No description available.

The dissertation examines the establishment and strengthening of constitutional democracies during democratic consolidation from an institutionalist point of view. Focusing on Hungary and Poland, it examines how the right institutions can advance the creation and strengthening of a constitutional order. Among the institutions special attention is paid to the constitutional courts. The establishment and prominence of constitutional courts in most new democracies in East Central Europe fits into the general trend that was perceivable throughout Western Europe after WWII. The main rationale of these new institutions was to safeguard the democratic order from the return of authoritarianism. The main practical as well as theoretical significance of the introduction of judicial review was that it put an end to the then prevailing primacy of unlimited popular sovereignty and recast the concept of democracy in constitutional, rather than majoritarian terms. / Such an innovation plays an even more significant role in Eastern Europe, where concepts of majoritarian democracy on the one hand, and reliance on a strong leader, especially in times of difficulties on the other, were prominent due to both communist and pre-communist legacies. Furthermore, the often ambiguous constitutional documents produced by the negotiated transitions, as well as the sometimes irreconcilable aspirations of political forces, provided the courts with a prominent role in shaping the new order. / Through the study of two issues, transitional justice and the presidency, the dissertation examines the various functions constitutional courts can play in democratic consolidation in general and in advancing rule of law systems, in resolving constitutional ambiguities and in controlling political actors in particular. / Drawing on the analysis of political events, primary sources, parliamentary minutes, newspaper articles and court decisions, the dissertation concludes that while the courts' record in solving institutional problems cannot be regarded as an unequivocal success, their role in defining fundamental constitutional principles is more praiseworthy. Not only did they manage to settle controversial issues as in the case of transitional justice, they also successfully curbed majoritarian endeavors and steered the new systems towards the acceptance of basic liberal constitutional values.

Europe is not as calm as one might think. There are currently several secessionist struggles that are ongoing in the region and in this thesis three of them will be researched. This thesis has investigated the biggest democratically elected actor that wants secession in Flanders, Catalonia and Scotland. This has been done by questioning how they argue for their secession and how these arguments relate to different approaches to legitimize secession. These approaches being the remedial approach, the free choice approach, the functional approach, the exit approach and the anti-theory approach. This was performed by using a qualitative content analysis. With this method I created an analytical scheme which was applied to the arguments in order to sort them into the scheme. The arguments used by the actors were pluralistic, relating to democracy, nationalism, administration, governance, economy, grievance and history. This proved that the actors are much more pluralistic than what theory could handle hence, none of the actors fit to either one of the approaches as they argued in a multitude of different ways. In addition to this, I was also able to show that against theoretical assumptions these secessionist actors didn’t favour external legitimacy. Even though this is argued by some to be most important for secessionist groups to gain independence. In the end the implications of this thesis are that secessionist actors are incredibly pluralistic, and it is quite hard for theory to fully capture this plurality. Hence, secessionist theory gives a very incomplete picture of how secessionist actors try to legitimize their secession.

This thesis explores the meaning of "youth" and the political mobilisation of young people in key moments of crisis in Europe. Between 2005 and 2011, youth became critical for the consolidation of the authoritarian regime structures in Russia. I show that this process included the restructuring of the discourse about youth, the physical mobilisation of young people, and the isolation of oppositional youth. How valid are these findings for regime crises more generally? I answer this question through an analysis of the breakdown of the authoritarian Soviet Union during perestroika, the breakdown of unconsolidated democracy during the last years of the Weimar Republic, and the crisis of the democratic regime in France around 1968. The cross-regional and cross-temporal comparison of these episodes demonstrates that regimes lacking popular democratic support compensate for their insufficient legitimacy by trying to mobilise youth symbolically and politically. By developing a new method of textual analysis which combines qualitative content analysis and network analysis, the thesis offers a novel social science perspective on the meaning of youth in the four cases. My study shows how discursive structures about youth condition the possibility of political mobilisation of young people. The thesis makes three contributions to comparative politics. First, on an empirical level, my study offers new insights into social movements at moments of regime crisis in different political settings. Second, on a conceptual level, I refine our understanding of the symbolic significance of the terms "youth" and "generation" in moments when society is reorienting itself. I also examine the significance of "crisis" and argue that the term expresses openness and the possibility to remake the past and future. Third, on a methodological level, my thesis builds on the growing interest in textual analysis by developing a novel multi-level approach in three linguistic contexts, which offers insights into the structure of public discourse and the actors involved.

