DOCSLIB.ORG

Representative Democracy in the EU

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Representative Democracy in the EU Representative Democracy in the EU Representative Democracy in the EU Recovering Legitimacy Edited by Steven Blockmans Sophia Russack Contributors Pavol Baboš Bogdan Mure an Wojciech Białożyt Filip Pazderski ș Steven Blockmans Eleonora Poli Erik Brandes Antoinette Primatarova Karlis Bukovskis Sophia Russack Filippa Chatzistavrou Héctor Sánchez Margalef Rasmuss Filips Geks Stefan Schaller Agata Gostyńska-Jakubowska Felix Schenuit Dídac Gutiérrez-Peris Paul Schmidt Juha Jokela Mihai Sebe Iveta Kazoka Atanas Slavov Maja Kluger Dionigi Daniel Smilov Jan Kovář Zdeněk Sychra Petr Kratochvíl Ilke Toygür Jacek Kucharczyk Eliza Va Romain Le Quiniou Aneta Világi ș Susan Milford-Faber Elizabete Vizgunova Ignacio Molina Nicolai von Ondarza CEPS, Brussels Rowman & Littlefield International, London CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies) is an independent and non-partisan think tank based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) comprises 38 renowned think tanks and policy institutes from 25 European countries. EPIN aims to contribute to the debate on the future of Europe through expert analysis of the different national and EU- level debates. EPIN is coordinated by CEPS. Steven Blockmans is Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Institutions unit at CEPS and Professor of EU External Relations Law and Governance at the University of Amsterdam Sophia Russack is Researcher at CEPS Institutions Unit and a PhD candidate at Maastricht University. The editors of this book convened a meeting for the contributing authors in Cogenhagen in November 2018. We are grateful for the funding provided by the Erasmus+ programme of the European Commission (Project No. 587830-EPP-1-2017-1-BE- EPPJMO-NETWORK) and to the colleagues at Think Tank Europa, in particular Catharina Sørensen and Bjarke Møller, for organising the workshop. The editors wish to thank Constantin Sunnerberg for the cover art. The views expressed herein are those of the authors alone. Published by Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd. 6 Tinworth Street, London, SE11 5AL www.rowmaninternational.com Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd. is an affiliate of Rowman & Littlefield 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706, USA With additional offices in Boulder, New York, Toronto (Canada) and Plymouth (UK) www.rowman.com Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) Place du Congrès 1, 1000 Brussels, Belgium www.ceps.eu Copyright © 2019 CEPS The editors and authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the editor and/or author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78661-337-0 Hardback 978-1-78661-338-7 Paperback 978-1-78661-339-4 eBook The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS Abbreviations x 1. Introduction Steven Blockmans 1 Part I. Transversal Aspects and Thematic Issues 8 2. Representative democracy under pressure: shocks, agents and users Dídac Gutiérrez-Peris & Héctor Sánchez Margalef 9 3. Uses and abuses of Voting Aid Applications Daniel Smilov & Antoinette Primatarova 27 Part II. EU-level 44 4. EU parliamentary democracy: how representative? Sophia Russack 45 Part III. Country Reports 64 5. The untapped potential of EU affairs in Austria’s Parliament Stefan Schaller, Paul Schmidt & Susan Milford-Faber 65 6. Bulgaria: rising ambition, failing performance Atanas Slavov 89 7. Representative democracy in Czechia: a disconnect between the national and EU level Jan Kovář, Petr Kratochvíl & Zdeněk Sychra 107 8. How functional is the Danish representative model and does it interact with EU dynamics? Maja Kluger Dionigi 129 9. Representative democracy in Finland – functional with limited politicisation of EU affairs Juha Jokela 145 10. The Bundestag in the multilevel system: representing German citizens in the EU Erik Brandes, Nicolai von Ondarza & Felix Schenuit 161 vi 11. Greek parliamentary democracy as a post-representative regime: continuities and discontinuities during austerity Filippa Chatzistavrou 177 12. Does Italian bicameralism double the chance of