Suchergebnisse

This paper aims to review the concepts & theories of political participation. The first part presents classic definitions of political participation offered by Verba, Barnes, & Kaase. Subsequently it shows how the repertoire of political activities has changed since the time these classical concepts were formulated. The paper argues that the transformation of political participation happened in three distinct dimensions, ie., goals, targets, & space. On this basis, drawing on Teorell as well as Rosenstone & Hansen, a new definition of political participation as "action by ordinary citizens directed toward influencing some political outcomes: distribution of social goods & norms" is introduced. The second part of the paper deals with theories of political participation. It presents a three-level explanatory model that corresponds to the level of analysis used by particular theories: micro (individual), meso (intermediary), & macro (structural) levels. Last but not least, the paper focuses on major theories explaining political participation: individual resources & political values (micro), social capital (meso), & modernization & institutional explanation (macro). Adapted from the source document.

The article attempts to interpret changes in the character of communication strategies applied in election competitions during the 20th century. The most important change seems to be shift from cleavage-based to issue-based communication in election campaigns. Such a shift can be interpreted as the result of modernization process (individualizing) & the growing rationality of both factions: voters tend to support specific political parties expecting certain benefits, whereas political parties tend to emphasize those issues which can satisfy voters' demand. Over time, particular issues can, on the basis of successfully executed policies, be "transferred" into the ownership of specific political parties. When the communicated issue is salient, the issue ownership can bring advantages in polling. This brings a new dimension to party competition: Now parties have to compete with other agenda setters for (issue) dominance in the public, media & political spheres. Adapted from the source document.

The article analyzes the reasons for two key defeats of the ODS (Civic Democratic Party) in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies in 1998 & 2002. It is proved that the ODS was not a modern right-wing political party at least up to the 2002 election year. For this reason it did not efficiently cover the wide center-right segment of the political spectrum. Public opinion surveys demonstrated that there was a long-term right-wing orientation & a strong center in the Czech Republic. Nevertheless, the ODS did not respond to the demands of the center- right segment by a corresponding offer. The modernization of the 0DS presupposes an overall change of its strategy, which would include not only a conception of people's capitalism but also a whole complex of changes: a more amicable approach to the European Union, to ecological problems, & to social issues, In addition, the party should take a firm stance against non-transparent clientelism & corruption & strengthen pluralism inside the party. 34 References. Adapted from the source document.

The category of antisystemic actors is employed relatively often in political science. The aim of this article is two-fold. First, it criticizes the contemporary usage of "antisystemicity" as too self-contained an analytical concept. In order to demonstrate this, two key theoretical traditions of the term -- G. Sartori's classification of party systems & world-systemic ("Wallersteinian") research of international political economy & its challengers -- are described, analyzed & mutually compared. Their understanding of antisystemic protest is depicted in order to show some shortcomings & inadequacies of their usage of this category. Second, the article strives to theoretically & formally unfold, integrate & further develop the concept of antisystemic contention in order to clarify the modes of its usages for socio-political reality. This inquiry consists of analyses of three key factors of antisystemic collective action -- ie., its object, subject & relations in-between. The analysis of object is basically grounded in Luhmann's neofunctionalist theory of modernization. Based on a systems theory analysis of society, the article proceeds to grasp the subject-actor as a general & case insensitive category, thus connecting existing concepts of antisystemic political subjects. Further analyzed dimensions of antisystemic protest are its goals & forms of action, but also its penetration by politics & economy. In conclusion, a general three-dimensional typology of antisystemic collective action is drawn from preceding analyses & offered as a methodological tool for empirical research of political contention. Adapted from the source document.

The article looks into Austrian attitude to security co-operation in Central Europe. Austria has arrived at a very flexible definition of its neutrality concept. The recent security & defense doctrine (2001) describes Austria not as a neutral but as a "non-allied state." In has introduced the principle of "European solidarity" in the Austrian security policy. The neutrality, however, remains to be a sensitive political issue, which splits the Austrian society. The regional partnership has created a new regional platform, which has produced positive results in several policy sectors. At the same time, the real political potential of the co-operation has yet to be seen, mainly in the course of the EU-enlargement. The security dimension of regional co-operation has developed with some dynamism. It testified willingness & ability of the military & experts to work with regional partners. Nonetheless, the co-operation has remained largely low-key. The reasons are, firstly, that the prioritizing of the orientation of Austria to the West prevented Vienna from an active regional policy for most of the 1990s. Secondly, & in the long run even more crucially, the non-allied status of Austria hampers the security co-operation in the most crucial areas: defense, sharing of sensitive information, sharing & thus cutting the costs of rearmament & modernization of the armed forces & of the defense infrastructure. References. Adapted from the source document.