Rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism, 1642-1681

The study analyses the ambivalent relationship republicanism, as a form of self-government free from domination, had with the ideal of participatory oratory and non-dominated speech on the one hand, and with the danger of unhindered demagogy and its possibly fatal consequences to that form of government on the other. Although previous scholarship has delved deeply into republicanism as well as into rhetoric and public speech, the interplay between those aspects has only gathered scattered interest, and there has been no systematic study considering the variety of republican approaches to rhetoric and public speech in 17th-century England. The rare attempts to do so have been studies in English literature, and they have not analysed the political philosophy of republicanism, as the focus has been on republicanism as a literary culture. This study connects the fields of political theory, political history as well as literature in order to make a multidisciplinary contribution to intellectual history. The study shows that, within the tradition of classical republicanism, individual authors could make different choices when addressing the problematic topics of public speech and rhetoric, and the variety of their conclusions often set the authors against each other, resulting in the development of their theories through internal debates within the republican tradition. The authors under study were chosen to reflect this variety and the connections between them: the similarities between James Harrington and John Streater, and between John Milton and John Hall of Durham are shown, as well the controversies between Harrington and Milton, and Streater and Hall, respectively. In addition, by analysing the writings of Marchamont Nedham the study will show that the choices were not limited to more, or less, democratic brands of republicanism. Most significantly, the study provides a thorough analysis of the political philosophies behind the various brands of republicanism, in addition to describing them. By means of this analysis, the study shows that previous attempts to assess the role of free speech and public debate, through the lenses of modern, rights-based liberal political theory have resulted in an inappropriate framework for understanding early modern English republicanism. By approaching the topics through concepts used by the republicans legitimate authority, leadership by oratory, and republican freedom and through the frames of reference available and familiar to them roles of education and institutions the study presents a thorough and systematic analysis of the role and function of rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism. The findings of this analysis have significant consequences to our current understanding of the history and development of republican political theory, and, more generally, of the connections between democratic theory and free speech.

Trade Blocs and the Cold War : The CMEA and the EC challenge, 1969-1976

The coherence of the Soviet bloc was seriously tested at the turn of the 1970s, as the Soviet Union and its allies engaged in intensive negotiations over their relations with the European Communities (EC). In an effort to secure their own national economic interests many East European countries began independent manoeuvres against the wishes of their bloc leader. However, much of the intra-bloc controversy was kept out of the public eye, as the battle largely took place behind the scenes, within the organisation for economic cooperation, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). The CMEA policy-making process vis-à-vis the EC is described in this study with reference to primary archival materials. This study investigates the negotiating positions and powers of the CMEA member states in their efforts to deal with the economic challenge created by the progress of the EC, as it advanced towards the customs union. This entails an analysis of the functioning principles and performance of the CMEA machinery. The study traces the CMEA negotiations that began in 1970 over its policy toward the EC. The policy was finally adopted in 1974, and was followed by the first official meeting between the two organisations in early 1975. The story ends in 1976, when the CMEA s efforts to enter into working relations with the EC were seemingly frustrated by the latter. The first major finding of the study is that, contrary to much of the prior research, the Soviet Union was not in a hegemonic position vis-à-vis its allies. It had to use a lot of its resources to tame the independent manoeuvring of its smaller allies. Thus, the USSR was not the kind of bloc leader that the totalitarian literature has described. Because the Soviet Union had to spend so much attention on its own bloc-politics, it was not able to concentrate on formulating a policy vis-à-vis the EC. Thus, the Soviet leadership was dependent on its allies in those instances when the socialist countries needed to act as a bloc. This consequently opened up the possibility for the USSR s allies to manoeuvre. This study also argues that when the CMEA did manage to find a united position, it was a force that the EC had to reckon with in its policy-making. This was particularly the case in the implementation of the EC Common Commercial Policy. The other main finding of the study is that, although it has been largely neglected in the previous literature on the history of West European integration, the CMEA did in fact have an effect on EC decision-making. This study shows how for political and ideological reasons the CMEA members did not acknowledge the EC s supranational authority. Therefore the EC had no choice but to refrain from implementing its Common Commercial Policy in full.