influencing EU decision-making? Eleonora Poli 199 13. Political ideologies and the EU in Latvia’s representative democracy Rasmuss Filips Geks, Elizabete Vizgunova, Karlis Bukovskis & Iveta Kazoka 215 14. Poland’s political discourse on Europe Wojciech Białożyt, Jacek Kucharczyk, Romain Le Quiniou & Filip Pazderski 241 15. The Europeanisation of representative democracy in Romania Mihai Sebe, Bogdan Mureșan & Eliza Vaș 277 16. Representative democracy in Slovakia: party politics dominates Aneta Világi & Pavol Baboš 299 17. Spain’s weak parliament, growing fragmentation and pro-EU consensus Ignacio Molina & Ilke Toygür 317 18. Not such a clean break: Westminster’s continuous oversight of EU affairs post-Brexit Agata Gostyńska-Jakubowska 333 Part IV. Conclusions 358 19. Conclusions Steven Blockmans 359 About the Contributors 374 vii List of Figures and Tables Figure 5.1 Seats in the National Council 67 Figure 5.2 Seats in the Federal Council 67 Figure 8.1 Party activity in the Danish EAC 134 Figure 8.2 The Danish Parliament’s use of political dialogue with the Commission compared with the EU average (frequency) 140 Figure 11.1 Rates of public trust in institutions in Greece, 2007-18 (%) 178 Figure 11.2 Comparative numbers of legislative acts and Acts of Council of Ministers in the period of memorandums, per year, 2010-18 185 Figure 11.3 The evolution of bipartisanship through elections, 1974-2015 (%) 188 Figure 11.4 Number of parliamentary parties, 1974 – 2015 189 Figure 11.5 Number of coalition governments MPs, 2010-19 190 Figure 11.6 Number of MPs leaving their party, 2009-19 191 Figure 11.7. Greek party positions towards the EU on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly opposed) to 7 (strongly in favour), 2006-18 193 Figure 11.8 Abstention rates in Greek national elections, 2009-15 (%) 194 Figure 14.1 What should the future of Poland look like in relation to the EU? 256 Figure 14.2 How important for you personally are the following benefits of European integration? 260 Figure 14.3 Dynamics of support for receiving refugees 262 Figure 14.4 Changing support for relocation of refugees 263 Figure 14.5 The zloty or the euro? 268 Figure 14.6 Levels of distrust towards public institutions correlated with satisfaction with political life in Poland 270 Figure 15.1 Number of EU documents submitted to scrutiny – Chamber of Deputies, Romanian Parliament 284 Figure 15.2 Reasoned opinions regarding compliance with the subsidiarity principle sent to the European Commission by the Romanian Parliament 292 Figure 15.3 Projects of EU legislation under subsidiarity control at the Romanian Senate 293 viii Table 3.1 Basic features of VoteMatchEurope, euandi, EU Vox 2014 and Electio 2014 33 Table 3.2 Reference/lack of reference to the EU level of policymaking in euandi, EU Vox 2014 and VoteMatch Europe 36 Table 3.3 Double-barrelled questions and questions with quantifications and qualifications in the common questionnaires of euandi, EU Vox 2014 and VoteMatchEurope 37 Table 5.1 Topics of plenary sessions devoted to EU matters 70 Table 5.2 Motions of censure concerning EU matters 73 Table 5.3 Reasoned opinions by the EU sub committee of the Austrian National Council 77 Table 5.4 Reasoned opinions by the EU committee of the Austrian Federal Council 78 Table 5.5 EU documents on the agenda of EU committees in the Austrian Parliament 81 Table 7.1 Opinions on lead candidate procedure 121 Table 11.1 Legislative output under the framework of memorandums, 2010-18 184 Table 13.1 Party affiliations at the EU and national levels 233 Table 13.2 An evaluation of cooperation between European political parties and the associated Latvian national party 235 Table 13.3 Party responses to a survey prior to the national elections 236 Table 14.1 Public opinion on European integration 257 Table 14.2 Public trust towards national and European institutions (average score on a 0-10 scale) 266 Table 14.3 Levels of trust/distrust in public institutions compared for the V4 area 267 Table 14.4 Would you agree to replace the Polish currency (zloty) with the currency common to many EU countries - the euro? (in %) 271 Table 15.1 Scrutiny applied by the Romanian Senate 285 Table 16.1 Legislative proposals in the