La One Big Union (OBU) a marqué l’histoire du mouvement ouvrier au Canada. Associée au courant du syndicalisme industriel révolutionnaire, l’OBU s’est développée au Québec dès 1919, tout particulièrement à Montréal. Ce mémoire nous permettra mieux comprendre les stratégies d’implantation du syndicat dans la province jusqu’en 1929, en nous attardant sur ses objectifs et ses moyens d’action. Notre recherche mettra en lumière la culture politique de l’organisation et de ses militants, ses périodes d’avancées et de reculs, de même que ses rapports parfois conflictuels avec le reste du mouvement ouvrier.

Cette recherche porte sur la dimension interprétative de l'intégration européenne et sur son rôle dans la démocratisation au sein des pays postcommunistes. Je focalise mon attention sur la signification pour les gens desdits pays que revêtent la participation politique, la compétence politique, et l’action collective. Cette signification prend forme selon des circonstances spécifiques, agencées par les relations de pouvoir asymétriques avec l’Union européenne (UE). J’examine la littérature sur le rôle de l'intégration européenne dans la démocratisation des pays postcommunistes et je distingue deux paradigmes théoriques principaux : un premier qui met l'accent sur le processus institutionnel, l’autre sur le processus instrumental stratégique. Au sein de ces deux approches, je présente différents auteurs qui voient l'UE soit comme un facteur pro-démocratique, soit comme un facteur antidémocratique dans le contexte postcommuniste de transition politique. Cette recherche ne suit pas théoriquement et méthodologiquement les études contenues dans la revue de la littérature. Plutôt, elle s’appuie sur un modèle théorique inspiré des recherches de McFalls sur la réunification culturelle allemande après 1989. Ce modèle, sans négliger les approches institutionnelles et stratégiques, met l’accent sur d'autres écoles théoriques, interprétatives et constructivistes. Mes conclusions se basent sur les résultats de séjours d'étude dans deux pays postcommunistes : la Bulgarie, membre de l'UE depuis 2007, et la Macédoine, pays-candidat. J’ai recours à des méthodes qualitatives et à des techniques ethnographiques qui triangulent des résultats puisés à des sources multiples et variées pour exposer des trajectoires dynamiques de changement culturel influencées par l'intégration européenne. Les conclusions montrent sous quelles conditions les idéaux-types de changement politique conventionnels, soit institutionnel ou stratégique, représentent des modèles utiles. Je présente aussi leurs limitations. Ma conclusion principale est que l'intégration européenne représente un phénomène complexe dans le monde des significations. C’est un facteur qui est simultanément un amplificateur et un inhibiteur de la culture politique démocratique. Les gens créent des sous-cultures différentes où des interprétations multiples du processus d'intégration européenne mènent à des effets dissemblables sur la participation politique, la compétence et l’action collective. La conversation discursive entre les gens qui composent de telles sous-cultures distinctes peut produire des effets divergents au niveau national. Cette recherche n’est pas une analyse de l’UE comme mécanisme institutionnel ; elle ne pose ainsi pas l’UE comme une institution qui détermine directement le processus de démocratisation postcommuniste. Plutôt, elle s’intéresse au processus d’intégration européenne en tant qu’interaction qui affecte la culture politique au sein des pays postcommunistes, et à la manière dont cette dernière peut agir sur le processus de démocratisation. Mon point d’intérêt central n’est donc pas l’européanisation ou le processus de devenir « comme l’Europe », à moins que l’européanisation ne devienne une composante de la culture politique avec des conséquences sur le comportement politique des acteurs. / This research focuses on the interpretative dimension of EU integration and on its role in post-communist democratization. It offers an understanding of the significance of taking part in political life, becoming politically competent and taking part in collective actions. This significance takes shape under specific circumstances, which are part of the asymmetrical power relation with the European Union (EU). I discuss the existing literature on the role of EU integration in post-communist democratization and discern two main theoretical paradigms, which put emphasis either on institutionalist learning or on the strategic instrumental process. Within these two approaches I present authors who see the EU either as a pro-democratic or anti-democratic factor in the context of post-communist political transition. This research does not follow exactly, theoretically or methodologically, in the footsteps of the studies presented in the literature review. It starts from a theoretical model, inspired by McFalls’ research on German cultural reunification after 1989. This model, without neglecting institutional and strategic approaches, emphasizes the importance of other theoretical schools, interpretative and