Public access to accurate and reliable information is vital for democracies and the media play a key role in informing citizens about the political process. While a large body of research shows that media exposure influences electoral behavior, less is known about the factors that shape people's propensity to actively search information about politics in the media. Based on explanatory models of political participation and using public opinion survey data, the results show that material endowments and education along with motivational variables largely explain why some people are more prone to seek political information in the media. The results illustrate the importance of defining media exposure to political messages as a form of cognitive involvement in politics as this analytical strategy provides valuable insights into the socio-economic inequalities that bias public access to information.
The erosion of media trust raises concerns about the ways in which the conduit of political information could undermine citizens' trust in democracy. While a large body of research in western democracies shows that media trust is contingent on specific media-system, political and cultural factors pertaining to national contexts, little is known about the sources of media trust in the new democracies from Central and Eastern Europe. Based on statistical analyses of public opinion surveys, this research tests if levels of trust in various traditional (television, radio, written press) and alternative mediums (Internet and online social networks) are differentiated along political party lines and depending on media consumption patterns in post-communist Romania. The results reveal a stronger association between trust in political parties and trust in traditional mediums, while trust in online media is more strongly linked to consumption patterns. These findings have practical, theoretical and normative implications for the functioning of democracy in post-communist societies.
By analyzing the parliamentary debates of 1866-1867 on foreigners' (notably Jews) requests for naturalization and property rights, this article tries to identify the parliamentarians' answers to the following questions: On what grounds were foreigners accepted as Romanian citizens? How did the parliamentarians define the foreigner? What was required from a foreigner in order to become a citizen? The overall objective is to identify some major themes that preoccupied the representatives of the nation, circumscribed around the primordial character of the "union" and of "nationality", with a special focus on the solutions proposed by the liberals. The argument is that the Parliament, by its vote, instead of granting citizenship rights, merely established the conditions according to which one could become a Romanian. In other words, the Romanian legislators considered it to be of outmost importance to recognize the quality of being a Romanian, that is, a member of an ethnic body, and not to define citizenship as a legal membership. "To be a Romanian" was more of an ethnic belonging, a "given", than citizenship or civic loyalty, defined through political and civic rights. It seems that citizenship was crushed by the primordial character of ethnic loyalty and by the weight of the state as expression and guarantor of the Romanian nation. In engaging the parliamentary debates about naturalization, the article attempts, first, to draw more nuanced conclusions about the lately much-debated character of citizenship in Romania and Eastern Europe during the mid-19th century. And second, such an analysis may provide a better understanding of the nature of political representation during the same period.
As a result of the Russian - Turkish war in 1806-1812 the Moldovan territory between the rivers Prut and Dniester, later called Bessarabia, was annex by the Russian Empire. The administrative policy of the Russian authorities in Bessarabia was closely connected with the progress and the foreign policy course of the Russian Empire. As Basarabia bordered in the West on the Russian Empire it had a great political and military importance being treated as a possible springboard for attack on Balkan. The process of administrative establishment in Bessarabia dependent upon the propesed objectives in foreign policy and upon the Empire`s political interests. The implementation and consolidation process of the Russian administrative system in Bessarabia can be divided into three distinct periods. The first period - from 1812 to 1818. A temporary system of administration has been institued which was similar to that existent in Moldova, the idea of a continuation of the administrative system being accredited. In the period of administrative authonomy (1818-1828) the Suprem Council has been established, which was the suprem administrative and juridical body in Bessarabia. At the same time, administrative institutions characteristic of the Russian system of administration were founded in the region. The last period between 1828 and 1917 is the final period in the process of consolidationof Russian administration in Bessarabia. With the foundation of the administrative system according to "The Locality" from 1828 the implementation of Russian administrative structures in the region ends, but some exeptions. After the realization in the region of administrative reforms in the 60s - 70s of the XIX century administration in Bessarabia becomes identical with that in central provinces of the Russian Empire. Administration in Bessarabia was an obedient instrument in carrying out the Russian colonial policy in the region. Russian autorities permanent objects were making Bessarabia dependent on them discreditation of the national system of administration, disregard of the local administrative institutions and practic, subestimation of Moldovan laws.