NRSR from 2016 to 2018 306 Table 16.2 The loyalty of MEPs to their political group 312 Table 17.1 Majorities in the Spanish Congress, 1982-2019 320 Table 17.2 Assessing the Spanish Cortes Generales according to the five ideal-types for parliamentary activities in EU affairs 323 Table 17.3 Spanish parties and the European Parliament (2019-2024) 330 ix ABBREVIATIONS ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe CoR Committee of the Regions COSAC Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs CSO Civil Society Organisations CVM Cooperation and Verification of Progress Mechanism EAC European Affairs Committee EC European Commission ECI European Citizens’ Initiative ECR European Conservatives and Reformists EEAS European External Action Service EESC European Economic and Social Committee EMU Economic and Monetary Union EU European Union EP European Parliament EPP European People's Party EPIN European Policy Institutes Network ESM European Stability Mechanism EWS Early warning system GUE/NGL European United Left/Nordic Green Left IGC Intergovernmental conference OLAF Anti-Fraud Office PES Party of European Socialists REFIT Regulatory Fitness and Performance S&D Progressive Alliance of Socialist & Democrats xi 1. INTRODUCTION STEVEN BLOCKMANS Representative democracy is beset by a crisis of confidence. With its increasingly vocal critics and assertive opponents, growing numbers of citizens either take parliamentary democracy for granted or doubt its merits.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Framing Through Names and Titles in German
    Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), pages 4924–4932 Marseille, 11–16 May 2020 c European Language Resources Association (ELRA), licensed under CC-BY-NC Doctor Who? Framing Through Names and Titles in German Esther van den Berg∗z, Katharina Korfhagey, Josef Ruppenhofer∗z, Michael Wiegand∗ and Katja Markert∗y ∗Leibniz ScienceCampus, Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany yInstitute of Computational Linguistics, Heidelberg University, Germany zInstitute for German Language, Mannheim, Germany fvdberg|korfhage|[email protected] fruppenhofer|[email protected] Abstract Entity framing is the selection of aspects of an entity to promote a particular viewpoint towards that entity. We investigate entity framing of political figures through the use of names and titles in German online discourse, enhancing current research in entity framing through titling and naming that concentrates on English only. We collect tweets that mention prominent German politicians and annotate them for stance. We find that the formality of naming in these tweets correlates positively with their stance. This confirms sociolinguistic observations that naming and titling can have a status-indicating function and suggests that this function is dominant in German tweets mentioning political figures. We also find that this status-indicating function is much weaker in tweets from users that are politically left-leaning than in tweets by right-leaning users. This is in line with observations from moral psychology that left-leaning and right-leaning users assign different importance to maintaining social hierarchies. Keywords: framing, naming, Twitter, German, stance, sentiment, social media 1. Introduction An interesting language to contrast with English in terms of naming and titling is German.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy in the United States
    Democracy in the United States The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy. Voting booth in Atascadero, California, in 2008. Photo by Ace Armstrong. Courtesy of the Polling Place Photo Project. Your Government and You H www.uscis.gov/citizenship 1 Becoming a U.S. Citizen Taking the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony in Washington, D.C. Courtesy of USCIS. The process required to become a citizen is called naturalization. To become a U.S. citizen, you must meet legal requirements. You must complete an interview with a USCIS officer. You must also pass an English and Civics test. Then, you take the Oath of Allegiance. This means that you promise loyalty to the United States. When you become a U.S. citizen, you also make these promises: ★ give up loyalty to other countries ★ defend the Constitution and laws of the United States ★ obey the laws of the United States ★ serve in the U.S. military (if needed) ★ do important work for the nation (if needed) After you take the Oath of Allegiance, you are a U.S. citizen. 2 Your Government and You H www.uscis.gov/citizenship Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens Voting is one important right and responsibility of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Is There a Case for Rekindled Democracy Assistance in Central
