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.