Suchergebnisse

The Russian political system needs elections. Especially at the regional level, they serve to cultivate loyalty and as an initiation ritual for governors, their aides, and local power brokers.

The author provides a comparative analysis of the German media publications on the regional elections in 2012 and municipal elections of 2010 in Russia. Basing on the study material general conclusions are made on the development of electoral democracy in Russia from the German media point of view.

The author of this article makes review and compares some articles from the most influent and popular German newspapers, concerning the last local elections in Russia. This event is presented from the point of view of different political trends and their attitude to elective democracy in Russia.

In the wake of Erdogan's electoral victory, Türkiye will continue to deepen ties with the Tripoli government, but may also seek reconciliation with Benghazi.

In the report there is analyzed the impact of the main scenario of competition for candidates for the presidency of Russia in the March 2018 elections for the electoral behavior of Russian students. We made an empirical study (2518 respondents, questionnaires; series of focus groups) in order to identify the level of electoral activity and models of electoral absenteeism of Russian students, motivation to participate in voting and refusal to vote, the system of factors determining the strategy of behavior in elections, etc. In the course of the study, the role of social networks in the electoral moods formation of Russian students was revealed, an assessment of the state of the two components of the student's political identity (ideological and personified identity) was analyzed, and the influence of the socio-demographic and status characteristics of Russian students on their electoral behavior was analyzed. It was discovered the accumulation of systemic and situational factors that determine the strategy of students' electoral behavior in the situation of obvious outcome of voting.

The author, in this article, gives the concept of the electoral system and examines the electoral system of the Kyrgyz Republic. He considered the issues of choosing deputies of the Supreme Council (Zhogorku Kenesh). Also, to solve problematic issues, the author conducted a comparative analysis of the electoral system of neighbouring and distant foreign countries. Also, the author in this article noted the irresponsibility of the people's representatives. Firstly, the deputy was included in the list subject to agreement with the election program of a political party. Secondly, the exclusion of a representative with a mandate from the party and leaving him in parliament is tantamount to unjustified voters' confidence. In this case, the party or people's representative, expelled from the party, but still working in parliament, first of all, remains to protect their own interests, not the people. As a result, it can be argued that the people's representative, who has a deputy mandate, has no responsibility to voters in parliament. The proposed system, the author will develop advanced legal thought in achieving the principles of equality, justice and the search for effective power. This system combines the advantages of a proportional and majority system, eliminates, as far as possible, their individual disadvantages. In preferential elections, citizens are given the opportunity to vote as in a majoritarian election, but the votes of the losers and winners will be counted and put into a common party piggy bank. If we carry out the reform of the proposed electoral system, then the road opens to the parliament for well-known and honest people who have merit to the people and the country, a good reputation, business training and have their own citizenship.

Relatively recently, students of authoritarianism have not paid much attention to institutions. It was believed that since authoritarian rule is generally an arbitrariness, its institutionalism is not really important. Modern approach, however, is that institutions in authoritarian regimes are no less important than in a democracy. This is also applicable to such a political institution traditionally associated with democracy as elections. Recent works on comparative authoritarianism provide more evidence that holding election may help autocrats to survive. Starting from the "third wave" of democratization, the political regimes of "electoral authoritarianism," that means regimes that are authoritarian in nature, but successfully implementing initially democratic political institutions including elections, are becoming more widespread. The regular holding of moderately competitive elections is characteristic of two the most important types of electoral authoritarianism, both hegemonic and competitive authoritarian regimes. This article attempts to generalize and systematize the conceptual views available in literature on the elections role in authoritarian regimes. Four main functions of authoritarian elections are identified and analyzed: legitimation, display of strength, co-optation and information acquisition. ; Еще сравнительно недавно исследователи авторитаризма не уделяли серьезного внимания институтам. Считалось, что поскольку авторитарная власть – это по большей части произвол, ее институциональное оформление не имеет большого значения. Современный подход, однако, заключается в том, что институты в авторитарных режимах не менее важны, чем при демократии. Это относится и к такому традиционно ассоциируемому с демократией политическому институту, как выборы. Последние работы по сравнительному авторитаризму дают все больше подтверждений того, что проведение выборов может способствовать выживанию автократов. Начиная с «третьей волны» демократизации все большее распространение получают политические режимы «электорального авторитаризма», т.е. режимы, авторитарные по своей природе, однако успешно имплементирующие исходно демократические политические институты, в том числе выборы. Регулярное проведение умеренно конкурентных выборов характерно для обеих важнейших разновидностей электорального авторитаризма – как гегемонистских, так и конкурентных авторитарных режимов. В настоящей статье предпринимается попытка обобщить и систематизировать имеющиеся в литературе концептуальные представления о роли выборов в авторитарных режимах. Выделяются и анализируются четыре основные функции авторитарных выборов: легитимация, демонстрация силы, кооптация и сбор информации.