    Is there a case for rekindled democracy assistance in Central and Eastern Europe? International IDEA 25th Anniversary Europe Webinar Thursday 19 November, 11h00-13h00 Background In the two decades following the fall of the Berlin Wall, European and US governments undertook considerable efforts to support reforms for strengthening democratic governance in Central Europe. This support included efforts to foster multi-party politics and institutionalization of political parties, reforming public administration bodies, strengthening parliaments and judicial bodies, supporting independent media and civil society organizations – all vital pillars for a well-functioning democracy. After the Central and Eastern European countries joined the European Union, much of the international democracy assistance ended too, as western donors considered the region to have accomplished the necessary milestones in its democratic transformation and having passed the point of democratic no-return. Democracy’s checks-and-balances, they argued, had made a reversal toward non-democracy practically impossible. Throughout the last decade, this assumption of democratic irreversibility has come under increasing pressure. In 2019, the Global State of Democracy Indices measured that democracy in Central Europe had declined for the fourth consecutive year. In its 2020 report, Freedom House classified Hungary as a hybrid regime, having declined further from its earlier status of a semi-consolidated democracy, and thus breaking the standard of democratic conformity within the European Union, a multilateral body that itself aims to be a supporter of democracy worldwide. Civil society organizations, and more broadly civic space – which are conventionally considered key factors in building societal and institutional resilience against democratic backsliding – have become increasingly targeted.
    [Show full text]
  • Deutscher Bundestag
    Deutscher Bundestag 44. Sitzung des Deutschen Bundestages am Freitag, 27.Juni 2014 Endgültiges Ergebnis der Namentlichen Abstimmung Nr. 4 Entschließungsantrag der Abgeordneten Caren Lay, Eva Bulling-Schröter, Dr. Dietmar Bartsch, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE. zu der dritten Beratung des Gesetzentwurfs der Bundesregierung Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur grundlegenden Reform des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes und zur Änderung weiterer Bestimmungen des Energiewirtschaftsrechts - Drucksachen 18/1304, 18/1573, 18/1891 und 18/1901 - Abgegebene Stimmen insgesamt: 575 Nicht abgegebene Stimmen: 56 Ja-Stimmen: 109 Nein-Stimmen: 465 Enthaltungen: 1 Ungültige: 0 Berlin, den 27.06.2014 Beginn: 10:58 Ende: 11:01 Seite: 1 Seite: 2 Seite: 2 CDU/CSU Name Ja Nein Enthaltung Ungült. Nicht abg. Stephan Albani X Katrin Albsteiger X Peter Altmaier X Artur Auernhammer X Dorothee Bär X Thomas Bareiß X Norbert Barthle X Julia Bartz X Günter Baumann X Maik Beermann X Manfred Behrens (Börde) X Veronika Bellmann X Sybille Benning X Dr. Andre Berghegger X Dr. Christoph Bergner X Ute Bertram X Peter Beyer X Steffen Bilger X Clemens Binninger X Peter Bleser X Dr. Maria Böhmer X Wolfgang Bosbach X Norbert Brackmann X Klaus Brähmig X Michael Brand X Dr. Reinhard Brandl X Helmut Brandt X Dr. Ralf Brauksiepe X Dr. Helge Braun X Heike Brehmer X Ralph Brinkhaus X Cajus Caesar X Gitta Connemann X Alexandra Dinges-Dierig X Alexander Dobrindt X Michael Donth X Thomas Dörflinger X Marie-Luise Dött X Hansjörg Durz X Jutta Eckenbach X Dr. Bernd Fabritius X Hermann Färber X Uwe Feiler X Dr. Thomas Feist X Enak Ferlemann X Ingrid Fischbach X Dirk Fischer (Hamburg) X Axel E.
