The purpose of this dissertation was to address the problem expressed in the following question: "Why have the opposition political parties in Lesotho weakened since 1993?" A qualitative approach was used. The researcher interviewed officials of twelve representative parties out of the total of eighteen parties. The responses of the interviewees are in appendix 5. This work reveals the problems of the opposition parties in Lesotho. Among others, the study addressed the following issues: the reform of the electoral system, political party funding, dominance of the ruling party, prohibitive legislation and party leadership. The potential strengths and weaknesses of the opposition parties have been noted. The MMP electoral model, introduced in 2001 and tested in 2002, created a more inclusive party system, but it is not the sole solution for the weakness of the opposition parties. Patronisation and lack of political party funding appear to be major factors. / Political Sciences / M. A. (Politics)

Does banning opposition candidates from ballots increase the risk that they will turn to bullets instead? Globally, since the end of the Cold War, blatant election rigging tactics (such as ballot box stuffing) are being replaced by 'strategic rigging': subtler procedural manipulations aimed at winning while maintaining the guise of legitimacy in the eyes of international observers. In particular, incumbents (in regimes stuck between democracy and authoritarianism) are turning to 'electoral exclusion', neutralizing key rivals by illegitimately banning certain candidates, in turn reducing the need for cruder forms of election day rigging. I used mixed methods - combining insights from an original global dataset with extensive elite interviews conducted in five countries (Madagascar, Thailand, Tunisia, Zambia, and Côte d'Ivoire) - to establish that electoral exclusion is an attractive short-term election strategy for vulnerable incumbents that produces a much higher chance of victory but comes with high costs in the longer-term. Global probit modeling (using electoral exclusion as an independent variable and coups d'état and civil wars as separate dependent variables) suggests that, since the end of the Cold War, excluding opposition candidates from the ballot roughly doubles the risk of a coup d'état or quadruples the risk of civil war onset. In spite of these risks, incumbents fall into this 'exclusion trap' because of the shortened time horizon that frequently accompanies competitive multi-party elections. Vulnerable incumbents worry more about the short-term risk of losing an election than the long-term but ultimately unknown risk that political violence will ensue after the election. Finally, the inverse corollary of these findings is that inclusion of opposition candidates during multi-party elections can be a stabilizing factor. Though it may seem counterintuitive, fragile 'counterfeit democracies' - and so-called 'transitional' regimes - may be able to stave off existential threats to regime survival by extending an olive branch to their fiercest opponents. These findings combine to form the overarching argument of this dissertation: when opposition candidates are excluded from the ballot, they become more likely to turn to bullets by launching coups d'état and civil wars.

La thèse de doctorat en science politique s’attache à comprendre le rôle des partis politiques parlementaires d’opposition en Russie entre 2005 et 2010. Elle se fonde sur l’étude des branches régionales du Parti communiste de la Fédération de Russie (KPRF), du Parti libéral-démocrate de Russie (LDPR) et de Russie juste à Tomsk, en Sibérie occidentale. Toute la problématique de ces trois partis d’opposition est liée à ce paradoxe :dans les années 2000, il existe en Russie des partis qui se positionnent comme étant d’opposition - dans un système partisan dominé par Russie unie - tout en se montrant loyaux envers le régime politique et ses principaux dirigeants.<p>Les données, recueillies au cours de huit mois et demi de recherche de terrain en Russie, sont essentiellement qualitatives. Une approche organisationnelle et fonctionnelle de l’étude des partis est utilisée afin de comprendre le rôle de ces trois formations dans le système politique russe. <p>La thèse s’attache à tester trois hypothèses :les partis parlementaires d’opposition remplissent certaines fonctions dans le système politique qui leur assurent le soutien d’électeurs et d’adhérents ;les organisations partisanes du LDPR, du KPRF et de Russie juste sont centralisées de manière à limiter la marge de manœuvre des branches locales et permettre un contrôle étroit de l’appareil central ;ces trois partis transforment au sein des institutions parlementaires le soutien des électeurs en soutien pour le régime.<p>Tout d’abord, il apparaît que le KPRF, le LDPR et Russie juste remplissent d’autres fonctions dans le système politique que celle de légitimation/stabilisation (Lavau, 1969). Ces fonctions sont multiples. Les activités électorales indiquent que ces trois partis servent, d’une part, de plateforme d’accès aux organes du pouvoir pour les entrepreneurs, d’autre part, la fonction d’expression est assurée en ce que les partis expriment des problèmes, proposent une alternative, et disqualifient certaines pratiques. Pendant les élections, et au sein du parlement régional, les partis assurent dans une certaine mesure la fonction d’organisation de l’opposition. Enfin, le KPRF, le LDPR et Russie juste remplissent, de différentes façons, la fonction d’assistance à la société.