Freedom House
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Singapore, July 2006
Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Singapore, July 2006 COUNTRY PROFILE: SINGAPORE July 2006 COUNTRY Formal Name: Republic of Singapore (English-language name). Also, in other official languages: Republik Singapura (Malay), Xinjiapo Gongheguo― 新加坡共和国 (Chinese), and Cingkappãr Kudiyarasu (Tamil) சி க யரச. Short Form: Singapore. Click to Enlarge Image Term for Citizen(s): Singaporean(s). Capital: Singapore. Major Cities: Singapore is a city-state. The city of Singapore is located on the south-central coast of the island of Singapore, but urbanization has taken over most of the territory of the island. Date of Independence: August 31, 1963, from Britain; August 9, 1965, from the Federation of Malaysia. National Public Holidays: New Year’s Day (January 1); Lunar New Year (movable date in January or February); Hari Raya Haji (Feast of the Sacrifice, movable date in February); Good Friday (movable date in March or April); Labour Day (May 1); Vesak Day (June 2); National Day or Independence Day (August 9); Deepavali (movable date in November); Hari Raya Puasa (end of Ramadan, movable date according to the Islamic lunar calendar); and Christmas (December 25). Flag: Two equal horizontal bands of red (top) and white; a vertical white crescent (closed portion toward the hoist side), partially enclosing five white-point stars arranged in a circle, positioned near the hoist side of the red band. The red band symbolizes universal brotherhood and the equality of men; the white band, purity and virtue. The crescent moon represents Click to Enlarge Image a young nation on the rise, while the five stars stand for the ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice, and equality. -
Elections in the Western Balkans: Fragile Progress in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia
Elections in the Western Balkans: Fragile Progress in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia Graduate Policy Workshop January 2017 Authors Edward Atkinson, Nicholas Collins, Aparna Krishnamurthy, Mae Lindsey, Yanchuan Liu, David Logan, Ken Sofer, Aditya Sriraman, Francisco Varela Sandoval Advisor Jeff Fischer CONTENTS About the WWS Graduate Policy Workshop ........................................................................................iv Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................................iv Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Albania ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and Context .................................................................................................................. 2 Description of Electoral and Political Processes and Institutions ................................................... 3 Electoral and Political Issues ............................................................................................................ 4 Electoral Process Vulnerabilities .......................................................................................................................... 4 Political Process Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................................... -
Unter Europäischen Sozialdemokraten – Wer Weist Den Weg Aus Der Krise? | Von Klaus Prömpers Von Der Partie
DER HAUPTSTADTBRIEF 23. WOCHE AM SONNTAG 09.JUNI 2019 DIE KOLUMNE Rückkehr zu außenpolitischen Fundamenten AM SONNTAG Die Reise des Bundespräsidenten nach Usbekistan zeigt, wie wichtig die Schnittstelle zwischen Europa und Asien ist | Von Manfred Grund und Dirk Wiese Sonstige Vereinigung ie wichtig Zentralasien für Mirziyoyev ermutigen, „auf diesem Weg Europa ist, hat Frank-Walter entschlossen weiterzugehen“. Steinmeier WSteinmeier früh erkannt. Im und Mirziyoyev kannten sich bereits vom November 2006 bereiste er als erster Au- Berlin-Besuch des usbekischen Präsidenten GÜNTER ßenminister aus einem EU-Mitgliedsland im Januar 2019 – dem ersten eines usbeki- BANNAS BERND VON JUTRCZENKA/DPABERND VON alle fünf zentralasiatischen Staaten. Er schen Staatsoberhaupts seit 18 Jahren. PRIVAT wollte damals ergründen, wie die Euro- Die Bedeutung Zentralasiens für Europa päische Union mit der Region zusammen- hat seit 2007 weiter zugenommen. Zugleich ist Kolumnist des HAUPTSTADTBRIEFS. Bis März 2018 war er Leiter der Berliner arbeiten könne, die – so war ihm schon hat sich die geopolitische Schlüsselregion – Redaktion der Frankfurter Allgemeinen damals klar – „einfach zu wichtig ist, als Usbekistan zeigt es – grundlegend verändert. Zeitung. Hier erinnert er an die politisch dass wir sie an den Rand unseres Wahr- Die EU-Kommission und die Hohe Vertrete- vielgestaltige Gründungsphase der nehmungsspektrums verdrängen.“ Ein rin der EU für Außen- und Sicherheitspoli- Grünen vor 40 Jahren. halbes Jahr später nahm die EU auf Initi- tik haben diesen Entwicklungen Rechnung ative der deutschen Ratspräsidentschaft getragen und am 15. Mai eine überarbeitete die Strategie „EU und Zentralasien – eine Zentralasienstrategie vorgestellt. Unter dem nfang kommenden Jahres wer- Partnerschaft für die Zukunft“ (kurz: EU- Titel „New Opportunities for a Stronger Part- Aden die Grünen ihrer Grün- Zentralasienstrategie) an. -