    [Show full text]
  • External Appeal, Internal Dominance: How Party Leaders Contribute to Successful Party Building Brandon Van Dyck
    LAPS_Spring2018_LAPS_Fall13_copy.qxp 12/12/2017 10:59 AM Page 1 External Appeal, Internal Dominance: How Party Leaders Contribute to Successful Party Building Brandon Van Dyck ABSTRACT Many successful political parties depend for their initial popularity and cohesion, and even for their long-term brand strength, on a leader. Nevertheless, literature on successful party building downplays the role of leaders. Thus, the question, what type of leader is good for party building?, remains undertheorized. This arti - cle presents and provides initial evidence for a leadership-centered theory of suc - cessful party building. It argues that externally appealing, internally dominant lead - ers facilitate party building by lifting new parties to electoral prominence and helping to prevent debilitating schisms. The article provides evidence for this argu - ment through a most similar cases comparison of three new left parties in Latin America: two that took root (Brazil’s Workers’ Party, Mexico’s Party of the Dem - ocratic Revolution), and one that collapsed (Peru’s United Left). Keywords : Political parties, leadership, theory construction, Latin America ver the last century in Latin America, hundreds of parties have formed, but O only a tiny fraction have succeeded, or become institutionalized as major national contenders. Of this tiny fraction, many depended for their early electoral success and cohesion on a leader. In extreme cases, leaders provided the basis for enduring brands (e.g., Peronism, Chavismo ), but even in more institutionalized par - ties (Peru’s APRA and AP; Costa Rica’s PLN; Venezuela’s AD and COPEI; El Sal - vador’s ARENA, Brazil’s PT and PSDB, Mexico’s PRD), leaders proved critical for early success and survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Peter Gauweiler (CDU/CSU)
    Inhaltsverzeichnis Plenarprotokoll 18/9 Deutscher Bundestag Stenografischer Bericht 9. Sitzung Berlin, Freitag, den 17. Januar 2014 Inhalt: Tagesordnungspunkt 15: Tagesordnungspunkt 16: Vereinbarte Debatte: zum Arbeitsprogramm Antrag der Abgeordneten Ulla Jelpke, Jan der Europäischen Kommission . 503 B Korte, Katrin Kunert, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE: Das Massen- Axel Schäfer (Bochum) (SPD) . 503 B sterben an den EU-Außengrenzen been- Alexander Ulrich (DIE LINKE) . 505 A den – Für eine offene, solidarische und hu- mane Flüchtlingspolitik der Europäischen Gunther Krichbaum (CDU/CSU) . 506 C Union Drucksache 18/288 . 524 D Manuel Sarrazin (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) . 508 C Ulla Jelpke (DIE LINKE) . 525 A Michael Roth, Staatsminister Charles M. Huber (CDU/CSU) . 525 D AA . 510 A Thomas Silberhorn (CDU/CSU) . 528 A Britta Haßelmann (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) . 510 C Luise Amtsberg (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) . 530 A Andrej Hunko (DIE LINKE) . 511 D Christina Kampmann (SPD) . 532 A Manuel Sarrazin (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) . 512 B Wolfgang Gehrcke (DIE LINKE) . 533 D Detlef Seif (CDU/CSU) . 513 A Stephan Mayer (Altötting) (CDU/CSU) . 534 D Dr. Diether Dehm (DIE LINKE) . 513 C Volker Beck (Köln) (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) . 535 C Annalena Baerbock (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) . 514 D Harald Petzold (Havelland) (DIE LINKE) . 536 A Annalena Baerbock (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) . 515 D Wolfgang Gehrcke (DIE LINKE) . 536 D Dagmar Schmidt (Wetzlar) (SPD) . 517 B Tom Koenigs (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) . 538 A Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU) . 518 C Sabine Bätzing-Lichtenthäler (SPD) . 539 A Norbert Spinrath (SPD) . 520 C Marian Wendt (CDU/CSU) . 540 C Dr. Peter Gauweiler (CDU/CSU) .