constructivist. My findings are based on field trips in two post-communist countries that are situated at different stages of the EU integration process: Bulgaria, which became a EU member in 2007, and Macedonia, which is a candidate country. Methodologically, I use qualitative methods and ethnographic techniques that triangulate findings from different sources into converging dynamic trajectories of cultural change under the influence of EU integration. These findings show the specific conditions under which the conventional ideal-types of political change, institutionalist and strategic, represent useful theoretical models. I also display their limitations that call for an alternative approach. I conclude that EU integration, as a complex phenomenon within the world of meaning, acts simultaneously as a booster and an inhibitor of democratic political culture. People create different subcultures where different interpretations of the EU integration process lead to dissimilar effects on their political participation, competence and collective action. Discursive conversations between people representing these different subcultures may also produce dissimilar effects on the national level. This research is not an analysis of the EU as an institutional mechanism and therefore, it is not research that takes the EU as an institution affecting post-communist democratization. This research focuses on the way the process of EU integration as an interaction affects political culture in post-communist societies, and via this influence, how it affects the process of democratization. It is not about Europeanization, understood as becoming more European-like, unless this Europeanization becomes part of political culture, which affects political behavior.

Cette thèse étudie la réception de la Question d'Orient au Royaume-Uni entre la crise orientale de1875-6 et celle de 1894-8, ainsi que son incidence sur la culture politique britannique. Preuves à l'appui, nous remettrons en cause les deux positions historiographiques prépondérantes selon lesquelles la Question d'Orient était, à l'époque pour le Royaume-Uni, une simple question diplomatique et que son incidence sur la culture politique britannique se limitait à l'affrontement entre Gladstone et Disraeli entre 1876 et 1880. Nous argumenterons, au contraire, que les influences de la Question d'Orient sur le Royaume-Uni vont bien au-delà de 1880 et sont, dans le dernier quart du dix-neuvième siècle, multiples et extrêmement complexes. Sans remettre en cause son aspect diplomatique et géopolitique, il nous faudra également considérer son incidence rhétorique,culturelle et idéologique sur la politique britannique. / This dissertation explores the reception of the Eastern Question in Britain between the 1875-6 Eastern crisis (marked by the 'Bulgarian atrocities') and that of 1894-8 (which corresponds to the episode of the 'Armenian massacres' and to its consequences), as well as the impact it had on British political culture. l will rely on contemporary evidence to question the two main historiographical positions that the Eastern Question was, at the time, just a diplomatic issue and that ~ts only impact on British political culture was the contest that opposed Disraeli and Gladstone between 1876 and 1880. Instead, it will be argued here that the impact of the Eastern Question in Britain goes well beyond 1880 and is both multi-faceted and extremely complex. Without down playing its diplomatic and geopolitical relevance, l will seek to assess its rhetorical, cultural and ideological influences on British politics.

Mon travail de thèse analyse les discours journalistiques et syndicalistes durant le processus transitionnel sur l'assembléisme ouvrier. L'objectif est de comprendre comment les mobilisations ouvrières assembléistes ont été domestiquées et subordonnées aux organisations politiques et syndicales de l'opposition démocratique. L'assembléisme ouvrier ne constitue pas un événement anecdotique et la marginalisation des pratiques assembléistes est en partie la conséquence de discours publics qui les discréditent et qui, se faisant, construisent une culture politique démocratique spécifique où le radicalisme ouvrier n'a plus d'espace et dans laquelle les grévistes sont invités à rejeter leurs structures assembléistes pour accepter le monopole de la représentation du social par les syndicats. / My work analyses trade union and journalistic discourses on the role played bay worker's assemblies during the spanish transitional process with the aim of understanding how their mobilisation was subjugatd and subordinated by political organisations and trade unions who were in the opposition to demicratisation. The worker's assemblies were not anecdotal events, and the marginalisation on their meetings was party the consequences of public discourses that deligitimated them. Moreover, the discourses contributed to the construction of a specific political culture wich rejetcs worker radicalism. Thus, worker's were asked to rejetc own democratic structures and accept the monopoly of social representation by the trade unions.

