Suchergebnisse

This book offers a systematic inquiry into how, why, and with what consequences media affects governments and the standing of prime ministers. It aims at an understanding of how media has caused institutional effects in government, as well as at advancing a unified theory of government communication. The author develops a logic of centralization and applies it to one case, Sweden. Government communication has been institutionalized, tightened and centralized with the prime minister and has changed irreversibly. Analysis of how the government communication system has evolved, mainly in its institutional structures, suggests that the shift to centralization arose more out of necessity than choice. For prime ministers most of this is about finding ways to ensure that the entire government respond to media uniformly. As governments face a set of functional demands from media, different kinds of media, uniformity has been a paramount objective. Nevertheless, this development involves shifting dynamics of intra-executive relations and a shift of power away from ministries to the prime ministers office; the apex of political power. The prime minister has been empowered at the expense of ministers through the concentration of power and resources to the executive centre. That is partly because of media, which reinforces political hierarchies. That and the centralized control of government news in turn raises further questions about democratic governance and the nature of modern-day governing. Karl Magnus Johansson is Affiliate Professor of Political Science at Sodertorn University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Diese Publikation gibt einen Überblick über die Rolle von politischen Parteien auf europäischer Ebene im politischen System der Europäischen Union (Europarteien). Sie untersucht die Schlüsselrolle und Merkmale dieser Organisationen und stellt die These auf, dass sie vor allem wegen ihrer Mobilisierung von nationalen Parteien und Vorsitzenden signifikante Akteure seien. Die Bedingungen für die Einflussnahme von Europaparteien sind jedoch schwierig. Es kann von Europarteien erwartet werden, dass sie von Bedeutung sind, wenn sie zahlenmäßig überlegen, relativ kohäsiv und außerdem im Stande sind, ihre Netzwerke von politischen Parteien und Spitzenpolitikern zu mobilisieren. Diese Politiker bleiben aber in erster Linie nationale Politiker, verantwortlich gegenüber ihren nationalen Wählerschaften. Daher bleiben der Einfluss und die Bedeutung von Europarteien im Großen und Ganzen abhängig von den innenpolitischen Kontexten nationaler Parteien und deren Anführern. Doch der funktionale Druck sich transnational zu engagieren, dient zur weiteren Institutionalisierung der Europarteien.

This article explores and offers an in-depth empirical account of the efforts made by the centre-right and federalist European People's Party (EPP) to play a role in the 1996-97 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) and negotiations leading to the adoption of the Amsterdam treaty in 1997. Before and during the course of the IGC the EPP made concerted efforts to muster a consensus around its priorities, concerning institutions as well as issues, and for a substantial treaty reform. EPP bodies convened and set out their views on the IGC, with the purpose of trying to work out compromises and reach agreement on the issues in order to strengthen the position in the IGC negotiations. In sum, there was significant activity in the EPP. The findings carry implications for research on the transnationalization of politics, in particular transnational party and elite networks, and the EU and its constitutionalization.

This paper outlines and elaborates the role of Europarties – political parties at European level – in the political system of the European Union (EU). It explores the key role and features of these organisations and claims that they are significant actors, particularly through their mobilisation of political parties and leaders. However, the conditions for Europarty influence are demanding. Europarties can be expected to matter when they are in numerical ascendance, relatively cohesive and able to mobilise their networks of political parties and leaders. These leaders remain first and foremost national politicians, responsible to national electorates. Therefore, Europarty influence and relevance overall remain conditioned on the domestic political context of national parties and leaders. Yet, functional pressures for transnational engagement serve to further institutionalise Europarties.

This report explores the question of how populist parties organize and towhat extent they have intrinsic characteristics and are alike in their organization. As this problematique is under-researched there is an important gapin our understanding and knowledge concerning populism and its parties. Largely a synthetic work, the report seeks to fill this void in existing researchthrough an overview of the secondary literature and an inventory ofscattered evidence covering a set of political parties broadly labelled populist. The evidence reveals that these parties in a range of European countrieshave experienced remarkably similar organizational attributes andstyle. A clear pattern has emerged. In a broad comparative perspective,three identifiable patterns are particularly notable as regards the organizationof these parties. The first pattern is centralized organizational structures. The second pattern, and linked to the former, is personalized leadership,which is often but not always based on charismatic authority. Thethird pattern is factionalism or intra-party division. ; New Voices, Old Roots: Dilemmas of Populism in Enlarged Europe