    [Show full text]
  • Pen Inneres, Angelegenheiten Der Europäischen Union Und Außenpolitik Anzusehen
    Christine Lambrecht Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages Erste Parlamentarische Geschäftsführerin der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion Deutscher Bundestag, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin Tel.: (030) – 227 - 73 286 Fax: (030) – 227 - 70 286 Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.christine-lambrecht.de Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Christine.Lambrecht.188 Presseinformation „In innen- und weltpolitisch spannenden Zeiten im Bundestag“ Viernheim/Berlin, Mai 2017 – Im Rahmen eines Praktikums im Berliner Büro von Christine Lambrecht, Erste Parlamentarische Geschäftsführerin der SPD- Bundestagsfraktion und Bergsträßer Bundestagsabgeordnete, gewann die Studentin aus Neckarsteinach, Marlene Pfeifer, wertvolle Einblicke in die politische Arbeit des Deutschen Bundestages. Im Folgenden dokumentieren wir ihren Praktikumsbericht: In diesen innen- und weltpolitisch spannenden Zeiten durfte ich neun Wochen lang die Arbeit der Ersten Parlamentarischen Geschäftsführerin der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion und Bergsträßer Abgeordneten Christine Lambrecht und ihres Teams in Berlin kennenlernen und begleiten. Da ich mich in meinem Studium hauptsächlich mit Fragen zu internationalen Beziehungen und den USA beschäftige, war dieses Praktikum für mich eine tolle Chance einen Einblick in die deutsche Politik zu bekommen. Da meine erste Woche in eine Sitzungswoche fiel, lernte ich vom ersten Tag an den Alltag von Christine Lambrecht in Berlin kennen. Die Begleitung zu parteiinternen Veranstaltungen, wie z.B. der Fraktionssitzung, oder zu dem Pressegespräch mit
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Democracy the Democratic Form of Government Is An
    Types of Democracy The democratic form of government is an institutional configuration that allows for popular participation through the electoral process. According to political scientist Robert Dahl, the democratic ideal is based on two principles: political participation and political contestation. Political participation requires that all the people who are eligible to vote can vote. Elections must be free, fair, and competitive. Once the votes have been cast and the winner announced, power must be peacefully transferred from one individual to another. These criteria are to be replicated on a local, state, and national level. A more robust conceptualization of democracy emphasizes what Dahl refers to as political contestation. Contestation refers to the ability of people to express their discontent through freedom of the speech and press. People should have the ability to meet and discuss their views on political issues without fear of persecution from the state. Democratic regimes that guarantee both electoral freedoms and civil rights are referred to as liberal democracies. In the subfield of Comparative Politics, there is a rich body of literature dealing specifically with the intricacies of the democratic form of government. These scholarly works draw distinctions between democratic regimes based on representative government, the institutional balance of power, and the electoral procedure. There are many shades of democracy, each of which has its own benefits and disadvantages. Types of Democracy The broadest differentiation that scholars make between democracies is based on the nature of representative government. There are two categories: direct democracy and representative democracy. We can identify examples of both in the world today.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Parties and the Transition to Democracy
    POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY A Primer in Democratic Party-Building for Leaders, Organizers and Activists The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) is a nonprofit organization working to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide. Calling on a global network of volunteer experts, NDI provides practical assistance to civic and political leaders advancing democratic values, practices and institutions. NDI works with democrats in every region of the world to build political and civic organizations, safeguard elections, and promote citizen participation, openness and accountability in government. POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY A Primer in Democratic Party-Building for Leaders, Organizers and Activists TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Introduction 2 Section 1: What Makes a Political Party Democratic? 