ВРЕМЯ ВЫБИРАТЬ: МАНИПУЛИРОВАНИЕ ЭЛЕКТОРАЛЬНЫМИ ЦИКЛАМИ В СОВРЕМЕННЫХ АВТОРИТАРНЫХ РЕЖИМАХ
In the coming decades in the process of globalization the position of the USA and Europe will weaken, while the role of developing countries will increase. The role of the two largest emerging economies – China and India – will be of special significance. What future will these fast-growing giants face? The demographers agree that pretty soon India will lead the world in population and thus surpass China, while China will encounter serious population ageing. But economic and political scenarios of the future are quite different: from resounding success and world leadership to collapse caused by demographic and socio-political troubles. Which of them is more feasible? In the present article I analyze the Chinese and Indian development models separately and comparatively and make prognosis of their perspectives in the twenty-first century. Such an analysis could be helpful for understanding Russia's ways of development.
The article is dedicated to analysis and comparison of arrangement and socio-political function of democratic and republican parties of the USA. The main stress is made on ideological vectors of both parties and also on the role of geographical position and interests of the USA population which influence forming of the political platforms of the parties. The main goal of the article is to demonstrate the growth of polarization of American society closely associated with the growth of parties' emphasis on target audience and differences in financial policy.
This work looks at a model of spatial election competition with two candidates who can spend effort in order to increase their popularity through advertisement. It is shown that under certain condition the political programs of the candidates will be different. The work derives the comparative statics of equilibrium policy platform and campaign spending with respect the distribution of voter policy preferences and the proportionality of the electoral system. In particular, it is whown that the equilibrium does not exist if the policy preferences are distributed over too narrow an interval.
The number of conflicts in the world is increasing, as well as their intensity and fierceness. We see the trend of unfolding spiral of violence in the world and thus there is a pressing need to assess the underlying reasons of it. Challenges to a secure development of the world stem from political, economic and social issues that have long been ignored or have not been effectively dealt with by both policymakers and researchers. Likewise, both academic and policy responses to the unfolding global grievances and local ferocities are still one-sided in many cases, which causes ever more fighting and insurgence. This project aims to fill in existing lacunas in the area of understanding issues underlying the current global conflict trend, many of which have long been in the shadow of research and policy-analysis internationally. This book project sheds light on complicated and long-term issues, such as revival of authoritarianism, crucial transformation of peacekeeping concept, rising security and strategic issues of small states, as well as security challenges presented by\to new international grouping such as BRICS. An intentionally diverse scope of this project allows to bring along such issues as Islamophobia and the prospects for Christian-Muslim dialogue, the scope, essence and consequences of international sanctions to manage international disputes, as well as the issue of a failed state. The geographical scope of this project ranges from North Korea to Somalia, and from Russia to Brazil. This project aims to educate all interested in the underlying fundamental long-term reasons of current political conflicts worldwide and to provoke debate on many issues that are still considered “second priority level”, though they provide even stronger basis for the current conflict-prone situation in the world. This book project aims to satisfy the need of in-depth analysis and expertise on issues of international sanctions, revival of authoritarianism, failure of state, formation of new international organizations, changing essence of peacekeeping in conflict-prone areas and globally, new contexts for Muslim-Christian dialogue and it successes and failures, as well as lesser-known contexts of strategic choices of small states.
The authors: Francesco Giumelli, Mitchell Belfer, Hanna Shelest, Piskunova Natalia, Gracian Cimek, Yefimova Anna, Bekkin Renat, Solkin Victor, Sarah Rial, Esther Sule.
The book is devoted to the causes and special aspects of modern authoritarian political regimes, which differ from their last century analogues with a pronounced imitative character. Hamstrung by democratic constitutions and international obligations, many post-socialist countries actually mimic democratic institutions and procedures, trying to hide real authoritarianism behind a beautiful democratic signboard. It turns out that the level of authoritarianism is directly proportional to the imitations level. The study also proves that the imitations level is also proportional to the levels of aggression, corruption and poverty. What are the reasons for the rise of imitative political regimes? How and by what means is their constitutional field transformed? On what grounds can they be identified in advance? The book attempts to answer these questions in the name of preventing the threat of return of authoritarianism in the post-socialist countries.
Game-theoretic model of election to a corporate board of directors is proposed. It is shown that the equilibrium distribution of seats is unique. The uniqueness guarantees nonmanipulability of elections. The distribution is obtained by the d’Hondt method of seats distribution in proportional representation problem. The model is tested on real data from a Russian company.
Since the early 2000s, authoritarianism has risen as an increasingly powerful global phenomenon. This shift has not only social and political implications, but also environmental implications: authoritarian leaders seek to recast the relationship between society and the government in every aspect of public life, including environmental policy. When historians of technology or the environment have investigated the environmental consequences of authoritarian regimes, they have frequently argued that authoritarian regimes have been unable to produce positive environmental results or adjust successfully to global structural change, if they have shown any concern for the environment at all. Put another way, the scholarly consensus holds that authoritarian regimes on both the left and the right generally have demonstrated an anti-environmentalist bias, and when opposed by environmentalist social movements, have succeeded in silencing those voices.
This book explores the theme of environmental politics and authoritarian regimes on both the right and the left. The authors argue that in instances when environmentalist policies offer the possibility of bolstering a country’s domestic (nationalist) appeal or its international prestige, authoritarian regimes can endorse and have endorsed environmental protective measures. The collection of essays analyzes environmentalist initiatives pursued by authoritarian regimes, and provides explanations for both the successes and failures of such regimes, looking at a range of case studies from a number of countries, including Brazil, China, Poland, and Zimbabwe. The volume contributes to the scholarly debate about the social and political preconditions necessary for effective environmental protection.
This book will be of great interest to those studying environmental history and politics, environmental humanities, ecology, and geography.
In the 1990s, sub-national authoritarian regimes – local-based monopolies of ruling elites – emerged in many of Russia’s regions and cities against the background of spontaneous decentralization of government and competitive electoral politics. In the 2000s, the decline of political competition and recentralization of the Russian state led to incorporation of sub-national authoritarian regimes under federal control and cooptation of local-based actors into the dominant party, United Russia. This paper is devoted to a comparative analysis of sub-national authoritarianism in Russia in light of the experience of local political machines in other countries, ranging from US cities from the 1870s-1930s to Southern Italy from the 1950s-1980s. Unlike the American political machines, which were demolished from below as a by-product of modernization processes, Russia’s sub-national authoritarian regimes were integrated from above into the nation-wide authoritarianism. One might expect further stagnation of sub-national authoritarian regimes in Russia until major regime changes will occur on the national level.
Various forms of dictatorship have been a context in which SBS have been developing through most of the 20th century. Nazi and fascist regimes in Europe, Communist single-party states, military juntas in Latin America and elsewhere in the post-colonial world accompanied the crisis of tradition and development of modernity as an alternative to liberal democracy. Dictatorships have thoroughly affected the history of SBS pursuing a policy of repression and control and, sometimes, encouraging a growth of various social science disciplines. The lack of intellectual and institutional autonomy is generally endured, though to different degrees and in different aspects, by SBS under dictatorship.