Suchergebnisse

AbstractMany theorists agree that there has been a shift in the locus of power from the legislature to the executive in modern Western democracies. The political importance of the administrative system has therefore increased dramatically. In this review of the literature it is argued that this has not led to greater efficiency, nor can it promise greater stability. The neo‐Marxist analyses of the crisis tendencies of advanced capitalism offer more promising hypotheses. They claim that administrative and public sector institutions cannot meet the goals set for them in a capitalist society and that they tend to generate radical dissent among sections of their own workers. Yet these state institutions also lay the foundations for a socialist society in which institutions are guided by social values other than short‐term profitability. While this paper supports the neo‐Marxist arguments, it argues that they stand in need of empirical testing, both by comparative historical study and by research into the changes in popular political culture.

Literature on the recent power shift from the legislative to the executive in Western democracies is reviewed, focusing on the increased political importance of government administrative systems. Critiques of earlier pluralist theories in technocratic & corporatist models are summarized; particular attention is given to neo-Marxist analyses of crisis in advanced capitalism, noting the claims that: (1) administrative & public sector institutions cannot meet the goals set for them; (2) these systems tend to generate radical dissent among sectors of their own workers; & (3) they also prepare for a socialist society, in which short-term profitability no longer guides such institutions. While these neo-Marxist views are deemed on the whole correct, their need for empirical testing, both by comparative historical study & research on popular political culture, is emphasized. Relevant criteria of efficiency, stability, & legitimation for administrative systems are summarized. 40 References. Modified HA.

'Negotiating a Settlement in Northern Ireland' uses original material from witness seminars, elite interviews, and archive documents to explore the shape taken by the Irish peace process, and in particular to analyse the manner in which successful stages of this were negotiated. Northern Ireland's Good Friday Agreement of 1998 marked the end a 30-year conflict that had witnessed more than 3,000 deaths, thousands of injuries, catastrophic societal damage, and large-scale economic dislocation. This book traces the roots of the Agreement over the decades, stretching back to the Sunningdale conference of 1973 and extending up to at least the St Andrews Agreement of 2006.

Negotiating a Settlement in Northern Ireland: From Sunningdale to St Andrews uses original material from witness seminars, elite interviews, and archive documents to explore the shape taken by the Irish peace process, and in particular to analyse the manner in which successful stages of this were negotiated. Northern Ireland's Good Friday Agreement of 1998 marked the end a 30-year conflict that had witnessed more than 3,000 deaths, thousands of injuries, catastrophic societal damage, and large-scale economic dislocation. This book traces the roots of the Agreement over the decades, stretching back to the Sunningdale conference of 1973 and extending up to at least the St Andrews Agreement of 2006. It describes the changing relationship between parties to the conflict (nationalist and unionist groups within Northern Ireland, and the Irish and British governments) and identifies three dimensions of significant change: new ways of implementing the concept of sovereignty, growing acceptance of power sharing, and the steady emergence of substantial equality in the socio-economic, cultural, and political domains. As well as placing this in the context of an extensive social science literature, the book innovates by looking at the manner in which those most closely involved understood the process in which they were engaged. The authors reproduce testimonies from witness seminars and interviews involving central actors, including former prime ministers, ministers, senior officials, and political advisors. They conclude that the outcome was shaped by a distinctive interaction between the conscious planning of these elites and changing demographic and political realities that themselves were, in a symbiotic way, consequences of decisions made in earlier years. They also note the extent to which this settlement has come under pressure from new notions of sovereignty implicit in the Brexit process.

A challenge for constitutional processes is to facilitate popular participation, including among marginalised groups. Uneven inclusion is highly likely 'upstream', in the early stages when ground rules and foundational principles guiding constitutional change are fleshed out, and particularly so in deeply divided societies. This article explores the obstacles to such inclusion in constitutional discussion in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after Brexit, asking what 'other' voices (including women's groups, ethnic minorities and youth) experience as barriers to participation and how they suggest these barriers can be overcome. We categorise barriers as situational, emotional and discursive, and show that discursive obstacles are experienced as the principal barrier to participation. We argue that an inclusive process requires not simply new institutional frameworks and agendas for deliberation, but also an overhaul of channels between policymakers and grassroots, enabling policymakers to communicate policy constraints and facilitating grassroots' critique into policy.

Processes of constitutional discussion increasingly invite widespread popular inclusion and participation. Conceptual and practical problems remain, not least the respects in which inclusion is to take place. In deeply divided places, these challenges are intensified, first in the difficulties of conceptualising inclusion, and second in the practical dangers participation may pose to peace. We tackle these problems empirically by looking at a hard case of constitutional discussion amid division: the re-emergence of debate about Irish unity in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Through focus groups and interviews, we explore how 'others', disengaged from the main political groups and defined transversally, approach the discussion, showing that they welcome the prospect of participation and seek to remove discursive triggers of conflict by focussing on shared everyday experience. We discuss the implications for the constitutional process and the likely impact on polarisation. The analysis has implications for the literature on divided societies, for constitutional theory and for policy. We argue that it is both possible and desirable to remedy group exclusion while facilitating universalistic discussion and lessening the dangers of polarisation. The policy implications are quite radical.

Identity change is a core element of political conflict and transformation. Most relevant are changes towards and away from dyadically opposed identities. Defining an 'enemy', narrowing, or broadening the inner and outer circles of belonging to include or exclude the Other, are integral to conflict processes at international, state, group, and individual levels. This Special Issue brings together scholars with varied sub-disciplinary interests to engage with a set of common paradoxes surrounding identity change, in order to generate more synthetic comparative understandings of these processes. It aims to synthesize insights from different approaches and to show how change from dyadically opposed identities takes place in different contexts.