Suchergebnisse

This article is based on the analysis of a brief but very important period (from 19 June 1920 till 2 February 1922) of Lithuanian political history from the perspective of political science and history. The article provides the insights on the governmental dynamics of independent Lithuania during the first parliamentary and the fourth governmental coalition of the christian democrats party and peasant populists led by Kazys Grinius. Those two parliamentary parties were united by the common idea of independent state of Lithuania, besides they had similar social and economic programmes. On the other hand, those two political powers collided over different worldviews, understanding of democracy, human rights and civic liberty. From the beginning there were indications that coalition will not be long-lasting, nevertheless it worked more than 19 months it was employable and effective. Despite that, quantitative imbalance of the party members within the parliament, differences of political weight within the government, and deep contradictions on the place of church and religion within the state, produced the permanent clashes among the members of coalition. The aim of this article is to analyse the formation of peasant populists tactics and the process of its implementation. The analysis of primary sources revealed, that members of peasant populist from the very beginning of their work within the fourth government, till the autumn of 1921, fluctuated among two perspectives: remaining the member of coalition or withdrawing to the opposition. Long-term discussions within the peasant populists on political tactics while working in the parliament divided this political power into 2 competing radical and temperate sides. The permanent fluctuations among the coalition and opposition there reflected neither in seimas nor in the media.[.].

This article is based on the analysis of a brief but very important period (from 19 June 1920 till 2 February 1922) of Lithuanian political history from the perspective of political science and history. The article provides the insights on the governmental dynamics of independent Lithuania during the first parliamentary and the fourth governmental coalition of the christian democrats party and peasant populists led by Kazys Grinius. Those two parliamentary parties were united by the common idea of independent state of Lithuania, besides they had similar social and economic programmes. On the other hand, those two political powers collided over different worldviews, understanding of democracy, human rights and civic liberty. From the beginning there were indications that coalition will not be long-lasting, nevertheless it worked more than 19 months it was employable and effective. Despite that, quantitative imbalance of the party members within the parliament, differences of political weight within the government, and deep contradictions on the place of church and religion within the state, produced the permanent clashes among the members of coalition. The aim of this article is to analyse the formation of peasant populists tactics and the process of its implementation. The analysis of primary sources revealed, that members of peasant populist from the very beginning of their work within the fourth government, till the autumn of 1921, fluctuated among two perspectives: remaining the member of coalition or withdrawing to the opposition. Long-term discussions within the peasant populists on political tactics while working in the parliament divided this political power into 2 competing radical and temperate sides. The permanent fluctuations among the coalition and opposition there reflected neither in seimas nor in the media.[.].

This article is based on the analysis of a brief but very important period (from 19 June 1920 till 2 February 1922) of Lithuanian political history from the perspective of political science and history. The article provides the insights on the governmental dynamics of independent Lithuania during the first parliamentary and the fourth governmental coalition of the christian democrats party and peasant populists led by Kazys Grinius. Those two parliamentary parties were united by the common idea of independent state of Lithuania, besides they had similar social and economic programmes. On the other hand, those two political powers collided over different worldviews, understanding of democracy, human rights and civic liberty. From the beginning there were indications that coalition will not be long-lasting, nevertheless it worked more than 19 months it was employable and effective. Despite that, quantitative imbalance of the party members within the parliament, differences of political weight within the government, and deep contradictions on the place of church and religion within the state, produced the permanent clashes among the members of coalition. The aim of this article is to analyse the formation of peasant populists tactics and the process of its implementation. The analysis of primary sources revealed, that members of peasant populist from the very beginning of their work within the fourth government, till the autumn of 1921, fluctuated among two perspectives: remaining the member of coalition or withdrawing to the opposition. Long-term discussions within the peasant populists on political tactics while working in the parliament divided this political power into 2 competing radical and temperate sides. The permanent fluctuations among the coalition and opposition there reflected neither in seimas nor in the media.[.].

The aim of the article is to discuss the possibilities of reducing the opposition between the Peasant Populists and the Church that have existed in parliamentary Lithuania during 1918–1926. To reach this aim the following objectives have been set: first, to reveal some aspects of political activities of the official Catholic Church and clergy which might have weakened the disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Peasant Populists; second, to present some problems of internal life of the clergy and clashes between the Catholic Church and laymen; finally, to reveal that there were possibilities to reduce the opposition not only in the activities of the official Catholic Church, but also the Peasant Populists. The research is based on the following sources: most information is gathered from the newspaper for the clergy "Ganytojas", Catholic newspaper "Žvaigždė" and the newspaper of the Peasant Populists "Lietuvos žinios". The documents of the Lithuanian State Historical Archives (stock 1671) are very important source for this article as well. The analysis has revealed that, on the one hand, the attitude of the Catholic Church towards political parties of parliamentary Lithuania (except Christian Democrats) was visibly negative. On the other hand, in public life official Catholic Church and its press tried to avoid open criticism of the political parties. Leader of various Catholic organisations, editor of "Ganytojas", Mykolas Vaitkus, though being an active participant in political processes, was able to critically evaluate problems inside the clergy. He acknowledged that "Lietuvos žinios" was an influential paper, despite the fact that it often criticized the institutional Church and priests. Some articles from this newspaper were favourably evaluated by M. Vaitkus in his reviews in "Ganytojas". [.]

