Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the political history of Central and Eastern Europe has been mainly the story of arise, consolidation, transformation and struggles of new democratic regimes and societies. The handbook offers an instructive approach to that history focusing on the relevance of practices and institutions of direct democracy. It collects 20 political analyses of direct democracy in 20 Central and Eastern European countries after 1989.
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the political history of Central and Eastern Europe has been mainly the story of arise, consolidation, transformation and struggles of new democratic regimes and societies. The handbook offers an instructive approach to that history focusing on the relevance of practices and institutions of direct democracy. It collects 20 political analyses of direct democracy in 20 Central and Eastern European countries after 1989.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the political history of Central and Eastern Europe has been mainly the story of arise, consolidation, transformation and struggles of new democratic regimes and societies. The handbook offers an instructive approach to that history focusing on the relevance of practices and institutions of direct democracy. It collects 20 political analyses of direct democracy in 20 Central and Eastern European countries after 1989. The aim of the book is the holistic and interdisciplinary political analysis of direct democracy in the Central and Eastern European countries after 1989. The case studies make diagnoses of the state of democratic processes in the regarding countries, and present and analyze institutions of direct democracy. In addition the book provides an analytical and comparative examination of the implementation processes of direct democratic practices and solutions at national and local level. The collection of case studies shows the significance of direct democracy in the formal-legal and practical dimension of the Central and Eastern European countries and point at the use of direct democratic instruments as expression of political awareness of these societies. Thereby the studies emphasize the significant connection of the accession process to the European Union and the development of direct democracy in these countries.
The aim of this article is to conduct a comparative analysis of direct democracy in France and Poland. In the research process, three research questions were formulated: 1) What is the tradition of direct democracy in France and Poland?; 2) What are the solutions characteristics of direct democracy in the constitutions of France and Poland, and other legal acts in these countries?; 3) What are the practical applications of direct democracy tools at the national and local levels in France and Poland?. An analysis of legal acts constituting the legal basis for direct democracy in France and Poland was conducted. Documents related to the practice of direct democracy in these countries were analyzed. France has a long tradition of a direct democracy. Compared to France, Poland has a short tradition of direct democracy. The constitutions of both countries adopted a solution in the form of a national referendum. In addition to the institution of a nationwide referendum, the constitution-makers in France and Poland included the institution of a local referendum. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland also indicates a legislative initiative. Ten national referenda have been held within the Fifth Republic. Turnouts in referendums at the national level ranged from 30.19 to 82.63%. The average turnout in the referendum is 65.82%. In the votes, eight solutions were adopted and two were rejected. Six national referendums have been held in Poland since 1989. Turnouts in referendums at the national level ranged from 7.8 to 58.85%. The average turnout in referendums was 35.87%. Two solutions were adopted in the votes and four were rejected.
Kwestie dotyczące referendum znalazły odzwierciedlenie w konstytucji Chorwacji oraz ustawie o referendum i innych formach osobistego udziału w wykonywaniu władzy państwowej i lokalnych oraz regionalnych samorządów (Zakon o referendum i drugim oblicma osobnog sudjelovanja u obavljanju državne vlasti i lokalne samouprave). W obecnie obowiązującej konstytucji uprawnienia Saboru odnośnie do zarządzenia referendum zawarte są w artykule 87 (The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia). W Chorwacji odbyły się trzy referenda ogólnokrajowe: referendum niepodległościowe z roku 1991 roku, referendum w sprawie członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej z roku 2012 oraz referendum dotyczące instytucji małżeństwa z roku 2013. Przed rokiem 2000 ani prezydent, ani rząd nie zarządzili referendum na mocy artykułu 86 wówczas obowiązującej konstytucji. W latach 2000–2012 nie odbyło się żadne referendum zarządzone w wyniku inicjatywy obywatelskiej.
Występuje wiele podejść teoretycznych do badania ruchów społecznych. Teoria nowych ruchów społecznych jest jedną z nich. Celem artykułu jest analiza kategorii nowych ruchów społecznych zaprezentowana przez Manuela Castellsa. Przeanalizował on nową formę ruchów społecznych: od arabskiej wiosny do ruchów w takich państwach, jak Islandia, Hiszpania czy USA. Ruchy te różnią się pod wieloma względami, ale wszystkie stworzyły autonomiczną sieć komunikowania się związaną z internetem i komunikacją bezprzewodową. Castells scharakteryzował te ruchy i stworzył ich teoretyczny model w erze internetu.
The aim of the article is to analyze accession referenda in the fifth EU enlargement. The article consists of four parts: the European enlargements; legal grounds for referenda in the candidate countries for EU membership in 2003; information and pre-referendum campaigns; the character, voter turnout and results of accession referenda. During the process of accession of individual countries to the European Communities/European Union accession referenda were held only in some of the states. The referendum was used in the first enlargement. The accession referendum was not invoked in the second enlargement. The institution of the referendum was not employed in the third enlargement. The fourth enlargement invoked the institution of the referendum. The fifth enlargement took place in 2004. Accession negotiations concerned two groups of states: the Luxembourg and the Helsinki group. In the fifth enlargement, the referenda for accession to the EU were held in nine countries: Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia. The political elites in the candidate countries were in favor of accession. Euroskeptical movements were essentially marginal. In some countries which used the referendum in the process of accession there were requirements concerning a minimum voter turnout necessary for referendum results to be valid and binding. Some of the countries arranged a two-day voting.
