DOCSLIB.ORG

10-12 April 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
10-12 April 2017 - PSA Annual International Conference, Glasgow, 10-12 April 2017 - Camille KELBEL Cevipol - Université libre de Bruxelles [email protected] The determinants of candidate selection processes for European elections Draft – Please do not cite or quote without the permission of the author - Abstract - Candidate selection is a key function of political parties and a main filter to political positions, especially to the European Parliament. If political parties allegedly devote little time and interest to EP electoral processes drafting lists for European elections has become an unavoidable exercise for them, not least given the resource opportunities provided for by the EP. This paper accordingly asks how national political parties settle on specific nominations procedures for European elections. It attempts to account for variations in the procedures that parties use by examining different factors identified by the literature as shaping national selection procedures, but it further considers whether more EU-related factors (the party stand on European integration, the saliency of EU issues in the party and in the country, the regional situation within the continent) may also affect the way in which parties select their candidates at this level. To do so, this research builds on a new and unique dataset recording the selection procedures set out ahead of the 2014 elections in all political parties from the 28 member states represented in the 8th EP legislature (N=198). To classify the processes thus unveiled, the paper relies on an analytical framework distinguishing the selectorate and the decentralisation dimensions of candidate selection. Results suggest that ideological considerations including the importance granted to the EU explain why parties may confer selection to specific party actors, while such attention as well as regional patterns best predict a party's use of decentralization. 1 Introduction National political parties play a doubly decisive role in the elections to the European Parliament. On the one hand, their policy positions on national and European issues, and their status as part of the government or the opposition, largely structure voters’ choices in European elections (Reif & Schmitt, 1980; Lord, 2002; Hix & Marsh, 2007). On the other hand, ever since the first direct EP elections in 1979, national parties exert a quasi-monopoly on drafting candidate lists for these contests. In fact, candidate selection is such a major feature of the European electoral and legislative arenas that the voting behaviours of MEPs during the legislature is often said to be linked to the parties’ powers in the selection processes, through which they can reward or punish incumbent MEPs (Faas, 2003; Frech, 2016; Hix, 2002). At the same time, national parties are generally acknowledged to be largely remote from the European level. They remain more interested in the national arena which continues to provide them with more opportunities in terms of their office and policy-seeking goals (Lord, 2002) and consequently devote little time and energy in the European level in general and especially in the run-up to the European elections (Føllesdal & Hix, 2006; Moravcsik, 2002). Yet, the attention they grant to the politics and policies of the European Parliament has largely increased over time (Raunio, 2000), and this can rationally be expected to be matched by more attention being also granted to the question of the access to the institution. In addition, drafting lists for EP elections has become a necessary and rewarding exercise for parties given the material and symbolic resources the institution offers (Reungoat, 2014). How political parties deal with this apparent paradox is thus a prime indicator of how they view and use the EU in general, and the European Parliament (EP) in particular. This paper accordingly asks how national political parties settle on specific nominations procedures for European elections. If previous research has largely highlighted that national political parties keep a strong hold on candidate selection for EP elections (Pemstein et al., 2015; Hix, 2004), the mechanisms underlying this pattern remain unclear. And just like other selection processes, far from being homogenous, the selection processes of future MEPs are marked by a striking diversity (Bille, 2001; Faas; 2003; Field and Siavelis, 2008; Pilet et al., 2015). This paper hence quite naturally asks why such is the case, exploring the determinants of this variation. In contrast to the sophisticated accounts of what the choice of a particular selection procedure entails for parties, legislatures and polities (Pennings & Hazan, 2001; Hazan & Rahat, 2010; Serra, 2011; Alvarez & Sinclair, 2012; Indriðason & Kristinsson, 2013;), much less is known about this choice itself. Few studies have investigated the determinants of recruitment processes at the national level and they have come to often contradictory conclusions (Ware, 2002; Lundell, 2004; Shomer, 2012; Serra, 2011). None has looked at the European level. 