1. INTRODUCTION the Presentation and Interpretation of The
Lecturer PhD Petronela SCUTARIU “Ștefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Faculty of Law and Administration Sciences, Suceava, Romania [email protected] Student Liviu Otniel FEDUR “Ștefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Faculty of Law and Administration Sciences, Suceava, Romania Android Developer, Protovate LLC, Hickory, North Carolina, USA Director, Livtech Soft SRL, Suceava, Romania [email protected] Abstract: The parallel examination of different states with their government systems is, was and will always be a necessary inurement for their in-depth knowledge and for the discovery of generalized orientations and developments. Regarding this affirmation, in the present article we intend to analyze from a comparative perspective two administrative systems, one from New Zealand and the other from South Africa, to identify the particularities in their organization and the way of functioning and to determine the similarities and differences between them. This research begins with the presentation of main identification data of the states, namely etymological explanations, continuing with the geographical locations and ending with the national emblems and flags. Afterwards, the present study provides insights into the genesis of the mentioned states, presenting brief historical records of how they appeared and developed. According to administrative-territorial organization criteria, New Zealand is divided into non-unitary and unitary regions, containing a territory as well, while South Africa is divided into provinces which, in turn, are divided into districts that are subdivided into local municipalities. From the point of view of the form of government, New Zealand is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, while South Africa is a unitary parliamentary republic with an executive presidency. -
Strengthening Social Democracy in the Visegrad Countries Limits and Challenges Faced by Smer-SD Darina Malová January 2017
Strengthening Social Democracy in the Visegrad Countries Limits and Challenges Faced by Smer-SD Darina Malová January 2017 Smer-Sociálna Demokracia (Smer-SD) was founded in December 1999 as a result of the defection from the post-communist Party of the Democratic Left (SDĽ) by Robert Fico, the party’s most popular politician at that time. Smer-SD is the largest mainstream party in Slovakia, with stable support. Its mixed, mostly traditional left- -wing (bread-and-butter) appeals and selected social policies have proven popular with the electorate. Robert Fico has remained the key person in Smer-SD. He is the uncontested leader, exercising a large amount of control over the party organisation, including territorial party units, selection of candidates for public elections and many key party decisions. Smer-SD is, in terms of its rhetoric, a traditional socialist party, speaking to the poorer strata, advocating a welfare state, but in reality the party pursues fairly strict austerity policies with occasional ‘social packages’. Unlike Western social democratic parties the leaders of Smer-SD are prone to using national and populist appeals. In terms of ideology (like many other parties in Slovakia) Smer-SD is a typical catch-all party with centrist and partly inconsistent party programmes, appeals to ever wider audiences, and the pursuit of votes at the expense of ideology. The weakest points in the public perception of the party are Smer-SD’s murky relations with oligarchs and high levels of corruption. Strengthening Social Democracy in the Visegrad Countries Limits and Challenges Faced by Smer-SD Darina Malová January 2017 ISBN 978-80-87748-32-9 (online) Contents 1. -
Iceland 2020 Human Rights Report
ICELAND 2020 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Iceland is a constitutional parliamentary republic. The president is the head of state, and a prime minister, usually the leader of the largest party, is head of government. There is a unicameral parliament (Althingi). On June 27, voters reelected Gudni Thorlacius Johannesson president in a free and fair election. Parliamentary elections in 2017 were also considered free and fair. The national police maintain internal security. In addition, the Icelandic Coast Guard carries out general law enforcement duties at sea. The national police, the nine regional police forces, and the Coast Guard fall under the purview of the Ministry of Justice. The country has no military. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over police and the Coast Guard. There were no reports members of security forces committed abuses. There were no reports of significant human rights abuses. The government had mechanisms in place to identify and punish officials who commit human rights abuses. Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from: a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings. The State Prosecutor’s Office investigates whether killings carried out by security forces are justifiable and the Independent Commission on Police investigates alleged police infractions. b. Disappearance There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities. c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ICELAND 2 The constitution and law prohibit such practices, and there were no reports that government officials employed them. -
