Suchergebnisse

Rad analizira problem neadekvatne teritorijalne reprezentacije parlamenata ‎koji se biraju putem proporcionalnog izbornog sistema sa jednom izbornom ‎jedinicom. Predmet posmatranja su predstavnička tela Srbije, Holandije i Izraela‎ sa tvrdnjama da na njihovu geografsku reprezentativnost dominantno utiču ‎faktori koji nemaju direktne veze sa izbornim pravilima, kao što su etnička‎ struktura društva i broj lista koje prelaze cenzus. Utvrđuje se da ne postoji jedinstvena ‎pravilnost koja utiče na geografski sastav parlamenta u svakoj od ovih‎ država, već se presudni faktori teritorijalne reprezentativnosti razlikuju u zavisnosti ‎od društvenog konteksta u kome izborni sistem egzistira.‎‎ ; This paper analyzes the problem of insufficient territorial representation of‎ parliaments elected through a proportional electoral system with a nationwide ‎electoral district. The subject of analysis are the representative bodies of Serbia, ‎the Netherlands, and Israel, with the claim that their geographical representativeness ‎is dominantly influenced by factors that have no direct connection ‎with election rules, such as the ethnic diversity of society and the number‎ of party lists that win seats in parliament. It is established that there is no single‎ regularity that has an equal effect on the geographical composition of the ‎parliament in each of these countries. Instead of that, the key factors of territorial‎ representation are different depending on the social context in which ‎the electoral system exists.‎

The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate and useful in understanding and maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important and more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis has shown how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depend on the elements of the very political structure (party systems and coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc.). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently its role greatly depends on the relations among political actors and the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture and structure are extremely sophisticated and that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" and gradual development. (SOI : PM: S. 131) + The purpose of this essay is to prove the connection among political culture, political structure and democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analysed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture and structure i.e. within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims - primarily in line with the functional theory of culture - that there is a functional concordance between culture and structure, that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture, i.e. that "culture is a structure's way of life", that culture determines the structure) and the contemporary interactional approach (in which - primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" - complex relations among various cultural variables and structural variables are analysed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or the end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture and structure

The role of think tanks in American politics has been increasingly subjected to systematic analysis over the last 10-15 years. In this article I review some of this literature, focusing mainly on the questions of what think tanks are, why this phenomenon is so strongly associated with the US, & what influence think tanks have on US policy-making. Think tanks comprise a wide range of organizations, from pure research institutions to the ideologically-based "advocacy think tanks" characterized by their combination of a strong political agenda & aggressive marketing techniques. The American political system has several features that allow think tanks access to the decision-making process, such as a fragmented structure with a weak party system, a central role for the mass media, & an issue-dominated political agenda. There is no good measure of the general influence of think tanks in US politics, but case studies indicate that the central role of the ideologically-based advocacy think tanks may serve to undermine the role of experts in American politics in the long term. References. Adapted from the source document.

"This anthology concerns the many local elections held throughout Norway on 9 September 2019. Based on voter surveys carried out after every local election since 1995, the ten chapters in this book explore a variety of election-related topics such as voting behaviour and election campaigns, as well as political participation and political trust between elections. It is at the municipal level that most citizens can influence policy, and what occurs at the local level often plays a vital role in people's daily lives. One of the objectives of this book is therefore to better understand how local democracy functions, both in and between elections.

The 2019 local elections were marked by mobilization, protest, and high turnout, due to the focus on politically charged issues such as the toll roads, climate change, and municipal amalgamation. Amalgamation was not just a campaign issue, but a part of the institutional context; the 2019 elections took place in newly merged municipalities. This is therefore a dominant topic throughout this book. How citizens feel about municipal reform and its potential consequences, for example, is explored. Several chapters examine the significance of amalgamation on various aspects of local democracy: local party systems, turnout and voting behaviour, the parties' candidate selection, and representation in municipal councils. Taken as a whole, this anthology represents a status report on local democracy in the first election held in the merged municipalities.