2 This paper hence aims at shedding light on the factors that prevail in the design of selection processes for EP elections. It is more precisely concerned with recruitment processes - that is, the different steps candidates have to go through to be designated as candidates for their party in European elections. Recruitment processes are only one of several elements to be considered when studying nominations (Norris and Lovenduski, 1993). The study concentrates on the two most studied dimensions of selection processes (for a summary, see: Hazan & Rahat, 2010): the selectorate - i.e. the party actors or organs in charge of selection -, and the territorial level at which selection is conducted within the party. The question examined in this chapter is thus more precisely: under what conditions does the party elite choose to grant influence to more inclusive and decentralised selectorates? This paper proceeds as follows. In a first section, theoretical perspectives are outlined, suggesting that parties' elites may opt for specific selection methods for strategic reasons, or decide upon them according to ideological considerations notably related to intra-party ‘democratization’, while being constrained by the political and institutional multi-level environment in which they operate. The second part of the paper expounds the data and methods. This research builds on a new and unique dataset documenting the formal selection procedures displayed ahead of the 2014 elections by all the political parties from the 28 member states represented in the 8th EP legislature (N=198). In terms of timeframe, the analysis covers the last round of selection processes having occurred ahead of the 2014 European elections, a single time point allowing to maximize comparability. In a final part, results are displayed, making use of bivariate and multivariate statistics. Findings highlight that a multiplicity of factors across levels and arenas are indeed at play, before I conclude. 1. Theory What may account for the shape that candidate selection processes ahead of European elections undertake and for variations therein? In this section, theoretical perspectives are employed to generate propositions about the design of candidate selection processes. Outlooks derived from the party organization research are applied to candidate selection, while growing the literature on political parties and the EU help me generate expectations that more precisely relate to my case. On the one hand, most previous accounts of candidate selection procedures use the selectorate and decentralisation aspects - either in isolation (see: Lundell, 2004), or in combination (see: Bille, 2001; Shomer, 2012) - as dependent variables. There is hence some theoretical and empirical ground that can be mobilised when accounting for these two dimensions of the processes. On the other hand, the EU cannot anymore be considered as neutral for political parties (Lord, 2002; 3 Blomgren, 2015), neither can processes surrounding the main electoral event of such a growing polity. There are in fact two main ways in which Europe may impact selection processes: fundamentally, by affecting the strategies and norms of parties, or more marginally, through the specificities entailed for parties by the multi-level political system. The main assumption behind this work is perhaps that parties possess much leeway when putting in place selection rules1. Considering party organisations, Harmel states that “both the environment and internal party politics produce important stimuli which result in discrete organizational change only when relevant party actors allow them to do so” (2002: 128) [emphasis added]. For Gallagher, “to some extent, each party must be looked on as being sui generis. Parties do have some autonomy” (1988: 265). If parties are generally said to be the main gatekeepers to elected office (Norris, 1996; Siavelis and Morgenstern, 2008), this is all the more true of the EP, with very few independent candidates making it to the Strasbourg assembly (three out of 751 in 2014). Parties hence appear as privileged units of analysis. The design of candidate selection processes: the result of parties’ strategies in a multi-level setting A first set of explanations see parties as choosing their internal procedures according to their aims - that is, based on utilitarian considerations. Party rules are indeed often seen as echoing intra-party power sharing compromises (Cross & Gauja, 2014). Strategic party actors
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Social Democratic Parties and Trade Unions: Parting Ways Or Facing the Same Challenges?
    Social Democratic Parties and Trade Unions: Parting Ways or Facing the Same Challenges? Silja Häusermann, Nadja Mosimann University of Zurich January 2020, draft Abstract Both social democratic parties and trade unions in Western Europe have originated from the socio-structural emergence, political mobilization and institutional stabilization of the class cleavage. Together, they have been decisive proponents and allies for the development of so- cial, economic and political rights over the past century. However, parties of the social demo- cratic left have changed profoundly over the past 30 years with regard to their membership composition and – relatedly – their programmatic supply. Most of these parties are still strug- gling to decide on a strategic-programmatic orientation to opt for in the 21st century, both regarding the socio-economic policies they put to the forefront of their programs, as well as regarding the socio-cultural stances they take (and the relative weight of these policies). Since their strategic calculations depend, among others things, on the coalitional options they face when advancing core political claims, we ask if trade unions are still "natural" allies of social democratic parties or if they increasingly part ways both regarding the socio-demographic composition of constituencies as well as the political demands of these constituencies. We study this question with micro-level data on membership composition from the Euroba- rometer and the European Social Survey from 1989 to 2014 as well as data on policy prefer- ences from the European Social Survey from 2016 while focusing on the well-known welfare regimes when presenting and discussing the results.
