SWISS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of comparative politics
ISSN: 1460-2482
53 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of comparative politics
ISSN: 1460-2482
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of comparative politics, Band XIII, Heft 1960mar, S. 335-345
ISSN: 1460-2482
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of representative politics, Band 13, S. 335-345
ISSN: 0031-2290
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of comparative politics
ISSN: 1460-2482
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of comparative politics
ISSN: 1460-2482
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of comparative politics, Band XIII, Heft 1959aug, S. 135-136
ISSN: 1460-2482
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of comparative politics, Band XIII, Heft 1959aug, S. 136-137
ISSN: 1460-2482
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of representative politics, Band 12, S. 428-436
ISSN: 0031-2290
In: Modern age: a quarterly review, Band 5, S. 373-388
ISSN: 0026-7457
In: Political science, Band 7, S. 118-127
ISSN: 0112-8760, 0032-3187
In: Studies in comparative international development, Band 6, Heft 12, S. 255-267
ISSN: 0039-3606
An analysis of the operation of the party system in Chile in recent years is presented with an outline of the evolution of the electoral system & concluded with the implications of the operation of that electoral system for policy development within Chile's democracy. Chile's 5 major political parties can be connected to class based electoral support--in the mining districts & the industrial areas of the larger cities for the Communist Party; support from the Wc for the Socialists; Uc support for the National Party; primarily Mc support for the 2 parties at the political center of Chilean politics, the Christian Democrats & the Radicals. Landmarks in legislation governing Chile's electoral system came in 1925, with the institution of the d'Hont system with its joint list characteristic; in 1948 with the outlawing of the Communist Party; in 1949 with women's suffrage; in 1958 with the reinstatement of the Communist Party. The record of Chilean democracy has both equalitarian & elitist aspects. It is equalitarian in that the procedural norms of democracy are carefully observed, but the links betweeen the citizenry & the policy-making process through the political party system are weak. The electoral system with its alternating presidential congressional elections weakens the effectiveness of the president elected because he usally has to deal with a Congress elected under policies differing from his own. Therefore, the overall pattern of Chilean politics makes it difficult to develop policies to deal with important probelms, particulary where longer-term policy consistency is needed. Characteristics of Chilean democracy that have been obstacles to political reforms are the complexity of political structures, diverse powers of a large bureaucracy & of Congress to check a president, the persistency of the multiparty system, & elitist bias. 2 Tables, 2 Figures. S. Coler.
In: Political studies, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 9-15
ISSN: 0032-3217
2 distinctions ought to be made: (a) Regarding electoral studies, attention may be focused mainly (I) on fact finding, or (ii) on meaning, as the question 'what happens at elections' may be quite diff from the question 'what is the role played by elections in the operation of a democratic system'. (b) If we are interested in (ii), then a 2nd distinction is needed, as the answer to this question is strictly dependent from the type of theory we are dealing with [(i) an empirical type of democratic theory, or (ii) a rationalist type of theory]. This distinction is far reaching, because it is especially in the framework of the rationalist approach that electoral foundations & legitimacy play key roles; in this context the 'meaning' of elections is held to provide the bridge that lets us refer the Greed formula of democracy, cherished by Rousseau, to the ideals & practices of the modern solution. It might also be stressed that electoral studies would become more meaningful if they could cover this aspect of the electioneering process: the part that is played not 'by' pol'al parties, but 'within' parties. We know quite a lot about how people vote, but still very little on why & how candidates are chosen. The main problem seems to be whether, in nominating, the party considers the fact that electors might have preferences of their own. AA-IPSA.
In: Political studies, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 1-9
ISSN: 0032-3217
Until Rousseau it was generally admitted that the people's part in gov is negative, but since his time it has become fashionable to speak of a positive 'will of the people' which it is the business of legislatures & executives to put into effect. As this radical myth does not tally with the facts, there have arisen 2 vocabularies of democratic politics: a vocabulary of accepted generalities for popular consumption & a more down-to-earth 'business' vocabulary. This is perhaps essential to modern parliamentary democracy & in itself is harmless, though enemies of the system can point to it as evidence that the system is a sham. Even serious S's of democratic politics like Ostrogorski & Michels have been misled by the radical myth about democracy into criticizing democracy for the wrong reasons. To avoid their mistakes we must understand how the part played by the people in parliamentary democracy, negative though it may be, makes the system what it is, & also serves to prevent the manipulation of the passive majority by a pol'ly active minority. Recent studies of general elections have made a considerable contribution towards this understanding, though the makers of them have been to some extent victims of the radical myth. AA-IPSA.
In: Political studies, Band 6, S. 1-15
ISSN: 0032-3217
Contents: A British view, by John Plamenatz; A continental view, by Giovanni Sartori.
In: American political science review, Band 64, Heft 1, S. 5-17
ISSN: 1537-5943
A generally accepted interpretation of American politics today is associated with the "theory of electoral accountability." The salient features of this theory are well known. The thesis was initially shaped in Schumpeter's classic work on democracy, and since has been elaborated by a generation of scholars. The elaboration, especially where grounded in empirical studies, has established (1) that the public, being largely apathetic about political matters and in any case ill-informed regarding public issues, cannot provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for the maintenance of democratic procedures; (2) that a liberal political and social elite are committed to the preservation of democratic forms, at least more committed than the average citizen; therefore, (3) what maintains the democratic tradition is not extensive public participation in political policy-making, but, instead, competition among elites whose behavior is regulated by periodic review procedures. Competition among elites and review by citizens of political leaders are provided by elections. Thus elections hold political leaders accountable to non-leaders.Writers associated with this general position have recently come under scholarly attack. The critique, directed at the first two assertions, can be reviewed briefly: although true that the public is not well-informed politically and is not actively engaged in political life, this is not to be attributed to the inherent traits of citizens so much as to the structure of political opportunities in the United States. Moreover, although true that research has detected among political leaders a greater commitment to democratic procedures than is the case for the ordinary citizen, this commitment is to procedures in which only the leaders participate.