Suchergebnisse

In this paper we analyze the Lithuanian Communist diaspora and attempts by Lithuanian Communists to influence the First World Lithuanian Congress, which was held in Kaunas in August 1935. This congress interested not only U.S. Communists, but also Lithuanian Communists based in Moscow. Their leader Zigmas Angarietis corresponded with the U.S. Lithuanian Communist Antanas Bimba and sent him suggestions on how to act at the congress. Delegates who were sent to the congress took into account those proposals and added their own: to get an opportunity for propaganda speeches, to call attention to the problems of Lithuanian workers, to show other delegates how workers and peasants in Lithuania live, and to raise questions about the state of democracy in Lithuania. Communist delegates were unable to do much at the congress, but they were active in discussions, they filed a petition with the signatures of about 14,000 people from the Lithuanian diaspora. On the last day of the congress, these delegates wrote and spread a proclamation condemning the congress, and adopted resolutions calling on the Lithuanian opposition to President Antanas Smetona's rule to unite under the "Popular Front" banner. Lithuanian Communists tried to arrange an agreement with Social Democratic and Peasant-Populist Party leaders to act together. There were a few meetings, but because of overall opinion differences and mutual distrust, these attempts failed. Local Lithuanian Communists, who of course could not be delegates of a diaspora congress, tried to be active near the congress hall, to raise red flags, and to hold a demonstration, but these attempts also failed. Nevertheless in this paper these are shown as good examples of everyday Lithuanian Communist activities, their methods, and their difficulties.

In this paper we analyze the Lithuanian Communist diaspora and attempts by Lithuanian Communists to influence the First World Lithuanian Congress, which was held in Kaunas in August 1935. This congress interested not only U.S. Communists, but also Lithuanian Communists based in Moscow. Their leader Zigmas Angarietis corresponded with the U.S. Lithuanian Communist Antanas Bimba and sent him suggestions on how to act at the congress. Delegates who were sent to the congress took into account those proposals and added their own: to get an opportunity for propaganda speeches, to call attention to the problems of Lithuanian workers, to show other delegates how workers and peasants in Lithuania live, and to raise questions about the state of democracy in Lithuania. Communist delegates were unable to do much at the congress, but they were active in discussions, they filed a petition with the signatures of about 14,000 people from the Lithuanian diaspora. On the last day of the congress, these delegates wrote and spread a proclamation condemning the congress, and adopted resolutions calling on the Lithuanian opposition to President Antanas Smetona's rule to unite under the "Popular Front" banner. Lithuanian Communists tried to arrange an agreement with Social Democratic and Peasant-Populist Party leaders to act together. There were a few meetings, but because of overall opinion differences and mutual distrust, these attempts failed. Local Lithuanian Communists, who of course could not be delegates of a diaspora congress, tried to be active near the congress hall, to raise red flags, and to hold a demonstration, but these attempts also failed. Nevertheless in this paper these are shown as good examples of everyday Lithuanian Communist activities, their methods, and their difficulties.

In this paper we analyze the Lithuanian Communist diaspora and attempts by Lithuanian Communists to influence the First World Lithuanian Congress, which was held in Kaunas in August 1935. This congress interested not only U.S. Communists, but also Lithuanian Communists based in Moscow. Their leader Zigmas Angarietis corresponded with the U.S. Lithuanian Communist Antanas Bimba and sent him suggestions on how to act at the congress. Delegates who were sent to the congress took into account those proposals and added their own: to get an opportunity for propaganda speeches, to call attention to the problems of Lithuanian workers, to show other delegates how workers and peasants in Lithuania live, and to raise questions about the state of democracy in Lithuania. Communist delegates were unable to do much at the congress, but they were active in discussions, they filed a petition with the signatures of about 14,000 people from the Lithuanian diaspora. On the last day of the congress, these delegates wrote and spread a proclamation condemning the congress, and adopted resolutions calling on the Lithuanian opposition to President Antanas Smetona's rule to unite under the "Popular Front" banner. Lithuanian Communists tried to arrange an agreement with Social Democratic and Peasant-Populist Party leaders to act together. There were a few meetings, but because of overall opinion differences and mutual distrust, these attempts failed. Local Lithuanian Communists, who of course could not be delegates of a diaspora congress, tried to be active near the congress hall, to raise red flags, and to hold a demonstration, but these attempts also failed. Nevertheless in this paper these are shown as good examples of everyday Lithuanian Communist activities, their methods, and their difficulties.

