Suchergebnisse

United States of America (U.S.) is still undoubtedly the most powerful state in the world therefore diverse analysis of its foreign policy is very important. There is no doubt that U.S. tries to secure its current position using various foreign policy instruments. What can be called U.S. Grand Strategy depends on many external and internal factors and foreign policy visions of two main political parties of U.S. are not at last place. Political parties can possibly be important object of foreign policy analysis in case when state's democratic political system is fully functioning and state has many competing visions of its role in international arena. These features are typical of U.S. political system therefore analysis of foreign policy visions of state's two main political parties is very relevant. The main object of this research is foreign policy views of the Republican Party of United States. The main goal of this research is to analyse change of foreign policy views of the Republican Party in the period 2000 - 2013. U.S. political system is characterized by strong presidential institution that has authority to lead state's foreign policy. However U.S. Congress also has various political instruments that can be used to support or restrict initiatives of U.S. President. President is also the leading voice and leader of his political party and represents consensus of party's ideology. This research concludes that U.S. political parties are broad coalitions of various social, interest groups. Due to this feature, distinct caucuses exist inside political parties. They can support totally different policy options. Consensus that can help sustain party's discipline is reached only in the process of permanent negotiations among these caucuses. Analysed period is important because it signifies shift of U.S. foreign policy priorities and also shift of dominant foreign policy views of the Republican Party. Changes of dominant foreign policy views in this period demonstrated that different foreign policy visions had always existed among conservative politicians, experts, think tanks and other institutions. Predominance of particular values is best highlighted by presidential leadership and his foreign policy doctrine. This research is divided into three main parts. This research uses explanatory case study method that is based on content analysis of political addresses, speeches, documents and secondary sources.

The article analyzes the reasons of success of the Freedom Party in the 2020 Seimas elections. The case of Freedom Party is particularly interesting as it did not appeal to the median voter like previous new parties, but took a clearly liberal stance on such vulnerable issues (in rather conservative Lithuanian society) as LGBT rights. The article examines several probable accounts of the success story of the party: the newness of the party, the value shift in the society and the realignment of the voters. The article employs the data of the 2020 post-election survey and other relevant data sets. The analysis revealed that the effect of novelty contributed somewhat to the success of the Freedom Party, but the main reason for its good performance was the ability to mobilize liberal-minded voters, the number of which increased significantly compared to the 2016 Seimas elections. The party was able not only to take advantage of the changing values of the new generation, but also to consolidate liberal-minded voters who were previously dispersed. The results of the analysis suggest that attitudes on the conservatism–liberalism dimension have become an important factor determining party preferences in Lithuania, while so far, the only significant cleavage in Lithuania was based on different attitudes towards Russia and the Soviet past.

The article analyzes the reasons of success of the Freedom Party in the 2020 Seimas elections. The case of Freedom Party is particularly interesting as it did not appeal to the median voter like previous new parties, but took a clearly liberal stance on such vulnerable issues (in rather conservative Lithuanian society) as LGBT rights. The article examines several probable accounts of the success story of the party: the newness of the party, the value shift in the society and the realignment of the voters. The article employs the data of the 2020 post-election survey and other relevant data sets. The analysis revealed that the effect of novelty contributed somewhat to the success of the Freedom Party, but the main reason for its good performance was the ability to mobilize liberal-minded voters, the number of which increased significantly compared to the 2016 Seimas elections. The party was able not only to take advantage of the changing values of the new generation, but also to consolidate liberal-minded voters who were previously dispersed. The results of the analysis suggest that attitudes on the conservatism–liberalism dimension have become an important factor determining party preferences in Lithuania, while so far, the only significant cleavage in Lithuania was based on different attitudes towards Russia and the Soviet past.

The article analyzes the reasons of success of the Freedom Party in the 2020 Seimas elections. The case of Freedom Party is particularly interesting as it did not appeal to the median voter like previous new parties, but took a clearly liberal stance on such vulnerable issues (in rather conservative Lithuanian society) as LGBT rights. The article examines several probable accounts of the success story of the party: the newness of the party, the value shift in the society and the realignment of the voters. The article employs the data of the 2020 post-election survey and other relevant data sets. The analysis revealed that the effect of novelty contributed somewhat to the success of the Freedom Party, but the main reason for its good performance was the ability to mobilize liberal-minded voters, the number of which increased significantly compared to the 2016 Seimas elections. The party was able not only to take advantage of the changing values of the new generation, but also to consolidate liberal-minded voters who were previously dispersed. The results of the analysis suggest that attitudes on the conservatism–liberalism dimension have become an important factor determining party preferences in Lithuania, while so far, the only significant cleavage in Lithuania was based on different attitudes towards Russia and the Soviet past.

