Suchergebnisse

This article try to observe if some concepts which was used in order to explain the changes in the western party systems can be use for the Romanian case too. We concentrate our analyze on the concept of "cartel party" and his emergence in the Romanian political space. The Democratic Party was chose as a study case because we think that this political organization illustrate very well our hypothesis that in the last years, in Romania we pass from a model of mass parties to catch-all parties and cartel parties. We must clarified that this concept of "cartel party" can be understood only if we have in mind that the hole party system is subjected to the same cartelization logic. The author focuses his analysis on the evolution of the Democratic Party between the two electoral moments of 2000 and 2004, whit a special attention on the modalities for establishing the lists of candidates, the discussion about the internal reforms and organization. An important part of the article is dedicated to the political migration of the members of Democratic Party, a very often practice for the Romanian political system.

Carol I and the political leaders maintained the two-party system founded by the political parties, National-Liberal Party and Conservative Party (after their formation) with balanced forces, in not conceding importance to the political factions or other parties, which could generate political instability. Expressing as a true arbiter in political life, Carol I used the alternation at government of the National-Liberal Party with the Conservative Party from 1895-1914, called in the specialized literature as "rotativa guvernamentală" ("governmental rotation"). In running of this type as organized alternation, an important role was assigned to Carol I, who took over the British model, because it ensured the public peace and permitted a balance of forces between conservators and liberals.The alternation mechanism to government of conservators with liberals has functioned before 1895, but with unequal period of time, with alliances between liberal and conservator factions (1866-1871); between parties and different factions of conservators (1888-1895). This system allowed the consolidation of the two government parties and the state institutions. The collaboration of the two parties was accomplished for the welfare of the state: in situations of political, economic, crises the two parties were supporting each other. The government program applied by a party which was in government was continued by the party who succeeded in power.

According to the Constitution of 1866, the prerogatives of Carol I permitted him to be a mediator in the political struggle between liberals and conservatives, as a constitutional monarch. In 1866, there were different political groups, liberal and conservative, which formed unstable governments (1866-1871). The political stability was assured for a short period by the conservative government (1871-1876). In time, the political groups decided to unite, founding the two major parties, the National Liberal Party (1875)and the Conservative Party (1880). Both parties tended to monopolize the political power for a long period of time, generating tensions between government-opposition (1876-1888 – liberal government and 1888-1895 – conservative government). During 1895 and 1914 functioned the "rotativa guvernamentală" ("governmental rotation"), representing a particularity of the Romanian two-party system, characterized as an organized alternation in government of National Liberal Party with Conservative Party.

Until 2019 the parliamentary elections in the Republic of Moldova were based on a proportional system on party lists, at the parliamentary elections of February 24, 2019 it was applied the mixed voting system, an uninspired mix between the proportional and the majority system.
There were created 51 uninominal constituencies for the parliamentary elections of February 24, 2019, of which 3 over the borders of the republic, 46 on the territory of the Republic of Moldova controlled by the constitutional authorities and 2 in the Transnistrian region.
There are examined the particularities of conducting the parliamentary elections in the uninominal constituency no. 43, Cahul municipality: the profiles of the candidates, their electoral actions and the results obtained in this electoral constituency.
It was found that a common tendency for candidates was, in many cases, the reorientation of the electoral discourse from the issues of "national interest" to those of "local interest", even if their solution is not within the competence of a deputy.

In the conservative imaginary, at least in the cases of Constantin N. Brăiloiu and Alexandru N. Lahovary, France was not deemed a functioning political model (i.e., a political or constitutional regime) that Romania should have followed. Compared with the English political model (or rather with the Anglo-Saxon one, since the reference sometimes included the United States of America) and with the Belgian regime, France was certainly a less favoured option. However, without exception and despite all discursive artifice, in the perspective of these two politicians, who were evidently Francophile, both by education and by cultural affinities, France undeniably remained a landmark of civilization or administrative and economic efficiency, and sometimes a beacon of legal inspiration. It must be said that the latter perception was in no way related to Constantin N. Brăiloiu and Alexandru N. Lahovary's conservative convictions. It was commonplace in the local cultural imaginary, which, regardless of one's political, social or cultural affiliation, repeated the encomiastic mantra dedicated to imperial France, to whom the Romanians were convinced that they owed the existence of their nation. In fact, one should not overlook another typical belief of this political imaginary, which is illustrated in our case by Alexandru N. Lahovary: the Romanian politicians were persuaded that the ideals included in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were exclusively due to the France of 1789.