This essay studies if the Sweden Democrats is a centrist party or not. The party’s ideological affiliation has been debated for a long time in Sweden. The party has been described as fascists and racists by opponents from both right- and left-wing. Most of the research on the Swedish Democrats has focused on the party’s connections to right-wing populism and nationalism. But the research has paid little attention to study the Sweden Democrats as a centrist party, despite the party defining itself as it. This makes it interesting to further investigate what ideological association the party has since they define themselves as centrist combined with elements from both right-and left-wing ideologies. It’s a study on the party’s updated party-platform, the study focuses on how the party describes the state, the economy and their view of humanity. The purpose of this study is to examine if the party is a centrist party based on the ideologies of liberalism, conservatism and social democracy through the use of the ideal-type analysis. The ideologies work as theories in this study. These ideologies were formed into ideal-types and were then applied to the chosen policy areas to be examined, to study whether the party had any connection to these as they claimed.

<p><p>The present essay examines the linguisitc conceptualisation of otherness in the present party platforms of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD, Social Democratic Party of Germany) and the Christliche Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU, Christian Democratic Union of Germany). The language and the textual structure of their party platforms is analysed, its function described and compared with each other by using representative text excerpts. The theoretical background of this study is grounded in cultural studies. The methodological framework consists of a combination of critical discourse analysis and textual analysis. Criterias of the linguistic analysis are: coherence (including implicit meanings, propositions and presuppositions), modality, thematic roles, deixis and pronouns and keywords. </p><p> </p><p>The study shows that the<em> Other </em>is cleary conceptualized by using binary oppositions whereas those who are reperesented by <em>we</em> can not always be clearly identified. By using both objective and subjective modality authority and legitimacy are linguistically constructed by those who represent <em>we</em>. The analysis shows that stipulations and issues are mentioned which are supposed to be abided by the <em>Others</em> without being justified by those who represent <em>we</em>. Consequently the <em>Other</em> is excluded. Analysing both party platforms shows that the <em>Other</em> is  subcategorized, too. Myths about the <em>Others</em> are confirmed by representing a stereotypical image of the <em>Other</em> through language. However there are differences in the linguistic conceptualization of alterity. The representatives of CDU speak out more explicitly on specific issues concerning the<em> Other</em> than representatives of SPD do. Consequently SPD’s statements concerning the <em>Other</em> are more implicit.</p><p> </p><p>The study shows that meaning is created by language and that myths of the <em>Other</em> are reproduced in political discourse.</p><p> </p></p>

The present essay examines the linguisitc conceptualisation of otherness in the present party platforms of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD, Social Democratic Party of Germany) and the Christliche Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU, Christian Democratic Union of Germany). The language and the textual structure of their party platforms is analysed, its function described and compared with each other by using representative text excerpts. The theoretical background of this study is grounded in cultural studies. The methodological framework consists of a combination of critical discourse analysis and textual analysis. Criterias of the linguistic analysis are: coherence (including implicit meanings, propositions and presuppositions), modality, thematic roles, deixis and pronouns and keywords.    The study shows that the Other is cleary conceptualized by using binary oppositions whereas those who are reperesented by we can not always be clearly identified. By using both objective and subjective modality authority and legitimacy are linguistically constructed by those who represent we. The analysis shows that stipulations and issues are mentioned which are supposed to be abided by the Others without being justified by those who represent we. Consequently the Other is excluded. Analysing both party platforms shows that the Other is  subcategorized, too. Myths about the Others are confirmed by representing a stereotypical image of the Other through language. However there are differences in the linguistic conceptualization of alterity. The representatives of CDU speak out more explicitly on specific issues concerning the Other than representatives of SPD do. Consequently SPD’s statements concerning the Other are more implicit.   The study shows that meaning is created by language and that myths of the Other are reproduced in political discourse.

The purpose of this essay is to analyze the democratic views in the two latest party platforms, belonging to the two Swedish political parties Vänsterpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna. This by applying Robert A. Dahl's democracy model, Polyarchy, and Carol Pateman's democratic Participatory model, on to the party platforms. By doing so, my hopes were to determine if the two political parties can classify themselves as democratic parties. The result shows that both Vänsterpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna meet the majority of the democratic demands created by Robert A. Dahl and Carol Pateman.

進入二十一世紀的第二個十年以來，科技進步推動中國大陸互聯網經濟快速發展，也使得「互聯網+保險」這一商業模式逐漸進入人們的生活。然而在實際運行過程中，中國大陸保險法第17條規定之保險人說明義務並未能在互聯網平台得到很好的實施。實務中，無論是保險公司自營平台或第三方平台，其說明義務履行均未達到保險法、司法解釋以及相關行政法規之要求。 說明義務之立法目的在於糾正保險人與要保人之間的信息偏在，但實際履行中成本過高。而互聯網保險，尤其是其中的O2O保險碎片化、快捷化、小額化之特點，使得該制度的缺點進一步被放大。所以立法應當廢止現行說明義務規範，參酌其他國家或地區立法，代之以信息提供義務。 其中台灣雖然規定有信息提供義務類似規範，但義務違反之責任仍有缺陷。相較之下，本文建議參考德國保險法與歐盟相關指令進行立法，除信息提供義務之外，增訂承保範圍不一致警示義務、要保人撤銷權與商品資訊書相關規範。 中國大陸有大量保險於第三方平台上銷售，相較於保險公司自營平台，第三方平台對於說明義務履行狀況更加令人堪憂，然而卻極少有平台因此而對保險消費者承擔責任。本文認為，在消費領域雖然第三方平台註冊身份有保險代理人與保險經紀人之分，但考量實務運行情況，現階段宜將其統一認定為保險人之代理人。第三方平台作為保險代理人在義務履行有過錯時，仍應因其侵犯保險消費者資訊權之行為，向保險消費者承擔侵權責任。 / From 2010s, scientific and technological evolution promotes the rapid development of Internet economy in Mainland China, and makes the "Internet + insurance" business model become reality. However, the representation duty clause from Article 17 of Insurance Law, does not operate well especially on the Internet. In practice, the explanation on neither the insurance company's own platform nor third-party platform could meet the requests of the insurance law, judicial interpretation and the relevant administrative regulations. The purpose of the representation duty is to correct the information asymmetry between the insurer and the insured, but actually the cost is too high. And the features of internet insurance, especially those O2O insurance, such as, fragmentation, small amount and quickness, make the situation even worse. Therefore, the legislation should abolish the existing obligation of representation duty, and imitate the legislation of advanced countries, to replace it with duty of providing pre-contractual information. Among those countries or districts, although Taiwan has similar regulations to those in Germany and European Union, it is a pity that it has shortcomings in terms of responsibility. Thus, China should follow the German Insurance Law and European directives to amend the law, add the duty of warning about inconsistencies in the cover clause, withdraw right clause and information sheet clause, in addition to duty of providing pre-contractual information clause. In Mainland China , there is a large number of insurance products sold on third-party platforms. Compared to insurance companies’ own platforms, the situation on third-party platforms is even more worrying. However it is disappointing that few third-party platforms take their responsibility towards their consumers. As far as I am concerned, although third-party platforms can be registered as insurance agents or insurance brokers, for now they should be identified as insurers’ agents considering the actual situation when the insured is a consumer. When a third-party platform makes a mistake at work as an insurance agent, it can not be exempted from its identity. On the contrary, the third party platform shall bear the tort liability to the consumer for its behavior of violating consumers’ information rights.