- ItemJak zmierzyć demokrację? Skale pomiaru demokracji politycznej stosowane w politologii porównawczej(Wydział Nauk Politycznych i Dziennikarstwa UAM, 2011) Szewczak, WiktorThe author reviews and characterizes the most important scales for measuring the democracy of political systems, applied in Western, mainly Anglo-Saxon, comparative political science. He refers to his article published in a back issue of Przegl¹d Polityczny, where the fundamental theoretical and methodological issues of democracy measuring were presented, and tries to indicate how these issues are dealt with by various researchers whose scales and data bases are most common and most frequently referred to in research into political comparative studies. The paper describes S. Huntington’s analyses, the Freedom House scale, the IDEA assessment of the quality of democracy, the EIU democracy index, Bollen’s scale, the Political Regimes Project, the Polity Project, T. Vanhanen’s democracy index and the scale of polyarchy by Coppedge and Reinicke. As the author analyzes one scale and database after another, he tries to identify their strengths and weaknesses, determine the most characteristic properties of each proposal, and assess their applicability in comparative analyses, pointing to their potential benefits and the threats of using them. In conclusion, he recommends caution in the selection of a scale to become a foundation for potential analyses, while he acknowledges that this theoretical and methodological tool is highly useful.
- ItemPrawo i Sprawiedliwość w polskim systemie partyjnym (przyczynek do dyskusji o systemotwórczej roli partii)(Wydział Nauk Politycznych i Dziennikarstwa UAM, 2011) Antoszewski, AndrzejAmong the numerous functions of political parties, the role of creating the governance system is highly significant. It manifests itself in the ability of political parties to establish permanent relations with the other parties and in this way provides the essence of a party system. The purpose of the present paper is to demonstrate the role the Law and Justice party (PiS) plays in the creation of the governance system. Since 2005, PiS has been one of the two dominant political parties struggling to win the parliamentary and presidential elections. In order to determine the scope of this party’s influence on the shape of the party system, their achievements in elections, parliament and Cabinet activity need to be analyzed. Such a quantitative analysis allows us to grasp PiS’s development trends in political competition. The paper discusses the reasons for their electoral success in 2005 as well as their defeat in 2007 and the aftermath of both these elections for the party’s competition to the government. The achievements of PiS confirm that this party has won the status of a party that structures the political competition, a status that has not been lost irrespective of the five elections at different levels that the party has lost. PiS has successfully adopted the postulates of the Left in terms of the economy and social issues, whereas it has maintained the image of a right-wing party in terms of the shape of the state and its moral foundations. PiS has managed to form an electorate that differs from other parties’ electorates in terms of its social and demographic properties as well as its political attitudes, which reinforces the position of PiS in the electoral struggle. Yet PiS has failed to establish a permanent coalition government. The elimination of Self-Defence (Samoobrona) and the League of Polish Families (LPR) from the Sejm has practically deprived PiS of any coalition potential, or has at least significantly reduced this potential. This, coupled with a continuously growing negative electorate, may turn out to constitute the main obstacle to PiS regaining power.
- ItemSystem rządów premierowskich jako nowy typ systemu rządów: casus Wielkiej Brytanii(Wydział Nauk Politycznych i Dziennikarstwa UAM, 2011) Szymanek, JarosławThe paper attempts to address the question of whether the prime ministerial system has already emerged as a separate system of governance that differs from classical systems, and whether it can no longer be treated as a certain sub-class in an extensive range of parliamentary systems, but rather as a new type of system in its own right. The principal issue appears to be whether the inherent properties of the prime ministerial variety of governance are sufficiently distinct, significant and different from the parliamentary system, however broadly understood, to give the former a status of a separate governance system from the methodological point of view. It should be observed that the contemporary British system, which serves as a foundation for our deliberations on the prime ministerial form of governance, has deviated from the classical or typical parliamentary system far enough to actually take the direction of a separate system of governance, namely prime ministerial governance. Firstly, this is evidenced by the removal of the monarch from the political system and establishing executive power as a virtually one-element entity concentrated in the Cabinet, and embodied by its leader. Secondly, the figure of Prime Minister is highly emphasized as he is elected ‘under the guise of common elections’ and he successfully monopolizes the work of his entire Cabinet, becoming a certain ‘trademark’ of this Cabinet, which is well supported by the principle of joint accountability of all Cabinet members, a principle that is exceptionally strictly and consistently implemented in the British system. The ongoing politological processes that tend to presidentialize and personalize politics are only accelerating these changes and making them even more apparent. The consequence in Britain is that it is the Prime Minister who accrues the power to govern and he by no means falls under the principle of classical parliamentary systems, where the government leader is only “the first among equals”. Thirdly, the House of Commons has practically lost its controlling power over the Cabinet, as primarily evidenced in the absence of a vote of no confidence, which would serve as a tool of political accountability of executive power before the legislative, the essence of any form of parliamentary governance. Fourthly, in a highly specific, deeply endemic party system which entails that various links between government and parliament typical of the parliamentary style of democracy are de facto transferred onto the internal party stage, this to an extent also explains the relevance of the division between government and opposition, a division which is neither as clear, nor as far-reaching as in the case of other parliamentary systems. All this allows us to conclude that the British system is sufficiently different to be deemed new in comparison to a typical or classical parliamentary system. The transformations that have taken place there have gone far beyond the proper, or classical, model of parliamentary governance thus forming not only a sub-class, but a separate type (or model) of governance.
