Den här uppsatsen ämnar att undersöka Anders Behring Breiviks manifest i samband med det moderna samhället och den situation som detta sätter individen i.Med hjälp av Erich Fromms tankar kring friheten och flyktmekanismer, Thomas Ziehesnarcissism och kulturell friställning och Giddens teori kring självidentiteten i den senmoderna epoken försöker jag nå förklaringar till hur Breivik kunde nå de slutsatser han gjorde. Analysen av det utdrag ur manifestet som är uppsatsens material utifrån vilka värden Breivik vill försvara och vilka fiender som hotar dessa. Resultatet är att det är ett flertal fiender som hotar de värden Breivik vill försvara och att det måste till en analys ur ett individ-, kultur- och systemperspektiv för att nå en tillfredställande förklaring. Breivik förstås utifrån den auktoritära karaktären som enbart ser relationer mellan människor som positioner av under- eller överläge, genom de kulturella förutsättningar som finns i samhället samt genom att han inte utvecklat den tillit som Giddens anser är grunden för att människor kan verka i en alltmer riskabel tillvaro. / This paper aims to examine the manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik and put it in thecontext of modern society and the situation that the individual is in.Using Erich Fromms thoughts about freedom and escape mechanisms, Thomas Ziehesnarcissism and cultural and Giddens theory about self-identity in the late modern age I try to reach explanations about how Breivik could reach the conclussions he did.The analysis of a part of the manifesto, which is the papers material, about which valuesBreivik wants to defend and which the enemies are that threatened these. The result is that there are a number of enemies which threaten these values that Breivik wants to defend and that an analysis from a individual-, cultural and system perspectives is required to reach a satisfying explaination.Breivik is understood from the view of the authoritarian character who only sees human relations as positions of dominance or subordinance, through the cultural presets that exist in society and through not developing the trust that Giddens sees as the foundations on which humans stand to cope with life in increasingly risky enviroment.

No description available.

The purpose of this essay is to study what conditions Afghanistan and Iraq have in order to create democracy in their countries. The study is interesting in a political science perspective because it engages many scientists how democracy can be created in authoritarian states. The overall questions my study is based on are: - What are the conditions for Afghanistan and Iraq to develop democracy based on Dankwart Rustow's four democratization phases? and which of these countries Afghanistan or Iraq has bigger chance to develop democracy in its country? My approach to answering my questions has been to study Dankwart Rustow’s theory based on that the creation of democracy can be achieved by four different democracy phases: unit phase, dissolution phase, transition phase and consolidation phase. The conclusion of my study shows that Afghanistan and Iraq have the same conditions for democracy, but Iraq has come further in its democratization and has more opportunities to develop democracy in its country compared to Afghanistan. This is because Iraq has not been involved in any long term war and that Afghanistan is still in civil war with the Taliban, which prevents democratic development in their country. / Syftet med denna uppsats är att studera vilka förutsättningar Afghanistan och Irak har för att utveckla demokrati i sina länder. Studien är intressant ur ett statsvetenskapligt perspektiv eftersom det engagerar många forskare hur demokrati kan skapas i auktoritära stater. De övergripande frågeställningarna som min studie är baserad på är: -Hur ser förutsättningarna ut för Afghanistan och Irak att utveckla demokrati utifrån Dankwart Rustows fyra demokratiserings faser? och vilka av dessa länder Afghanistan eller Irak har störst möjlighet att utveckla demokrati i sitt land? Mitt tillvägagångssätt för att besvara mina frågor har varit att studera Dankwart Rustows teori, som bygger på att demokrati kan skapas utifrån att fyra olika demokratifaser uppnås: enhetsfas, upplösningsfas, övergångsfas och konsolideringsfas. Uppsatsens slutsats visar på att Afghanistan och Irak har liknande förutsättningar att skapa demokrati men att Irak har kommit längre i sin demokratisering och har större förutsättningar att kunna utveckla demokrati än Afghanistan. Det beror på att Irak inte har varit inblandat i några långvariga krig och att Afghanistan fortfarande är i inbördeskrig med talibanerna, vilket förhindrar en demokratisk utveckling i deras land.

According to Ronald Ingleharts research deindustrialized and affluent societies are expected to have increasingly open, progressive, and tolerant citizens. However, during the last decade political developments have been reversed. More than 25% of Europeans now adays vote for a right-wing populist party. In addition, the globalization has created winning and losing regions, with one of its biggest impacts being deindustrialization of the West. Big cities have flourished while disfavored suburbs, smaller industrial towns and rural communities have been marginalized. Consequently, the support for right-wing populist movements is often highest in such negatively affected areas. Inglehart have previously explained this through the idea of a “conservative backlash” caused by a combination of increasing inequality and culturally revolting age-cohorts. His arguments are mainly based on cross-national or intranational data while other research pointing at the necessity to analyze the association between regional deindustrialization and the rise of the far right. This thesis filles that gap by conducting a multi- level analysis, in which Ingleharts theory is tested by studying associations between values and changing levels of industrialization in 327 European regions. The result confirms earlier research regarding the association between industrialization and authoritarian-libertarian values, but puts in to question Ingleharts explanation of inequality as the reason for the contemporary conservative backlashes. The result shows no support for a relationship between inequality and authoritarian-liberal values.

This is a study about the transition process and the consolidation of power in Belarus. In this paper the concept of "authoritarian state building and the sources of regime competitiveness in the fourth wave" is the major theory used. After giving a description of the theory‟s concepts a short historical background of Belarus follows. Chapters four describes and explain the political situation in Belarus during five periods. After each period I analyze the situation on the basis of the suppositions from the theory. The thesis also tries to explain the conditions needed for an authoritarian regime to be established. The result of the concluding discussion shows that the major theory in this thesis presents important factors that can help to explain why and how the autocratic rule in Belarus has been consolidated.