Submitted by BRUNO MITIO ASSANO SILVA (brunomitio@gmail.com) on 2017-04-20T17:37:28Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Mestrado - Bruno Mitio A. Silva.pdf: 3293208 bytes, checksum: e0ce997d5aa6239861ed1ad99d3e0bb9 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Pamela Beltran Tonsa (pamela.tonsa@fgv.br) on 2017-04-20T17:45:04Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Mestrado - Bruno Mitio A. Silva.pdf: 3293208 bytes, checksum: e0ce997d5aa6239861ed1ad99d3e0bb9 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-04-20T18:37:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Mestrado - Bruno Mitio A. Silva.pdf: 3293208 bytes, checksum: e0ce997d5aa6239861ed1ad99d3e0bb9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-03-23 / Recent studies have advanced the understanding of municipal level party organizational behaviour, highlighting, where present, different levels of institutionalization. These studies, however, only able to show this diversity at a given point in time. This present study aims to describe the process of (i) brazilian municipalities presence by the parties (ii) the organization of this process between 2007 to 2015. At the end of this study, we can see a high variation within these structures on the specified period. Some initial hypotheses can be attributed to these changes. Among them, the profile of the cities influence the political parties in making decisions between making a firm long term commitment to an area or only contesting in local public office elections. Another possibility is that the less organized parties in the municipalities are the very same that are less able to change their state party leadership. These issues are associated with both the organizational capacity a party has with which to pursue its multiple objectives and also the extent to which the internal democratic processes of these institutions allow the base access to the decision making process. / Trabalhos recentes têm avançado na compreensão do comportamento da organização partidária em nível municipal, distinguindo estruturas que evidenciam diferentes níveis de institucionalização, quando elas são presentes. Estes trabalhos, todavia, caracterizam esta diversidade em um dado momento do tempo. O presente estudo tem por objetivo descrever o processo de (i) presença partidária nos municípios brasileiros, e (ii) a organização desta ocupação, entre os anos de 2007 a 2015. Ao final do trabalho, verifica-se elevada variação destas estruturas entre o período observado. Algumas hipóteses iniciais são associadas a estas mudanças. Entre elas estão o perfil das cidades que influenciariam a decisão do partido político entre firmar compromisso naquela localidade para o longo prazo ou apenas concorrer pela disputa dos cargos públicos locais. Outra hipótese é que partidos menos organizados nos municípios são os que menos mudam a sua direção partidária estadual. Estas questões estão associadas tanto à capacidade organizativa que o partido possui para buscar seus múltiplos objetivos, quanto à democracia interna destas instituições, a depender do grau em que permitem o acesso das bases no processo decisório.

