Suchergebnisse

There are varied institutional forms (formal and informal) in which electoral (political) subjects take part in elections. Elections for assemblies show that the actions of such subjects are differently motivated, and also that their approach during conflict or cooperation in the realization of their wishes is different. Thus conflict situations, »election scandals«, occur sporadically. Such conflicts are an expression and a result of contradictory desires and actions of the participants. The significance and effect of an electoral conflict is conditioned and determined by the (political) significance of the elections themselves, not only in the sense that they are formally one of the basic constitutive elements of the political system, but first and foremost because they are the form in which citizens are active in politics. Following the procedure in election the author has tried to reveal the basic actors in electoral conflicts, the content of their conflict and the form it takes. In the author's opinion it is wrong to pass an a priori judgement of the character and value of electoral »cases« (negative judgements have usually been passed), the foundation of the conflict and the character and orientation of the persons involved, who do not seek for affirmation of their political value in the strength of arguments and objective achievement. We can understand and solve the ambivalent character of such conflicts, and the political behavior of their participants, only after studying the case. There will be a smaller number of »cases« and electoral conflicts, and they will be less complicated, the more consistently we free ourselves from varied formal-legal and political restraints, and the more society takes on the characteristics of self-managing and democratic socialism. Conflicts of this type are not the result of democracy. They are the result of its insufficient development or presence, thus making it subject to misunderstanding, searching and abuse.