Suchergebnisse

Discusses how the role of diplomats has changed remarkably since the early 1980's and how this change was accelerated by the fall of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the internet. Back in the 1980s, a diplomat had to understand French and spent most of his time as an observer with an ambassador plenipotentiary. In 2010, the diplomat seldom dresses in a suit and carries often an activist role between private parties and governments. L. Pitkaniemi

Jorgen Elklit critiques Nils O. Erlandsson's (2005) essay on mandate distribution methods & the general election process in Sweden, comparing Erlandsson's work with other existing material on the subject to conclude that Erlandsson has not sufficiently familiarized himself with these materials. Erlandsson replies to Elklit, reiterating his line of reasoning. Elklit responds to Erlandsson's reply. References. C. Brunski

The rebirth of the Liberal Party (LP), which has taken place in recent yrs in GB, can be explained, according to certain experts, by the upheaval in pol'al life due to the revolt of the Mc's Mc's against the 2 major parties. The Conservatives are decadent with power, but their decline has not profited the worker. This phenomenon has its roots in the evolution of the society. About 1890, a rupture in the core of the LP occurred which was followed by the replacement of the LP by the Labor Party after 1920. After a new 30 yr cycle the line of separation between the major tendencies of British pol'al life is again a question. In effect, the Laborites have realized their program after 1945 & are therefore in a defensive position. The Conservatives have not made an issue of the Welfare State & have tended to be pol'ly moderate. However, the effect of the soc reforms has been to increase the numbers of the Mc while reducing the standard of living of the wealthy & improving that of the Wc. This Mc is not satisfied with the programs of the major parties, as has been demonstrated by various minor elections & opinion polls. However, it must be remembered that the voters behave differently in general elections than they do in minor elections. Be that as it may, the possibility of a Parliament without a majority, & with some 40 or so LP members making the diff between the 2 major parties, must not be ignored as an eventuality in the near future. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

Many changes, both internally & externally, have been felt during the 20 yrs that a Democratic majority governed the US. Since Eisenhower's election in 1952 & re-election in 1956, it would be interesting to know to what extent the Republican majority can be considered to be stable. In 1956, the Democrats won the elections, the presidential party having failed, for the 1st time since 1848, to carry a majority to Congress in a Presidential election yr. PO polls show that there are 3 Democrats for every 2 Republicans. Stevenson was defeated because the Republicans were better organized than the Democrats, many of whom voted for Eisenhower or did not vote at all. Finally, the Republicans control almost all of the press & the media of propaganda & information, & the SS of Republicanism is more a matter of prestige than one of soc pressure. The Wc, while still almost exclusively Democratic in 1948, is becoming more & more Republican, while the moderates are gradually drifting from the Democratic party. Cath's, Ru voters, & individuals living in small towns are tending toward Republicanism, while the younger age groups of the New Deal generation are remaining faithful to the Democratic Party. The qualities of the candidates in 1952 & 1956 certainly played a role in the division of the votes, but if the prestige of the General was a factor, Stevenson also had traits in his favor. Domestic issues, especially the Negro question, had their influence, but foreign affairs is the area in which the diff's in the parties is most apparent. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

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.