- ItemGlobalizacja i jej przeciwnicy(Wydział Nauk Politycznych i Dziennikarstwa UAM, 2011) Rewizorski, MarekOne of the results of the accelerated economic and social development over the last thirty years involves the emergence of social movements that are opposed to globalization. The objective of this paper is to present the main demands of the opponents of globalization, in particular in the context of the asymmetrical development of the parties in international relations. Anti-globalists and alter-globalists oppose the increasing importance of transnational corporations and the gradual shift of the point of gravity in the global economy from sovereign states to institutions of a regional, supraregional or global character. Anti-globalists note the progressing global crisis of legitimization of the democratic system of governance and the threat that it will be replaced by highly institutionalized technocratic structures (WTO, IMF, World Bank, European Commission). The role of anti-globalist and alter-globalist movements is of profound significance at present as they provide opposition to neoliberalism as the binding doctrine in global economy. Calling for the establishment of mechanisms that would provide for fair distribution of goods between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’ they contribute to the internationalization of the idea of collaboration between states thus ensuring that order be maintained in the global economy. Therefore, these movements support the ‘weaker party’ in international business relations – the developing countries. However, there is a negative aspect of their activity, namely they perceive globalization as a process of subordinating the weak by the strong, or – in other words – they refer to the idea of class struggle in the global economic system.
- ItemCzynnik kulturowy w relacjach francusko-amerykańskich(Wydział Nauk Politycznych i Dziennikarstwa UAM, 2011) Lakomy, MironFrench-American relations certainly are among the most complex and at the same time most controversial in French foreign policy. The main factors that determine the nature of relations between France and the US include culture. A few features can be pointed out here to demonstrate their unique nature. Firstly, the importance of anti-American sentiments and Francophobia (anti-French sentiments) should be emphasized. The roots of these broadly shared attitudes may be sought both in the past (the experiences ofWWIand WWII) as well as in the present political relations between the two countries. The French nation is generally critical of American foreign policy, the US social and economic system. In the USA, in turn, we come across a similar attitude of Francophobia. This mainly stems from the commonly shared image of France as a difficult, chaotic and unpredictable ally. While anti-American sentiments and Francophobia do not translate into political decisions made either in Washington or Paris, they still influence the atmosphere of mutual relations, as became apparent when American restaurant owners boycotted French wines during the Iraqi crisis. At the same time, though, both nations recognize each other’s achievements in such fields as culture, art or human rights. Secondly, the “conflict of universalism” described by Stanley Hoffman is worth noting. As both countries deem themselves to be the cradle of such universal values as liberty, equality, justice and human rights, they both assign themselves with a unique status among other countries. It is true that the repertoire of values France and the US represent is nearly identical, yet they are frequently understood differently on both sides of the Atlantic. Thirdly, the French-American relations are also profoundly influenced by the common French belief in France being an exceptional and powerful country. The national perspective and the manifestation of France’s privileged position in the international arena are to a significant degree present in their relations with the US. Ezra Suleiman, among others, observed that the French political elite were allergic to any forms of political, economic or cultural domination. Other issues that influence the state of French-American relations concern differences in the economic or social system, or the role of religion in the life of the state.