Les débats sur l’éducation qui passionne la sphère publique du dernier tiers du XVIIIe siècle, tout comme les réformes scolaires mises en place à cette même époque en Europe, présentent un intérêt particulier dans l’histoire de l’éducation, mais aussi et plus largement dans l’histoire des idées. Le Berlinois Friedrich Gedike (1754-1803) joue un rôle décisif sur la scène pédagogique et intellectuelle prussienne. L’étude de son œuvre et des deux établissements primaires et secondaires qu’il a dirigés, le Friedrichswerder de 1779 à 1793, puis le Cloître Gris (Berlinisch-Kölnisches Gymnasium zum Grauen Kloster) de 1793 à 1803, met au jour le processus de démarcation entre le lycée et l’université, mais aussi le développement et la transformation de l’enseignement secondaire. Sous son impulsion, un processus de sécularisation et de nationalisation de l’enseignement est également lancé. L’étude des problématiques éducatives est par ailleurs étroitement liée au contexte social et politique de l’époque, ainsi qu’à la philosophie des Lumières. Elles soulèvent des questions sur la conception de l’État, de la société et de l’individu. Friedrich Gedike a œuvré à la diffusion des Lumières en Allemagne, en tant que penseur des Lumières et publiciste, mais aussi concrètement, en tant que directeur, enseignant et membre du conseil national de l’éducation de Prusse. Son projet éducatif se caractérise par sa singularité et une certaine radicalité. À la croisée des chemins entre le philanthropinisme et le néohumanisme, il donne une identité singulière aux Bürgerschulen : d’ « écoles de bourgeois », elles se métamorphosent sous sa direction en « écoles de citoyens ». La formation morale et civique à travers des leçons de culture générale, de lecture de presse, d’histoire, de langues modernes et des pratiques de rédactions et d’expression en public sur des sujets sociaux et politiques, d’actualité parfois brûlante, est au cœur de son projet. Celui d’instaurer un examen validant les acquis du secondaire, l’Abitur, est par ailleurs une tentative de faire du mérite personnel l’unique critère d’accès aux études universitaires. Il croit en une réforme progressive de l’État prussien grâce à une réforme de l’éducation. Il voit en l’éducation (Bildung) un nouveau pouvoir légitime qui permet d’accéder à la haute fonction publique et d’intégrer les sphères du pouvoir. Face à un pouvoir institutionnalisé, les citoyens « cultivés » et « éclairés » détiennent la possibilité d’un pouvoir en train de s’établir. Gedike se situe dans une démarche de rendre ce nouveau pouvoir légitime aux yeux du pouvoir établi en le faisant reposer sur des fondements institutionnels. / Throughout the political upheavals that had an impact on the European continent over the last three decades of the Eighteenth century, the missions, contents, methods and organization of the educational world were profoundly remodeled. Mainly restricted to an elite and focused on the humanities, education diversified and democratized itself and gradually became a public matter and a State concern which reformed its educational system and integrated a larger part of its population into the public and political sphere. On the eve of the Nineteenth century, the secondary education developed and changed under the action of governments, but also and especially thanks to the commitment of schoolmen. A case study devoted to the work of a Berliner pedagogue and man of the Enlightenment, Friedrich Gedike (1754-1803), and to the two secondary establishments he successively directed between 1779 and 1803, allows not only to extend and deepen knowledge of the Prussian educational landscape and the Berliner Enlightenment, but it is also exemplary on more than one account. It illustrates the creative initiative of schoolmen engaged in a profound reform of education and the Prussian society of the last two decades of the century. Moreover, it highlights the metamorphose of secondary-level education which stands out from universities and diversifies itself with inferior classes proposing a more practical teaching (Bürgerschule) and superior classes preparing for university while teaching humanities (gelehrte Schule). Progressively, the curricula of secondary schools began to propose a balance between linguistic and scientific teaching, but also between ancient and modern languages. The student population began to change: diversifying and democratizing itself. Merit imposed itself little by little as a form of selection and access criteria to higher education and power. Finally, this case study shows the politicization of educational debates and reforms. Through a reform of education, schoolmen and men of letters aimed at a deep reform of society: creating the conditions for tolerance, a real “living together” between social orders, confessions, corporations, and to a certain extent genders, replacing privilege of birth and wealth by individual merit. Moreover, secondary schools became places of learning about a vibrant political culture. Humanities training was accompanied by a citizenship training with an opening up to the modern world, to immediate history and to national and foreign policies. Intellectual curiosity, personal thought, critical thinking and a debating culture were encouraged daily among students. Prussian High Schools became a privileged place for the constitution of a public sphere that would dialog with the institutional power or get access to it, allowing the integration of a larger and diversified part of the population to take part in political decisions. This study demonstrates the importance and the singularity of Friedrich Gedike in the history of education in Prussia.

Cette recherche porte sur la dimension interprétative de l'intégration européenne et sur son rôle dans la démocratisation au sein des pays postcommunistes. Je focalise mon attention sur la signification pour les gens desdits pays que revêtent la participation politique, la compétence politique, et l’action collective. Cette signification prend forme selon des circonstances spécifiques, agencées par les relations de pouvoir asymétriques avec l’Union européenne (UE). J’examine la littérature sur le rôle de l'intégration européenne dans la démocratisation des pays postcommunistes et je distingue deux paradigmes théoriques principaux : un premier qui met l'accent sur le processus institutionnel, l’autre sur le processus instrumental stratégique. Au sein de ces deux approches, je présente différents auteurs qui voient l'UE soit comme un facteur pro-démocratique, soit comme un facteur antidémocratique dans le contexte postcommuniste de transition politique. Cette recherche ne suit pas théoriquement et méthodologiquement les études contenues dans la revue de la littérature. Plutôt, elle s’appuie sur un modèle théorique inspiré des recherches de McFalls sur la réunification culturelle allemande après 1989. Ce modèle, sans négliger les approches institutionnelles et stratégiques, met l’accent sur d'autres écoles théoriques, interprétatives et constructivistes. Mes conclusions se basent sur les résultats de séjours d'étude dans deux pays postcommunistes : la Bulgarie, membre de l'UE depuis 2007, et la Macédoine, pays-candidat. J’ai recours à des méthodes qualitatives et à des techniques ethnographiques qui triangulent des résultats puisés à des sources multiples et variées pour exposer des trajectoires dynamiques de changement culturel influencées par l'intégration européenne. Les conclusions montrent sous quelles conditions les idéaux-types de changement politique conventionnels, soit institutionnel ou stratégique, représentent des modèles utiles. Je présente aussi leurs limitations. Ma conclusion principale est que l'intégration européenne représente un phénomène complexe dans le monde des significations. C’est un facteur qui est simultanément un amplificateur et un inhibiteur de la culture politique démocratique. Les gens créent des sous-cultures différentes où des interprétations multiples du processus d'intégration européenne mènent à des effets dissemblables sur la participation politique, la compétence et l’action collective. La conversation discursive entre les gens qui composent de telles sous-cultures distinctes peut produire des effets divergents au niveau national. Cette recherche n’est pas une analyse de l’UE comme mécanisme institutionnel ; elle ne pose ainsi pas l’UE comme une institution qui détermine directement le processus de démocratisation postcommuniste. Plutôt, elle s’intéresse au processus d’intégration européenne en tant qu’interaction qui affecte la culture politique au sein des pays postcommunistes, et à la manière dont cette dernière peut agir sur le processus de démocratisation. Mon point d’intérêt central n’est donc pas l’européanisation ou le processus de devenir « comme l’Europe », à moins que l’européanisation ne devienne une composante de la culture politique avec des conséquences sur le comportement politique des acteurs. / This research focuses on the interpretative dimension of EU integration and on its role in post-communist democratization. It offers an understanding of the significance of taking part in political life, becoming politically competent and taking part in collective actions. This significance takes shape under specific circumstances, which are part of the asymmetrical power relation with the European Union (EU). I discuss the existing literature on the role of EU integration in post-communist democratization and discern two main theoretical paradigms, which put emphasis either on institutionalist learning or on the strategic instrumental process. Within these two approaches I present authors who see the EU either as a pro-democratic or anti-democratic factor in the context of post-communist political transition. This research does not follow exactly, theoretically or methodologically, in the footsteps of the studies presented in the literature review. It starts from a theoretical model, inspired by McFalls’ research on German cultural reunification after 1989. This model, without neglecting institutional and strategic approaches, emphasizes the importance of other theoretical schools, interpretative and constructivist. My findings are based on field trips in two post-communist countries that are situated at different stages of the EU integration process: Bulgaria, which became a EU member in 2007, and Macedonia, which is a candidate country. Methodologically, I use qualitative methods and ethnographic techniques that triangulate findings from different sources into converging dynamic trajectories of cultural change under the influence of EU integration. These findings show the specific conditions under which the conventional ideal-types of political change, institutionalist and strategic, represent useful theoretical models. I also display their limitations that call for an alternative approach. I conclude that EU integration, as a complex phenomenon within the world of meaning, acts simultaneously as a booster and an inhibitor of democratic political culture. People create different subcultures where different interpretations of the EU integration process lead to dissimilar effects on their political participation, competence and collective action. Discursive conversations between people representing these different subcultures may also produce dissimilar effects on the national level. This research is not an analysis of the EU as an institutional mechanism and therefore, it is not research that takes the EU as an institution affecting post-communist democratization. This research focuses on the way the process of EU integration as an interaction affects political culture in post-communist societies, and via this influence, how it affects the process of democratization. It is not about Europeanization, understood as becoming more European-like, unless this Europeanization becomes part of political culture, which affects political behavior.

Most recent literature that analyzes parties from an organizational perspective focuses often on the concepts of intra-party democracy and party organizational democratization (Scarrow, 1999a; Scarrow and Kittilson, 2003; LeDuc, Niemi and Norris, 2002; Bosco and Morlino, 2007). Le Duc (2001) and Rahat and Hazan (2007) underline that the most used instrument for implementing this ‘democratization’ process is the enhancement of the inclusiveness of the methods for candidate and party leadership selection. The actors endowed with candidate and leader selection powers are the central actors in the functioning of the party according to many authors (Gallagher and Marsh 1988, Marsh 1993; Massari, 2004; Hazan and Rahat, 2010). At the moment, the most inclusive method identified by the literature for selecting candidates for elections or the party leader is represented by party open or closed primaries, i.e. internal direct elections by party members and, in the case of open primaries, supporters and voters (Cross and Blais, 2011; Kenig, 2009b).<p>In this study, we explore two specific dimensions of party politics: membership and internal activisms, on the one hand, and on the other hand the internal democratization processes and in particular those dealing with broadening the inclusiveness of leadership selection procedures. Therefore, this study integrates in particular the debate on the nature and consequences of party organizational democratization. The debate finds its origins both in the influential work of Michels on the “iron law of oligarchy” thesis but has been more recently boosted by the theories of May (1973), Mair (1994) and also the studies on intra-party democracy in the British Labour (Shaw, 1994; Russell, 2005).<p>However, we are interested in the point of view of members themselves on the consequences of internal democratization. We are interested on how members perceive these organizational changes, in whether they are frustrated form the actual consequences on their role and powers and whether they perceive them as a potential threat that could undermine their organizational position within the party. In order to respond to the debate on the consequences of intra-party democracy at individual level, we rely mainly on three questions. The main research questions of this study are thus the following: to what extent party organizational changes in the sense of greater democratization affect the membership role at individual level? How are these organizational changes perceived by members? To what extent members’ perceptions of their own role affect their behaviors and in particular their internal activism?<p>The aim of this study, thus, is to empirically assess the impact on members’ activism of party internal democratization and in particular of the perception of membership role. We are interested in whether party members’ attitudes are changing as a result of parties’ organizational changes, particularly if these changes are giving members more say over outcomes. This is a study of how (and whether) perceived roles affect behaviour. The independent variable is constituted by the members’ perception of their own role within party organizational structures and in particular with regard to the leadership selection methods, whilst the dependent variable is represented by the level of activism of party members, in terms of participation to party activities in general. In fact, the impact of party rules at individual level will be addressed, as well as how the perception of organizational rules affects individual attitudes and behaviors. In particular, the focus is on leadership selection methods that integrate party members at some point in the overall process (Lisi, 2009), such as direct elections (Hazan and Rahat, 2006). The case selection is thus implemented on the basis of the research question: the comparison is developed across parties (and not across time) using different instruments for enhancing intra-party democracy.<p>Therefore, we analyze the role perception, attitudes and behaviors of grass-roots members of three contemporary Western European parties: the Belgian French-speaking socialist party (Parti Socialiste, PS), the British Labour and the Italian Democratic Party (Partito Democratico, PD). Among the selected parties, one (PD) holds primaries open to all voters for selecting their leader and one (Belgian PS), on the contrary, has chosen the closed primary (OMOV) system. The British Labour Party uses an electoral college for electing its leader since 1981. The Electoral College method refers to a system in which specific groups are allocated a specific share of the leadership vote. In the case of the UK Labour, the votes are equally divided among its constituency members, the parliamentary caucus and the trade union members.<p>Concerning the first research question of our study, our empirical results underline that in the three selected cases organizational changes affect indeed the membership role at individual level and that grass-root members perceive very clearly this impact on their status and organizational rights, obligations and privileges. When grass-roots members evaluate their role within the party, in particular with regard to the procedure for selecting the leader and the involvement of non-members and passive members within party organization, their perceptions take into account their organizational power as defined, among other factors, also by their share of votes in leadership selection. Thus, we expect that PD members perceive their role as more blurred than Labour members and particularly than PS members. In the case of parties, such as the PS, adopting direct elections of the party leader only by the affiliates, the majority of the members are expected to perceive clearly the distinction of the position, privileges and functions between members and non-members and the extensive role reserved for the affiliates.<p>Our data show that the perception of own role vary among members, but also that many members perceive their own role as being rather blurred. They display in fact nuanced but generally negative attitudes towards the integration of voters and supporters within the selection of party leader. On the basis of our survey data, the observed variation in the perception of membership role within and between the three parties seems to correspond to what we expected. A higher proportion of PD surveyed members declare to perceive their role as blurred, while smaller proportions of PS and particularly labour respondents share this evaluation. In general, our data confirm that party members do not evaluate positively the fact that these formal privileges are extended not only to all individual members, not only to activists but even to passive ones, but also to party voters and supporters. Mair’s “activists’ disempowerment” thesis (Mair, 1994) seems to be supported by our data, at least in terms of individual perceptions.<p>Moreover, our data show that the degree of satisfaction with intra-party democracy significantly vary among parties and is generally not nearly as high as could be expected on the basis of party politics literature. If in the British Labour survey the responses of grass-roots members seem to form a more positive picture, with a great majority of member declaring that the party leader is not too powerful, the level of dissatisfaction with party functioning is rather higher in the other two parties. Nevertheless, PS members are fairly more convinced than PS members that the party internal decision-making is democratic. This is what we expected to find on the basis of our first hypothesis. In fact, our first hypothesis postulated that the perception of the role of party membership by affiliates in terms of (lack of) distinction between members and non-members affects inversely their level of satisfaction with the internal functioning of the party and their degree of perceived political efficacy. The stronger the perception of the blurred role of membership, the lower will be the level of political efficacy and specific support for the party. According to our data, among PD members the perception of the blurred, undefined role of members is rather high and so is the degree of dissatisfaction with intra-party functioning. On the contrary, within the other two parties and especially within the Labour, the role perception by grass-roots members is rather positive and well-defined and the level of specific support for the party is also higher.<p>The expectations formulated on the basis of our first hypothesis appear to be supported by the empirical data also with regard to the variations in the sense of external political efficacy of members. Our data seem consistent with the hypothesis, developed by several scholars (Katz and Mair, 1995; Carty, 2004; Bolleyer, 2009), that expanding the leadership selectorate and granting formal powers to party members and supporters may hide, on the other hand, the perception by enrolled members to be actually loosing power. On the basis of our data, it is possible to assert that grass-roots members seem to be aware of the possibility of a trade-off between extreme inclusiveness of decision-making procedures and actual centralization of organizational power in the hands of party elites.<p>With regard to the third research question of this study, our results confirm that indeed members’ perceptions of their own role, in relation to internal democratization, affect their behaviors and in particular their internal participation. The three parties appear to have different features in terms of internal activism, at aggregate but in particular at individual level. Secondly, not only the overall level of intra-party activism of grass-roots members vary between and within the three selected parties, but appears to be influenced by members’ attitudes towards the party. In fact, our second hypothesis postulated that the levels of specific support for the party and political efficacy of party members impact directly on their level of activism. The lower the level of political efficacy and specific support for the party, the lower will be the degree of activism of all members (as well as the quality of the activities they perform) and vice-versa. In a party holding open and direct elections to choose its leader, party membership is thought to be divided between a highly active avant-garde and a larger mass of inactive affiliates, feeling inefficacy, frustrated with intra-party democracy and perceiving their own role as blurred and undefined. Consequently, dissatisfied or low efficacy members are argued to participate less.<p>Our data only partially support the expectations. In fact, the impact of the sense of external efficacy is clear and strong in all the three cases, while on the contrary the relationship between specific support and intra-party activism is less clear-cut than expected. The results are therefore nuanced with regard to the expectations formulated in the second hypothesis of this study. The explanatory power of external efficacy and specific support in terms of internal mobilization is only partially supported by our data. Therefore, the evaluation of the consequences of the implementation of party organizational changes such as the adoption of open primaries depends on what party elites are interested in: if the goal is to assure membership loyalty, adopting open primaries is not a good way to strengthen membership involvment in the party.<p>We believe that real intra-party democracy is normatively impossible with regard to the position of members. Organizational power cannot be too dispersed among different units without jeopardizing not only effective functioning of the party, as the old debated on the trade-off between democracy and efficacy asserted (Duverger, 1951; Panebianco, 1988), but also the incentives for internal participation of the party base. Party members are well aware that internal power cannot be too dispersed. From the point of view of members, a party should have a clear chain of command and should be composed by elites, activists and members. Each one of them should also be endowed with clearly defined tasks and responsibilities. In conclusion, we believe that intra-party democracy is a symbolic element of party organization but not as actually implementable.<p>In sum, intra-party democracy does not mean the same for different party units. For party elites, it represents a process for either legitimizing the party, changing party image, mobilizing electoral support, managing internal faction or even indirectly increasing their own organizational room for manoeuvre. For party members, intra-party democracy represents an incentive for mobilizing and a political identification tool until a certain point. After that, it becomes a threat to their rights and their status. For grass-roots affiliates, intra-party democracy is not a value per se, but it depends on its real intensity and actual implementation. In conclusion, at theoretical level, we can conclude that party organization theories should increasingly take into account membership’s point of view. On the contrary, at practical level, we can conclude that parties should adapt their strategies with regard to intra-party democracy according to their goal. If party elites are interested in tightening their grip on internal decision-making while increasing their room for manoeuvre and legitimizing party image at the same time, increasing intra-party democracy could be the best organizational strategy. On the contrary, if the leadership’s aim is to mobilize members and guarantee a stable and loyal membership, then it should be noted that increasing intra-party democracy is not always the best choice. To this regard, it might be useful for party elites to find other and more effective ways to loyalize member.