The article analyzes the reasons of success of the Freedom Party in the 2020 Seimas elections. The case of Freedom Party is particularly interesting as it did not appeal to the median voter like previous new parties, but took a clearly liberal stance on such vulnerable issues (in rather conservative Lithuanian society) as LGBT rights. The article examines several probable accounts of the success story of the party: the newness of the party, the value shift in the society and the realignment of the voters. The article employs the data of the 2020 post-election survey and other relevant data sets. The analysis revealed that the effect of novelty contributed somewhat to the success of the Freedom Party, but the main reason for its good performance was the ability to mobilize liberal-minded voters, the number of which increased significantly compared to the 2016 Seimas elections. The party was able not only to take advantage of the changing values of the new generation, but also to consolidate liberal-minded voters who were previously dispersed. The results of the analysis suggest that attitudes on the conservatism–liberalism dimension have become an important factor determining party preferences in Lithuania, while so far, the only significant cleavage in Lithuania was based on different attitudes towards Russia and the Soviet past.

The traditional political ideologies, values reveals the diversity of values in western societies are described in the theoretical part. Values of pluralism of opinion and led to the emergence of political ideologies and the democratic institutions allowed for movements to the public and policy development in the light of values of ideology. Social movements, public order, was to legitimize the organization, which is known as the Democratic Party politics. Political parties were built upon ideological values, and thus often reflect the name of the party and party ideology. Liberalism, conservatism and socialism, the identity of the names are often absorbed a number of parties in democratic countries. However, the name of assimilation does not always mean that a certain party is represented by the title referred to an ideology. It happens to lots of new parties and new democracies, where the new democratic institutions lack the experience and knowledge. After restoration of independence, Lithuania has taken over the party resulting from the classical Western political ideologies in the name. Lithuania's two largest political parties represent opposing forces. Conservative Party of Lithuania (now Homeland Union) represents the right-minded citizens, and declares the conservatism inherent values (tradition, family manners). The Social Democrats party is a left-wing that declares the traditional socialist ideas (work, equality, small business support). Liberals themselves as parties in Lithuania is quite significant. And it is not entirely clear which party represents the true liberal ideas. The party institute itself supports the link between society and government in the democratic regimes. It also means lots of competition in the fight for power positions. Therefore, parties are important institute in the state management. In theory, this should be the role of parties. This system is representative of the Western democracies. The role of the public are also important because it provides a representation of the role of political parties to address public concerns. This way the party role is legitimized. And the Democratic Party undertakes to represent the will of the people. Thus, parties are important because of their powers. But as ever, the party is as changing as the role of communication with members of the public. Among the parties and the modern society is an emerging gap. Political representation is decreasing, while influencing and public confidence in government institutions. Especially parties. Public is apolitical and that pose additional problems for the consolidation of democracy or stability. Public indifference allows easy establishment of new parties, which are based not on ideological grounds, but the present social, economic and political issues. New party making their way into power by populist. Populism is a growing threat to the stability of democratic regimes. Thus, party positions to the public not to forget the public. The source of their legitimacy. And intense communication, which ensures the stability of the political state.

