Search results

This text is a short reflection on the possibility of studying historical events through a political science approach. The two analyzed publications exemplify the possibility and the failure of such an approach. While the first book presents a coherent political science analysis of the past, the second publication fails to do so. In my text, I argue that by using appropriate theoretical foundations and methodological approaches, politics in the past can not only be effectively examined but that relevant conclusions can be reached as well. Adapted from the source document.

The article discusses the definition & typology of anti-system parties. It is based on the classical definition by Giovanni Sartori, which is in my opinion not obsolete. On the contrary it is still very usable, but under the condition that we stay on the ground of party theory & party systems, & not transfer it to the field of democratic theory. The next part of the text focuses on Giovanni Capoccia's attempt in 2002 to modify Sartori's theory & create a new typology of anti-system parties is very interesting but not very progressive. It seems that Capoccia makes the same, or at least very similar, propositions as Sartori. I think we should call "anti-system" only those parties which conform to Sartori's rigorous definition. The parties conforming to Sartori's wide definition should not be named "anti-system" but rather "extreme." So, we have two separate categories of opposition parties: 1) anti-system, & 2) extreme. The first one is ideological opposition against the political system. The second is simply extreme, radical opposition against the government, or at the most, against some part of the political system, but not against the system as a whole. The second main proposition of the article concerns the problem of a typology of anti-system parties. According to the view mentioned above & based on Capoccia's typology, I have created a modified typology. It correlates two parameters, ideological & relational. The result is five types of parties: anti-system parties, extreme parties, irrelevant anti-system parties, camouflaged anti-system parties, & pro-system parties. Adapted from the source document.

The article tries to evaluate the Europeanization research agenda from the point of view of a politics-sphere A basic precondition for understanding the character of the political systems in East-European countries after the Second World War is to define the key concepts, especially different types of non-democratic regimes. In other words, we must know what "totalitarianism", and "authoritarianism" means, and how we should approach studying these species. According to empirical and analytical methods, we consider them both as ways of governing, as types of political systems and not something else (e.g. ideology, a way of thinking, etc.). Eastern Europe after 1944, with some exceptions, was not totalitarian and is better described as quasi-totalitarian or authoritarian. However by the term "quasi-totalitarianism" we do not mean a subtype of "post-totalitarianism" (as Juan J. Linz does), but as a separate category of non-democratic regime. Of course it is necessary to take into account the differences existing among particular countries as well as differences "inside" these countries, meaning their unique historical development. This is evident in the case study portion of this article which describes the political system of Poland 1944-1989. Adapted from the source document.

This article deals with the complicated & multifaceted topic of Polish politics between the two world wars. This time period was characterized not only by a "classical" political instability but, much more importantly, also by the instability of the whole political system. The democratic regime created in 1919 was weak & was abolished by force in 1926. The subsequent political system was authoritarian (but not totalitarian) & survived until the end of the Polish state in October 1939, when Poland was attacked & occupied by the German & Soviet armies. The questions posed by the article are manifold. Why did Poland introduce democracy in the hardship years of 1918-1919, but did so for only a few years? Why was not democracy successful? Why did Poland accept authoritarianism & what were the political & constitutional consequences of that step? 31 References. Adapted from the source document.