Elites or middle classes? : lessons from transnational research for the study of social stratification in Africa

In diesem Arbeitspapier will ich zur künftigen Forschung über soziale Stratifikation in Afrika beitragen, indem ich die theoretischen Implikationen und empirischen Herausforderungen der Konzepte "Elite" und "Mittelklasse" untersuche. Diese Konzepte stammen aus teilweise miteinander konkurrierenden Theorietraditionen. Außerdem haben Sozialwissenschaftler und Historiker sie zu verschiedenen Zeiten und mit Bezug auf verschiedene Regionen unterschiedlich verwendet. So haben Afrikaforscher und -forscherinnen soziale Formationen, die in anderen Teilen der Welt als Mittelklasse kategorisiert wurden, meist als Eliten aufgefasst und tun dies zum Teil noch heute. Elite und Mittelklasse sind aber nicht nur Begriffe der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung, sondern zugleich Kategorien der sozialen und politischen Praxis. Die Art und Weise, wie Menschen diese Begriffe benutzen, um sich selbst oder andere zu beschreiben, hat wiederum Rückwirkungen auf sozialwissenschaftliche Diskurse und umgekehrt. Das Arbeitspapier setzt sich mit beiden Aspekten auseinander: mit der Geschichte der theoretischen Debatten über Elite und Mittelklasse und damit, was wir aus empirischen Studien über die umstrittenen Selbstverortungen sozialer Akteure lernen können und über ihre sich verändernden Auffassungen und Praktiken von Elite- oder Mittelklasse-Sein. Weil ich überzeugt bin, dass künftige Forschung zu sozialer Stratifikation in Afrika außerordentlich viel von einer historisch und regional vergleichenden Perspektive profitieren kann, analysiert dieses Arbeitspapier nicht nur Untersuchungen zu afrikanischen Eliten und Mittelklassen, sondern auch eine Fülle von Studien zur Geschichte der Mittelklassen in Europa und Nordamerika sowie zu den neuen Mittelklassen im Globalen Süden.

From Elitism through Corporatism to Pluralism? The Role of Elites in the Political Transition of Ukraine

The group set out to analyse the dynamics of elite groups in Ukraine today, both internal and inter-group, and their ideas on major socio-economic, political and foreign policies, in order to identify the degree of competitiveness between groups, methods of elite recruitment and the degree of elite response, which influence both the political agenda and the results of political activity. Having observed the contemporary debate and identified the pre-eminence of various elite groups in the decision-making process at the regional and state levels, they also sought to determine the type and degree of elite consensus which might be achieved in contemporary Ukraine. They also considered the extent of concealed power, in terms of covert interaction more characteristic of corporate societies, which might allow for the abuse of authority within a technically democratic system. The group then went on to consider the stages of counter-elite transformation and the continuing importance of the communist elite, as well as the issue of rivalry versus consensus. They see their findings as relevant not only to the Central and Eastern European context but also to the situation in Latin America today.

Legality and Human Rights: Administrative Justice in Russia 1862-1917

The question of how far pre-revolutionary Russia was from the ideal of a lawful state has received little academic attention, particularly as relates to the legal regulation of relations between person, society and state within the state administration. Pravilova explored the methods of settling disputes between individuals and the administration, and the emergence of legal controls of the administration, analysed projects for the organisation of administrative justice and studied the particular nature of concepts from Russian administrative justice. The idea of an organisation of special bodies examining complaints by private persons against the actions of officials and state bureaucratic organs first appeared in the early 1860s. In the 1870s-1890s various projects for the reform of administrative justice (reorganisation of the Senate and local administrative institutions) were proposed by the Ministries of Justice and Finance, but none of these was put into practice, largely due to resistance from the bureaucracy. At the same time, however, the rapid development of private enterprise, the activities of the zemstvo and self-government produced new norms and mechanisms for the regulation of authorities and social relations. Despite the lack of institutional conditions, the Senate did consider complaints from private persons against illegal actions by administrative officials, playing a role similar to that of the supreme administrative courts in France and Germany. The spread of concepts of a 'lawful state' aroused support for a system of administrative justice and the establishment of administrative tribunals was seen as a condition of legality and a guarantee of human rights. The government was forced to understand that measures to maintain legality were vital to preserve the stability of the system of state power, but plans for liberal reforms were pushed into the background by constitutional reforms. The idea of guarantees of human rights in relations with the authorities was in contradiction with the idea of the monarchy and it was only when the Provisional Government took power in 1917 that the liberal programme of legal reforms had any chance of being put into practice. A law passed in June 1917 ordained the organisation of local administrative justice bodies, but its implementation was hampered by the war, the shortage of qualified judges and the existing absolute legal illiteracy, and the few administrative courts that were set up were soon abolished by the new Soviet authorities. Pravilova concluded that the establishment of a lawful state in pre-revolutionary Russia was prevented by a number of factors, particularly the autocratic nature of the supreme authority, which was incompatible with the idea of administrative justice as a guarantee of the rights of citizens in their relations with the state.