<p>Ensuite, la thèse a vérifié que les trois partis ont une structure interne centralisée à Moscou, tout en mettant en évidence l’interdépendance qui existe entre le siège fédéral et les branches régionales dans chaque parti. Une marge de manœuvre, différente selon les trois formations, existe donc au niveau des branches locales.<p>Enfin, l’exemple de Tomsk montre qu’une loyauté formelle envers le régime et une opposition réelle sont possibles. Cela implique des ambiguïtés, notamment concernant l’activité des députés de ces partis au sein des parlements locaux./The PhD thesis starts with this paradox: in the 2000s, the Russian party system is dominated by United Russia called the party of power. Nevertheless, this system also allows the existence of parties that claim to be the opposition, while being loyal to the political regime and its leaders. How do these parties resolve this paradox? <p>The doctoral dissertation in political science seeks to understand the role of parliamentary opposition parties in Russia between 2005 and 2010. It is based on the study of regional branches of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) and Just Russia (SR) in Tomsk, Western Siberia. The qualitative data were collected during eight and a half months of field research in Russia. An organizational and functional approach to the study of political parties is used to understand their role in the Russian political system.<p>The thesis tests three hypotheses: first, the opposition parliamentary parties perform certain functions in the political system that gives them the support of voters and members. Second, the party organizations of the LDPR, the KPRF and Just Russia are centralized to limit the flexibility of local branches and allow tight control of the central apparatus. Third, we examine if these parties transform the support of voters into support for the regime in the parliamentary institutions at the local level.<p>The results show three elements. First, it shows that the KPRF, the LDPR and Just Russia perform several functions in the political system. On the one hand, they are platforms for businessmen to access to the organs of power; on the other hand, they express problems, offer an alternative, and disqualify some practices. During elections, and within the regional parliament, parliamentary opposition parties perform to a certain extent the function of organizing opposition. Moreover, the KPRF, the LDPR and Just Russia support citizens in various ways. <p>Then, the dissertation verifies that the three parties have a centralized internal structure. But it also highlights the interdependence between federal headquarters and regional branches within each party. <p>Finally, the case of Tomsk shows that formal loyalty to the regime, and a real opposition at the same time, is possible as far as the KPRF, the LDPR and Just Russia are concerned. / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Cette thèse constitue une analyse de contenu des critiques contre l'Union européenne exprimées par plusieurs acteurs politiques et sociaux de gauche en France et en Allemagne, au cours des débats sur le projet de Constitution européenne. Elle s'intéresse plus particulièrement aux idéologies sous-jacentes à ces critiques. Pour comprendre le sens de ces arguments, les comparer entre eux et les classer, certains idéaux-types ont été élaborés sur quatre dimensions (politique, socio-économique, identitaire et stratégique). Cette recherche a permis de combler une lacune importante dans l'analyse des acteurs dits "eurosceptiques", à savoir, l'étude des idéologies animant ces courants. L'essentiel de la littérature se concentre en effet surtout sur l'explication de l'euroscepticisme et, lorsqu'elle aborde leur idéologie, c'est pour construire des taxinomies excessivement globales. La thèse explore aussi en conclusion certaines pistes d'explications de ces résistances à l'UE en essayant d'aller au-delà des visions stratégiques, culturalistes et institutionnalistes, dominantes dans ce domaine, et en insistant davantage sur les dimensions idéelles et structurelles.<p><p>//<p>This doctoral dissertation analyses the content of the critiques made by some left-wing social and political actors in France and Germany against the current EU. The study focuses on the debates that surrounded the project of European Constitution and more specifically on the more general ideologies underlying these arguments. In order to understand, compare and classify these critiques, idealtypes have been elaborated on four dimensions (socio-economic, political, identity-related and strategic). This research fills a gap in the literature analysing so-called "eurosceptic" actors by concentrating on the ideas conveyed by these currents. Indeed, most of this literature mostly tries to explain this phenomenon. And when it addresses the issue of ideology, it is only to build too far-reaching categories. The conclusion also aims at exploring possible explanations of theses resistances to the EU beyond the traditional theories, based on strategic agency, culturalism and institutionalism, and insisting more on the role of ideas and material structures.<p> / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished