Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 1991. / Also available in print.

Zugl.: Diss.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2006. / Title from first page of PDF file (viewed July 11, 2006). Available via ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 217-226).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--York University, 2008. Graduate Programme in Political Science. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 424-457). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:NR51696

Texte remanié de: Diss.--Berlin--Freie Universität, 1997. / Bibliogr. p. 911-941. Index.

Esta dissertação visa contribuir com uma agenda específica na Ciência Política, a saber, a questão da transparência de dados econômicos e sociais. Apesar da importância que tem sido dada ao tema, são poucos os estudos que analisam os determinantes políticos da transparência. Quando o fazem, utilizam medidas de democracia e variáveis socioeconômicas em sua explicação. Nosso texto vai além disso e identifica que a variação no nível de transparência pode ser explicada por variáveis institucionais e de competição política, vale dizer, o tipo de forma de governo e força da oposição em países democráticos, em um primeiro momento, e a consolidação democrática na sobre as novas democracias da América Latina em sequência. A nossa análise se debruça sobre uma amostra de 78 países de 1980 a 2007 e evidência efeitos significativos de nossas variáveis explicativas. / This thesis aims to contribute to a specific agenda in political science, namely the issue of transparency of economic and social data. Despite the importance that has been given to this issue, there are few studies that examine the political determinants of transparency. When they do, they are using measures of democracy and socioeconomic variables in their explanation. Our text goes beyond this and identifies that change in the level of transparency can be explained by institutional variables and political competition, that is, the kind of form of government and opposition forces in democratic countries, at first, and the consolidation democratic in on the new democracies in Latin America in sequence. Our analysis focuses on a sample of 78 countries from 1980 to 2007 and evidence significant effects of our explanatory variables.

O presente trabalho visa estabelecer quais são as condições responsáveis por permitir à oposição o poder de influenciar o processo decisório em Legislativos. Para tanto, a pesquisa se divide em duas frentes, a primeira teórica e a segunda empírica. Em campo teórico o trabalho chama a atenção para a inviolabilidade do princípio majoritário no que diz respeito à produção legislativa e às suas regras regimentais e, por fim, demonstra como a sua desconsideração pode levar a equívocos no tocante à expectativa sobre o comportamento dos diversos atores envolvidos. Em solo empírico, demonstrarse- á que a incorporação deste princípio é essencial para compreendermos de que maneira a oposição pode intervir no processo decisório, assim como quando e porquê acontecerão mudanças regimentais que aumentem ou restrinjam os direitos da minoria. / The present thesis aims to establish the conditions that give oppositions the power to influence the decision-making process in Legislatives. Our research will be presented in two views, the first theoretical and the second, empirical. On the theoretical view, the study draws attention to inviolability of the majority principle in conducing the legislative process and its regimental rules and ultimately, how disregarding it can lead to mistakes in expectations of involved actors\' behavior. On the empirical view it will be shown that embedding that principle is essential to understand in which way the opposition can intervene in the decision-making process, as well as how and why regimental changes will happen either to restrict or to widen the minority rights.

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

The thesis analyses the position and strategy of the opposition in the Parliament. The thesis also provides an international comparison within the Visegrad Group (The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia). Main attention is paid to the opposition in the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. The purpose of this thesis is to demonstrate which factors affect behavior of opposition and how the strategy of opposition differs in the Parliament. The thesis deals with behavior of representatives of political parties with low coalition potential and with options which opposition can use in relation to the government.

Numerous studies show biblicist Christianity, religiosity, and conservative political identity are strong predictors of Americans holding skeptical attitudes toward publicly controversial aspects of science, such as human evolution. We show that Christian nationalism—meaning the desire to see particularistic and exclusivist versions of Christian symbols, values, and policies enshrined as the established religion of the United States—is a strong and consistent predictor of Americans’ attitudes about science above and beyond other religious and political characteristics. Further, a majority of the overall effect of political ideology on skepticism about the moral authority of science is mediated through Christian nationalism, indicating that political conservatives are more likely to be concerned with particular aspects of science primarily because they are more likely to be Christian nationalists. Likewise, substantial proportions of the well‐documented associations between religiosity and biblical “literalism” with views of science are mediated through Christian nationalism. Because Christian nationalism seeks to establish a particular and exclusivist vision of Christianity as the dominant moral order, adherents feel threatened by challenges to the epistemic authority undergirding that order, including by aspects of science perceived as challenging the supremacy of biblicist authority.