This book will be of interest to anyone following developments in local democracy in Norway, especially students, researchers, journalists, and politically active citizens." - "Denne antologien handler om de mange lokalvalgene som ble holdt rundt om i Norge 9. september 2019. Med utgangspunkt i velgerundersøkelsene som er gjennomført ved hvert lokalvalg siden 1995, tar boken gjennom ti kapitler for seg dels valg, velgeratferd, valgkamp og valgutfall, og dels politisk deltakelse og politisk tillit mellom valgene. Det er i kommunene flest innbyggere har anledning til å delta i politikkutformingen, og lokalnivået spiller ofte en viktig rolle i den enkeltes hverdagsliv. Hensikten med boken er derfor også å forstå hvordan lokaldemokratiet fungerer mellom valgene.

Lokalvalget i 2019 var preget av høy valgdeltakelse, mobilisering og protest gjennom fokus på politiske saker som bompenger, klima og kommunereform. Kommunereformen var ikke bare valgkamptema, men en sentral rammebetingelse for lokalvalget i 2019. Kommunesammenslåing er derfor et gjennomgående tema i boken. Ett emne er hva innbyggerne mener om kommunereformen og dens mulige konsekvenser. Flere kapitler utforsker sammenslåingenes betydning for ulike sider ved lokaldemokratiet: lokale partisystemer, valgdeltakelse, personstemmegivning, partienes nominasjoner, og representasjon i kommunestyrene. Samlet sett er antologien en statusrapport for lokaldemokratiet i det første valget etter kommunereformen.

Boken henvender seg til alle som er interessert i utviklingen av det norske lokaldemokratiet, men særlig til studenter, forskere, journalister og politisk aktive."

The author examines attempts to reform the communist systems in Europe during the 1960s, especiallly as they relate to the process of election to organs of government in Croatia and Yugoslavia in 1967 and 1969. Issues surrounding the legitimacy of government, economic development, and internal political and national tensions provided the impetus for the growth of the reform movement. Economic reforms were geared towards recognition of market forces, while political reforms revolved around a general democratization of the system. The allowance for "slightly greater freedom" in politics meant minimum tolerance of diversity including national rights as well. The growing strength off the reform movement quickly revealed the threat reform posed to the fundamental social relations upon which the communist model of society was based. Reform especially threatened the dominant role played by the communist party. Conservative forces predominated in the ensuing political struggle, and the curtailment of reformist tendencies was also influenced by the involvement of the USSR. An example of the curtailment of reformist tendencies were the elections to the Croatian Sabor and the Federal Assembly of Yugoslavia. A relative liberalization of elective processes to the legislative branch took place when more than one candidate was allowed to run for a single mandate. In many instances during the 1967 elections, struggles between the candidate supported by the League of Socialists, the official candidate, and an independent, or "unofficial" candidate, were common. The loss of total control over the electoral process was viewed unfavourably by the ruling party and the former control over elections was quickly reestablished. (SOI : CSP: S. 346)

The author points up the proverbial complexity of Yugoslavia and the inadequacy of its political structure, officially made up of six republics, five peoples, four languages, three religions, two alphabets, and one party. That is why the subjective orientations of its many peoples went counter to its existence, leading to its disintegration following the first multiparty elections. Serbs and Montenegrins were its partisans and due to a lack of democratic political culture they launched the war for the preservation of Yugoslavia. The properties of the political culture of the peoples living on its territory had acted as trip-wires for that war, defined its form, course and intensity. Due to their national identification with Yugoslavia and insufficient democratic political culture, Serbs and Montenegrins started the war for the territories of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The aggressors belong to the Eastern civilisational sphere, speak the Serbian language, write in the Cyrillic alphabet. are culturally tribally oriented, want to live in Yugoslavia and Greater Serbia which would be socialist, and are adherents of repressive types of political culture. The victims belong to the Western civilisational sphere, they are Catholics and Moslems, speak Croatian, write in the Latin alphabet, are culturally communally oriented, and favour the participatory political culture. During the Serbian and Monetenegrian aggression, two civil wars erupted in Bosnia and Herzegovina: (1) between the Muslims and the Croats and (2) between the Muslims. The participants of this war all swear their allegiance to the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but differ in their visions of its political structure. The Moslems wish a unitarian state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Croats want it to be a federal state, while the Serbs are against any separate state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (SOI: PM: S. 242)