DOCSLIB.ORG

Data on Women in Political Parties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Data on Women in Political Parties 0 Data on Women in Political Parties in (13) Arab and (7) Non-Arab Muslim-Majority Countries and (5) European countries with Christian Democratic Parties plus Israel Fatima Sbaity Kassem 2011 1 Lebanon (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) seat%p Leaders Decis seclrs f- f- I- E- Prtynme yrorgn Age mt Plur hip ion Dem m f%mem f%lead nompmt nomcpl quota quota Communist 1924 0 1 1 1 1 2 5 16 11.2 0 6.7 1 0 PPS 1932 0 1.6 1 1 1 2 5 20 13.1 0 7 1 0 1 Phalanges 1936 0 6.2 0 0 1 1 4 10 4.2 12.5 0 0 N-Bloc 1946 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 10 9.4 0 0 0 0 Baath 1947 0 1 1 1 1 2 5 10 9.1 0 3 1 0 Prog Soc 1949 0 4.7 0 0 1 1 4 25 7 0 2 1 0 Liberals 1958 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 15 6.8 0 0 0 0 Islm Grp 1964 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 Hope 1975 1 6.2 0 0 0 0 3 30 10.9 0.5 1.1 0 0 Unitarian 1982 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 30 5.3 0 0 0 0 Hizbullah 1982 1 10.9 0 0 0 0 2 50 7.1 0 2 0 0 Wa‟ad 1991 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 20 17.8 0 0 1 0 Renewal 2001 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 21 21.5 0 0 1 0 Tayyar 2005 1 6.2 1 0 1 1 4 51 25 16.7 3.5 1 0 Leb.Forces 2005 1 4.7 0 0 1 1 4 35 15 12.5 2 1 0 Islm Actn 2006 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 Future 2007 1 34 1 0 1 1 4 31 12.5 30 2.9 1 0 Giants 2007 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 50 9.1 0 7.8 1 0 Abbreviations & explanatory notes on coding of variables 1. “prtynme”: abbreviation of party name 2. “yrorgn” :Year of origin of political party (year established) 3. “age”: „0‟ for pre-war (before 1975); „1‟ for war-origin & post-war (after 1975) 4. “seat%pmt”: seats occupied by party in current or last parliament (in %) 5. “Plur”: Pluralism in membership where „0‟ is assigned for single-sect & „1‟ for plural or multi-sect 6. “Leadership”: Transfer of leadership where „0‟ is assigned to parties that do not follow due democratic process and „1‟ for those that hold periodic and competitive elections. 7. “Decision”: Decision-making: process where „0‟ is assigned for centralized decision-making and „1‟ for decentralized and democratic process 8. “Dem”: Combined democracy score in transfer of leadership & decision-making where „0‟ is assigned to parties that are democratically deficit in both indicators; „1‟ for parties that employ democratic process either in leadership or decision-making; and „2‟ for parties that are democratic in both indicators. 9. “seclrsm”: Religiosity and secularism 5-point scale, where parties are coded „1‟ extremist religiosity; „2‟ conservative but not extremist; „3‟ tolerant religiosity; „ 4‟ confessional but civil secularism; and „5‟ a- religious & secular parties. 10. “f%mem”: Percentage share of female membership (in %) 11. “f%lead”: Percentage share of women in decision-making bodies (in %) 12. “f-nompmt”: Percentage share of female nominees on parties' electoral lists for parliament (in %) 13. “f-nomcpl”: Percentage share of female nominees on parties' electoral lists for municipalities (in %) 14. “I-quota”: Internal voluntary party quotas where „0‟ is assigned to parties not employing quotas; „1‟ for those that have recommended; and „2‟ for those employing quotas to increase women‟s leadership 15. “E-quota”: Electoral quotas for women where „0‟ is assigned to parties not employing quotas and „1‟ for those employing quotas for women to increase their share on electoral lists. 