Suchergebnisse

L'Etat moderne est un phénomène ambigu. Aux lectures « négatives », où il est considéré comme un appareil parasitaire opprimant la société ou un instrument de domination de l'homme par l'homme, on peut opposer une interprétation « positive ». Cette dernière, typiquement européenne, liée à une conception radicale de l'autonomie et de la liberté individuelles, associe le développement de l'Etat moderne à un projet visant à limiter le domaine du pouvoir et du politique, mais aussi à le rationaliser. Sans oublier les décalages entre ces aspects de l'Etat et la réalité, l'analyse des différentes formes étatiques souligne que, aujourd'hui, la crise de l'Etat est la crise de ce modèle de l'Etat et que l'on cherche les alternatives à travers la redécouverte de conceptions fortes du politique.

Italy has been undergoing important changes that concern the heart of its democratic regime since Berlusconi's victory. If one cannot seriously define current Italy as an authoritarian regime, the definition of the relationships between majority and opposition, the open conflict with the judiciary power, the control of the médias and the confusion between economic activities and political power can be seen as worrying elements. Especially the separation of powers seems to be threatened. That is why the "normalization "of Italian politics thanks to the "Second Republic" may seem dubious.

This is a multiauthorial review essay of Daniel Ziblatt's Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism (Princeton: Princeton U Press, 2006) that includes a rebuttal by Ziblatt. Maurizio Cotta notes the persuasiveness & convincibility of the factors singled out by Ziblatt in support of the book's central thesis that the unification of Italy & Prussian Germany in the second half of the 19th century, although begun in both countries with similar regional institutions, ended with a centrist government in the former & a federalist regime in the latter. He questions, however, his attempt to project these factors in developing a more comprehensive theory of the emergence of major nation states in Western Europe, pointing out that the generalization that gives a satisfactory account for Germany & Italy becomes a fallacy when extended to Belgium or the Netherlands. Alfio Mastropaolo objects Ziblatt's implicit premise that federalism is superior to a centrist-unitarian governance & the implied conclusion that Italy would have fared better with a federalist government after its unification. He observes that neither Germany was spared from Nazism by federalism & nor Italy from Fascism by centralism. Mastropaolo points out that Ziblatt overlooks the importance of ideological factors, in particular the strong sentiments favoring a unitarian state in pre-1861 Italy. Gianfranco Poggi notes that the book fails to consider some important cultural & ideological theories of federalism that suggest an alternative explanation of the preference for federalism in Germany but not Italy. In his rebuttal, Ziblatt replies to the objections raised by each interviewer, defending the descriptive-explanatory efficacy of the historical-comparative approach adopted in the book & Charles Ragin's (1987) qualitative-comparative analysis applied in the extension of the generalization to other European states. He flatly rejects Mastropaolo's imputation that the book favors federalism as a superior form of government. Ziblatt also provides a rationale to justify the relevance of comparing the unification experience of Italy & Prussian Germany for contemporary political science. Z. Dubiel