Suchergebnisse

This article compares the ideas of two political thinkers representative for their time and region - Kautilya (of ancient India) and Machiavelli (of modern Europe). The analysis reveals important similarities and differences, and offers potential explanations for the findings. Most significantly, the similarities between Kautyla's Arthasastra and Machiavelli's Prince are visible particularly when it comes to their treatment of war, 'state' administration, diplomacy, monarchy and the features of a good leader. Such similarities suggest that the development of modern European philosophy has been influenced by other cultural spaces, including Ancient India.

This article reviews the importance of national interest in the context of democratic transformations. The Republic of Moldova has to define its national interests as an opportunity to demonstrate that it has committed itself to respecting the values of freedom and tolerance, to demonstrate that it is open to bilateral and multilateral dialogue and cooperation and it tends to become a reliable security partner also by that gaining more audience and credibility. Even if the national interests of the Republic of Moldova are of a regional character, because its political and economic potential is limited, so it can not claim global roles in the world arena, the national interests synthesize the trajectories on the basis of which the Republic of Moldova conceives its present and the future. In democratic transformations, the role of state power in contemporary conditions does not diminish, but vice versa complicates and increases. Regardless of the social model that our society develops on, the state is the most important instrument for increasing people's well-being, building civical and political activity as well as strengthening the sense of citizenship. Thus, the course and results of democratic transformations are to a large extent determined by the quality of state leadership. The national interest is a well known determinant of political behaviour which motivates and stimulates different actors to develop political goals, to take actions that address both the political sphere as well as other social spheres. Starting from the premise that we are still doomed to governments formed by coalition, we consider absolutely necessary for all political formations to place on the first place the national interest, democratic transformation, sovereignty, human dignity, rights and freedoms, and not the narrow interests of the party or group.

It is certain that contemporary higher education institutions have entered the era of great transformation. The environment they operate in has changed fundamentally: professional knowledge and skills have become the main generator of economic development. At the same time, the university is no longer the only provider of high-quality knowledge. Competition on the market of knowledge and academic education services is getting tougher. The efforts made by national education in modernizing and reforming the national higher educational system, in the context of European rigors and exigencies, would not be that obvious if they were not supported by our international partners through various community programs. The successful promotion of reforms in the educational system becomes possible only in terms of identifying, taking over good European practices in the field and implementing/ institutionalizing beneficial and valuable elements for the national higher education system. Good enforcement of reforming provisions is not possible unless there is a cooperative framework between the three main actors. The government shall implement new modern policies in higher education system; the civil society, on its turn shall take the responsibility and availability to be engaged in the reforming processes, and the higher education institutions shall accept the new context and implement the reforms on the institutional level, cooperating in the same way with the other two actors, meanwhile paying attention to the labour market.

The sovereignty of the people in democratic states is implemented through the system of public power at every level of existence of territorial collectivities. That is why studying and improving the mechanisms of realization of public power must not be made in isolation, but holistically.
In order to define public power, it is necessary to address it not only from the constitutional law perspective, but also as a socio-political concept. The definition of the notion of public authority begins with the assumption that it is a socio-political category, and the study of it must consider its essence, its forms and levels of its realization. Only the theoretical clarification of these essential concepts could permit the "decoding" of the legalities of public governance and identification of the most efficient mechanisms applicable to contemporary society that would promote the efficient involvement of the people in the realization of public power.

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.

This article justifies the role and importance of the separation of powers in modern society and in the state, consisting in the fact that this concept is the instrument of restricting the state power to protect the rights and interests of the person. As a rule, the separation of powers is opposed to the concepts of autocracy, the concentration of power in the hands of one person or one organ. The author recognizes the theory of separation of powers as being ideologically linked to the political legacy of Locke and Montesquieu and notes that the genesis of the theory of separation of powers is associated with the emergence of bourgeois political and legal theories, especially in the 17th century in England, D. Locke being the most authoritative political thinker. However, this theory received a classic formulation in the writings of the remarkable French philosopher, lawyer and illuminator Charles Louis Montesquieu. In this article, the characteristics of the original theories regarding the separation of powers of these prominent thinkers, who completed for the first time the concept of a democratically organized state with the optimal organization of the system of organs of state power, are subject to analysis

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.