<p><p> / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Ce mémoire explore les modalités culturelles de la participation politique de la salonnière parisienne et célèbre écrivaine Anne-Louise-Germaine Necker, baronne de Staël-Holstein (1766-1817), au cours de la Révolution française (1789-1799). Sur le plan des représentations, il souligne chez Germaine de Staël l’appropriation et la reformulation des normes de genre pour élaborer un rôle politique convenable à une femme d’esprit dans le contexte révolutionnaire. Ce rôle se fondait notamment sur une éthique de l’amitié et un idéal de vertu acquise par la sensibilité et la raison. Son projet constitutionnel, à la fois libéral et élitiste, cherchait à intégrer la contribution des femmes au processus politique à travers la sociabilité polie et la production littéraire. Sur le plan des pratiques, ce mémoire montre comment les outils de réseautage et de communication qu’étaient le salon, la correspondance et la publication fonctionnaient ensemble pour permettre à Staël de se positionner dans un espace sociopolitique et d’y déployer une action. Il considère ces forums comme des éléments constitutifs d’une culture politique révolutionnaire dont Staël sut faire un usage créatif et constructif pour promouvoir ses idées et son parti. / This essay explores the cultural conditions shaping the political participation of the Parisian salon woman and famous author Anne-Louise-Germaine Necker, baroness of Staël-Holstein (1766-1817), during the French Revolution (1789-1799). Looking at representations, it underlines Germaine de Staël’s appropriation and recasting of gender norms to work out a suitable political role for elite women in the revolutionary context. This role was notably based on an ethic of friendship, and an ideal of virtue acquired by combining sensibility and reason. Her constitutional project, both liberal and elitist, sought to integrate female contribution to the political process through polite sociability and literary production. In regard to practices, this essay shows how networking tools and forums of discussion such as salons, correspondence and publication functioned together to position Staël within a socio-political space where she could act. It considers these forums as constitutive elements of a revolutionary political culture that Staël used creatively and constructively to promote her ideas and party.

La confiance envers le gouvernement est une notion fréquemment évoquée dans le discours public et dans la littérature, mais il s’agit d’une notion imprécise, malgré des innovations depuis sa première spécification par David Easton en tant que support systémique. Cette revue de littérature propose de faire le point sur la question de la confiance envers les gouvernements démocratiques. Je définis d’abord la confiance envers le gouvernement comme un concept relationnel et relativement stable dans le temps. Ce mémoire se penche sur 26 facteurs qui sont liés à la confiance envers le gouvernement dans trois grandes catégories : les caractéristiques individuelles, étatiques et sociales. Je démontre que les explications culturelles de la confiance sont nettement supérieures aux explications économiques, et ce à toutes les échelles. Cependant, les jeunes démocraties présentent un profil un peu différent des démocraties plus anciennes : l’économie y joue un rôle un peu plus important. / Trust in government is a hotly debated topic in public discourse as well as the scientific literature. It is, however, an unclear notion, although a few theoretical innovations have helped refine the concept since its inception as system support by David Easton. This literature review examines current trends in study of trust in democratic governments. I define trust in government as a relational concept that is relatively stable through time. This thesis identifies 26 factors that are linked to trust in government in three categories: individual, state and social characteristics. I demonstrate that cultural explanations better explain variations in trust in government than economic approaches at all scales. However, young democracies have a different profile, in which economic approaches have a slightly bigger role.

Cette recherche porte sur l'analyse approfondie d'une source jusqu'à présent peu exploitée par les historiens – la chanson de tradition orale –, dont l'apport est évalué en lien étroit avec les archives écrites et iconographiques qui constituent habituellement le fondement des études historiques. La comparaison avec les archives criminelles, d'une grande pertinence, a fait l'objet d'une attention particulière. L'enjeu est de montrer l'intérêt de croiser sources orales et écrites pour renouveler la connaissance de la société bretonne entre les 16e et 18e siècles. La critique détaillée des sources est suivie par une application des acquis méthodologiques mis en évidence. Celle-ci embrasse de larges domaines d'étude ayant trait à la culture matérielle, aux comportements sociaux et politiques, à la circulation des hommes et des idées ou encore aux sensibilités religieuses. Au croisement des sources s'ajoute l'interaction entre les méthodes d'analyse : si cette étude s'inscrit résolument dans une démarche d'historien, elle est enrichie par les acquis d'autres disciplines, notamment de l'ethnologie