Dass 'die nationale Bedeutung oder Färbung eines musikalischen Phänomens [. . . ] zu einem nicht geringenTeil eine Sache der Auffassung und der Übereinkunft: der Rezeptionsweise'1 ist, wird an der polnischen Musikgeschichte besonders deutlich. Das außergewöhnliche politische Schicksal Polensim 19.Jahrhundert - das Verschwinden eines fast tausend Jahre alten Staates, die Aufteilung seinesTerritoriums unter drei fremden Mächten und das Andauern dieses Zustands über mehr als hundert Jahre, ausgerechnet in der Hochphase des Nationalgedankens - hatte zur Folge, dass den Künstlern bei der Wahrung der nationalen Identität eine führende Rolle geradezu aufgedrängt wurde.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The aim of this essay is to use Linz and Stepan’s theory on their five interactive arenas (Civil Society, Political Society, Rule of Law, State Bureaucracy and Economic Society) of a consolidated democracy, to examine whether the Republic of Poland can be considered a consolidated democracy. I will base my research on facts from the year 2015 to 2021, since I want to see how the political changes that have been implemented since the party Law of Justice (PiS) entered into government, and how that has affected Poland as a consolidated democracy. This research is a case study, and the main results of it is that Poland can no longer be considered a consolidated democracy, since it has deficiencies in all five arenas, but they are strongest within the Rule of Law.

This study examines the debates that were held in the LIBE committee between 2018 - 2020 in relation to Polands judicial reforms. EU claims that the reforms are incompliant with the treaty of the european union but Poland have so far not backed down. The situation have exposed problems in how the EU should act when a member state won’t act according to the treaty. And also exposed problems with the practical implementation of article 7. The study utilizes an inductive argumentation analysis and seeks to weigh the evidence, sustainability and relevence of the arguments made by the participants in those debates. The results from this initial analysis will then be analysed from two theoretical standpoints. On Arguments put forward from the EU:s standpoint the theory of normative power will be used. The theory has its focus on EU as a normative power who spreads their values by other means than force or threat of military force. Rather through trade and legally binding agreements that often include human rights commitments. The arguments from Polands standpoint will be analysed using the theory of neoclassical realism. Which goes beyond traditional realism by seeking to explain irrational behavior that don’t correlate with simple utility maximizing theories. The analysis shows that both standpoints of the debate corralates to a large degree with the theories used to analyse them. In doing so it pinpoints a growing problem inside the EU when the big bang expansion of 2004 together with the growing presence of populist opinion makes for a more diversified union compared to the earlier more homogenous one deeply roted in liberal values.

This is a qualitative comparative case study, with two cases in focus Poland and Hungary. The purpose of this study is to compare two similar cases of negative democratic trends and to view similarities and differences. The research questions are; what democratic challenges do Poland and Hungary face in relation to the five arenas of the theory, civil society, political society, the rule of law, the state apparatus and the economic arena? What are the similarities and differences between the two countries? The theory used is Linz & Stepans democratization theory that uses five different arenas in order to analyze a state. The findings in the study is that there are many similarities in how the two states started their autocratization processes. The differences being that Hungary has come further in many of the arenas and are therefore more authoritarian. They also differ in the conditions the two different ruling parties had in order to start the autocratization process.