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) % I E % % % prtynme yrorgn Seats seclrsm quota quota mem lead nom ARAB COUNTRIES ALGERIA National Liberation Front 4 National Rally for Dem. 4 El-Islah (MRN/MI) 1999 1 HAMAS 9.8 1 1 10 15 20 Workers’ Party (PT) 5 1 National Front (FNA) 4 El-Nahda 1990 3 Renewal (PRA) 4 National Entente (MEN) 4 Front of Socialist Forces 5 Rally for Culture & Dem RCD 5 Movement for Dem MDA 5 Arouch Citizens 5 Islamic Salvation (FIS) 2 BAHRAIN National Democratic Wa'd 2001 0 4 1 0 25.9 15.4 16.7 National Conciliation Alwefaq 2001 42.5 1 0 0 10 9.3 0 National Dem. Rally 2001 0 5 0 0 23.3 9.5 0 Islamic Action Society 2002 0 2 0 0 25 7.3 0 Dem. Progressive Tribute 2001 7.5 5 0 0 11.3 19.6 1 Arab Islamic Center 2002 0 3 0 0 28 0 0 National Islamic Forum 2000 17.5 3 0 0 30 16.3 0 Islamic Fundament Al- Asalah 2002 20 1 0 0 9.8 0 0 Islamic Shoura 2002 5 3 0 0 14.8 0 1 Constitution Al-Meethaq 2001 10 4 0 0 40 23.5 4 National Dem. Solidarity 2002 2.5 5 0 0 25 27.6 0 N. Free Thought 2002 0 4 0 0 60 47.8 0 N. Constitutional Solidarity 2002 0 4 0 0 32.4 37.5 0 N. Brotherhood 2003 0 3 0 0 34.8 0 0 Islamic Line 2007 0 3 0 0 44.1 15.8 0 Islamic Alliance Rabitah 2002 10 3 0 0 28 0 0 N. Justice Movement 2006 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 N. Dialogue 2006 0 4 0 0 39.5 20.2 0 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) % I E % % % prtynme yrorgn Seats seclrsm quota quota mem lead nom COMOROS Convention for Renewal 5 0 0 Camp Autonomous Islands 0 0 Anjouan Popular 0 0 Democracy & Progress 4 0 0 Democracy Front 1 0 0 Forces for Republican 2 0 0 Forum Nat. Redress 0 0 Citizens of Republic 4 0 0 N. Front of Justice 4 0 0 Socialism & democracy 5 0 0 N. Rally for Development 5 0 0 Conservative UDC 2 0 0 Green PV 5 0 0 DJIBOUTI Peo People’s Rally Progress 1979 74 5 0 0 25 9.1 10 Restoration & Democracy 1991 18.5 5 0 0 25 17 4 N. Democratic PND 1992 3.1 5 1 1 35 25.9 0 Social Democratic PSD 2002 3.1 4 0 0 33.3 0 0 Union of Reform UPR 2005 1.5 4 0 0 19.5 7 0 EGYPT Egypt 2000 2001 0 4 0 0 15 8 0 Egypt Youth 2005 0 5 0 0 1 12.1 0 Democratic Generation 2002 0 5 0 0 12 10 0 Egypt Labor Party 1933 0 5 0 0 9 0 0 Democratic Peace Party 2005 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 Democratic Front Party 2007 0 5 0 0 10 28.6 0 Social Justice Party 1993 0 5 0 0 10 4.3 0 National Democratic Party 1978 68.5 4 0 0 13 6.9 6 Free Republican 2006 0 5 0 0 5 4.3 0 Constitutional Party 2004 0 4 0 0 5 10 0 Egypt Arab Social Party 2004 0 5 0 0 10 6.7 0 UMMA Party 1983 1 4 0 0 10 7.7 0 People Democratic Party 1992 0 5 0 0 10 10 0 4 National Conciliation Party 2000 0 5 0 0 10 8 0 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) % I E % % % prtynme yrorgn seats seclrsm quota quota mem lead nom Democratic Unionist Party 1990 0 5 0 0 11 11.1 0 Liberal Socialist Party 1976 0 5 0 0 1 9.1 3 Progressive National Unionist 1977 1 5 0 0 2 10.5 5 GREENS 1990 0 5 0 0 10 14.3 2 New WAFD 1978 1.3 5 0 0 9 18.8 8 Conservative party 2006 0 4 0 0 10 8.3 0 Solidarity Party 1995 0 4 0 0 3 6.7 0 Young Women Egypt 1987 0 5 0 0 10 13.3 0 Muslim Brotherhood 19.4 2 0 0 30 0 1 JORDAN National Constitution NCP 1997 10 4 0 0 0 25 2 Jordanian Life JLP 2008 0 5 0 0 34 30 0 N. Direct Democratic NDDM 1997 0 4 0 0 40 10.7 0 Jordanian National Party 2007 0 5 0 0 40 39.3 0 Democratic Popular Unity 1993 0 4 0 0 14 9.1 0 Arab Baath Progressive 1993 0 5 1 0 29 12.9 0 J. Arab Baath Socialist 1993 2.7 5 0 0 14 0 0 Message Party 2002 0 4 0 0 25 18 1 Communist of Jordan 1993 0 5 0 0 37 17.1 0 J. Democratic Unity Front 2007 0 4 0 0 18 9.5 0 Prayer Dua'a Party 1993 0 3 0 0 35 13 0 People’s Democratic HASHD 1992 0 4 0 0 37.5 14.6 0 Muslim Center Party 2001 0 2 0 0 17 0 1 Islamic Action Front 1992 5.4 1 0 0 10 7.5 0 KUWAIT Salafi Movement 2001 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 Islamic Constitutional HADAS 1992 2 2 1 0 20 25 0 Shi’ites Movement 2003 14 3 1 0 59.8 36.4 0 Popular Coalition 1999 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 Democratic Forum 1991 8 4 0 0 11.1 12.5 0 Democratic Alliance 2003 8 4 0 0 40 20 12.5 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) % I E % % % prtynme yrorgn seats seclrsm quota quota mem lead nom Republican for Renewal ADEL 2006 8.42 5 0 0 35 21.4 50 Rally Democratic Unity RDU 1995 2.1 5 0 0 10 35.5 50 Popular Union Progress APP 1991 7.36 4 0 0 14 2.7 14.28 TAWASOL 2007 4.21 2 0 0 8 17.2 0 Union of Progress Forces UFP 1995 6.31 5 0 0 22 46.7 33.33 MOROCCO Socialist Union People Forces 1975 11.1 5 1 1 22.2 3 Independence 1944 16 2 0 0 18.2 3 Progress & Socialism 1974 5.2 5 0 0 20 2 Democratic Forces Front 1997 2.8 5 0 0 15.4 5 People’s Movement 1959 13.2 5 0 0 12 5 N.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Côte D'ivoire