The Rise of President Erdogan and the End of Kemalist Turkey
History in the Making Volume 11 Article 5 January 2018 Unconditional Surrender: The Rise of President Erdogan and the end of Kemalist Turkey Amelia Sullivan CSUSB Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making Part of the Islamic World and Near East History Commons, and the Political History Commons Recommended Citation Sullivan, Amelia (2018) "Unconditional Surrender: The Rise of President Erdogan and the end of Kemalist Turkey," History in the Making: Vol. 11 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making/vol11/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in History in the Making by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles Unconditional Surrender: The Rise of President Erdogan and the end of Kemalist Turkey By Amelia Sullivan Abstract: In October 1923, Mustafa Kemal, or Ataturk, became leader of Turkey. Over the next decade and a half, Kemal used his considerable political power to reform the nation. He modernized infrastructure, reorganized government, and led an aggressive campaign to westernize and secularize Turkish society. By the time Kemal passed in 1938, Turkey rose from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire and reestablished itself as a democracy. Almost eighty years later, Ataturk’s legacy is in jeopardy. In 2017, the Turkey held a constitutional referendum to radically restructure the nation’s government and place an unprecedented degree of power in the office of the presidency. -
State of Populism in Europe
2018 State of Populism in Europe The past few years have seen a surge in the public support of populist, Eurosceptical and radical parties throughout almost the entire European Union. In several countries, their popularity matches or even exceeds the level of public support of the centre-left. Even though the centre-left parties, think tanks and researchers are aware of this challenge, there is still more OF POPULISM IN EUROPE – 2018 STATE that could be done in this fi eld. There is occasional research on individual populist parties in some countries, but there is no regular overview – updated every year – how the popularity of populist parties changes in the EU Member States, where new parties appear and old ones disappear. That is the reason why FEPS and Policy Solutions have launched this series of yearbooks, entitled “State of Populism in Europe”. *** FEPS is the fi rst progressive political foundation established at the European level. Created in 2007 and co-fi nanced by the European Parliament, it aims at establishing an intellectual crossroad between social democracy and the European project. Policy Solutions is a progressive political research institute based in Budapest. Among the pre-eminent areas of its research are the investigation of how the quality of democracy evolves, the analysis of factors driving populism, and election research. Contributors : Tamás BOROS, Maria FREITAS, Gergely LAKI, Ernst STETTER STATE OF POPULISM Tamás BOROS IN EUROPE Maria FREITAS • This book is edited by FEPS with the fi nancial support of the European -
Electoral Processes in the Mediterranean
Electoral Processes Electoral processes in the Mediterranean This chapter provides information on jority party if it does not manage to Gorazd Drevensek the results of the presidential and leg- obtain an absolute majority in the (New Slovenia Christian Appendices islative elections held between July Chamber. People’s Party, Christian Democrat) 0.9 - 2002 and June 2003. Jure Jurèek Cekuta 0.5 - Parties % Seats Participation: 71.3 % (1st round); 65.2 % (2nd round). Monaco Nationalist Party (PN, conservative) 51.8 35 Legislative elections 2003 Malta Labour Party (MLP, social democrat) 47.5 30 9th February 2003 Bosnia and Herzegovina Med. Previous elections: 1st and 8th Februa- Democratic Alternative (AD, ecologist) 0.7 - ry 1998 Federal parliamentary republic that Parliamentary monarchy with unicam- Participation: 96.2 %. became independent from Yugoslavia eral legislative: the National Council. in 1991, and is formed by two enti- The twenty-four seats of the chamber ties: the Bosnia and Herzegovina Fed- Slovenia are elected for a five-year term; sixteen eration, known as the Croat-Muslim Presidential elections by simple majority and eight through Federation, and the Srpska Republic. 302-303 proportional representation. The voters go to the polls to elect the 10th November 2002 Presidency and the forty-two mem- Previous elections: 24th November bers of the Chamber of Representa- Parties % Seats 1997 tives. Simultaneously, the two entities Union for Monaco (UPM) 58.5 21 Parliamentary republic that became elect their own legislative bodies and National Union for the Future of Monaco (UNAM) independent from Yugoslavia in 1991. the Srpska Republic elects its Presi- Union for the Monegasque Two rounds of elections are held to dent and Vice-President. -
