Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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.

Contents: A British view, by John Plamenatz; A continental view, by Giovanni Sartori.

Since the Belgian Communist Party has been constituted as an instrument of the struggle of the We, the party has always considered the parliamentary mandate an affair of the party & not of individuals or groups. The mandate belongs to the party before belonging to the individual deputy, & the party's parliamentary delegation is to promote the aspirations & the interests of the We. In the 1968 elections, the election work of the Communist Party, unlike the election work of other parties, does not reflect the linguistic & communal division of the country. The party program is a federation of the Walloon, Flemish & Brussels areas, this being considered a means for the democratization of the country & the best, if not only, way to preserve Belgium as a state. The party ran candidates in all districts, even in those where its chances were slim. It views elections not only as a means of affirming its presence but as a means of introducing a dynamic element in pol that transcends in importance a particular election. Unlike the 1965 election, in the 1968 election there were no combined lists of Communists & the other alliance. Since 1965, the 2 groups had diverged on a number of issues, & when negotiations for joint lists got under way, the communist election lists were already constituted & it was too late for a compromise. One characteristic feature of communist candidates' lists is the high proportion of workers, which reflects the We character of the party. The party is organized around the work place & the Communist deputy consults with & accounts to the worker. A. Peskin.