    CÔTE D’IVOIRE COI Compilation August 2017 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Regional Representation for West Africa - RSD Unit UNHCR Côte d’Ivoire UNHCR Regional Representation for West Africa - RSD Unit UNHCR Côte d’Ivoire Côte d’Ivoire COI Compilation August 2017 This report collates country of origin information (COI) on Côte d’Ivoire up to 15 August 2017 on issues of relevance in refugee status determination for Ivorian nationals. The report is based on publicly available information, studies and commentaries. It is illustrative, but is neither exhaustive of information available in the public domain nor intended to be a general report on human-rights conditions. The report is not conclusive as to the merits of any individual refugee claim. All sources are cited and fully referenced. Users should refer to the full text of documents cited and assess the credibility, relevance and timeliness of source material with reference to the specific research concerns arising from individual applications. UNHCR Regional Representation for West Africa Immeuble FAALO Almadies, Route du King Fahd Palace Dakar, Senegal - BP 3125 Phone: +221 33 867 62 07 Kora.unhcr.org - www.unhcr.org Table of Contents List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. 4 1 General Information ....................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Historical background ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • First: One-Party Rule (1953-1976)
    Emergence of the political parties in Egypt in the 19th century was a reflection of social, eco- nomic and cultural interactions as well as certain historical, national and political circum- stances, leading to the creation and development of modern institutions of government adminis- tration and society in Egypt such as the parliament, the cabinet, political parties, syndicates, etc. Emergence of the political parties in Egypt has been gradual and gone through successive stages. Political parties have firstly been formed as secret societies that were followed by formation of political groups. The National Democratic Party (NDP) was the first party formed in 1907 by Mostafa Kamel. In less than ten years, there was a great variety in these parties; in their nature, formation, organization, power, their popular base and platforms. There were national parties, groups dom- inated by the royal palace, others formed by the occupation authority as well as ideological par- ties expressing certain ideologies. In 1907-1920, the already formed political parties in Egypt were a starting signal for the dis- semination of political parties in Egypt; however, they were restricted due to the British occupa- tion and the Egyptian subordination to the Ottoman Empire. The February 1922 Declaration acknowledging Egypt’s independence and the issuance of the 1923 Constitution have led to establishing a royal constitutional rule based on party pluralism and principles of liberal democracy. During 1923-1952, Egypt witnessed a remarkable experience rich in political and democratic practices, however, such an experience was marked with many defects such as the British occu- pation, foreign intervention in Egypt’s affairs and the royal palace’s interference in political life.
    [Show full text]
  • Hosni Mubarak and the Future of Democracy in Egypt
    Hosni Mubarak and the Future of Democracy in Egypt Hosni Mubarak and the Future of Democracy in Egypt Alaa Al-Din Arafat HOSNI MUBARAK AND THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY IN EGYPT Copyright © Alaa Al-Din Arafat, 2009. All rights reserved. First published in hardcover as The Mubarak Leadership and Future of Democracy in Egypt in 2009 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above compa- nies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978-0-230-33813-5 ISBN 978-1-137-06753-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9781137067531 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ‘Arafat, ‘Ala’ al-Din. Hosni Mubarak and the future of democracy in Egypt / Alaa Al-Din Arafat. p. cm. Pbk. ed. of: The Mubarak leadership and future of democracy in Egypt. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. With a new preface. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978–0–230–33813–5 (alk. paper) 1. Mubarak, Muhammad Husni, 1928– 2. Mubarak, Gamal. 3. Egypt—Politics and government—1981– 4. Egypt—Politics and government—1970–1981. 5. Hizb al-Watani al-Dimuqrati (Egypt)— History. 6. Political leadership—Egypt—History.