The traditional political ideologies, values reveals the diversity of values in western societies are described in the theoretical part. Values of pluralism of opinion and led to the emergence of political ideologies and the democratic institutions allowed for movements to the public and policy development in the light of values of ideology. Social movements, public order, was to legitimize the organization, which is known as the Democratic Party politics. Political parties were built upon ideological values, and thus often reflect the name of the party and party ideology. Liberalism, conservatism and socialism, the identity of the names are often absorbed a number of parties in democratic countries. However, the name of assimilation does not always mean that a certain party is represented by the title referred to an ideology. It happens to lots of new parties and new democracies, where the new democratic institutions lack the experience and knowledge. After restoration of independence, Lithuania has taken over the party resulting from the classical Western political ideologies in the name. Lithuania's two largest political parties represent opposing forces. Conservative Party of Lithuania (now Homeland Union) represents the right-minded citizens, and declares the conservatism inherent values (tradition, family manners). The Social Democrats party is a left-wing that declares the traditional socialist ideas (work, equality, small business support). Liberals themselves as parties in Lithuania is quite significant. And it is not entirely clear which party represents the true liberal ideas. The party institute itself supports the link between society and government in the democratic regimes. It also means lots of competition in the fight for power positions. Therefore, parties are important institute in the state management. In theory, this should be the role of parties. This system is representative of the Western democracies. The role of the public are also important because it provides a representation of the role of political parties to address public concerns. This way the party role is legitimized. And the Democratic Party undertakes to represent the will of the people. Thus, parties are important because of their powers. But as ever, the party is as changing as the role of communication with members of the public. Among the parties and the modern society is an emerging gap. Political representation is decreasing, while influencing and public confidence in government institutions. Especially parties. Public is apolitical and that pose additional problems for the consolidation of democracy or stability. Public indifference allows easy establishment of new parties, which are based not on ideological grounds, but the present social, economic and political issues. New party making their way into power by populist. Populism is a growing threat to the stability of democratic regimes. Thus, party positions to the public not to forget the public. The source of their legitimacy. And intense communication, which ensures the stability of the political state.

The right-wing populist Law and Justice party , which came to power in 2015 in Poland, sought not only to implement its conservative and Christian ideas through the executive and the legislative powers, but also to influence the justice. This article presents an analysis of legal acts adopted or amended on the initiative of this ruling party, which shows how the judicial power has been systematically usurped by this political party, in spite of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and states that the principle of judicial independence has been violated.

The right-wing populist Law and Justice party , which came to power in 2015 in Poland, sought not only to implement its conservative and Christian ideas through the executive and the legislative powers, but also to influence the justice. This article presents an analysis of legal acts adopted or amended on the initiative of this ruling party, which shows how the judicial power has been systematically usurped by this political party, in spite of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and states that the principle of judicial independence has been violated.

The right-wing populist Law and Justice party , which came to power in 2015 in Poland, sought not only to implement its conservative and Christian ideas through the executive and the legislative powers, but also to influence the justice. This article presents an analysis of legal acts adopted or amended on the initiative of this ruling party, which shows how the judicial power has been systematically usurped by this political party, in spite of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and states that the principle of judicial independence has been violated.

The right-wing populist Law and Justice party , which came to power in 2015 in Poland, sought not only to implement its conservative and Christian ideas through the executive and the legislative powers, but also to influence the justice. This article presents an analysis of legal acts adopted or amended on the initiative of this ruling party, which shows how the judicial power has been systematically usurped by this political party, in spite of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and states that the principle of judicial independence has been violated.

We can name three Christian democratic ideology parties on Lithuania political scene: Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania, Christian Democrats Union and Modern Christian Democrats. Modern Christian Democrats seceded from the matrix (parent) party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats in 2000. Analyzing the Christian democracy process in post- communistic Lithuania it is important to state that it is one of the trends under a tradition which is difficult to assign to right or left economic frames. The Christian Democrats parties were named leftist because they contradicted the liberals and they aspired to limit the economic capital influence on politics in the XXth century. After few decades the main opponents of the right parties were socialists and the policy contemptuous human rights. The experience of politic democracy accumulated in the period of Lithuania between the two wars was a relevant factor in for mation of the contemporary system of political parties. In 1989 restored the Party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats became unambiguous reforms orientated and was classified as a right party. Experience of democracy of the party in inwar Lithuania was also a meaningful factor which formed the modernist party system. The Christian Democrats Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos krikscionių demokratų partija, LKDP) - 16 seats – was founded in 1905 and re-established in 1989 likewise the Homeland Union the Christian democrats are right of centre. Prior to the 1996 elections the party had agreed to form a coalition with the conservatives (even though it stands closer to the social democrats of the LSDP regarding economic issues). Some time in 1994 the Christian democrats were very popular - exactly when the Homeland Union became more radical. Lithuanian Christian democracy can be proud of its past experience and its successful activity after reestablishing the independence.[.].

