Academic literature on the topic 'State party led coalition Governments'

Federal politics has often influenced elections to the Hesse state parliament . This was also true for the election 2018, which was not only decisive for the future of the incumbent black-green coalition government led by Prime Minister Volker Bouffier (CDU), but also for the fate of the federal party chairs of CDU and SPD, Angela Merkel and Andrea Nahles, at the federal level . Compared to previous election campaigns in Hesse, the 2018 campaign was less polarized, visible also in the openness of CDU, SPD, Greens and FDP in terms of forming coalition governments . The election result continued the transformation of the German party system into one with six parliamentary parties . After some vote counting problems, the incumbent coalition, which won a small parliamentary majority, was - in line with established theories of government formation - renewed . As a result of their gains in votes, the Greens’ position was stronger than five years ago, which led to more offices and to a stronger bargaining power in the coalition negotiations .

Nowadays, alliance is typical in many regions of the planet. The Nordic Countries, the Benelux Countries, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Kosovo, Pakistan, Kenya, India, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, and Ukraine are instances of nations that regularly have coalition governments. Other countries that have frequent coalition governments include the countries of the Benelux and Germany. Since 1959 until 2008, Switzerland was led by a coalition government consisting of the four parties who held the most parliamentary seats. The fact that India opted for democracy and that we have been working toward maintaining a robust democratic system for almost 75 years now counts as a significant accomplishment. In India, the study of coalitions is still in its very early stages and is a relatively new field of academic endeavour. Nevertheless, it might turn out to be of tremendous significance for our nation. The development of democracy must necessarily progress through this stage of coalition building. They might represent a logical step in the process of transitioning from a multi-party system to a bi-party system in India, which is a country that has more than a hundred different political parties. In this study, several aspects of coalition governments and the history of coalition governance in India are examined and discussed. In order to arrive at a conclusion, the research used both historical and descriptive methods. In this study, a substantial amount of time was spent using a thematic software programme to analyze the qualitative data, which consisted of information obtained from secondary sources.

Nowadays, alliance is typical in many regions of the planet. The Nordic Countries, the Benelux Countries, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Kosovo, Pakistan, Kenya, India, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, and Ukraine are instances of nations that regularly have coalition governments. Other countries that have frequent coalition governments include the countries of the Benelux and Germany. Since 1959 until 2008, Switzerland was led by a coalition government consisting of the four parties who held the most parliamentary seats. The fact that India opted for democracy and that we have been working toward maintaining a robust democratic system for almost 75 years now counts as a significant accomplishment. In India, the study of coalitions is still in its very early stages and is a relatively new field of academic endeavour. Nevertheless, it might turn out to be of tremendous significance for our nation. The development of democracy must necessarily progress through this stage of coalition building. They might represent a logical step in the process of transitioning from a multi-party system to a bi-party system in India, which is a country that has more than a hundred different political parties. In this study, several aspects of coalition governments and the history of coalition governance in India are examined and discussed. In order to arrive at a conclusion, the research used both historical and descriptive methods. In this study, a substantial amount of time was spent using a thematic software programme to analyze the qualitative data, which consisted of information obtained from secondary sources.

The article examines the results of the parliamentary elections in France held on June 12 and 19, 2022. The results of the leading political parties in the elections of 2017 and 2022 are compared, and all these parties that were represented in parliament in the period from 2017 to 2022 are characterized. The results of the activities of the French government, formed by President and Leader of party Republic on the March! E. Macron following the results of the 2018 elections. The reasons for maintaining the rating of this government and its influence on the course of the election campaign are revealed. It is considered how the coronavirus pandemic and the government's actions to overcome its consequences affected the course and results of the election campaign. The assessment of the activities of the main opposition parties of this country is given. The course of the election campaign and its main topics, as well as the positions of political parties and coalitions that were elected to parliament following these elections are considered: the coalition Together (For a President Majority), led by the Chairman of the National Assembly R.Ferrand, uniting the Renaissance, Democratic Movement and Horizon parties, the New People's Ecological and Social Union coalition (NPESU) led by the leader of the Unconquered France party J.-L.Melenchon, which also united the socialist and communist parties, and the Europe, Ecology, Greens party, the National Unification Party of Marine Le Pen, which was headed on the eve of the elections by MEP J.Bordella, and the coalition of the Union of the Right and Centrists led by the leader of the Republicans Party, C.Jacob, which also included the Union of Democrats and Independents party. The positions of these parties are presented. The state of Russian-French relations is analyzed and a forecast is given of how the election results will affect relations between RF and France.