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Democracy? Exploring Peru's Efforts to Engage Civil
    Participatory Democracy? Exploring Peru’s Efforts to Engage Civil Society in Local Governance Stephanie McNulty ABSTRACT As institutions are created to engage citizens and civil society organizations more directly, who participates, and what effect does participation have? This article explores two of Peru’s participatory institutions, the Regional Coordination Councils and the participatory budgets, created in 2002. Specifically it asks, once these institutions are set up, do organizations participate in them? and what effect does this participation have on the organizations? The data show that the participatory processes in Peru are including new voices in decisionmaking, but this inclusion has limits. Limited inclu- sion has, in turn, led to limited changes specifically in nongovernmental organizations. As a result, the democratizing potential of the participatory institutions is evident yet not fully realized. s institutions are created around Latin America to engage citizens and civil soci- Aety organizations directly, who participates? What effect does this participation have? Increasingly, local, regional, and national governments around Latin America are designing new institutions that allow citizens and civil society organizations (CSOs) to participate directly in policy decisionmaking with voice and vote. Partic- ipatory institutions (or PIs), such as development councils, participatory perform- ance monitoring, and participatory budgets, have been implemented around the region in countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru.1 Often, these institutions are created to complement existing representative democratic institu- tions that are failing to meet the needs and demands of citizens. Reformers hope to increase transparency and accountability, as well as to encourage a more active and engaged civil society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Executive Constraints Across Sub-Saharan Africa
    REINING IN THE BIG MEN: THE POLITICS OF EXECUTIVE CONSTRAINTS ACROSS SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Kristin Alisa McKie January 2012 © 2012 Kristin Alisa McKie REINING IN THE BIG MEN: THE POLITICS OF EXECUTIVE CONSTRAINTS ACROSS SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Kristin Alisa McKie, Ph. D. Cornell University 2012 Under what conditions does the rule of law, especially with regards to the constraining of executive power, become institutionalized in newly liberalized countries where presidential authority has historically been greatly unchecked? This dissertation explores this puzzle by exploring two inter-related questions: first, why would a longtime ruling party acquiesce to institutional constraints being placed on the executive in the first place, and second, once implemented, why are these institutional rules able to successfully constrain leaders in some sub-Saharan states but not others? To address both questions, my dissertation investigates variation in the adoption of, and later adherence to, executive term limit laws and other constraints on presidential power across Africa. Based on both a medium-n quantitative analysis and extensive qualitative interview and archival data collected during eleven months of fieldwork in Uganda and Zambia, I construct an explanation that challenges previous assumptions about the development of constitutionalism in liberalizing countries. I argue that, due to the rarity of divided governments across sub-Saharan Africa, members of parliament from the ruling party ultimately choose whether or not to restrain executive tenure based on their perceptions of their party’s (and, therefore, their own) electoral competitiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • 135266432.Pdf (1.835Mb)