In this paper we analyze the Lithuanian Communist diaspora and attempts by Lithuanian Communists to influence the First World Lithuanian Congress, which was held in Kaunas in August 1935. This congress interested not only U.S. Communists, but also Lithuanian Communists based in Moscow. Their leader Zigmas Angarietis corresponded with the U.S. Lithuanian Communist Antanas Bimba and sent him suggestions on how to act at the congress. Delegates who were sent to the congress took into account those proposals and added their own: to get an opportunity for propaganda speeches, to call attention to the problems of Lithuanian workers, to show other delegates how workers and peasants in Lithuania live, and to raise questions about the state of democracy in Lithuania. Communist delegates were unable to do much at the congress, but they were active in discussions, they filed a petition with the signatures of about 14,000 people from the Lithuanian diaspora. On the last day of the congress, these delegates wrote and spread a proclamation condemning the congress, and adopted resolutions calling on the Lithuanian opposition to President Antanas Smetona's rule to unite under the "Popular Front" banner. Lithuanian Communists tried to arrange an agreement with Social Democratic and Peasant-Populist Party leaders to act together. There were a few meetings, but because of overall opinion differences and mutual distrust, these attempts failed. Local Lithuanian Communists, who of course could not be delegates of a diaspora congress, tried to be active near the congress hall, to raise red flags, and to hold a demonstration, but these attempts also failed. Nevertheless in this paper these are shown as good examples of everyday Lithuanian Communist activities, their methods, and their difficulties.

This article explores in details the poverty amelioration programmes which had been initiated by the Congress Party after independence during the Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi years.In a period of three decades,there were a number of strategies which were pursued to eradicate the high level of poverty which were prevailing in the rural areas of the country.By the end of the 1950s, there was a definite move to eradicate rural poverty through definite programmes.The absence of proper land reform legislations and the dominance of the upper and middle class leadership of the Congress prevented the Government machinery in initiating plans for the amelioration of the economic status of the small peasants and the agricultural labourers. The Nehruvian logic of an integrated agricultural development found shape in the Twenty Point Programme of the 1970s. These policies had their own successes and weaknesses and they could to some extent reduce the poverty figures by the early 1980s.The most interesting side of this narrative is the states' deep involvement with the poverty reduction schemes,which by the early 1980s came to be criticised by a dominant section of the Congress.Such debates were responsible for the shift towards a liberalized market economy in India which instead of reducing poverty, increased the prospects of a rich poor divide in the society.

This article explores in details the poverty amelioration programmes which had been initiated by the Congress Party after independence during the Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi years.In a period of three decades,there were a number of strategies which were pursued to eradicate the high level of poverty which were prevailing in the rural areas of the country.By the end of the 1950s, there was a definite move to eradicate rural poverty through definite programmes.The absence of proper land reform legislations and the dominance of the upper and middle class leadership of the Congress prevented the Government machinery in initiating plans for the amelioration of the economic status of the small peasants and the agricultural labourers. The Nehruvian logic of an integrated agricultural development found shape in the Twenty Point Programme of the 1970s. These policies had their own successes and weaknesses and they could to some extent reduce the poverty figures by the early 1980s.The most interesting side of this narrative is the states' deep involvement with the poverty reduction schemes,which by the early 1980s came to be criticised by a dominant section of the Congress.Such debates were responsible for the shift towards a liberalized market economy in India which instead of reducing poverty, increased the prospects of a rich poor divide in the society.