4 Section 2: The Party Constitution 6 Section 3: Party Organization 8 Section 4: Developing a Policy Agenda and Message 13 Section 5: Communication and Outreach 18 Section 6: Membership Recruitment 23 Section 7: Fundraising 27 Section 8: Training 35 Conclusion 39 Appendices 40 A. Constitution of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada B. Organization and Structure of the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Party of the Republic of Korea C. Sample newsletter and tips for creating newsletters from the Liberal Democrats of Britain D. Party platforms from the Alliance of Free Democrats of Hungary and the African National Congress of South Africa E. Communication techniques from the Social Democratic and Labour Party of Northern Ireland and a letter to supporters from the Labour Party of Britain F. Information on membership recruitment and activation from the Labour Party of Britain G.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT 2019 © Bruegel 2020
    ANNUAL 2019 REPORT Bruegel is the European think tank specialising in economics. Established ANNUAL in 2005, Bruegel is independent and non- doctrinal. Its mission is to improve the quality of economic policy with open and evidence- based research, analysis and debate. REPORT Bruegel is registered as a Belgian international non- profit association (Association Internationale Sans But Lucratif) under the number 0867636096, with registered offices at rue de la Charité 33, B-1210 Brussels. The basis for its governance is found in its statute and bylaws. 2019 Rue de la Charité 33 1210 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 227 4210 Fax: +32 2 227 4219 www.bruegel.org @bruegel_org BRUEGEL ANNUAL REPORT 2019 © Bruegel 2020. All rights reserved. This publication is published under the editorial responsibility of Guntram B. Wolff, director of Bruegel. Editorial coordination: Giuseppe Porcaro. Editorial team: Tiago Almeida, Tom Schraepen, Matilda Sevón. Graphic concept and design: Alessandro Borsello, Emmeline Everaert. CONTENTS Foreword by the Chairman 4 Foreword by the Director 6 A STRUCTURED VISION 8 Bruegel at a glance 10 Our commitment to transparency 12 A network of talents 14 Research team 16 Staff list 25 MAXIMISING IMPACT 26 The impact cycle 28 Media outreach 30 Our events 32 Road to Europe: the Spitzenkandidaten series 36 Braver Greener Fairer 38 Bruegel’s commitment to closing the gender gap 40 Testimonies 42 Public-funded projects 44 RESEARCH LANDSCAPE 46 Policy relevance with academic grounding 48 European macroeconomics and governance 50 Global
    [Show full text]
  • Us Military Assistance to Saudi Arabia, 1942-1964
    DANCE OF SWORDS: U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO SAUDI ARABIA, 1942-1964 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Bruce R. Nardulli, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2002 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Allan R. Millett, Adviser Professor Peter L. Hahn _______________________ Adviser Professor David Stebenne History Graduate Program UMI Number: 3081949 ________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 3081949 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ____________________________________________________________ ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 ABSTRACT The United States and Saudi Arabia have a long and complex history of security relations. These relations evolved under conditions in which both countries understood and valued the need for cooperation, but also were aware of its limits and the dangers of too close a partnership. U.S. security dealings with Saudi Arabia are an extreme, perhaps unique, case of how security ties unfolded under conditions in which sensitivities to those ties were always a central —oftentimes dominating—consideration. This was especially true in the most delicate area of military assistance. Distinct patterns of behavior by the two countries emerged as a result, patterns that continue to this day. This dissertation examines the first twenty years of the U.S.-Saudi military assistance relationship. It seeks to identify the principal factors responsible for how and why the military assistance process evolved as it did, focusing on the objectives and constraints of both U.S.
    [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]