Suchergebnisse

Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof. ; Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof.

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; Eleni Fournaraki, «Wherefore deprive her of the vote?». Universal male suffrage and the exclusion of women from politics in 19th century Greece Through study of the Greek case, this article tries to explore the exclusion of women from political rights in the context of liberal democracy as a historiographical problem. In contrast to the vast majority of representative states at the time, political circumstances prevailing in Greece led to the constitutional establishment of universal male suffrage in 1864, though not without provoking the discontent of a sizeable portion of the political scene for several years thereafter. According to «conventional» historical accounts, there can be no doubt that women's exclusion from «universal suffrage» in 1864, while not explicity articulated in the Constitution or any pertinent legislation, was regarded as self-evident. Furthermore, prior to 1910-20 the possibility of attributing the vote to women did not preoccupy party politics, while a suffragist movement did not appear before the Inter-war period. Our own approach can be summarized as follows: exploration of the meaning of women's exclusion from political rights in a democratic conjuncture that assured those rights to all adult men may reveal the full dimensions of the conflict dynamic that democratic conquests presuppose. In the first place, this dynamic applies to men themselves, or more precisely to the less privileged among them. As empirical data reveal, the question of women's political rights, even if acquiring those rights was not an existing possibility, could appear as a constructive element of the political discourse: women's exclusion could have been put forward as one of the issues in the argument against universal male suffrage. It is precisely the self-evident and trivial nature of this exclusion together with that of children which could offer a more convincing argument against the conception of suffrage as a natural right. A lack of internal coherence and consistency in the argument of the advocates of «universal suffrage», could be pointed out through the emphasis, conversely, on the irrationality of a regime that guaranteed political participation down to the very last «illiterate» or «vagrant» man, while depriving all women of the vote, especially those who had the ability to possess and administrate property. Support for suffrage for those women was not totally absent from such argumentation, which served to reveal the contradictions that women's exclusion from political rights brought to the heart of the modern system for the legitimization of sovereignty. Through examination of the arguments employed by the science of constitutional law to justify exclusion, we observe a broader process of redefinition and rationalization of the existing gender hierarchy, in modern terms. Crystallized in the last quarter of 19th century, this process appealed to the notion of the biological and psychological «specificity» of «female nature)) in order to legitimize the incompatibility of women as a whole with politics.