The article analyses the consolidation of parliamentary control pattern and its development in the United States (hereinafter referred to as US). The competence of the Congress, which allows a thorough and efficient parliamentary control implementation, is unquestionable notwithstanding the absence of governmental institute, the President and its administration political responsibility against the Congress in the constitutional governance system of US, whereas provisions of the Congress are "silent" about controlling competence of the Congress. The Congress control was developed through parliamentary practice and was approved by the Supreme Court commenting on the Constitution and "designing" pattern of separation of powers. It is universally recognized that the Congress control is one of the break and balance devices securing both, solid and effective execution of all functions of the Congress, especially legislation, and inter-balance of powers. However, referring to the doctrine, appearing in judgments of the Supreme Court, the function of the Congress control has its boundaries and the executed control is not absolute. Another significant restraint of functions of the Congress control is related to reception of information form executive power. Looking at American constitutional tradition and analyzing the content of break and balance system, the privilege of executive power is singled out. Because of the privilege executive power cannot refuse to subject the information to the Congress, thus not allowing examinations of the Congress "to prosper". Hereby, parliamentary control as well as other break and balance devices (the President's right of veto, impeachment etc.) secure the independency and equality of the President and the Congress.

The article analyses the consolidation of parliamentary control pattern and its development in the United States (hereinafter referred to as US). The competence of the Congress, which allows a thorough and efficient parliamentary control implementation, is unquestionable notwithstanding the absence of governmental institute, the President and its administration political responsibility against the Congress in the constitutional governance system of US, whereas provisions of the Congress are "silent" about controlling competence of the Congress. The Congress control was developed through parliamentary practice and was approved by the Supreme Court commenting on the Constitution and "designing" pattern of separation of powers. It is universally recognized that the Congress control is one of the break and balance devices securing both, solid and effective execution of all functions of the Congress, especially legislation, and inter-balance of powers. However, referring to the doctrine, appearing in judgments of the Supreme Court, the function of the Congress control has its boundaries and the executed control is not absolute. Another significant restraint of functions of the Congress control is related to reception of information form executive power. Looking at American constitutional tradition and analyzing the content of break and balance system, the privilege of executive power is singled out. Because of the privilege executive power cannot refuse to subject the information to the Congress, thus not allowing examinations of the Congress "to prosper". Hereby, parliamentary control as well as other break and balance devices (the President's right of veto, impeachment etc.) secure the independency and equality of the President and the Congress.

The principle of the separation of powers is one of the main principles in rule of law. It says that all three branches (the legislature, executive and judiciary) have to be separate enough to act independently and to have enough power to control two other branches at the same time. The control is necessary in preserving government from power concentration and lost of liberty. This principle was implemented when framing the governmental system in the USA and was named "checks and balances". Framing the complicated system of the separation and interdependence of powers, the Framers intended to save the nation from the tyranny and to secure the effective functioning of the governmental branches. The Framers were particular about the functions of Congress and the President, because they expected the most danger from the legislature, but did not trust the President also. J. Madison comprehensively justified the necessity of the separation of powers and its constitutional determination in "the Federalist" papers. Constitutional provisions determining the functions of the governmental institutions were adopted for the future changes and to resolve the conflicts arisen. In the long run, it was proved that the Framers were right: both the President and Congress are intended to transcend their functions, but there are the third branch – the Court – to execute its constitutional obligation in solving the conflicts arisen between Congress and the President and "balancing" two other branches. There have been analysed the development of the separation of powers between Congress and the President during the crises in this master thesis. The ninetieth century could be called the century when Congress prevailed (with rare exceptions) in the governmental system of the USA. Eventually, the Presidential power constantly grows in the twentieth century. When balancing two other branches the Court can not execute congressional functions – only Congress itself is able to resist the influence of the executive and to gain its former power back: Congress should balance the executive in the long run. The principle of the separation of powers eventually functions and implements goals established in the Constitution.

