Search results

One of the defining features of Turkish politics has been the strong influence of the military in civilian politics. However, since the early 2000s, we have seen unprecedented developments, substantially constraining the political powers of the military. How can we interpret this period from a historical perspective? What are the continuities and discontinuities in Turkish civil-military relations? Do these developments mark the end of military guardianship in the country? Employing the principal-agent framework, this study shows that the path of Turkish civil-military relations has been cyclical, where the status of the military has swung between agent and principal. Such swings have led to a significant degree of variance in the nature of the military guardianship. Thus, this study identifies two distinct stages of military tutelage during the Republican period: symbolic (1924-1960) and overt/assertive (1960-2001). It is further argued that the recent reversion of the military back to agent of the civilian principals has initiated a post-guardianship era in Turkey. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]

One of the defining features of Turkish politics has been the strong influence of the military in civilian politics. However, since the early 2000s, we have seen unprecedented developments, substantially constraining the political powers of the military. How can we interpret this period from a historical perspective? What are the continuities and discontinuities in Turkish civil–military relations? Do these developments mark the end of military guardianship in the country? Employing the principal–agent framework, this study shows that the path of Turkish civil–military relations has been cyclical, where the status of the military has swung between agent and principal. Such swings have led to a significant degree of variance in the nature of the military guardianship. Thus, this study identifies two distinct stages of military tutelage during the Republican period: symbolic (1924–1960) and overt/ assertive (1960–2001). It is further argued that the recent reversion of the military back to agent of the civilian principals has initiated a post-guardianship era in Turkey.

"When the Islamic Republic of Iran launched its fully-articulated political agenda in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution, it merged the concept of political Islam with the previously secular readings of the republican doctrine of state. This book provides an analysis of the constitutional and institutional structure of public power in the most emblematic instance of a theocratic republic to date: the Islamic Republic of Iran, using the methods of political science. Nearly four decades after the 1979 revolution, a thorough evaluation of Iran's prevalently anti-modernist political discourse and concurrent claims of republican popular sovereignty is here carried out and their theoretical coherence and applied success investigated. Vahid Nick Pay surveys the major republican schools of political philosophy on the one hand, and the principal narratives of the prevailing Shi'a political theology on the other, to provide a pioneering evaluation of the republican credentials of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It will be essential reading for scholars of political science and modern Iranian politics and history."--Bloomsbury Publishing

This article intends to deliver, in a concise and understandable way, a critical summary of the main theories, methodologies and problems that can be implemented and confronted in the contemporary study of republican Roman diplomacy. We will analyze three aspects: first, from realistic political science, the role of republican Roman diplomacy in the coercive and hierarchical establishment of Roman state power; secondly, from a constructivist and sociological interpretation, the role of republican diplomacy as an expressive and revitalizing agent of senatorial and Mediterranean symbolic and socio-political ties; and, thirdly, the role of senatorial commissions in the maturation and complexity of diplomatic work. ; En el presente artículo se pretende entregar, de forma concisa y comprensible, un resumen crítico de las principales teorías, metodologías y sus problemas, que pueden ser implementadas y confrontadas en el estudio contemporáneo de la diplomacia romana republicana. Analizaremos tres aspectos: en primer lugar, desde la ciencia política realista, el rol de la diplomacia romana republicana en la instauración coercitiva y jerárquica del poder estatal romano; en segundo lugar, desde una interpretación constructivista y sociológica, el papel de la diplomacia republicana como un agente expresivo y revitalizador de los lazos simbólicos y socio-políticos senatoriales y mediterráneos, y, en tercer lugar, el rol de las comisiones senatoriales en la maduración y complejización de las labores diplomáticas.

En el presente artículo se pretende entregar, de forma concisa y comprensible, un resumen crítico de las principales teorías, metodologías y sus problemas, que pueden ser implementadas y confrontadas en el estudio contemporáneo de la diplomacia romana republicana. Analizaremos tres aspectos: en primer lugar, desde la ciencia política realista, el rol de la diplomacia romana republicana en la instauración coercitiva y jerárquica del poder estatal romano; en segundo lugar, desde una interpretación constructivista y sociológica, el papel de la diplomacia republicana como un agente expresivo y revitalizador de los lazos simbólicos y socio-políticos senatoriales y mediterráneos, y, en tercer lugar, el rol de las comisiones senatoriales en la maduración y complejización de las labores diplomáticas. ; This article intends to deliver, in a concise and understandable way, a critical summary of the main theories, methodologies and problems that can be implemented and confronted in the contemporary study of republican Roman diplomacy. We will analyze three aspects: first, from realistic political science, the role of republican Roman diplomacy in the coercive and hierarchical establishment of Roman state power; secondly, from a constructivist and sociological interpretation, the role of republican diplomacy as an expressive and revitalizing agent of senatorial and Mediterranean symbolic and socio-political ties; and, thirdly, the role of senatorial commissions in the maturation and complexity of diplomatic work.

In the decades following independence, Mexico was transformed from a strong, stable colony into a republic suffering from economic decline and political strife. Marked by political instability--characterized by Antonio López de Santa Anna's rise to the presidency on eleven distinct occasions--this period of Mexico's history is often neglected and frequently misunderstood.Donald F. Stevens' revisionist account challenges traditional historiography to examine the nature and origins of Mexico's political instability. Turning to quantitative methods as a way of providing a framework for examining existing hypotheses concerning Mexico's instability, the author dissects the relationship between instability and economic cycles; contradicts the notion that Mexico's social elite could have increased political stability by becoming more active; and argues that the principal political fissures were not liberal vs. conservative but were among radical, moderate, and conservative.Ultimately, Stevens maintains, the origins of that country's instability are to be found in the contradictions between liberalism and Mexico's traditional class structure, and the problems of creating an independent republic from colonial, monarchical, and authoritarian traditions.

