L’évolution du français par rapport à l’histoire et en comparaison avec celle du suédois

Une langue est comme un être vivant. Elle porte les traces des avis, des sentiments, de la joie et des déceptions de nos ancêtres. En même temps elle reflète les toutes tous derniers modes de vie et la manière de penser et d’agir dans la vie quotidienne. Ce sont sa grammaire, ses mots, ses proverbes et ses citations qui en témoignent. Ses sons soulignés par l’intonation et la prosodie nous laissent presque deviner l’esprit de vitalité, de mélancolie ou d’élégance de la langue et de ces locuteurs. Mais est-ce qu’il est possible de trouver aussi les traces des événements historiques et sociaux dans l’évolution d’une langue? Cette question est centrale dans ce mémoire qui suit l’évolution du français à partir du latin parlé dans l’Antiquité et en comparaison avec celle d’autres langues notamment celle du suédois.

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.

Towards Presidential Rule in Ukraine : Hybrid Regime Dynamics under Semi-Presidentialism

This article sets out to analyse recent regime developments in Ukraine in relation to semi-presidentialism. The article asks: to what extent and in what ways theoretical arguments against semi-presidentialism (premier-presidential and president-parliamentary systems) are relevant for understanding the changing directions of the Ukrainian regime since the 1990s? The article also reviews the by now overwhelming evidence suggesting that President Yanukovych is turning Ukraine into a more authoritarian hybrid regime and raises the question to what extent the president-parliamentary system might serve this end. The article argues that both kinds of semi-presidentialism have, in different ways, exacerbated rather than mitigated institutional conflict and political stalemate. The return to the president-parliamentary system in 2010 – the constitutional arrangement with the most dismal record of democratisation – was a step in the wrong direction. The premier-presidential regime was by no means ideal, but it had at least two advantages. It weakened the presidential dominance and it explicitly anchored the survival of the government in parliament. The return to the 1996 constitution ties in well with the notion that President Viktor Yanukovych has embarked on an outright authoritarian path.