Democratic Deficit in the EU : Towards Parliamentary Democracy?!

Nowadays, the western societies are based on parliamentary democracy. Therefore, weak legislative power of the European Parliament is alleged for the democratic deficit in the EU. How it can be possible that the parliamentary democracy which is practiced on the national level can be achieved beyond the nation-states without diminishing the democracy at the nation-states? If not, how legitimacy can be obtained so that the continued existence and expansion of the EU should be justified? Since expectations for democratization of the EU are still unmet, finding answers to the actual questions is a great appeal. The thesis will explore the fundamental debates and arguments contributing to the democracy in the EU through the parliaments. I will try to reflect to the different ways of thinking and the prospects of establishing parliamentary democracy beyond the nation states.

More than Just the Final Straw: Stolen Elections as Revolutionary Triggers

Stolen elections are triggering events that overcome barriers to revolutionary action against electoral authoritarian regimes. They mobilize ordinary citizens, strengthen the opposition, and divide the regime. As neo-institutionalist theories of revolution suggest, the relative openness of electoral authoritarianism inhibits mass protest. But when elections are stolen, regimes undergo “closure,” increasing the probability of protest. The failure of other potential revolutionary precipitants underlines that stolen elections are not merely replaceable final straws. Stolen elections have not only been crucial for the emergence of revolutionary situations, they have shaped outcomes as well. Linking popular mobilization to fraudulent elections has become part of the repertoire of contention of democratic revolutionaries.

Framväxten av sociala rörelsers globala politik

The emergence of social movements’ global politics Globalization not only transforms capital, media and technology, but also creates conditions for global politics, beyond ”international politics”. New transnational public arenas emerge, where a broad range of actors articulate demands and interests. A globalized political infrastructure arise from the combination of the (1) internal transnational mobilization within two opposing global networks: movements’ World Social Forum and political economy elites’ World Economic Forum; and a global connection with (2) regular dramatic street protests during multilateral regime summits; and (3) a permanent and virtual network of information communication technology that enables new forms of action, organization and mobilization. Together these arenas make participatory and global politics possible for social movements. Regime confrontations are formed by the new global media of ICT in a way that transforms the struggle into a political drama, where activists’ diversity of tactics – The Majority Drama, The Carnival, and The David-Goliath Drama – creates both competition and collaboration. These arenas are only emerging and this new form of global political structure creates both possibilities and problems. Still, a unique potential to democratize politics is created.

Ukrainas konstitutionella sicksackande : Regimförändring och partiutveckling under semipresidentialism

Ukraine has repeatedly shifted between the two sub-types of semi-presidentialism, i.e. between premier-presidentialism and president-parliamentarism. The aim of this article is to discuss to what extent theoretical arguments against premier-presidential and president-parliamentary systems are relevant for understanding the shifting directions of the Ukrainian regime. As a point of departure, I formulate three main claims from the literature: 1) “President-parliamentarism is less conducive to democratization than premier-presidentialism.”; 2) “Semi-presidentialism in both its variants have built-in incitements for intra-executive conflict between the president and the prime minister.”; 3) “Semi-presidentialism in general, and president-parliamentarism in particular, encourages presidentialization of political parties.” I conclude from the study’s empirical overview that the president-parliamentary system– the constitutional arrangement with the most dismal record of democratization – has been instrumental in strengthening presidential dominance and authoritarian tendencies. The premier-presidential period 2006–2010 was by no means smooth and stable, but the presidential dominance weakened and the survival of the government was firmly anchored in the parliament. During this period, there were also indications of a gradual strengthening of institutional capacity among the main political parties and the parliament began to emerge as a significant political arena.