    [Show full text]
  • Portugal: Between Apathy and Crisis of Mainstream Parties Marco Lisi 12 June 2014
    Portugal: Between apathy and crisis of mainstream parties Marco Lisi 12 June 2014 Portugal is experiencing a huge economic and social crisis that has not trig- gered—at least until now—significant changes in the political system, as it hap- pened in Greece or Italy. The financial default of the Portuguese state led the three main parties—the Socialist Party (PS), the Social Democratic Party (PSD)1 and the Social Democratic Centre–People’s Party (CDS-PP)—to sign in April 2011 a three-year bailout with the so-called troika (International Monetary Fund, European Commission and European Central Bank). The memorandum of understanding established the implementation of structural reforms based on a neoliberal agenda in exchange for a 78-billion-euro bailout (Moury and Freire, 2013). The program terminated just when the electoral campaign took off (May 4) and inevitably influenced not only party programmatic orientations but also the political debate and the main issues of competition. The 2014 Euro- pean elections were thus the opportunity for Portuguese voters to evaluate the austerity policies adopted by the right government (PSD and CDS-PP) led by Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho (in office since June 2011). The electoral campaign The electoral campaign started with the debate about the ‘post-troika’ scenarios, that is, whether Portugal would follow the Irish example with a ‘clean exit’ from the external intervention or whether the government would request a program of financial assistance. While the government announced 1 The Social-Democratic Party is a conservative-liberal party affiliated to the European Popular Party. De Sio L., Emanuele V.
    [Show full text]
  • European Election Study 2014 EES 2014 Voter Study First Post-Electoral Study
    European Election Study 2014 EES 2014 Voter Study First Post-Electoral Study Release Notes Sebastian Adrian Popa Hermann Schmitt Sara B Hobolt Eftichia Teperoglou Original release 1 January 2015 MZES, University of Mannheim Acknowledgement of the data Users of the data are kindly asked to acknowledge use of the data by always citing both the data and the accompanying release document. How to cite this data: Schmitt, Hermann; Popa, Sebastian A.; Hobolt, Sara B.; Teperoglou, Eftichia (2015): European Parliament Election Study 2014, Voter Study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5160 Data file Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1. 12300 and Schmitt H, Hobolt SB and Popa SA (2015) Does personalization increase turnout? Spitzenkandidaten in the 2014 European Parliament elections. European Union Politics, Online first available for download from: http://eup.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/06/03/1465116515584626.full How to cite this document: Sebastian Adrian Popa, Hermann Schmitt, Sara B. Hobolt, and Eftichia Teperoglou (2015) EES 2014 Voter Study Advance Release Notes. Mannheim: MZES, University of Mannheim. Acknowledgement of assistance The 2014 EES voter study was funded by a consortium of private foundations under the leadership of Volkswagen Foundation (the other partners are: Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, Stiftung Mercator, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian). It profited enormously from to synergies that emerged from the co-operation with the post-election survey funded by the European Parliament. Last but certainly not least, it benefited from the generous support of TNS Opinion who did the fieldwork in all the 28 member countries . The study would not have been possible the help of many colleagues, both members of the EES team and country experts form the wider academic community, who spent valuable time on the questionnaire and study preparation, often at very short notice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Challenger Parties in the Aftermath of the Euro Crisis
    Sara B. Hobolt, James Tilley Fleeing the centre: the rise of challenger parties in the aftermath of the Euro crisis Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Hobolt, Sara and Tilley, James (2016) Fleeing the centre: the rise of challenger parties in the aftermath of the Euro crisis. West European Politics, 39 (5). pp. 971-991. ISSN 1743-9655 DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2016.1181871 © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/66032/ Available in LSE Research Online: July 2016 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Fleeing the Centre: The Rise of Challenger Parties in the Aftermath of the Euro Crisis SARA B. HOBOLT Sutherland Chair in European Institutions European Institute London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE Email: [email protected] JAMES TILLEY Professor of Politics Department of Politics and International Relations University of Oxford Email: [email protected] **ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS (FORTHCOMING IN 2016)** The Eurozone crisis has altered the party political landscape across Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 3
    COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS - MODULE 3 (2006-2011) CODEBOOK: APPENDICES Original CSES file name: cses2_codebook_part3_appendices.txt (Version: Full Release - December 15, 2015) GESIS Data Archive for the Social Sciences Publication (pdf-version, December 2015) ============================================================================================= COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (CSES) - MODULE 3 (2006-2011) CODEBOOK: APPENDICES APPENDIX I: PARTIES AND LEADERS APPENDIX II: PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS FULL RELEASE - DECEMBER 15, 2015 VERSION CSES Secretariat www.cses.org =========================================================================== HOW TO CITE THE STUDY: The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (www.cses.org). CSES MODULE 3 FULL RELEASE [dataset]. December 15, 2015 version. doi:10.7804/cses.module3.2015-12-15 These materials are based on work supported by the American National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov) under grant numbers SES-0451598 , SES-0817701, and SES-1154687, the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, the University of Michigan, in-kind support of participating election studies, the many organizations that sponsor planning meetings and conferences, and the many organizations that fund election studies by CSES collaborators. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organizations. =========================================================================== IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING FULL RELEASES: This dataset and all accompanying documentation is the "Full Release" of CSES Module 3 (2006-2011). Users of the Final Release may wish to monitor the errata for CSES Module 3 on the CSES website, to check for known errors which may impact their analyses. To view errata for CSES Module 3, go to the Data Center on the CSES website, navigate to the CSES Module 3 download page, and click on the Errata link in the gray box to the right of the page.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2019 Codebook
    1 Codebook: Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2019 Codebook: COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2019 (CPDS) is a collection of political and institutional data which have been assembled in the context of the research projects “Die Handlungsspielräume des Nationalstaates” and “Critical junctures. An international comparison” directed by Klaus Armingeon and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. This data set consists of (mostly) annual data for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU- member countries for the period of 1960 to 2019. In all countries, political data were collected only for the democratic periods.1 The data set is suited for cross-national, longitudinal and pooled time-series analyses. The present data set combines and replaces the earlier versions “Comparative Political Data Set I” (data for 23 OECD countries from 1960 onwards) and the “Comparative Political Data Set III” (data for 36 OECD and/or EU member states from 1990 onwards). A variable has been added to identify former CPDS I countries. For additional detailed information on the composition of government in the 36 countries, please consult the “Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019”, available on the CPDS website. The Comparative Political Data Set contains some additional demographic, socio- and economic variables. However, these variables are not the major concern of the project and are thus limited in scope. For more in-depth sources of these data, see the online databases of the OECD, Eurostat or AMECO. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source.
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook CPDS I 1960-2013
    1 Codebook: Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2013 Codebook: COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET 1960-2013 Klaus Armingeon, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, David Weisstanner and Sarah Engler The Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2013 (CPDS) is a collection of political and institu- tional data which have been assembled in the context of the research projects “Die Hand- lungsspielräume des Nationalstaates” and “Critical junctures. An international comparison” directed by Klaus Armingeon and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. This data set consists of (mostly) annual data for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU-member coun- tries for the period of 1960 to 2013. In all countries, political data were collected only for the democratic periods.1 The data set is suited for cross-national, longitudinal and pooled time- series analyses. The present data set combines and replaces the earlier versions “Comparative Political Data Set I” (data for 23 OECD countries from 1960 onwards) and the “Comparative Political Data Set III” (data for 36 OECD and/or EU member states from 1990 onwards). A variable has been added to identify former CPDS I countries. For additional detailed information on the composition of government in the 36 countries, please consult the “Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Com- position 1960-2013”, available on the CPDS website. The Comparative Political Data Set contains some additional demographic, socio- and eco- nomic variables. However, these variables are not the major concern of the project and are thus limited in scope. For more in-depth sources of these data, see the online databases of the OECD, Eurostat or AMECO.