We can name three Christian democratic ideology parties on Lithuania political scene: Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania, Christian Democrats Union and Modern Christian Democrats. Modern Christian Democrats seceded from the matrix (parent) party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats in 2000. Analyzing the Christian democracy process in post- communistic Lithuania it is important to state that it is one of the trends under a tradition which is difficult to assign to right or left economic frames. The Christian Democrats parties were named leftist because they contradicted the liberals and they aspired to limit the economic capital influence on politics in the XXth century. After few decades the main opponents of the right parties were socialists and the policy contemptuous human rights. The experience of politic democracy accumulated in the period of Lithuania between the two wars was a relevant factor in for mation of the contemporary system of political parties. In 1989 restored the Party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats became unambiguous reforms orientated and was classified as a right party. Experience of democracy of the party in inwar Lithuania was also a meaningful factor which formed the modernist party system. The Christian Democrats Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos krikscionių demokratų partija, LKDP) - 16 seats – was founded in 1905 and re-established in 1989 likewise the Homeland Union the Christian democrats are right of centre. Prior to the 1996 elections the party had agreed to form a coalition with the conservatives (even though it stands closer to the social democrats of the LSDP regarding economic issues). Some time in 1994 the Christian democrats were very popular - exactly when the Homeland Union became more radical. Lithuanian Christian democracy can be proud of its past experience and its successful activity after reestablishing the independence.[.].

We can name three Christian democratic ideology parties on Lithuania political scene: Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania, Christian Democrats Union and Modern Christian Democrats. Modern Christian Democrats seceded from the matrix (parent) party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats in 2000. Analyzing the Christian democracy process in post- communistic Lithuania it is important to state that it is one of the trends under a tradition which is difficult to assign to right or left economic frames. The Christian Democrats parties were named leftist because they contradicted the liberals and they aspired to limit the economic capital influence on politics in the XXth century. After few decades the main opponents of the right parties were socialists and the policy contemptuous human rights. The experience of politic democracy accumulated in the period of Lithuania between the two wars was a relevant factor in for mation of the contemporary system of political parties. In 1989 restored the Party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats became unambiguous reforms orientated and was classified as a right party. Experience of democracy of the party in inwar Lithuania was also a meaningful factor which formed the modernist party system. The Christian Democrats Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos krikscionių demokratų partija, LKDP) - 16 seats – was founded in 1905 and re-established in 1989 likewise the Homeland Union the Christian democrats are right of centre. Prior to the 1996 elections the party had agreed to form a coalition with the conservatives (even though it stands closer to the social democrats of the LSDP regarding economic issues). Some time in 1994 the Christian democrats were very popular - exactly when the Homeland Union became more radical. Lithuanian Christian democracy can be proud of its past experience and its successful activity after reestablishing the independence.[.].

Election campaign is extremely significant part of political process, when politicians are trying to sell their 'product' at any price. They must attract support from the public and in order to achieve it, they can use different types of political communications. It is important to choose the right style, the one that could reach the biggest amount of aimed public and help to gain their support. Media identifies and judges the style of election campaign of candidate: how many/ few tools are being used; what sort of message is desired to be sent- negative/positive, relevant/irrelevant; how he/she communicates with public, a lot/ little, pleasantly or tries to avoid a contact. Object of the assay- D. Cameron and G. Brown general election campaign, subject- a formation of communication style of D. Cameron and G. Brown during the campaign. The aim of this work- to elucidate the features of communication style of D. Cameron and also G. Brown's election campaign. There are main two hypotheses that will be tested: H1: D. Cameron, the leader of opposition, is using a negative information against G. Brown and his government during his election campaign; H2: G. Brown as a prime minister is using a positive tactic and expects to win elections again. The investigation shows that Cameron election campaign has been established gradually, in order to create a modern image of the leader of party, but failed to distance from M. Thatcher and her established brand. Electoral campaign slogans have been carefully thought out and had associations and confirmations in the line of image of D. Cameron created Pre-election. The vast majority of the electoral campaign was negative, constantly criticising the ongoing policy of rival- and therefore showing why not to vote for Brown. So the analysis in this work confirms the first hypothesis. The analysis also concludes that the second hypothesis is denied. Election campaign of Brown was extremely negative. It mainly focused on idea that D. Cameron represents only the upper class- 'posh people' and his changes would be dangerous for Britain. Additionally, the campaign was aiming to show G. Brown not as faultless individual, but on the contrary as a fallible and human being who was able to admit his mistakes and also confess that he was not perfect, but he was an expert in economic matters, who made efficient decisions for Britain. The investigation found the pre-election situation was unfavourable to both the Conservative and Labour parties and their leaders. The reason was the parliamentary expenses scandal, which has further reduced public confidence in politicians.