Suchergebnisse

In my point of view, someone cannot speak about a constant influence of the Belgian Constitution of 1831 over the Romanian political elite. Not from 1848, at least. The most well known and prized 1848 revolutionary project - the one elaborated by Mihail Kogălniceanu, has been transplanted in a very important amount (60%) from the French Constitution of 1848. Generally speaking, must be emphasized that the principles and the institutions of the Belgian Constitution haven't represented a constant and overwhelming model for the 19th century's Romanian constitutionalism. The birth of the modern Romanian constitutionalism has thus been a difficult process, almost exclusively indebted to the ideological and normative legal import. The imported model hasn't been singular, ruther someone must think about an alternation of the French and Belgian constitutional models. This is why we are speaking about therminological vagueness, normative incoherence, incompletness of the principles and institutional hesitations.

Conceptual-typological Aspects of Local Electoral Systems A democracy cannot be built unless it is based on free elections. Elections are a sine qua non condition of democratic governance. Elections are the central procedure of representation in modern democracies, and our generation has made substantial progress in understanding how voters come to make decisions. The elections were imposed in the constitutional history of the world as activities whose social and political effervescence in society is specific, competitions in which the best ones win. In fact, we make the first finding: the local electoral system is a fundamental area of society, the way it is managed and carried out, it reflects the level of development of democracy. The country's implementing bodies are chosen and this is why it is so important that it is organized and carried out correctly, transparently and democratically. The local electoral system is essentially created for citizens and must represent their interests, which we must recognize, often in practice does not happen very often. The actuality of the theme of this article starts from the premise that an electoral system is closely linked to democracy, because it expresses its values, thus constituting an indicator of the democratic character of a society and, at the same time, it contributes to the strengthening of democracy. Although there are different realities, and the electoral procedures differ from state to state, however, it can be said that, depending on how the mandates for the eligible positions are distributed (won), there are three modalities of electoral system: majority electoral system; proportional electoral system; mixed electoral system.

According to the Constitution of 1866, the prerogatives of Carol I permitted him to be a mediator in the political struggle between liberals and conservatives, as a constitutional monarch. In 1866, there were different political groups, liberal and conservative, which formed unstable governments (1866-1871). The political stability was assured for a short period by the conservative government (1871-1876). In time, the political groups decided to unite, founding the two major parties, the National Liberal Party (1875)and the Conservative Party (1880). Both parties tended to monopolize the political power for a long period of time, generating tensions between government-opposition (1876-1888 – liberal government and 1888-1895 – conservative government). During 1895 and 1914 functioned the "rotativa guvernamentală" ("governmental rotation"), representing a particularity of the Romanian two-party system, characterized as an organized alternation in government of National Liberal Party with Conservative Party.

In the conservative imaginary, at least in the cases of Constantin N. Brăiloiu and Alexandru N. Lahovary, France was not deemed a functioning political model (i.e., a political or constitutional regime) that Romania should have followed. Compared with the English political model (or rather with the Anglo-Saxon one, since the reference sometimes included the United States of America) and with the Belgian regime, France was certainly a less favoured option. However, without exception and despite all discursive artifice, in the perspective of these two politicians, who were evidently Francophile, both by education and by cultural affinities, France undeniably remained a landmark of civilization or administrative and economic efficiency, and sometimes a beacon of legal inspiration. It must be said that the latter perception was in no way related to Constantin N. Brăiloiu and Alexandru N. Lahovary's conservative convictions. It was commonplace in the local cultural imaginary, which, regardless of one's political, social or cultural affiliation, repeated the encomiastic mantra dedicated to imperial France, to whom the Romanians were convinced that they owed the existence of their nation. In fact, one should not overlook another typical belief of this political imaginary, which is illustrated in our case by Alexandru N. Lahovary: the Romanian politicians were persuaded that the ideals included in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were exclusively due to the France of 1789.

Carol I and the political leaders maintained the two-party system founded by the political parties, National-Liberal Party and Conservative Party (after their formation) with balanced forces, in not conceding importance to the political factions or other parties, which could generate political instability. Expressing as a true arbiter in political life, Carol I used the alternation at government of the National-Liberal Party with the Conservative Party from 1895-1914, called in the specialized literature as "rotativa guvernamentală" ("governmental rotation"). In running of this type as organized alternation, an important role was assigned to Carol I, who took over the British model, because it ensured the public peace and permitted a balance of forces between conservators and liberals.The alternation mechanism to government of conservators with liberals has functioned before 1895, but with unequal period of time, with alliances between liberal and conservator factions (1866-1871); between parties and different factions of conservators (1888-1895). This system allowed the consolidation of the two government parties and the state institutions. The collaboration of the two parties was accomplished for the welfare of the state: in situations of political, economic, crises the two parties were supporting each other. The government program applied by a party which was in government was continued by the party who succeeded in power.