Suchergebnisse

This article is part of the special cluster titled Parties and Democratic Linkage in Post-Communist Europe, guest edited by Lori Thorlakson, and will be published in the August 2018 issue of EEPS In an article written in 1995 titled "What Is Different about Postcommunist Party Systems?" Peter Mair applied the method that he called " ex adverso extrapolation." He matched his knowledge of the process of consolidation of party systems in the West with what was known at that time about Eastern European history, society, and the emerging post-communist party politics. Considering factors such as the existence of fluid social structures, the weakness of civil society, or the destabilizing impact of the so-called triple transition, his article predicted long-term instability for the region. In the present article, we evaluate the validity of Mair's predictions, thereby also contributing to a lively debate in the current literature about the scale and nature of East–West differences and about the trajectories of the two regions. Going beyond the identification of cross-regional similarities and differences, we also differentiate between individual party systems, establish subgroups, and describe changes across time. Using four major dimensions (i.e., party system closure, party-level stability, electoral volatility, and fragmentation), the article finds that Mair's predictions were largely, though not in every detail, right. Ironically, however, we also find that changes in the West tend to match over time the trajectory of the East.

Nonviolent action is best known as a kind of protest tactic used where neither the vote nor the gun seems to offer effective methods of achieving the desired social change. Those using this tactic may or may not have a general commitment to nonviolence. The author argues that the objectives of nonviolent action must become broader and more ambitious and that through a variety of coordinated efforts we should seek to 'institutionalize nonviolence' and to generalize nonviolent behaviors throughout society. Such an effort involves the transformation of all institutions implicated in the practice of direct or structural violence. The role of the State in the existing global violence system is especially criticized. The author outlines eight important components in the process she has labelled the 'institutionalization of nonviolence'.

Social problems are to be explained only by examining race or color as part of the dialectical processes of interaction between the economic, political, & cultural forces which comprise the social structure. 3 crucial influences are noticed: the immigrant-indigenous situation, the colonial-metropolitan configuration, & the variable of color as an ascriptive criterion. It is assumed that if racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is racist whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have racist intentions. Measures were taken in 1962, 1965, & 1968 limiting & restricting the entry of people from the Commonwealth nations. The regulations are both racist & class discriminatory. Of particular note is the contradiction between the economic need for nonindigenous labor & the political necessity to appear to keep out black immigrants. Commonwealth immigration restrictions have meant that the black population in Britain is now less an integral part of the society than in the years of greatest immigration. The new provisions are a mark of failure to confront racism & will make that task more difficult. L. DeForge.