This paper examines the success story of the formation of coalition government in Lesotho. Lesotho has since 1970 experienced a chequered history of authoritarian and military rules until 1993 when the country went democratic. Interestingly, within two decades of the country’s multi-party democratic experience, it has experimented with multiple governmental systems viz; in 1993-1998, it adopted First-Past the Post or winner-takes-all model, and then in 2001, it adopted Mixed Member Proportion model, which brought some stability within the unitary parliamentary governance. In 2012 the latter model gave impetus to a new model of coalition government. Unfortunately, however, the three- party coalition government was interrupted in 2014 by a military adventurism which gave rise to the 2015 snap elections that led to another seven-party coalition government. Interestingly, another faction occurred from the seven-party coalition and a vote of no-confidence was passed by the opposition against the ruling coalition, which led to the early 2017 elections. The third coalition governance of four parties was established after the elections and took its term of five years before the elections of October 2022 that established a “trinity” of three parties coalition under the leadership of a prominent businessman. This paper posits that although coalition model has been accepted by the Lesotho people, however, it has come with increasing cost on executive expenditure, as it puts great burden on taxpayers. This paper recommends the inclusion in the democratic discourse (conversation), a blend of the western democratic culture with traditional African culture in administering the affairs of the state since the two are not mutually exclusive.

The Constitution of India provide for a federal system of government though the term ‘federalism’ which is nowhere been used in the constitution. But the article 1 of the constitution describes that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. K.C. where describes Indian federalism as “Quasi-federal”. Granville Austin called it ‘co-operative federalism.’ And Ivor Jennings describes it as ‘federation with strong centralizing tendency’. This nature of Indian federalism has leads India towards coalition. The coalition politics at the central level has been relatively a recent phenomenon but at the state level it has been in operation right after the first general election (1952). The growth of regional parties and dominant leadership at state level has federalized the polity and the state government has stretched their arms. The first coalition at state level formed in Kerala in 1954. The coalition politics is a time-tested thing in contemporary democracy. The concept of coalition politics occurred when the states used to ally with each other in order to defect of a common enemy. In 1954 the Congress created a coalition government in Kerala. Since this time Kerala has been living with coalition rule after regular intervals. The politics in Kerala is dominated by two coalition fronts: the communist party of India (Marxist)- led left Democratic front (LDF) and the Indian National Congress – led United Democratic Front (UDF) since late 1970s. Kerala was the first Indian state where the communists were chosen to power. Since the early 1980s these two coalitions have alternate in government. They are unable to gain re- election for a second term. These two-alliance coalition have occurred periodically and ruled continued to 2016 election. In May 2016, the LDF win election and now in power. This LDF coalition occurred with CPI (M)-58, CPI-19, TDS-3, NCP-2, KCB-1, CPM(L)-1, CS-1 and Independents-5.

After a campaign, which was both polarized and poor in content, the state election failed to produce a clear majority in the Landtag . The winners of the election were The Left and the AfD, while the parties of the right and left center suffered losses; only the FDP gained a little and managed to pass the five percent threshold . The election outcome deemed it unlikely that a government could be formed since neither the previous red-red-green coalition nor a CDU-FDP coalition had a majority . As coalitions transcending the traditional coalition blocks or any agreements for the toleration of a minority government could not be reached either, the consequence was that in February 2020, the Thuringian FDP leader Thomas Kemmerich was elected state premier in the third ballot with votes from the FDP, CDU, and AfD . Of the latter party not a single member voted for their own candidate . The outrage in the general public led to FDP’s federal party leader Patrick Lindner to force Kemmerich to resign on the day after his election . Only then, during the „interregnum“ that followed, were CDU and the former coalition parties The Left, SPD, and Greens able to agree on a „stability mechanism“ which allowed Bodo Ramelow to be reelected as a state premier of a minority government, which is meant to stay in office for only a little more than one year .

