Einführung: Die Demokratie zwischen den Weltkriegen – vom Triumph zur Krise
TD: volume 12, issue 2015, 1, page 7–12
TD: volume 12, issue 2015, 1, page 7–12
TD: volume 12, issue 2015, 1, page 13–18
TD: volume 12, issue 2015, 1, page 21–45
Es folgt die Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache following the article short description
The global history of democracy of the interwar period combines the elements of triumph of democracy with the elements of its demise. Between 1914 and 1920 the number of democracies in the world almost tripled. In the short period between early 1919 and mid 1920 the number of democracies worldwide practically exploded. However, this “explosion,” euphorically celebrated by the contemporaries, was followed by “recoil” in the first half of the 1920s and by a deep democracy crisis in the 1930s triggered by the world economic crisis. Neither before nor afterwards has one observed the fall of so many democracies during such a short period of time as in 1933/34, including democracies in such developed industrial states as Germany and Austria.
TD: volume 11, issue 2014, 1, page 168–172
TD: volume 9, issue 2012, 1, page 5–13
TD: volume 9, issue 2012, 1, page 15–22
TD: volume 9, issue 2012, 1, page 57–82
Es folgt die Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache following the article short description
This paper shows that ideocracies, especially communist ideocracies, have a specific pattern of cooptation and incorporation of elites and ordinary citizens, which is different from all other political regime types. Ideocracies dominate society through and through by a net of measures that make the citizens materially dependent on the state, from which the individual citizen cannot escape. The strong concentration of the distribution of goods and positions in the hands of the ideocratic state goes hand in glove with the great power to repress non - co - opted people. However, there are trade - offs in the ideocratic pattern of cooptation. The tendency of ideocracies to infantilize its citizens, may provoke reluctance even among otherwise politically indifferent citizens. Nevertheless, despite the trade - offs, the specific pattern of cooptation and incorporation of citizens and elites might help to explain why communist ideocracies were very durable in comparison to other types of political regimes.
TD: volume 6, issue 2009, 2, page 151–157
TD: volume 6, issue 2009, 2, page 159–164
TD: volume 6, issue 2009, 2, page 209–251
Es folgt die Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache following the article short description
For a comparative study of autocracy, a systematically applied regime typology for the orientation of researchers seems indispensable. The most systematic division of regimes into liberal democracies, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (developed by Juan Linz ) seems to be insufficient for the present. An alternative regime typology is therefore unfolded in the contribution. It is oriented foremost towards legitimacy. It takes into secondary account the holders of power. The presented typology distinguishes between absolutist monarchy, patrimonialism, military dictatorship, ideocratic and neopatrimonial one - party autocracy, constitutional monarchy and neopatrimonial autocratic multi - party regimes, as well as a diverse set of hybrids.