Suchergebnisse

3.2.1 Národní demokracie v hlasité opozici (společně s fašisty)3.2.2 Konsolidace poměrů uvnitř národní demokracie na podzim 1926 -- nástup křídla živnostenské banky; 3.3 Volba prezidenta republiky 1927; 3.4 Politická emancipace fašistů na národní demokracii a komunální volby na podzim 1927; 3.5 Spor s mládeží demokratického zítřku a konec roku 1927; 3.6 Národnědemokratický ministr ve vládě; 3.7 Rozpad koalice občanských stran a hledání spojence do parlamentních voleb v roce 1929; 3.8 Politický nástup křídla živnostenské banky v národní demokracii a volby do Národního shromáždění 1929

The paper concentrates on attitudes to the enlargement and the future of EU held by relevant political parties in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia in 2002. With respect to the Czech Republic, three basic approaches to the issue of EU enlargement are identified, thus classifying the Czech political parties as "consistently" pro-European, pro-European "with reservations" and anti-European. It will be argued that in Slovakia the relevant political parties acted as "consistently" pro-European with the exception of the anti-European Slovak National Party (SNS) and the Communist Party of Slovakia (KSS). The dividing line was however rather between the parties whose representatives could be viewed by international partners as an obstacle to Slovakia's admission to EU and the parties that were "acceptable" for foreign countries, which played an important role in rallying voters to opt for "acceptable" political subjects. ; The paper concentrates on attitudes to the enlargement and the future of EU held by relevant political parties in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia in 2002. With respect to the Czech Republic, three basic approaches to the issue of EU enlargement are identified, thus classifying the Czech political parties as "consistently" pro-European, pro-European "with reservations" and anti-European. It will be argued that in Slovakia the relevant political parties acted as "consistently" pro-European with the exception of the anti-European Slovak National Party (SNS) and the Communist Party of Slovakia (KSS). The dividing line was however rather between the parties whose representatives could be viewed by international partners as an obstacle to Slovakia's admission to EU and the parties that were "acceptable" for foreign countries, which played an important role in rallying voters to opt for "acceptable" political subjects.

Parties are essential components of a political system, since they provide access to the decision-making process for the citizens. In democratic society they have to execute some basic functions (e.g. interest aggregation, articulation and representation). For this they need material and financial resources. In the recent year funding of the parties must deal with growing expensiveness on the one hand, and on the other with bribery and corruption (which can seriously damage citizens' confidence in the democratic system). Even the most democratic countries have from time to time problem with this unacceptable social phenomena. And it is more important to avoid it in transition countries and in so-called "new democracies" – as central and east European countries, where the democracy is not stabile enough. In this article we focus on the case of Slovakia. We try to outline party finances system and analyse financial resources structure. There are two main models of parties financing, one based on private finances and second based on public resources. Apart from serious defects in laws (still present in Slovak legislation), the main problem of parties financing in Slovakia is growing rate of public party subvention (what can negatively affect parties' independence on the state) and reducing number of party subjects, which participate on it.

The text focuses on one specific aspect of Lukashenko´s nondemocratic regime – the position and function of political parties. These variables are analysed, among others, by the application of classical terms such as competition, competitiveness, and party system. On the one hand, political parties (including anti-system ones) officially exist and, as such, can participate in elections. On the other hand, there is only a minimal chance for (opposition) political parties to win a mandate by means of participating in elections or to gain a share of real political power. The text tries to find the answers to several interrelated questions: What are the consequences of the above mentioned facts in the Belarusian context, in terms of a theory of political parties? Why does the regime tolerate the existence of political parties? Why do political parties themselves participate in this system? Seeking answers to these questions, the article focuses mainly on the period from1995 to 2008, during which four parliamentary elections took place. However previous and current developments are also taken into account.

This article focuses on a comparative analysis of the organization of contemporary Czech parliamentary parties. It emphasizes the structural and functional differences between the new parties—ANO (meaning "yes" in Czech) and Dawn of Direct Democracy—and older parties. The theoretical section presents the basic organizational types – in particular, the concept of the business-firm party. The following organizational aspects of parties are then compared: membership, form of funding, the role played by ground organizations, the position and composition of top party bodies, the role played by the party leader, and media resources. This analysis reveals that ANO and Dawn have a more exclusive membership than older parties and have centralized more power into the hands of the party leader, who is supported both by formal statutes and by informal structures. In the case of ANO, the central leadership dominates over lower-level ground organizations; Dawn forgoes them altogether. Its missing institutional base accelerated Dawn's implosion in 2015. ANO is characterised by a high degree of professionalism and control over key media, both of which were missing in the case of Dawn. ; This article focuses on a comparative analysis of the organization of contemporary Czech parliamentary parties. It emphasizes the structural and functional differences between the new parties—ANO (meaning "yes" in Czech) and Dawn of Direct Democracy—and older parties. The theoretical section presents the basic organizational types – in particular, the concept of the business-firm party. The following organizational aspects of parties are then compared: membership, form of funding, the role played by ground organizations, the position and composition of top party bodies, the role played by the party leader, and media resources. This analysis reveals that ANO and Dawn have a more exclusive membership than older parties and have centralized more power into the hands of the party leader, who is supported both by formal statutes and by informal ...