The principle of the separation of powers is one of the main principles in rule of law. It says that all three branches (the legislature, executive and judiciary) have to be separate enough to act independently and to have enough power to control two other branches at the same time. The control is necessary in preserving government from power concentration and lost of liberty. This principle was implemented when framing the governmental system in the USA and was named "checks and balances". Framing the complicated system of the separation and interdependence of powers, the Framers intended to save the nation from the tyranny and to secure the effective functioning of the governmental branches. The Framers were particular about the functions of Congress and the President, because they expected the most danger from the legislature, but did not trust the President also. J. Madison comprehensively justified the necessity of the separation of powers and its constitutional determination in "the Federalist" papers. Constitutional provisions determining the functions of the governmental institutions were adopted for the future changes and to resolve the conflicts arisen. In the long run, it was proved that the Framers were right: both the President and Congress are intended to transcend their functions, but there are the third branch – the Court – to execute its constitutional obligation in solving the conflicts arisen between Congress and the President and "balancing" two other branches. There have been analysed the development of the separation of powers between Congress and the President during the crises in this master thesis. The ninetieth century could be called the century when Congress prevailed (with rare exceptions) in the governmental system of the USA. Eventually, the Presidential power constantly grows in the twentieth century. When balancing two other branches the Court can not execute congressional functions – only Congress itself is able to resist the influence of the executive and to gain its former power back: Congress should balance the executive in the long run. The principle of the separation of powers eventually functions and implements goals established in the Constitution.

The principle of the separation of powers is one of the main principles in rule of law. It says that all three branches (the legislature, executive and judiciary) have to be separate enough to act independently and to have enough power to control two other branches at the same time. The control is necessary in preserving government from power concentration and lost of liberty. This principle was implemented when framing the governmental system in the USA and was named "checks and balances". Framing the complicated system of the separation and interdependence of powers, the Framers intended to save the nation from the tyranny and to secure the effective functioning of the governmental branches. The Framers were particular about the functions of Congress and the President, because they expected the most danger from the legislature, but did not trust the President also. J. Madison comprehensively justified the necessity of the separation of powers and its constitutional determination in "the Federalist" papers. Constitutional provisions determining the functions of the governmental institutions were adopted for the future changes and to resolve the conflicts arisen. In the long run, it was proved that the Framers were right: both the President and Congress are intended to transcend their functions, but there are the third branch – the Court – to execute its constitutional obligation in solving the conflicts arisen between Congress and the President and "balancing" two other branches. There have been analysed the development of the separation of powers between Congress and the President during the crises in this master thesis. The ninetieth century could be called the century when Congress prevailed (with rare exceptions) in the governmental system of the USA. Eventually, the Presidential power constantly grows in the twentieth century. When balancing two other branches the Court can not execute congressional functions – only Congress itself is able to resist the influence of the executive and to gain its former power back: Congress should balance the executive in the long run. The principle of the separation of powers eventually functions and implements goals established in the Constitution.

The principle of the separation of powers is one of the main principles in rule of law. It says that all three branches (the legislature, executive and judiciary) have to be separate enough to act independently and to have enough power to control two other branches at the same time. The control is necessary in preserving government from power concentration and lost of liberty. This principle was implemented when framing the governmental system in the USA and was named "checks and balances". Framing the complicated system of the separation and interdependence of powers, the Framers intended to save the nation from the tyranny and to secure the effective functioning of the governmental branches. The Framers were particular about the functions of Congress and the President, because they expected the most danger from the legislature, but did not trust the President also. J. Madison comprehensively justified the necessity of the separation of powers and its constitutional determination in "the Federalist" papers. Constitutional provisions determining the functions of the governmental institutions were adopted for the future changes and to resolve the conflicts arisen. In the long run, it was proved that the Framers were right: both the President and Congress are intended to transcend their functions, but there are the third branch – the Court – to execute its constitutional obligation in solving the conflicts arisen between Congress and the President and "balancing" two other branches. There have been analysed the development of the separation of powers between Congress and the President during the crises in this master thesis. The ninetieth century could be called the century when Congress prevailed (with rare exceptions) in the governmental system of the USA. Eventually, the Presidential power constantly grows in the twentieth century. When balancing two other branches the Court can not execute congressional functions – only Congress itself is able to resist the influence of the executive and to gain its former power back: Congress should balance the executive in the long run. The principle of the separation of powers eventually functions and implements goals established in the Constitution.