In the period from 2009-2020, South Africa has witnessed the rise of "lawfare". Lawfare is understood as the judicialisation of politics - turning to the courts and the use of the law to resolve broadly political matters. This thesis explores the unfolding implications of the judicialisation of politics for judicial legitimacy. In the displacement of the political into the judicial the reach of the courts is expanded and the legitimacy of courts engaging in a "political" role is questioned. Situated in the field of judicial-political dynamics, the interplay between law and politics is observed through the adoption of a historical-institutionalist model. This thesis identifies the causes of the judicialisation of politics and then traces its consequences for broader constitutional stability and the impact on the judicial institution. Guidelines for the Court to navigate lawfare to achieve institutional resilience and maintain judicial legitimacy are then proposed. Judicialisation of politics is caused primarily through the failures of the other branches of government to fulfil their assigned constitutional role. Institutional imbalance in a dominant party democracy means that opposition parties and civil society organisations are left with little recourse but to appeal to the Court to be a constitutional bulwark. The Court is then compelled to step into the breach and fill the accountability vacuum. In identifying the causes of judicialisation, a fuller understanding of Lawfare emerges, expanding current scholarship beyond its traditionally abusive characterisation. It posits a duality to Lawfare in that it can be both an abuse of law and a last line of defence. Through observing the judicial political interactions, a trajectory from the judicialisation of politics to the politicisation of law is mapped. The politicisation of law sees political power refocused on the courts, exposing them to political aggression and attack by the dominant party. The judicialisation of politics that seeks accountability from recalcitrant political actors asks much of the courts, at a time when ensuring executive oversight is the most dangerous, because of the ease with which a hostile executive in a dominant party democracy can implement measures that may undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Constitutional Court has shown a remarkable ability to navigate this era of Lawfare, remaining resolute under fire. However, the more successful the Court is in holding the line against executive abuse of power, the more the judicial route is identified as a powerful weapon to achieve more abusive political objectives. The relationship between Lawfare and legitimacy is identified as a wicked problem that demands expanding boundaries to observe the courts influence on the political environment, and the political environment's influence on the judicial role and its legitimacy. Through advancing a multi-dimensional paradigm of judicial legitimacy, the dialectics of judicial legitimacy are shown to be aggravated by the judicialisation of politics. In this respect it is argued that where the foundations and assumptions on which legitimacy is predicated shift, legitimacy must be re-examined. It is therefore argued that in a culture marked by an impunified disregard of non-judicial regulatory enforcement and increasing non-compliance with judicial orders, the impulse to preserve legitimacy through a detached, formalist stance will not be sufficient. Judicial legitimacy must be relocated in the ability of the Court to be responsive. Pulled into the role of judicial statesmanship, the Court must adopt a robust approach to assertively uphold the rule of law. In tracking the unfolding consequences of the judicialisation of politics, the Court is asked to resolve matters beyond its institutional capabilities. Absent the normative commitment to the rule of law, the internationalisation of constitutional norms, and the political interest to implement remedial orders, the Court is unable to effect workable relief. In tracing the dangers of the continued trend of Lawfare, the thesis sketches a downward spiral of reputational strength of the Court and a decline in democratic responsibility. This leads to an inability to achieve effective reform that ends in disenchantment, questioning the faith placed in the Constitution. It depicts how the Constitutional Court as 'constitutional saviour' can unravel into constitutional blame. The Constitutional Court has been able to hold the line in this era of Lawfare and repel assaults on its integrity and efforts to undermine its independence. However, without a broader culture of commitment to the rule of law, civil education and a suffusion of constitutional responsibility beyond the judiciary, the Court will not be able to continue to shoulder the weight of what is asked of it. This research depicts a circular model of Lawfare and legitimacy, where Lawfare is predicated on judicial legitimacy, but an overreliance on Lawfare will destroy judicial legitimacy.

This research aims to investigate the causal linkages between the EU democratic legitimacy and the crises of representative democracies in the field of anti-corruption. The threats of corruption to the EU democratic legitimacy and the approach in handling this negative phenomenon is seen as a symptom of a more profound crisis of the EU integration project. The mutual interdependence between the EU and it is member states in delivering the standards of democracy, it's values and principles is seen through legitimation as an act of actual justification. This actual exercise of the EU indirect legitimacy in normative terms is translated into action through the key actors of representative democracies on a national level, the national parliaments and the political parties. However, the role of the parliaments and the party democracy in the broader EU context, especially evident in Central-East Europe (CEE), has been challenged and weak, suggesting hollowness of democracy. This status has been also challenged by the misuse of political power for private gains, as a general understanding of corruption, also adopted by the EU. However, the mutual reinforcement of corruption and the hollowness of democracy have remained under-acknowledged in the broader neoliberal context. The reasons behind are few:...