From August 2009 and till present, the Republic of Modova is governed by the "pro-European" coalitions. This period has been marked by instability and, the governments have succeeded very often. The purpose of the study is to investigate the content of government programmes regarding the territorial organization of the local government. There were analyzed the actions that are tangent/relevant to the territorial organization of the public power. Also, the election programs of the electoral contestants, that in the 2014 parliamentary elections have passed the electoral threshold, have been examined.

In the interwar Romanian democracy, the main actor in this political mechanism around which the electoral system and the political parties were rounding was the King. He was designating a party in order to form the government, and afterwards the elections organized by the cabinet were inevitably won by the political party in power. As no party was designated one after another to rule the government, the sequence in power was simply and efficiently ensured. Winning the elections for each party in power was closed related to the voters dedicated to the government, meaning those who were giving their votes to the leading power. And this way, the interwar electoral puzzle was completed. The cohort of voters willing to vote for the government was influenced by many indicators such as cultural (literate) and economic ones, so that the electoral behavior differences between regions like Oltenia and Banat were significant, taking into consideration the economic gaps. Therefore, the electoral comparison between Romania and Dobrudja in the interwar period makes sense.

Until 2019 the parliamentary elections in the Republic of Moldova were based on a proportional system on party lists, at the parliamentary elections of February 24, 2019 it was applied the mixed voting system, an uninspired mix between the proportional and the majority system.
There were created 51 uninominal constituencies for the parliamentary elections of February 24, 2019, of which 3 over the borders of the republic, 46 on the territory of the Republic of Moldova controlled by the constitutional authorities and 2 in the Transnistrian region.
There are examined the particularities of conducting the parliamentary elections in the uninominal constituency no. 43, Cahul municipality: the profiles of the candidates, their electoral actions and the results obtained in this electoral constituency.
It was found that a common tendency for candidates was, in many cases, the reorientation of the electoral discourse from the issues of "national interest" to those of "local interest", even if their solution is not within the competence of a deputy.

Constituţiunea Romaniei reintegrată, sau schiţă pentru o constituţiune în Romania (La Constitution de la Roumanie réintégrée, ou esquisse pour une constitution en Roumanie) est un petit volume publié en 1857 à Bruxelles par Emanoil Chinezu, juriste et homme politique libéral radical, participant à la révolution de 1848, ensuite plusieurs fois député et élu local. Le livre, pratiquement inconnu par l'historiographie du droit et de la modernisation roumaine, fait l'objet d'une édition critique. Le texte, imprimé en alphabète de transition (quelques lettres latines insérées de manière non systématique et souvent aléatoire parmi les graphèmes cyrilliques), a été transcrit selon la méthode phonétique interprétative en conformité avec les règles orthographiques actuelles de la langue roumaine.

The article questions, in a sceptical and prospective way, the institutional outcomes of this major trans-national trend of administrative reformism known as "New Public Management". In our view, the main cross-border legacy of the process of acclimatizing NPM precepts and recipes to various national configurations consists essentially in institutional rearrangements and in a repertoire of managerial tools and recipes, embedded into different institutional orders and hybridized with many other key features of various administrative cultures. Backing up major administrative reforms started several decades ago, the NPM rhetoric claimed to furnish the universal cure for the "bureaucratic" disease which was supposedly affecting the developed states at the end of the 1970s. From then on and although it never acquired the inner coherence of a real doctrine, it spread all over the world at the point of becoming both a "policy paradigm" and a "praxeologic". However, once implemented and in order to endure, the NPM-inspired logics, instruments and methods have fatally begun to suffer a process of routinisation which transformed them significantly. Hence, far from achieving their initial goal of "de-bureaucratizing" the state, NPM reformism became part of the endless processes of bureaucratic reproduction inescapably affecting modern states and ensuring their resilience.