As a result of the Russian-Turkish war in 1806-1812 the Moldovan territory between the rivers Prut and Dniester, later called Bessarabia, was annex by the Russian Empire. The administrative policy of the Russian authorities in Bessarabia was closely connected with the progress and the foreign policy course of the Russian Empire. As Basarabia bordered in the West on the Russian Empire it had a great political and military importance being treated as a possible springboard for attack on Balkan. The process of administrative establishment in Bessarabia dependent upon the propesed objectives in foreign policy and upon the Empire`s political interests. The implementation and consolidation process of the Russian administrative system in Bessarabia can be divided into three distinct periods. The first period - from 1812 to 1818. A temporary system of administration has been institued which was similar to that existent in Moldova, the idea of a continuation of the administrative system being accredited. In the period of administrative authonomy (1818-1828) the Suprem Council has been established, which was the suprem administrative and juridical body in Bessarabia. At the same time, administrative institutions characteristic of the Russian system of administration were founded in the region. The last period between 1828 and 1917 is the final period in the process of consolidationof Russian administration in Bessarabia. With the foundation of the administrative system according to "The Locality" from 1828 the implementation of Russian administrative structures in the region ends, but some exeptions. After the realization in the region of administrative reforms in the 60s - 70s of the XIX century administration in Bessarabia becomes identical with that in central provinces of the Russian Empire. Administration in Bessarabia was an obedient instrument in carrying out the Russian colonial policy in the region. Russian autorities permanent objects were making Bessarabia dependent on them discreditation of the national system of administration, disregard of the local administrative institutions and practic, ubestimation of Moldovan laws.
The first elections to which the Romanians from all the united historical provinces took part were the parliamentary elections of November 2-8, 1919. The elections were held on the basis of the articles of a new electoral law that introduced the universal vote in the electoral practice in Romania. Thus, the Romanian rural area has become an attractive electoral basin for the political parties. Subsequently, the extension of voting rights for women also made the rural area a constant provider of votes for the candidates of political parties in both parliamentary and local elections. The first election exercise under the conditions of an extended electoral space was the local elections of February-March 1930, which were held in stages. On February 5, 1930 elections were held at the county level, and between February 9 and March 16, 1930 at the level of communes. In the communes with several villages the elections for the local councils took place on the days of 9-12 February, in the ones with a single village between 9-12, 16-19, 23-26 February and 2-4 March, and in the cities and municipalities on March 14 and 16, 1930. On February 5, 1930 elections were held for the Cahul County Council. But, the results and the way of conducting the elections were contested. On February 21, 1930, the local review committee of Chișinau admitted the contest against the elections of February 5, 1930 of the Cahul County Council and invalidated the respective elections. The Minister of the Interior Theodor C. Marinescu by his telegram from April 30, 1930 ordered the Local Ministerial Director III Chisinau to comply with the order of the Ministry of Interior no. 1972 of April 2, 1930 and to dispose, according to art. 388 of Law 167/1929 "the convening of the electoral body for the election of the Cahul county council, whose election was invalidated, necessarily until June 1, 1930". In the circumstances created, the Local Ministerial Director III Chișinau ordered the summons of the voters from Cahul county on June 1, 1930, to conduct the county elections. At the new elections on June 1, 1930, only three electoral competitors entered the race, with one less than at the February 5 elections: the National Peasant Party with two lists and the Liberal Party with a list. On the electoral lists for the participation in the county elections of June 1, 1930, 40,403 voters were included in the 15 polling stations. 24,153 voters participated in the elections, which constitutes 59.78% of the total number of those included in the lists. A considerable number of votes - 1,050, were canceled, and 287 declared void. The number of legally cast votes was 22,816. In the result of the election the electoral competitors obtained the following results: The National-Peasant Party, on both lists - 17,903 votes or 78.47% of the legally expressed votes and the Liberal Party - 4,913 votes or 21.53% of the legally expressed votes. The elections of June 1 in the Cahul county council were held under the conditions that the National-Peasant Party had achieved an absolute victory in the other counties of the country - 81.77% of the county councilors' mandates. The meeting to establish the Cahul County Council took place on July 27, 1930. The Cahul County Council elected, for a period of 5 years, as president of the Delegation of the county council the lawyer S. Botezatu, who obtained 19 votes out of 30. Members of the delegation of the county council were elected councilors V.Uzun, C. Rădulescu, Gh. Chirciu and A. Sprînceană. With the validation of the county councilors and the legal constitution of the county council's governing bodies, we can consider that the epic of elections for the county council in 1930 were completed.
