Suchergebnisse

In this article an analysis is made of the voting behaviour of Members of Parliament and political parties after the parliamentary debate on the investiture of a new cabinet. The voting behaviour does differ from the classical coalition-opposition voting pattern. Indeed the emerging general pattern shows that a majorityof the members of the coalition parties - but by no means all of them - approve the governments' declaration and that a majority of the members of the opposition rejects it.Deviant voting behaviour after this parliamentary debate is not a general phenomenon and mostly only some majority members vote contrary to their whip's instructions. This dissident stand is taken mainly when cabinets can rely on a broad parliamentary majority. This deviant voting seems to be positively correlated to the size of the coalition.The directly elected Members of Parliament most easily vote in an unorthodox manner. The individual Members of Parliament motivate their deviant vote referring to the opinion of their electorate.

This theoretical study starts from the observation that nearly any social problem is hierarchically structured. In order to elucidate the importance of this hierarchical aspect for the eventual solution of the problem, the concepts «problem domain» and «context» are introduced. With respect to each problem the nature of the problem defining instance, the problem definition and the problem experience are considered under a double aspect : the three of them can be individual as well as collective. As for the problem itself a distinction is made between a subjective and an objective component. One also examines the elements that make a problem into a real social problem.Eventually one observes that each problem situation leads to the formation of a «field of power» involving various problem defining instances, each with its particular problem definition and problem experience. A valuable solution to any problem can hardly be reached without taking into account each of the forces in this field of power.

Every social problem is hierarchically structured. To elucidate the importance of this hierarchical aspect for solving social problems, the concepts of problem domain & context are introduced. For each problem, its defining instance, its definition, & its experience may be individual or collective. Subjective & objective components of problems can be distinguished. Each problem situation leads to the formation of a field of power involving various problem-defining instances, each with its particular problem definition & problem experience. Problems cannot be solved without taking into account each of the forces in this field of power. 1 Table, 2 Figures. Modified Author Summary.

Separate individual's disposition to take action does certainly not constitute a sufficient condition to engage in demonstrations. Doubtlessly, equal importance is due to organisational and institutional factors in society, and the individual's position in those. Ultimately, a demonstration is the result of a struggle between organizations for going control over individuals in order to support or defend their own objectives.In the mobilization process these organizations may make use of a diversity of mechanisms and techniques to control or to influence their members, as there are : the exploitation of the affective and instrumental ties binding the individual to the organization ; the access to - and the use of - the mass-media ; the use of selective communication by the organizational leaders and the induction of frustration. Special attention is given to the role of the militant and the characteristics of his language in the mobilization proces

Separate individual dispositions to action are not a sufficient condition for demonstrations. Organizational & institutional factors have an equal importance. Ultimately, a demonstration results from a power struggle between organizations to get individuals to support or defend their objectives. In the mobilization process, these organizations use control mechanisms & techniques to influence their members: exploitation of affective & instrumental ties binding individuals to the organization, access to & use of mass media, selective communication by the organizational leaders, & the induction of frustration. Special attention is given to the role of militants & their language's characteristics, in the mobilization process. HA.

The first months of political life in Belgium in 1979 were essentially characterized by the great difficulties encoutered in the formation of a new cabinet. In 1979 Belgium lived its longest cabinet crisis in its history.As usual, the process of cabinet formation started with the nomination of an «informateur», followed by that of a «formateur». However, formateur Wilfried Martens did not succeed in forming a cabinet : oppositions on issues and strategies between the parties proved to a high to be surmounted. The King there upon introduced an innovation: he designated two «mediators». These, however, also failed to find some ground for agreement. Eventually, after elaborate informal contacts, the resigning Prime-Minister, Paul Vanden Boeynants, was nominated as formateur. After a month of laborious negotiations he successfully completed his mission. However, he preferred to leave the post of Prime-Minister of the new five party cabinet to Mr. Martens, till then president of the FlemishChristian-Democrats.