    VALGETS KVAL Hvorfor innførte Tunisia og Egypt valgsystemene de gjorde etter den arabiske våren, og hvilke konsekvenser hadde dette? Masteroppgave i demokratibygging Institutt for sammenliknende politikk ved Universitetet i Bergen Freja Landewall Juni 2015 1 “The idealism engendered by the Arab spring has mostly sunk in bloodshed and extremism, with a shining exception: Tunisia, which in 2014 adopted a new, enlightened constitution and held both parliamentary and presidential polls...Its economy is struggling and its polity is fragile; but Tunisia’s pragmatism and moderation have nurtured hope in a wretched region and a troubled world” (The Economist, 2014). “Egypt’s principal political actors have repeatedly violated almost all of the received ‘best practices’ of democratic transitions. In fact, the very lessons that the visiting experts most frequently emphasized – such as the importance of transitional justice, civilian control over the military, inclusive political approaches, and avoiding winner-takes-all strategies – are among the most glaring failures of Egypt’s attempted democratic transition to date” (Carothers, 2014). 2 Forord Jeg har alltid hatt lyst til å redde verden. Dessverre er verden for stor og kompleks til å kunne reddes gjennom en masteroppgave. Dette er uansett mitt bidrag til å oppmuntre til videre forskning på demokratiseringsprosesser - som forhåpentligvis vil resultere i en mer vellykket form for demokratiassistanse. Fordi demokrati er nøkkelen. Jeg vil gjerne takke veileder professor Lars Svåsand ved Universitet i Bergen for gode innspill og tilbakemeldinger. Jeg har satt stor pris på våre samtaler. Jeg vil også takke førsteamanuensis Terje Knutsen og professor Frank Aarbrot for inspirerende forelesninger og gode råd gjennom masterstudiet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exclusion of Conservative Women from Feminism: a Case Study on Marine Le Pen of the National Rally1 Nicole Kiprilov a Thesis
    The Exclusion of Conservative Women from Feminism: A Case Study on Marine Le Pen of the National Rally1 Nicole Kiprilov A thesis submitted to the Department of Political Science for honors Duke University Durham, North Carolina 2019 1 Note name change from National Front to National Rally in June 2018 1 Acknowledgements I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to a number of people who were integral to my research and thesis-writing journey. I thank my advisor, Dr. Michael Munger, for his expertise and guidance. I am also very grateful to my two independent study advisors, Dr. Beth Holmgren from the Slavic and Eurasian Studies department and Dr. Michèle Longino from the Romance Studies department, for their continued support and guidance, especially in the first steps of my thesis-writing. In addition, I am grateful to Dr. Heidi Madden for helping me navigate the research process and for spending a great deal of time talking through my thesis with me every step of the way, and to Dr. Richard Salsman, Dr. Genevieve Rousseliere, Dr. Anne Garréta, and Kristen Renberg for all of their advice and suggestions. None of the above, however, are responsible for the interpretations offered here, or any errors that remain. Thank you to the entire Duke Political Science department, including Suzanne Pierce and Liam Hysjulien, as well as the Duke Roman Studies department, including Kim Travlos, for their support and for providing me this opportunity in the first place. Finally, I am especially grateful to my Mom and Dad for inspiring me. Table of Contents 2 Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………4 Part 1 …………………………………………………………………………………………...5 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..5 Purpose ………………………………………………………………………………..13 Methodology and Terms ……………………………………………………………..16 Part 2 …………………………………………………………………………………………..18 The National Rally and Women ……………………………………………………..18 Marine Le Pen ………………………………………………………………………...26 Background ……………………………………………………………………26 Rise to Power and Takeover of National Rally …………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • The Empathy Effect Empathy and the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Public Opinion
