalism and control over key media, both of which were missing in the case of Dawn. ; This article focuses on a comparative analysis of the organization of contemporary Czech parliamentary parties. It emphasizes the structural and functional differences between the new parties—ANO (meaning "yes" in Czech) and Dawn of Direct Democracy—and older parties. The theoretical section presents the basic organizational types – in particular, the concept of the business-firm party. The following organizational aspects of parties are then compared: membership, form of funding, the role played by ground organizations, the position and composition of top party bodies, the role played by the party leader, and media resources. This analysis reveals that ANO and Dawn have a more exclusive membership than older parties and have centralized more power into the hands of the party leader, who is supported both by formal statutes and by informal ...

The text focuses on one specific aspect of Lukashenko´s nondemocratic regime – the position and function of political parties. These variables are analysed, among others, by the application of classical terms such as competition, competitiveness, and party system. On the one hand, political parties (including anti-system ones) officially exist and, as such, can participate in elections. On the other hand, there is only a minimal chance for (opposition) political parties to win a mandate by means of participating in elections or to gain a share of real political power. The text tries to find the answers to several interrelated questions: What are the consequences of the above mentioned facts in the Belarusian context, in terms of a theory of political parties? Why does the regime tolerate the existence of political parties? Why do political parties themselves participate in this system? Seeking answers to these questions, the article focuses mainly on the period from1995 to 2008, during which four parliamentary elections took place. However previous and current developments are also taken into account.