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

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:33:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Andre Norberto Carbone de Carvalho.pdf: 1111622 bytes, checksum: 579a2500023600cdd506783797783afe (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-08-09 / This thesis makes an analysis of the democracy practiced by political parties in Brazil, especially regarding their evolution from the 1988&#8223;s Constitution. The study begins covering the different kinds of state&#8223;s power organization, justifying the origin of democracy. After that, it discusses the beginning of representative government and the reasons for the birth of representative democracy and the democracy through political parties. As a result, this dissertation studies the modern political parties, especially its history, role and legal treatment, culminating with a brief historical analysis of those associations in Brazil. Finally, the work makes a thorough assessment of democracy through political parties in Brazil&#8223;s current political framework. There are, at least, three assumptions that must be observed for the model&#8223;s success: only political parties must present candidates; there must be political party loyalty; and we should have intra-party democracy. It took so long before political parties detain the exclusive prerogative of present candidates, that helped consolidate in Brazilians&#8223; popular culture the so called personal vote , where voters does not care about political parties, following charismatic leaders, regardless of their political party link. For a long time, candidates have become true masters of their term, which allows them to migrate from one political party to another, without any consequences, disturbing the democracy through political parties. Therefore, the absence of intra-party democracy has contributed to a paradox: the existence of an oligarchy inside the Brazilian&#8223;s democracy. The political party leaders, perpetuated in power, impose, top-down, his favorite names to internal and external elections, not allowing sufficient space for debates, distorting the institution of political representation. The Tribunal Superior Eleitoral Act nº 22.610/2007, which governs the procedure of term loss due to disloyalty to a political party, represented a significant step forward to insure democracy through political parties; however, a number of small issues still wait for resolution, which delays the full implementation of the political party loyalty in Brazil. The intra-party democracy, on the other hand, must be thoroughly regulated by the law. Only after that, we will be able to discuss, with high probability of effectiveness, one policy reform that has as its objective reduce any existent gap between the voter&#8223;s will and the elected one. / A presente dissertação faz uma análise da democracia pelos partidos praticada no Brasil, especialmente quanto à evolução da figura da agremiação partidária a partir da Constituição Federal de 1988. O estudo inicia seu caminho abordando o surgimento e as diferentes maneiras de organização e funcionamento do poder estatal, justificando a explanação sobre a concepção e a origem da democracia. Ato contínuo, trata do surgimento do governo representativo e do respectivo modelo de exercício do poder político, além das razões do nascimento da democracia representativa e das justificativas para a adoção de uma democracia pelos partidos. Na sequência, a dissertação estuda os partidos políticos modernos, especialmente sua trajetória, função e tratamento legal, culminado com a análise de um breve histórico das agremiações no Brasil. Por fim, o trabalho efetua uma avaliação minuciosa da democracia pelos partidos no atual quadro político pátrio, examinando, à luz da realidade, ao menos três pressupostos que devem ser observados para o sucesso do modelo: a reserva do monopólio das candidaturas aos partidos políticos, a fidelidade partidária e a democracia intrapartidária. Conclui-se que os atrasos na adoção do monopólio das candidaturas e da fidelidade partidária contribuíram para consolidar, na cultura popular brasileira, o modelo de atribuição do voto na figura pessoal do candidato, fomentado, também, pela tradição do mandato representativo. Durante muito tempo, os candidatos tornaram-se verdadeiros donos dos mandatos, podendo migrar de uma agremiação a outra sem qualquer consequência, desnaturando o instituto da democracia pelos partidos. Já a ausência de democracia intrapartidária contribuiu para um paradoxo: fomentou a existência de uma oligarquia dentro de uma democracia, já que, no seio dos partidos políticos, os dirigentes partidários, perpetuados no poder, impõem, de cima para baixo, nomes de sua preferência aos cargos internos e eletivos, não permitindo que haja espaço para questionamentos, viciando a vontade popular e desvirtuando o instituto da representação política. A edição da Resolução do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral n° 22.610/2007, que disciplinou o processo de perda de cargo eletivo nos casos de infidelidade partidária, representou um avanço significativo para a democracia pelos partidos, porém, questões que decorrem da Resolução ainda estão sendo solucionadas, o que contribui para a demora na plena efetivação da fidelidade partidária. Quanto à democracia intrapartidária, torna-se vital a edição de normas que tenham como escopo assegurar o funcionamento democrático dos partidos, para que a vontade popular, quando do exercício do voto, não esteja maculada na origem. Dessa forma, presentes tais sustentáculos, teremos condições de discutir, com alta probabilidade de eficácia, uma reforma política que tenha por intuito diminuir eventual distância existente entre a vontade do eleitor e a do eleito.

A tension arises whenever the South African private law fails to meet constitutional right norms. To remedy a deficiency, two law-making options are available. The first is for the judiciary to develop or change private law principles and rules in order to provide protection for the implicated constitutional norm. The second is for the judiciary to enforce an obligation upon Parliament to enact legislation to amend or replace existing private law rights and obligations so as to safeguard the norm against interference from a private individual or entity. The former is the more conventional option, but, in recent years, the law reports record an increasing reliance on the legislative duty to protect constitutional right norms in private legal relationships. The thesis investigates the extent to which the latter phenomenon - which will be described as a 'pivot towards legislative remedies' - exists, and the circumstances in which the courts pivot towards legislative remedies rather than developing private law of their own accord. The thesis finds that legislative schemes that give effect to constitutional rights are likely to contain an array of benefits that are absent from or reduced in the judicial law-making process. The judicial pivot towards legislative remedies is thus a strategy to enhance the process through which conflicting rights are resolved, as it allows for the constitutional rebuilding of private law in a way that the judiciary is unable to do on its own. Importantly, however, theories of judicial deference do not explain the pivot. On the contrary, the courts have exercised a strict level of control over the legislative law-making pathway. Through either statutory interpretation or the review of legislation, the courts require legislation to contain the essentials of the judicial law-making framework. From this perspective, the judicial law-making process produces the floor of the rebuilding project and the legislative law-making process enhances that framework.