    The Empathy Effect Empathy and the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Public Opinion The Empathy Effect Empathy and the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Public Opinion Catherine E. de Vries & Isabell Hoffmann # 2020 / 2 Catherine E. de Vries Professor of Politics Bocconi University [email protected] Isabell Hoffmann Senior Expert Bertelsmann Stiftung [email protected] www.eupinions.eu An initiative of Belgian version in French and Dutch with the support of the Description The Eurozone crisis has pushed reform of the European Union (EU) to the forefront of political debate. How can a Union of 27 states with a population of almost half a billion be reformed to weather future economic crises and political challenges? Finding an answer to this question is extremely difficult not only because current reform proposals are so varied, but even more so because we lack insights into the preferences for reform amongst national elites and publics. Although EU support has interested scholars for over three decades now, we virtually know nothing about public support for EU reform. Current research focuses almost exclusively on the causes of support for the current project and fails to provide a sufficient basis for effective reform decisions. Surely, thefeasibility and sustainability of EU reform crucially hinges on the support amongst national publics. eupinions examines public support for EU reform by developing a theoretical model and employing cutting-edge data collection techniques. Our findings will aid policy makers to craft EU reform proposals that can secure widespread public support. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary n our previous report, The Optimism Gap, we found that a substan- tial share of the EU’s population thinks that their own country is not I doing well, despite still being hopeful about their own lives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Israeli Party System Gyula Gazdik
    The evolution of the Israeli party system Gyula Gazdik he Israelis pride themselves in being the only democracy in the Middle East. At first sight this claim seems to be the case. It is true to say that while the region's TIslamic countries made numerous attempts during the past decades to reform their institutional system - by contrast to the Jewish state - they made little progress with respect to the liberalisation of society and executive control. However, such comparison can only be ostensible, since the exercise of power is largely influenced by the historical and cultural diversity of the countries under scrutiny. The situation of the Palestinian population of Israel is the primary target of various critiques with respect to Israeli democracy.1 Israel - with a population of six million - is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multicultural country.2 Eighty per cent of the population is Jewish and - besides the 17 per cent-strong Arab community - there are also Druses, Circassians and other minorities. The coexistence of three regional monotheistic religions makes the country unique. While one half of the Jewish population was in Israel, the other half comprises immigrants from 70 countries. As a consequence of the wave of large-scale immigration from the successor states of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s, approximately 800,000 people arrived in the country. This enduring multicultural environment had an intrinsic effect on national integration. Whereas this persistent hostile environment, which has endured since the creation of the state in 1948, coupled with the feeling of insecurity following the Arab- Israeli conflict reinforced this process, the continuing division between the various Jewish communities retarded integration.
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]