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019
    Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019 Codebook: SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET – GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set provides detailed information on party composition, reshuffles, duration, reason for termination and on the type of government for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU-member countries. The data begins in 1959 for the 23 countries formerly included in the CPDS I, respectively, in 1966 for Malta, in 1976 for Cyprus, in 1990 for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in 1991 for Poland, in 1992 for Estonia and Lithuania, in 1993 for Latvia and Slovenia and in 2000 for Croatia. In order to obtain information on both the change of ideological composition and the following gap between the new an old cabinet, the supplement contains alternative data for the year 1959. The government variables in the main Comparative Political Data Set are based upon the data presented in this supplement. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source. Please quote this data set as: Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann. 2021. Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019. Zurich: Institute of Political Science, University of Zurich. These (former) assistants have made major contributions to the dataset, without which CPDS would not exist. In chronological and descending order: Angela Odermatt, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, Sarah Engler, David Weisstanner, Panajotis Potolidis, Marlène Gerber, Philipp Leimgruber, Michelle Beyeler, and Sarah Menegal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Czech Republic Is a Landlocked State Located in Central Europe Covering an Area of 30,450 Square Miles (78,866 Square Kilometres)
    CZECH REPUBLIC COUNTRY ASSESSMENT APRIL 2002 COUNTRY INFORMATION & POLICY UNIT IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY DIRECTORATE HOME OFFICE, UNITED KINGDOM CONTENTS I. Scope of document 1.1 - 1.5 II. Geography 2.1 - 2.2 Economy 2.3 - 2.6 III. History 3.1 - 3.14 IV. State Structures The Constitution 4.1 Political System 4.2 - 4.12 Judiciary 4.13 - 4.14 Military 4.15 - 4.17 Internal Security 4.18 - 4.19 Legal Rights/Detention 4.20 - 4.24 Prison 4.25 Medical Service 4.26 - 4.28 Education System 4.29 V. Human Rights V.A. Human Rights Issues Overview 5.1 - 5.16 Freedom of Speech 5.17 - 5.26 Freedom of Religion 5.27 - 5.30 Freedom of Assembly & Association 5.31 - 5.34 Employment Rights 5.35 - 5.37 People Trafficking 5.38 - 5.40 Freedom of Movement 5.41 - 5.44 V.B. Human Rights - Specific Groups Women 5.45 - 5.51 Children 5.52 - 5.54 Roma 5.55 - 5.161 Conscientious Objectors & Deserters 5.162 Homosexuals 5.163. - 5.169 Political Activists 5.170 Journalists 5.171 Prison Conditions 5.172 V.C. Human Rights - Other Issues Citizenship 5.173 People with Disabilities 5.174 Annexes ANNEX A: CHRONOLOGY ANNEX B: PROMINENT PEOPLE ANNEX C: POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY I. SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT 1.1 This assessment has been produced by the Country Information and Policy Unit, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home Office, from information obtained from a variety of sources. 1.2 The assessment has been prepared for background purposes for those involved in the asylum determination process.
    [Show full text]
  • Journals Muni Cz
    Středoevropské politické studie / Central European Political Studies Review, ISSN 1212-7817 Ročník XVI, Číslo 1, s. 75–92 / Volume XVI, Issue 1, pp. 75–92 DOI: 10.5817/CEPSR.2014.1.75 (c) Mezinárodní politologický ústav / International Institute of Political Science Strana svobodných občanů – čeští monotematičtí euroskeptici?1 Petr Kaniok Abstract: The Party of Free Citizens: A Czech Single Issue Eurosceptic Party? When, in the beginning of 2009, the Party of Free Citizens was founded, it was believed that the main impulse for establishing a new political party was the generally positive approach towards the Lisbon Treaty adopted by the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) a couple of months before. Thus, since its foundation, the media, commentators and political analysts have labelled the Party of Free Citizens as a single issue Eurosceptic party. This article challenges this prevailing evaluation of the Party of Free Citizens and subsequently confronts the party´s programs and press releases with three concepts – the concept of Euroscepticism connected with the work of Taggart and Szczerbiak, the concept of a single issue party developed by Mudde, and the concept of a niche party brought into political science by Meguide. The article concludes that while the Party of Free Citizens is undoubtedly a Eurosceptic party, both in terms of its soft and hard versions, its overall performance as a political entity does not meet the criteria of Mudde´s concept of a single issue party. As the Party of Free Citizens puts a strong emphasis on European issues (compared to other mainstream Czech political parties), it can, at most, be described as a niche party.
    [Show full text]