The aim of the article is to discuss the possibilities of reducing the opposition between the Peasant Populists and the Church that have existed in parliamentary Lithuania during 1918–1926. To reach this aim the following objectives have been set: first, to reveal some aspects of political activities of the official Catholic Church and clergy which might have weakened the disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Peasant Populists; second, to present some problems of internal life of the clergy and clashes between the Catholic Church and laymen; finally, to reveal that there were possibilities to reduce the opposition not only in the activities of the official Catholic Church, but also the Peasant Populists. The research is based on the following sources: most information is gathered from the newspaper for the clergy "Ganytojas", Catholic newspaper "Žvaigždė" and the newspaper of the Peasant Populists "Lietuvos žinios". The documents of the Lithuanian State Historical Archives (stock 1671) are very important source for this article as well. The analysis has revealed that, on the one hand, the attitude of the Catholic Church towards political parties of parliamentary Lithuania (except Christian Democrats) was visibly negative. On the other hand, in public life official Catholic Church and its press tried to avoid open criticism of the political parties. Leader of various Catholic organisations, editor of "Ganytojas", Mykolas Vaitkus, though being an active participant in political processes, was able to critically evaluate problems inside the clergy. He acknowledged that "Lietuvos žinios" was an influential paper, despite the fact that it often criticized the institutional Church and priests. Some articles from this newspaper were favourably evaluated by M. Vaitkus in his reviews in "Ganytojas". [.]

The aim of the article is to discuss the possibilities of reducing the opposition between the Peasant Populists and the Church that have existed in parliamentary Lithuania during 1918–1926. To reach this aim the following objectives have been set: first, to reveal some aspects of political activities of the official Catholic Church and clergy which might have weakened the disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Peasant Populists; second, to present some problems of internal life of the clergy and clashes between the Catholic Church and laymen; finally, to reveal that there were possibilities to reduce the opposition not only in the activities of the official Catholic Church, but also the Peasant Populists. The research is based on the following sources: most information is gathered from the newspaper for the clergy "Ganytojas", Catholic newspaper "Žvaigždė" and the newspaper of the Peasant Populists "Lietuvos žinios". The documents of the Lithuanian State Historical Archives (stock 1671) are very important source for this article as well. The analysis has revealed that, on the one hand, the attitude of the Catholic Church towards political parties of parliamentary Lithuania (except Christian Democrats) was visibly negative. On the other hand, in public life official Catholic Church and its press tried to avoid open criticism of the political parties. Leader of various Catholic organisations, editor of "Ganytojas", Mykolas Vaitkus, though being an active participant in political processes, was able to critically evaluate problems inside the clergy. He acknowledged that "Lietuvos žinios" was an influential paper, despite the fact that it often criticized the institutional Church and priests. Some articles from this newspaper were favourably evaluated by M. Vaitkus in his reviews in "Ganytojas". [.]

This article is part of the special cluster titled Social practices of remembering and forgetting of the communist past in Central and Eastern Europe, guest edited by Malgorzata Glowacka-GrajperIn this article, I argue against the primary perception of communist nostalgia as either longing for social security or the "dark ages" of anti-communist narratives. I suggest we look deeper into people's everyday economic practices and ideas under communism, and their transmission and/or re-invention by contemporary populism, to understand the present-day role of nostalgia. Using material gathered mostly in Slovakia, I argue for a fuller understanding of the ambivalent role that communist modernization played in developing the specific model of livelihood strategies, ideas, and practices I call post-peasant. This people's economy is widely remembered as an unintended consequence of communist modernization, not as an integral product of it. This economic model is further mobilized by skilled populist politicians. It is not the memory of socialism, but an understanding of a "people's economy" and politics developed under socialism and transmitted across regimes, one I characterize as "post-peasant," that people are actually nostalgic about.

This article examines the actions and discourses of the main peasant parties and movements in Romania, Poland and Bulgaria during the inter-war period. Ideologically and discursively, peasant parties were a heterogeneous amalgamate of anarchist, Marxist, socialist and liberal (and sometimes even conservative or nationalist) ideas. In defining the populism as a repertoire of actions and/or discourses, rather than the unchanging essence of a party, it shows that the three agrarian parties have known a "populist moment", i.e. temporarily taking recourse to claims of representing "the people" and extra-parliamentary action. While the Bulgarian peasant party never resorted to populist actions, the Romanian agrarian party had its moment of populism without a significant shift in rhetoric and the Polish peasant party never resorted to populism neither in either rhetoric or actions.

Some agricultural or rural protest groups in the Western world evolved into political parties - often of a populist nature - whereas others did not. This book is the first to explore under which conditions this happens, and to what extent current populist parties have agricultural or rural ties and related agendas. Well-known authors with a background in rural studies or in political sciences describe and analyse the situation in a number of Western countries (the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Austria, the Netherlands, Australia, Finland). The contributions in this book show that the accessibility and responsiveness of the political system and the institutionalized agrarian interest groups, as well as the existing political landscape, are influencing the decisions of rural protest groups to found a political party. However, nowadays the chances of these parties being successful are small due to the declining share of the agricultural sector within European societies. Although there will always be grounds for agrarian protest, it seems safe to say that the heyday of agrarian populism is over

ABSTRACT
The article examines the weakness of discourses around food sovereignty in Southwest Asia and North Africa, and examines some older currents resembling the food sovereignty discourse. The author first historically situates the emergence of food sovereignty. He discusses agro-ecology – the 'technics' (or social embeddedness of technology) of food sovereignty – and its national-popular content, before then developing elements of the delinking paradigm. He goes on to discuss Tunisian national-popular and Third Worldist agronomists' and economists' efforts to develop technics and frameworks for food sovereignty in the 1970s and 1980s. The article compares the food sovereignty paradigm with auto-centred, self-reliant development proposals, and the proposals of the Tunisian economists and agronomists.