The Effect of Women's Representation in Parliament and the Passing Of
The Effect of Women’s Representation in Parliament and the Passing of Gender Sensitive Policies Elizabeth Asiedu, University of Kansas, [email protected] Claire Branstette, American Institutes for Research, [email protected] Neepa Gaekwad-Babulal, State University of New York at Fredonia, [email protected] Nanivazo Malokele, University of Kansas, [email protected] Abstract This paper employs data from 159 developing countries to examine whether countries that have a higher share of women in parliament are more likely to pass gender sensitive laws. We find that all else equal, developing countries that have a higher share of women parliamentarians are more likely to pass comprehensive laws on sexual harassment, rape, divorce and domestic violence. The results are robust. They holds for Ordered Probit, Ordered Logit as well as ordinary least squares (OLS). The results also holds for 4 sample groups: 159 developing countries, 48 African countries, 43 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and 111 developing countries outside SSA. JEL Classification: K38, O1, O55, Key words: Gender Laws, Africa, Gender 1 Introduction Women political inclusion is a social, economic, and political good in itself. It matters for democracy and gender equality. Democratic process requires the participation of all citizens. Any deviations to this renders any attempts in promoting democracy are just other forms of fostering the social and political norms that created an unfair and unequal power sharing between men and women. This results in unequitable social policies and unfair political processes. Women political inclusion challenges both the power structures and relations that undermine the consideration of women’s needs and interest in policy-making. -
Greco Eval III Rep 2009 5E Final Turkey PF PUBLIC
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE OF MONITORING Strasbourg, 26 March 2010 Public Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 5E Theme II Third Evaluation Round Evaluation Report on Turkey on Transparency of Party Funding (Theme II) Adopted by GRECO at its 46 th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 22-26 March 2010) Secrétariat du GRECO GRECO Secretariat www.coe.int/greco Conseil de l’Europe Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex +33 3 88 41 20 00 Fax +33 3 88 41 39 55 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Turkey joined GRECO in 2004. GRECO adopted the Joint First and Second Round Evaluation Report (Greco Eval I Rep (2005) 3E) in respect of Turkey at its 27 th Plenary Meeting (10 March 2006). The aforementioned Evaluation Report, as well as its corresponding Compliance Report, are available on GRECO’s homepage ( http://www.coe.int/greco ). 2. GRECO’s current Third Evaluation Round (launched on 1 January 2007) deals with the following themes: - Theme I – Incriminations: Articles 1a and 1b, 2-12, 15-17, 19 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173), Articles 1-6 of its Additional Protocol (ETS 191) and Guiding Principle 2 (criminalisation of corruption). - Theme II – Transparency of party funding: Articles 8, 11, 12, 13b, 14 and 16 of Recommendation Rec(2003)4 on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns, and - more generally - Guiding Principle 15 (financing of political parties and election campaigns) . 3. The GRECO Evaluation Team for Theme II (hereafter referred to as -
THE JUNCKER COMMISSION: an Early Assessment
THE JUNCKER COMMISSION: An Early Assessment John Peterson University of Edinburgh Paper prepared for the 14th Biennial Conference of the EU Studies Association, Boston, 5-7th February 2015 DRAFT: Not for citation without permission Comments welcome [email protected] Abstract This paper offers an early evaluation of the European Commission under the Presidency of Jean-Claude Juncker, following his contested appointment as the so-called Spitzencandidat of the centre-right after the 2014 European Parliament (EP) election. It confronts questions including: What will effect will the manner of Juncker’s appointment have on the perceived legitimacy of the Commission? Will Juncker claim that the strength his mandate gives him license to run a highly Presidential, centralised Commission along the lines of his predecessor, José Manuel Barroso? Will Juncker continue to seek a modest and supportive role for the Commission (as Barroso did), or will his Commission embrace more ambitious new projects or seek to re-energise old ones? What effect will British opposition to Juncker’s appointment have on the United Kingdom’s efforts to renegotiate its status in the EU? The paper draws on a round of interviews with senior Commission officials conducted in early 2015 to try to identify patterns of both continuity and change in the Commission. Its central aim is to assess the meaning of answers to the questions posed above both for the Commission and EU as a whole in the remainder of the decade. What follows is the proverbial ‘thought piece’: an analysis that seeks to provoke debate and pose the right questions about its subject, as opposed to one that offers many answers.