The conception of property is usually moulded upon diverting historical and political-philosophical frameworks. The current interest on the commons illustrates these divergences when they come up between a 'pure' public and a 'pure' private form of ownership. This conceptual triad misleads by conflating private property with an absolute property right while equating public property with a centralised political regime. This article traces the republican conception of property in order to show how it draws a legal and philosophical continuum around different forms of ownership, based on a fiduciary principle underlying the relationship between the sovereign or principal (trustor) and its agent (trustee). Despite modern socialism apparently left aside the question of the commons, the republican-fiduciary rationale was reformulated according to the modern industrial capitalist society.

Philip Pettit has made central to modern republican theory a distinctive account of freedom—republican freedom. On this account, I am not free solely because I can make choices without interference. I am truly free, only if that non-interference does not itself depend on another's forbearance (what Pettit calls 'formal' freedom). Pettit believes that the principal justification for the traditional focus of the criminal law is that it constitutes a bulwark against domination. I will, in part, be considering the merits of this claim. Is the importance of the orthodox realm of the criminal law solely or mainly explained by the wish to protect people from domination? In short, the answer is that it is not. Across the board, the criminal law rightly protects us equally from threats to what Pettit calls 'effective,' as opposed to formal, republican freedom. I will develop my critique of Pettit's account of criminal law, in part to raise questions about the role of 'domination' in political theory, and about whether it poses a significant challenge to liberal accounts of criminal law.

Education is the cornerstone for the formation of citizens and the development of their nations, which is why the texts that are used for their understanding need to be precise, clear and avoid subjectivity. This paper analyzes the book of the Bicentennial Collection for sophomores in secondary education, Our Republican History. The main purpose is to study whether this textbook has the necessary elements to develop fair, open and objective education in Venezuela. In other words, it seeks to evaluate whether by using this textbook as the main tool for the learning process, it allows students to be fuelled by the Venezuelan historical process from a neutral, critical and rational viewpoint. ; La educación constituye el pilar fundamental para la formación de sus ciudadanos y el desarrollo de sus naciones, es por ello que los textos que se empleen para su entendimiento sean precisos, claros y carezcan de subjetividades. El presente ensayo pretende analizar el libro de la Colección Bicentenario de segundo año de la educación secundaria, Nuestra Historia Republicana. Tiene como finalidad principal estudiar si este texto escolar posee los elementos necesarios para que se desarrolle en Venezuela una educación justa, libre y objetiva. Dicho de otra forma, busca evaluar si a través de la utilización de dicho texto escolar, como herramienta principal para el proceso de aprendizaje, permite que los estudiantes se nutran del proceso histórico venezolano desde un punto de vista neutro, crítico y racional.

Conventional wisdom states that where ideas and values have mattered in American political life they have usually been the product of a single, overarching political culture. The United States, it is argued, has had political conflict but notideologicalconflict. Perhaps nowhere is this premise more noticeable than in the study of political parties. According to Du-verger, "[T]he two parties are rival teams, one occupying office, the other seeking to dislodge it. It is a struggle between theinsand theouts, which never becomes fanatical, and creates no deep cleavage in the country." Everett Carll Ladd writes, "[T]he need to seek support within an overarching ideological consensus, has historically imposed certain characteristics on the major American parties – social group inclusiveness, accommodationism, a 'non-ideological' stance vis-a-vis their principal opponents (which, after all, accept the same ideology)."

When the first President Bush chose David Hackett Souter for the Supreme Court in 1990, the slender New Englander with the shy demeanor and ambiguous past was quickly dubbed a 'stealth candidate'. Determined to avoid a repeat of the firestorm surrounding President Reagan's nomination of the controversial Robert Bork, Bush opted for Souter, who had, remarkably, produced only one law review article in his legal career. Souter, an obscure but well-respected New Hampshire conservative, seemed unlikely to arouse the kind of passionate opposition that defined the Bork confirmation process. And, indeed, Souter was accepted onto the Court with little fuss. Today, fifteen years into his tenure, Souter remains as enigmatic and unpredictable as ever, a mystery even to avid Court watchers. Who is David Hackett Souter and what will be his legacy on the Supreme Court? Sifting through Souter's opinions, papers of the Justice's contemporaries and other relevant records and interviews, esteemed Supreme Court biographer Tinsley Yarbrough here gives us the real David Souter, crafting a fascinating account of one of the heretofore most elusive Justices in the history of the Court.; Though Souter's record on legal issues was generally conservative before his arrival on the Court, his mixed views caused some concern among both the left and the right during the appointment process. His reclusive lifestyle and frugality added to his mystique, making him even more difficult to peg. His penchant for solitude and his seemingly narrow circle of close friends convinced some that the middle-aged bachelor was out of touch with the sort of 'real world' problems the nation's highest court regularly confronts. Court watchers soon realized - to their delight or dismay - that President Bush's 'stealth' justice was a traditional New England Republican deeply tied to the party's historic roots in the union and civil rights - in stark contrast to most Reagan-Bush I appointees. On the bench, Souter has embraced a flexible, evolving, and highly pragmatic judicial style that embraces a high regard for precedent - even liberal decisions of the Warren and Burger Courts with which he may have personally disagreed.; Even more significantly, Souter has become a regular and very effective critic of the set of rulings via which his ostensible political brethren - Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - have abandoned precedent to assert their conservative vision. Ultimately, Yarbrough contends, Souter has become the principal Rehnquist Court opponent of the originalist, text-bound jurisprudence that many of the more conservative Justices profess to champion.