The political economy transformations of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have received a great deal of attention over the past decade. The focus of much research has been to examine the internal national reorientations of the countries with regard to the changes in political and economic conditions. The importance of the international reorientation of these countries toward Western Europe in general and the European Union in particular has been generally overlooked. This dissertation examines public opinion on the political and economic transformations within the framework of the direction of the international reorientations of the countries. The countries were divided into three categories, those that can be expected to be invited to join the European Union in the next enlargement, those that can be expected to join the European Union in a subsequent enlargement, and the countries not seeking European Union membership. Public opinion on democracy and the market economy and attitudinal factors that influence these opinions are compared in 16 countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The data are from the Central and East European Barometers 3-7 (1992 - 1996). The findings suggest that general opinions regarding satisfaction with democracy are not related to the status of the country seeking membership in the European Union while support from the market economy does differ. When examining attitudinal factors that are related to satisfaction with democracy and support for the market economy, differences emerged between the three categories of countries. These findings suggest that public opinion is in part shaped by the international orientations of the country and that changes in public opinion are important in understanding the political and economic transformation processes.

Electoral systems have an enormous importance on how political power is distributed, on governability and the dynamics of representation of any given democratic society. Political science has traditionally considered electoral systems to be stable institutions and has paid more attention to understand how political parties adapt to the electoral rules than to how “electoral institutions themselves are adapted by political parties” (Benoit 2004). However, given their importance, unveiling the factors that influence the change and the choice of electoral rules is crucial and an increasing number of studies has addressed the issue since the 1990s. <p>This dissertation lies at the crossroads between traditional explanations of the stability of electoral systems and the more recent interpretations of electoral system change. Through three empirical parts, this thesis shows how these literatures are reconcilable and complementary. This study encompasses a comprehensive set of explicative factors at the micro, meso and macro levels that shed light on the incentives and barriers to reform electoral systems. Methodologically, the large-N approach of this thesis goes beyond the usual case studies and small-N analyses that characterize the field of electoral system change. Besides, the consideration of cases of reforms and cases of stability contributes to a better understanding of the determinants of electoral system change. While traditional accounts of electoral system change are predominantly based on political parties’ self-interest, this study demonstrates that the context matters. In this regard, this dissertation has three main findings. <p>Firstly, this study calls into question the body of literature addressing the change of electoral institutions by analyzing the impact of different barriers in the success of reform debates. At the party level, it shows how intraparty division can constitute an important factor to explain institutional inertia. The analysis is based on the responses of Irish Members of Parliament (Teachtaí Dala, or TDs) to a number of survey items designed to measure their evaluations of the current electoral system. The study discusses how the heterogeneity of preferences within parties over this issue may act as a barrier for reform. Besides, at the micro level, it sheds light on the determinants of individuals’ incentives to support reform. Beyond the classical power-seeking motivations, individual legislators also appear to be driven by values and attitudes about the quality of democracy.<p>Secondly, this thesis focuses on institutional contexts. This study analyzes the capacity of institutions to deter reforms using empirical evidence of the occurrence of reforms and the duration of electoral systems in 17 European countries. Drawing on Lijphart’s framework of the patterns of democracy, this research analyzes the extent to which the elements that differentiate between majoritarian and consensus democracies can hinder electoral reforms. On the one hand, it shows the impact of individual institutions on the occurrence of reform and the duration of electoral systems. It demonstrates that higher numbers of veto players, more proportional electoral systems, limited vested interests of the incumbent parties, constitutional rigidity and the existence of judicial review can reduce the likelihood of reform. On the other hand, this study demonstrates that the different combinations of institutional elements provide important explanatory leverage on the duration of electoral systems. In this regard, contrary to what is often assumed, it is shown that the occurrence of electoral reforms is linked to the incumbents’ capacity to develop their preferred policies. Those systems in which power is more concentrated, that is majoritarian systems, appear to be those in which electoral systems reforms are more frequent. <p>Finally, the thesis explores the impact of external shocks on the likelihood of reform. On the basis of an analysis of a dataset of electoral reforms that have been enacted in Europe since 1945, this study demonstrates that economic crises and citizens’ dissatisfaction with democracy are related to the introduction of electoral reforms. However, the mechanism is mediated by the existence of new parties that capitalize on this dissatisfaction and that can threaten the established parties. In these circumstances, restrictive reforms – those that aim at hindering the entry of new parties - are more likely to be introduced, though too late to prevent the entry of these newcomers.<p> / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished