Suchergebnisse

"This chapter assesses the rote of different psychological factors in explaining voting behavior, particularly right-wing voting patterns. In the contemporary Is- k raeli political arena, we studied the effects of three facets of authoritarianism (individual, social, and political) on voting patterns in the 1999 Israeli general elecdons (both for prime minister and parliament). This study was based on a comprehensive survey of 965 university and college students in Israel. The questionnaire focused on authoritarian attributes and individual voting inclinations. i Two major points were examined: which type of authoritarianism was significant in predicting a voting preference for the right-wing or left-wing prime ministerial candidate; and the prediction of voting preferences for the two largest right-wing parties, Likud (moderate right-wing) and Shas (militant religious right-wing), in comparison to the two largest left-wing parties, Labor (moderate left-wing) and Meretz (militant secular left-wing). Results reveal that the complete, multifaceted (individual, social, and political) authoritarianism syndrome best predicted voting for the right-wing prime ministerial candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu. However, regarding partisan voting ,patterns, results showed that a segregated or single-faceted authoritarianism was more important. Findings indicate that in the cases of larger and more moderate parties, only political authoritarianism had a significant effect; but for more militant parties, other factors (individual authoritarianism in the case of Shas and social authoritarianism in the case of Meretz) had the most significant effects. This research yields several conceptual insights. On the whole, it uncovers the variable sensitivity of the different facets of authoritarianism. Voting for a single candidate can be best predicted by a more integrated conception of authoritarianism. However, the distinct, respective aspects of authoritarianism can best predict partisan voting. The individual aspect corresponds with the prediction of right-wing party voting, but for left-wing voting, the social form of authoritarianism is more reliable. Finally, the political form of authoritarianism appears to serve as a reliable predictor of voting for both moderate parties." (author's abstract)

"This chapter assesses the rote of different psychological factors in explaining voting behavior, particularly right-wing voting patterns. In the contemporary Is- k raeli political arena, we studied the effects of three facets of authoritarianism (individual, social, and political) on voting patterns in the 1999 Israeli general elecdons (both for prime minister and parliament). This study was based on a comprehensive survey of 965 university and college students in Israel. The questionnaire focused on authoritarian attributes and individual voting inclinations. i Two major points were examined: which type of authoritarianism was significant in predicting a voting preference for the right-wing or left-wing prime ministerial candidate; and the prediction of voting preferences for the two largest right-wing parties, Likud (moderate right-wing) and Shas (militant religious right-wing), in comparison to the two largest left-wing parties, Labor (moderate left-wing) and Meretz (militant secular left-wing). Results reveal that the complete, multifaceted (individual, social, and political) authoritarianism syndrome best predicted voting for the right-wing prime ministerial candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu. However, regarding partisan voting, patterns, results showed that a segregated or single-faceted authoritarianism was more important. Findings indicate that in the cases of larger and more moderate parties, only political authoritarianism had a significant effect; but for more militant parties, other factors (individual authoritarianism in the case of Shas and social authoritarianism in the case of Meretz) had the most significant effects. This research yields several conceptual insights. On the whole, it uncovers the variable sensitivity of the different facets of authoritarianism. Voting for a single candidate can be best predicted by a more integrated conception of authoritarianism. However, the distinct, respective aspects of authoritarianism can best predict partisan voting. The individual aspect corresponds with the prediction of right-wing party voting, but for left-wing voting, the social form of authoritarianism is more reliable. Finally, the political form of authoritarianism appears to serve as a reliable predictor of voting for both moderate parties." (author's abstract).

Applies James C. Scot's (1985, 1990) observations about oppositional speech in peasant societies to contemporary authoritarian regimes to argue that oppositional speech acts are key elements of nonviolent political contention in authoritarian regimes. Information was obtained primarily from extended field research in the Estonian Soviet Social Republic & Francoist Spain, as well studies of opposition in Poland, the USSR, Eastern Europe, & Latin America. The focus is on common forms of oppositional talk, varieties of dissidence, & the nature of dissident actions. Consideration is given to the role of social, recreational, religious, intellectual, & cultural groups in getting people together to talk & sometimes take part in dissident activities even though they are not social movement organizations. Oppositional talk also occurs in such places as kitchens, coffee shops, & card games. These dissident circles lead to a pattern of increasingly public & contentious actions that are fundamental to understanding the development of antiauthoritarian oppositions. The relation of oppositional speech acts to regime dynamics is discussed. 1 Figure, 50 References. J. Lindroth

Applies James C. Scot's (1985, 1990) observations about oppositional speech in peasant societies to contemporary authoritarian regimes to argue that oppositional speech acts are key elements of nonviolent political contention in authoritarian regimes. Information was obtained primarily from extended field research in the Estonian Soviet Social Republic & Francoist Spain, as well studies of opposition in Poland, the USSR, Eastern Europe, & Latin America. The focus is on common forms of oppositional talk, varieties of dissidence, & the nature of dissident actions. Consideration is given to the role of social, recreational, religious, intellectual, & cultural groups in getting people together to talk & sometimes take part in dissident activities even though they are not social movement organizations. Oppositional talk also occurs in such places as kitchens, coffee shops, & card games. These dissident circles lead to a pattern of increasingly public & contentious actions that are fundamental to understanding the development of antiauthoritarian oppositions. The relation of oppositional speech acts to regime dynamics is discussed. 1 Figure, 50 References. J. Lindroth

A comparative framework is used to examine the rapid turnover in Central American political regimes & Guatemala's place in these political transformations. The literature on regime change, democratization, & revolution is drawn upon to develop a theory of regime change that explains both shifts from authoritarianism to democracy, & similar outcomes in Central American nations that have followed different paths. An attempt is made to account for such diverse phenomena as political stability, guerrilla insurgency, military reformism, authoritarianism, socialist revolution, & civilian-led liberal democracy. External & internal influences that shape the process of regime change are discussed, with special attention given to the impact on local actors of socioeconomic & geopolitical forces outside the level of the nation-state, especially the effect of these forces on the many shifts toward civilian democracy that have occurred since the late 1970s. It is concluded that Guatemala's democratic prospects depend largely on the extent to which domestic & global contextual forces can constrain the military while new civilian-oriented institutions are being formed. 4 Tables, 75 References. J. Lindroth

"Authoritarian Turnover and Change in Comparative Perspective" published on by Oxford University Press.

"The 5 Ws of Democracy Protests" published on by Oxford University Press.