Suchergebnisse

Popular uprising against authoritarian regimes is not enough to allow transition towards democracy to begin. The military has the final word on whether such an uprising will be successful or the uprising will be repressed in order to preserve the incumbent dictatorship. The military supported the uprising in Tunisia while it sided with the regime and repressed the uprising in Syria. In Egypt did the military refrain from supporting the regime and took over power themselves. Why did the military act so differently in the three cases? The article propose a theoretical explanation which combines variables influencing whether the military has the potential to support a popular uprising or not; and if there is a political situation, which allows for this potential to be exploited. The model of explanation is then tested against the cases of Tunisia, Egypt and Syria during The Arab Spring. Adapted from the source document.

Etter at Tyrkia i 1999 fikk status som sokerland til EU og forhandlinger om medlemskap startet i 2005, har tyrkerne lovet a imotekomme EU-krav om demokratisering av landet og en losning av det 'kurdiske problemei'. En demokratiseringsprosess forutsetter imidlertid kritiske og frie medier. Men bade Tyrkias vestlige allierte og folk flest i landet er bekymret for dagens situasjon, der journalister, forfattere og folkevalgte politikere fengsles for sine ytringer som av myndighetene er oppfattet som formidling av propaganda som kommer den kurdiske frigjoringsbevegelse (PKK) til gode. Basert pa intervjuer med personer med ekspertkunnskap fra Tyrkia og et utvalg av avisartikler og kommentarer fra tyrkiske papiraviser, utforskes det hvordan tyrkiske medier styres i forhold til det kurdiske opproret i Tyrkia, samt hvorvidt det regierende Rettferdighets-og utviklingsparti (AKP) kan bidra til a demokratisere landet. Analysen viser at under Erdogan og hans AKP har medienes handlingsrom med hensyn til kurderkonflikten, og for orvrig ogsa generelt, ikke blitt saerlig bedre enn under hans forgjengere When Turkey was granted candidate status to EU membership in 1999 and negotiations started in 2005, hopes were high that the country would meet EU requirements for democratization and that a solution would be found to the so-called 'Kurdish problem'. However, a democratization process implies a critical and free media. Turkey's citizens and Western allies are now following recent developments with concern. Journalists, writers and elected politicians have been imprisoned for their work, some held on terror-related charges or propaganda and others for allegedly participating in antigovernment plots. With this as a backdrop, to what extent is Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) democratizing the country? My aim in this article is to answer the question and explore the extent to which media censorship and control is occurring, in particular regarding Kurdish insurgency in Turkey. I make use of primary and secondary data, including interviews with media experts in Turkey and a selection of newspaper articles from six Turkish newspapers. The Turkish government already exercises a tight hand over Turkey's traditional media, yet, as the analysis reveals, under Erdogan the government controls of freedom of expression and press (in particular concerning the Kurdish conflict) are tightening further. Adapted from the source document.

In this article, the way the Turkish state treats Kurds is put under the spotlight. The Kurds in Turkey have been subjected to extensive oppression since the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The author places oppression of the Kurds in the context of official dogmatic Turkish nationalistic ideology, Kemalism, which is based on the political philosophy of the founder of the Turkish republic, Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk." The military have assumed the position of his foremost spokesmen after Ataturk's death. It was hoped that the process of adaptation to the ED would result in ending the 80-year-long oppression of the Kurds & the other minorities, after Turkey acquired candidate status to the EU in 1999, but the country's powerful military are trying to thwart this process. The article is discussing how the military are using their role in the Kurdish question to hamper the democratization process. In Turkey there is widespread agreement that the unsolved Kurdish question is the main reason for the problems which have arisen in connection with the process of adaptation to the EU. References. Adapted from the source document.

A large contrast between European Union and the United States still exists when it comes to how the countries influence the world. Whereas the United States is still obsessed with military might, Europe's focus is on economic, cultural and legitimate influence. In the early 20th century it would have been almost impossible to imagine millions of peaceful Europeans demonstrate against a foreign war, but in the early 21st century it is commonplace. Many authors have argued that this change was caused by developments in weapon technology, democratization of the continent, and realization that war is primitive. A theory developed by James Sheehan argues that wars ended due to developmental historic conditions. For example, democracy allows both the war mobilization of the whole population, but it also gives them the opportunity to vote for peace. L. Pitkaniemi

1970s military dictatorship in Latin America was followed by a democratization process in the 1980s, at a point when military powers had devastated the economy & more than doubled foreign debt. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, the region finds itself in a period marked by governments that, perhaps more than ever before, are characterized by their reaction to the neo-liberal policies of the 1990s. Of particular concern in this respect is the changing relationship between the region & the United States, which in turn opens opportunity for the involvement of other international actors in the sphere. This brings about a high degree of uncertainty both for Latin America itself as well as for the international community. Some of the many cases of Latin American economies & politics in crisis are described here in detail. C Brunski

"This book addresses political conflicts in Norway through an extended time span, from the late autocracy of the 18th century until the democratic challenges of today. The book holds eight articles focusing on historical phases which have been particularly influenced by social and political mobilization. Thus, the book traces an oppositional tradition across borders in time and space. Although the articles are based on limited studies, the authors write with ambition to include their research into this wider context.

In Norway, the Constitution of 1814 marks the shift from autocratic rule to early democracy. 18th century peasant riots may be interpreted as expressions of impotence of the common people, but also as an opportunity for action with the potential to influence the authorities. The 19th century peasant opposition shows the potential for change through parliamentary representation. Around 1850 the first attempts at worker's organizations were criminalized – around 1950, however, the Labour Party dominated Norwegian politics. These trending lines reflect an increasingly developed democracy. The political system is in principle opening for broad popular participation. However, democracy is still being challenged by opposition in ways and by means that occasionally raise concerns about the stability of our political culture.

The book is divided into three parts. Part I is dedicated to the age of late autocracy, part II provides insights into the 19th century democratization processes, while Part III includes articles dealing with opposition and confrontations in the last century, focusing the interwar period, the 1970s, and today's multicultural society.The book is aimed both at researchers, students and the general audience." - "Denne boka tar opp politiske konflikter i Norge gjennom et langt tidsspenn, fra det seine eneveldet til vår tids demokratiske utfordringer. De åtte kapitlene representerer punktnedslag i historiske faser som i særlig grad har vært preget av sosial og politisk mobilisering. Slik bidrar boka til å belyse en opposisjonell tradisjon.

Historikere er blitt kritisert for å fokusere ensidig på avgrensede perioder og hendelser, og være for lite opptatt av å spore linjer på tvers av grenser i tid og rom. Forfatterne av denne boka skriver med bakgrunn i avgrensede studier, men alltid med ambisjon om å sette sine forskningstema inn i en videre kontekst.

I Norge markerer Grunnloven av 1814 skiftet fra eneveldig styre til begynnende demokrati. 1700-tallets bondeopprør kan tolkes som uttrykk for allmuens avmakt, men også som handlingsrom med potensiale til å påvirke myndighetene. 1800-tallets bondeopposisjon viser mulighetene for å nå fram gjennom parlamentarisk opposisjon. Rundt 1850 ble de første forsøk på organisering av arbeidere kriminalisert – rundt 1950 dominerte Arbeiderpartiet norsk politikk. Dette er linjer som speiler et stadig mer utviklet demokrati. Det politiske systemet åpner i prinsippet for bred folkelig medvirkning. Men fortsatt blir demokratiet utfordret av opposisjon i ytringsformer som til tider vekker bekymring for stabiliteten i vår politiske kultur."