Suchergebnisse

"The development of the term and the analytical concept of totalitarianism have gone through several stages since the 1920s. However, even in its most sophisticated
form, the version seen in Friedrich/ Brzezinski, the concept exhibits substantial systematic classification problems and analytical weaknesses. This article attempts to frame the type of totalitarian regime within a general typology of political
regimes. Special attention is dedicated to the problem of distinguishing autocratic from democratic rule, and of carving out the systematic difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes within the basic type of autocracy. Despite a systematic typology, all grey zones between the basic types cannot be clarified. Therefore, the typology should be complemented by a continuum on which regimes as they exist in reality, can be placed between the polar types of 'ideal democracy' and 'perfect totalitarianism'." (author's abstract)

Im Mittelpunkt des Beitrags stehen die Entwicklungen in Ägypten nach dem Arabischen Frühling. Der Beitrag betrachtet den Regime- und Elitenwandel nach Mubarak und geht dabei der Frage nach, welche Rolle Prozesse des Regimes- und Elitenwandels in den Dekaden unter Mubarak für die Verlaufsformen des politischen Wandels nach dem Rücktritt Mubaraks spielten. Der Beitrag widmet sich der Schnittstelle von Eliten- und Regimewandel als einer wesentlichen Variable im Kontext des herrschafts- und akteurspolitischen Wandels von 2011. Zunächst nimmt der Beitrag nach einer Erläuterung der Ausgangsthesen das herrschaftspolitische Elitengefüge in den drei Dekaden der Präsidentschaft Mubaraks in den Blick. Im Anschluss daran wendet sich der Beitrag den Kontinuitäten und Wandel der Machtbeziehungen seit dem erzwungenen Rücktritt Mubaraks am 11. Februar 2011 zu. Abschließend erfolgt ein Blick auf die Zukunft Ägyptens. (ICA2)

"Today democracy is seen as the only legitimate form of government almost all over the world. That it can be institutionalized differently leads to the question which kind of democracy might be better or worse. This question can be answered normatively, but also an the basis of different performances that can be determined empirically. The latter requires an adequate theoretical conceptualization of types of democratic regimes and the operationalization of these types in the form of indices. This is the subject of the analysis. Types and indices of democratic regimes that figure in the current comparative and empirical research an democracy are compared against the background of a theoretical framework. They are categorized as presidentialism-parliamentarism-approaches or veto-player-approaches. Thereby, the analysis implies a comparison of these two basic approaches to the construction of types and indices of democratic regimes." (author's abstract)

"Regime Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

Regime theory is an approach within international relations theory, a sub-discipline of political science, which seeks to explain the occurrence of co-operation among States by focusing on the role that regimes play in mitigating international anarchy and overcoming various collective action problems among States (International Relations, Principal Theories; State; see also Co-operation, International Law of). Different schools of thought within international relations have emerged, and various analytical approaches exist within the regime theory itself (see Sec. F.3 below). However, typically regime theory is associated with neoliberal institutionalism that builds on a premise that regimes are central in facilitating international co-operation and constraining the behaviour of States. Thus, in international relations literature, regime theory is often used interchangeably with the terms 'institutionalism' or 'neoliberal institutionalism'.