Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the latest presidential election in Belarus in March 2006. More specifically, the aim of the text is to focus on its legitimization function in the context of Lukashenka's non-democratic regime & its stability. This goal is based on an assumption that the election's role lies not only in its formal, but also in its factual confirmation of the regime legitimacy. An assessment of this presumption is made by means of an analysis of the formal setting of the election & its administration, by definition of the role of participating actors (governmental, formal & factual ones) & the Belarusian electorate, & by the final categorization of confirmed legitimacy. Adapted from the source document.

This article applies classical typologies of totalitarian & authoritarian regimes by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carl Friedrich & Juan Linz to the case of the first Slovak Republic (Slovak State). Its political regime between 1935/1939 & summer 1940 can be classified as organic statism. Organic structures (corporativist structures) & the antiliberal & anticapitalist rhetoric of the Catholic Church in encyclicals like the Rerum Novarum were typical of this type of authoritarian regime. Nevertheless, the Nazi pressure led to the transition of the regime to the "defective" (or "arrested") totalitarian regime, which is, according to Linz's typology, in the "grey" zone between totalitarian & authoritarian regimes. The defeats of the German army & changes inside Slovak's camp resulted in the erosion of the regime base at the end of 1942 & brought about yet another regime change. The end of the stage of "unclear" authoritarian regime was marked by the armed insurrection in August 1944. The totalitarian episode, in which the main role was played by the German occupation forces, characterized the last months of war. 39 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article deals with the complicated & multifaceted topic of Polish politics between the two world wars. This time period was characterized not only by a "classical" political instability but, much more importantly, also by the instability of the whole political system. The democratic regime created in 1919 was weak & was abolished by force in 1926. The subsequent political system was authoritarian (but not totalitarian) & survived until the end of the Polish state in October 1939, when Poland was attacked & occupied by the German & Soviet armies. The questions posed by the article are manifold. Why did Poland introduce democracy in the hardship years of 1918-1919, but did so for only a few years? Why was not democracy successful? Why did Poland accept authoritarianism & what were the political & constitutional consequences of that step? 31 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article inquires into the connection between individualisation and environmental issues. Following an introduction to the topic in the opening of the article in chapters II and III the author provides a definition of some basic concepts and asks whether and how the relationship between individualisation and environmental issues is reflected in sociological literature. In chapter IV the author formulates a general framework that in chapter V gives insight into the inconsistent conception of individualisation in environmental ideologies. The article closes with chapter VI, in which, with the aid of a theoretical sociological framework, the author formulates some themes for studying the environmental aspects of the individualised lifestyle.

The breakup of Yugoslavia & especially the war in Bosnia & Herzegovina made many people ask a simple question: Why did this happen? The main goal of this article is to give an answer to this question. More specifically, the article asks: Why did the "eastern" concept of nationalism prove to be more successful than the "western" one during the time of social & political changes in Yugoslavia? Although the article focuses on the end of the 1980s & the beginning of the 1990s, it also touches on some aspects of the historical background. Before explaining the ideological fragmentation in Yugoslavia & Bosnia & Herzegovina, the article defines the term nationalism with a special focus on the differentiation between "eastern" & "western" versions of this ideology/doctrine. References. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of this article is to analyze whether it is appropriate to classify the Norwegian Progress Party as a member of the extreme-right party family. The study first introduces the theoretical approaches to the identification of party families. The origins of parties, ideology, policies & political style are chosen as the most important criteria for the classification of political parties into party families. The article then defines the extreme-right party family on the basis of these criteria. The remainder of the article focuses on the analysis of the Norwegian Progress Party & examines whether the party fulfils the above-defined conditions for being classified as an extreme right-wing party. It concludes that it is appropriate to label the Norwegian Progress Party as a member of the far-right party family even though some of the criteria are not fulfilled or are not fulfilled completely. Thus the party can be considered as either a "diluted" version or a border case of contemporary European radical right. References. Adapted from the source document.

The article tries to evaluate the Europeanization research agenda from the point of view of a politics-sphere A basic precondition for understanding the character of the political systems in East-European countries after the Second World War is to define the key concepts, especially different types of non-democratic regimes. In other words, we must know what "totalitarianism", and "authoritarianism" means, and how we should approach studying these species. According to empirical and analytical methods, we consider them both as ways of governing, as types of political systems and not something else (e.g. ideology, a way of thinking, etc.). Eastern Europe after 1944, with some exceptions, was not totalitarian and is better described as quasi-totalitarian or authoritarian. However by the term "quasi-totalitarianism" we do not mean a subtype of "post-totalitarianism" (as Juan J. Linz does), but as a separate category of non-democratic regime. Of course it is necessary to take into account the differences existing among particular countries as well as differences "inside" these countries, meaning their unique historical development. This is evident in the case study portion of this article which describes the political system of Poland 1944-1989. Adapted from the source document.