Suchergebnisse

American historians have traditionally divided the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries into Reconstruction, the Gilded Age, and the Progressive Era; however, this arbitrary periodization obscures more than it reveals. My dissertation argues that the Republican and Democratic Parties—like the American nation—passed through a period of reconstruction. Using the four-way presidential elections of 1860 and 1912 as bookends, I examine national politics through the lens of the two generations of politicians—the Civil War and Progressive generations—who oversaw the United States' transition from an agricultural to an industrial political economy. The Civil War generation's inability to address the excesses of industrialization called into question classical liberalism's emphasis on unfettered individualism for competing visions of a regulatory state. Touching off an internecine intergenerational struggle that spread from Democrats, in 1896, to Republicans, in 1912, both parties coalesced around competing visions of a federal regulatory state that took shape, ultimately establishing the ideological foundation of modern

La primera parte de este artículo está dedicada a los dos grandes cambios institucionales en Colombia relacionados directamente con el sistema de partidos, que tuvieron lugar en el período –la reforma política y la reelección--, con una breve referencia a sus respectivas prehistorias. La segunda se concentra en lo que ha ocurrido dentro de los partidos tradicionales. La tercera parte trata sobre el uribismo y las mayorías de las que ha gozado en su primer cuatrienio. ; The first part of this article is dedicated to the two big institutional changes in Colombia related directly with the system of parties that is took place in the period-the political reformation and the reelection-, with a brief reference to its respective prehistories. The second concentrate on what has happened inside the traditional parties. The third part is on the uribismo and the majorities about those that it has enjoyed in its first cuatrienio.

Der Artikel befaßt sich mit den Auswirkungen der dramatischen politischen Umwälzungen in Osteuropa auf Ägypten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der zentralistischen Machtsicherung in diesem Land gegen Demokratisierungsstreben und seine Positionsbestimmung in einer veränderten Welt. Der Autor weist darauf hin, daß - nachdem Ägypten in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten nicht ohne Erfolg Versuche unternommen hatte, aus dem Ost-West-Gegensatz politisches, militärisches und ökonomisches Kapital zu schlagen - sich die Bilanz dieses Agierens doch bescheiden ausnimmt. (DÜI-Sen)

Judging by their answers on public opinion surveys, many Russian
citizens favor democracy, at least as long as the stakes are not too high
or rights are not being extended to people they do not like (e.g.,
Tikhonova 2005, 39; Colton and McFaul 2001; Gibson 1998). But
Russians' behavior at times belies those findings. Ordinary
Russians expressed little outrage when the first president of independent
Russia, Boris Yeltsin, bombed the parliament in 1993. Nor did they
forcefully protest the actions of their second president, Vladimir Putin,
when he restricted personal freedoms, strengthened executive power, and
undermined the electoral process. Indeed, Russians continue to give Putin
high approval ratings (Fond Obshchestvennoe Mnenie 2006). Russians' electoral choices also have not
tended to favor democrats. In many local elections and in elections to the
State Duma throughout the 1990s, significant numbers of Russians chose
Communists, near-fascist nationalists, or others of questionable
democratic credentials to represent them. Liberal democratic parties fared
poorly in a number of elections and in the 2003 Duma elections failed to
win a single seat. Since 2003, support for liberal parties declined still
further (Levashov 2006, 10).

The first outbreak of mass political terrorism in the 20th century took place in the Russian Empire, especially in the First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907. However, these events have not received proper attention in the historical memory of Russia and Europe and in the history of world terrorism. The author examines the factors enabling the continued existence of a huge "blank spot" in the memory of Russia and the world. The under-evaluation of the significance of terrorism in the first decade of the 20th century is closely connected with the under-evaluation of the First Russian Revolution as an independent revolution. In the Soviet Union, historians emphasized that the Revolution of 1905-1907 was "the dress rehearsal" for the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917. In post-Soviet Russia, many historians and publicists consider the Revolution of 1905-1907 "the dress rehearsal" for the "Golgotha" of 1917. There is a strong tendency to idealize the autocracy and right-wing movements and to demonize socialists and liberals. Many solid monographs and articles about terrorism are now being published in Russia. However, we still do not have exhaustive investigations covering the entire period of terrorism between 1866 (attempted assassination of Tsar Alexander II on April 4, 1866 by the revolutionary D.V. Karakozov) and 1911, examining the ideologies and tactics of different parties and movements, the government's policies on political crimes, the relationships of society, especially among different political movements, to terrorism, and the differences between terrorism and other types of mass violence such as mass protest movements of different strata of the population and criminal violence. Only through a painstaking and multi-sided analysis of the terrorist phenomenon in the European-wide historical context we can determine the place of terrorism in the historical memory of Russia and Europe. ; Первая вспышка массового политического терроризма в ХХ в. имела место в Российской империи, особенно во время Первой русской революции 1905-1907 гг. Тысячи терактов, совершенных левыми революционерами, унесли жизни тысяч людей. Однако эти события еще не получили должного внимания ни в исторической памяти России и Европы, ни в истории мирового терроризма. Автор исследует факторы, способствовавшие сохранению большого «белого пятна» в памяти России и мира. Недооценка значения терроризма в первом десятилетии ХХ в. тесно переплетается с недооценкой Первой русской революции как самостоятельной революции. В Советском Союзе историки подчеркивали, что революция 1905-1907 гг. явилась «генеральной репетицией» Великой Октябрьской социалистической революции. В постсоветской России многие историки и публицисты считают Революцию 1905-1907 гг. «генеральной репетицией» «Голгофы» 1917 г. Прослеживается тенденция идеализировать самодержавие и правые движения и демонизировать социалистов и либералов. В России теперь публикуется много солидных монографий и статей о терроризме, но до сих пор нет исчерпывающих исследований, охватывающих период терроризма с 1866 г. (с покушения Д.В. Каракозова на жизнь царя Александра II 4 апреля 1866 г.) по 1911 г., касающихся идеологии и тактики разных партий и движений, правительственной политики в отношении политических преступлений, общественного отношения, особенно среди различных политических движений, к терроризму, а также различий между терроризмом и другими видами массового насилия — такими, как массовые протестные движения разных слоев населения и уголовное насилие. Только через кропотливый и всесторонний анализ явления терроризма в общеевропейском историческом контексте можно определить место терроризма в исторической памяти России и Европы.

REVIEWS CIRCUMSTANCES BEHIND INTRODUCTION OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION WITH THE SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE IN THE IRISH FREE STATE AND NORTHERN IRELAND. EXPLAINS HOW VOTING PATTERNS AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE CONSTITUENCEIES AFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. EXAMINES DISTORTIONS OF PROPORTIONALITY AND IMPACT ON THE NOMINATION STRATEGY OF PARTIES. CITES RESULTS OF 1969 AND 1973 ELECTIONS IN DUBLIN.

Does constitutional review in emerging democracies tend to enhance horizontal accountability or to preserve state-elite hegemony? The results of a quantitative analysis of abstract constitutional review in Turkey during the 1984–2007 period show: (1) that the Constitutional Court was no more likely to accept unconstitutionality claims by state-elite parties than by non-state-elite parties; and (2) that the Constitutional Court was more likely to accept unconstitutionality claims of executive transgressions than those of state-principles violations. In sum, the findings largely point to the Constitutional Court's preference for horizontal accountability over hegemonic preservation.