Search results

THE OUTCOME OF THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTIONS OF 1974, WITH the multi-party Parliaments which resulted and the disproportionate relationship of seats to votes in the case of the Liberal Party, has revived interest in the question of electoral reform. The progress made since the Kilbrandon Report on the Constitution towards the creation of Scottish and Welsh Assemblies has emphasized the need to consider whether the existing method of electing parliamentary representatives should be used for these new legislatures, or, indeed, for the Westminster Parliament. Decisions to move towards direct elections for the European Parliament, eventually under some generally uniform system for all the member-states of the Community, have strengthened the case for a close examination of the suitability of retaining the British system of single-member seats won by the relative-majority system of 'first past the post'.

AFTER MORE THAN A DECADE IN WHICH DOMESTIC POLICY PROVIDED the major issues for party debate in West Germany, the determination of the Brandt government on taking office to engage itself in activities designed to 'normalize' relations with the Eastern Bloc has had notable effects on the West German parties. The political climate has altered; partisanship has been intensified; the Basic Law has been tested in novel circumstances; and the governing coalition and the apprentice opposition have both faced trials and tensions in terms of their party base.The new Ostpolitik has had its effects on the political climate in terms of the first use of the constructive vote of no confidence, the erosion of the coalition majority, the pressures for a premature general election; but the short-term and longer-term effects on the West German parties are likely to be of greater significance. This article seeks to assess the significance of the Ostpolitik for the government and opposition parties. For, whatever the benefits or disadvantages which the Ostpolitik may bring to the Federal Republic in intrinsic terms, it is already clear that it has modified considerably the pre-1969 pattern of party politics.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS IS EVERYTHING – OR IT IS NOTHING. Superficially, these appear to be the only logical positions that can be maintained when considering the relationship of comparative politics to the various areas and divisions of the discipline of political science. The now old-fashioned use of the title to indicate either a small number of country studies loosely linked by structural comparison, or a somewhat broader field of institutional comparison, whatever the pedagogic arguments of coherence or convenience, possesses neither logical boundary nor scientific integrity. Yet once that treacherous one step further is taken in the directions of functional comparison, or, further, consideration of the 'comparative method' itself and the distinctions between comparative politics and, say, political theory, political sociology or political analysis disappear completely.