With the transition to democratic life and the adoption of multi-party systems in the world, the concepts of majority and pluralism have become increasingly important. Majority and pluralism which are based on the concept of self-rule, have changed the management power in favor of the ruled, on the other hand they brought some debates in terms of government. Single party power which means the domination of majority and coalition process means pluralism are criticized in terms of merit in administration. Although democracy gives the right to equal participation in governance, state administration merit and experience represent a process that has become the foreground of state tradition. In particular, inter-party conflicts of interests in the coalition government, conflicts in management and polyphony can lead to a slower pace of government while at the same time bringing democracy into practice. For this reason, it is important that the difference between coalition and single-party power should be examined and put forth in multi-party systems. In this study, it is aimed to reveal this difference through the political history ofTurkey. According to the results obtained by literature review in the study, although coalition-based administration leads to delay in making decisions in state administration and public service but it is seen as a necessity of democracy. As a result, it is argued that the main problem in a fast-growing country likeTurkeyis conflict of interests between coalition partners, not coalition governments. ÖzetDemokratik yaşama geçiş ve çok partili sistemlerin dünyada yerini almasıyla birlikte, çoğunluk ve çoğulculuk kavramları giderek önem kazanmıştır. Her iki kavram temel olan halkın kendi kendisini yönetmesi ilkesi, bir yandan yönetim gücünü yönetilen lehinde değiştirirken, bir yandan da yönetim açısından bazı tartışmaları da beraberinde getirmiştir. Çoğunluğun hükmetmesi anlamına gelen tek parti iktidarı ile çoğulculuğun hükmetmesi anlamına gelen koalisyon süreci üzerine yapılan eleştirilerin başında, yönetimde liyakat konusu gelmektedir. Demokrasi her ne kadar yönetime eşit katılma hakkı verse de, devlet yönetimi liyakat ve deneyimin, devlet geleneğinin ön plana çıktığı bir süreci ifade etmektedir. Özellikle koalisyon yönetimindeki partiler arası çıkar çatışmaları, yönetimdeki anlaşmazlıklar ve çok seslilik, bir yandan demokrasiyi uygulama alanına taşırken, diğer yandan yönetimde daha yavaş bir seyre neden olabilmektedir. Bu nedenle çok partili sistemlerde koalisyon ve tek parti iktidarları arasındaki farkın incelenmesi ve ortaya koyulması önemlidir. Yapılan bu çalışmada, bu farkın Türkiye siyasal tarihi üzerinden ortaya konması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen sonuçlara göre koalisyona dayalı yönetim devlet yönetiminde karar almada gecikmeye neden olup, kamu hizmetlerinin aksamasına yol açsa da, demokrasinin bir gereği olarak görülmektedir. Neticede Türkiye gibi hızlı büyüyen bir ülke yönetimindeki temel sorunun koalisyon yönetimleri değil, koalisyon ortaklarının arasındaki çıkar çatışmaları olduğu savunulmaktadır.

Abstract The Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), the government party in Ethiopia from 1991 to 2019, was Africa's biggest party in terms of membership base and considered to be the most powerful incumbent on the continent. The factors behind its rapid fall from grace and eventual collapse in 2019 will be put under scrutiny in this article. Comparative political research has pointed to both endogamous and exogamous factors contributing to party instability. Party-specific concerns such as differences in local constituencies, variations in ethnopolitical identities, differences of ideological outlook, and policy preferences are all factors that may lead to a withering of party consensus. Furthermore, the governance structure of the country may also impinge on party stability, because federal models may be more divisive in nature than unitary states. The argument pursued in this article will be to investigate how the origin of the EPRDF's component parties and their ethnopolitical base under the federal system were made relevant in the internal power struggle to claim control of the coalition and hence the government of the land. The article concludes by identifying four key factors contributing to the internal power struggle that led to the demise of the EPRDF: disagreements over ideology; disputes over party bylaws, procedures, and practices; contestation over the federal state model; and finally, the surge of ethnonationalism with intrinsic territorial ambitions.

The outstanding event of 2004 in India was the national election. Its unexpected results made for the ouster of the BJP-led government——despite the excellent performance of the economy——and its replacement by a coalition headed by the Congress Party, oriented toward greater state activism in economic affairs.

Coalition government is the most frequent form of government in Western Europe, but there is relatively little systematic knowledge about how this form of government has developed in recent decades. This volume analyses governments that have formed in the Western European countries since the Second World War and covers the full life cycle of coalition governments from the formation of party alliances before elections to coalition formation after elections, governing and policy-making when parties work together in office, and the stages that eventually lead to governments terminating. Since the early 1990s, many coalition governments form in a context of increased fragmentation of party systems, increased polarization, and the rise of populist parties. The volume captures these changes and examines their implications for the different stages of the coalition life cycle. A particular emphasis of the volume is on the study of how coalitions govern together even when they have different agendas. Do individual ministers decide, or the prime minister, or are the policy outputs of a government a result of a process of coalition compromise? Focusing on the coalition governance stage, we analyse the variation in the use of various control mechanisms across countries, for example showing that many coalition governments draft extensive contracts to control their partners in cabinet. The volume covers 16 West European countries and introduces the case of Croatia. Systematic cross-national data is available in an online appendix.

This chapter describes two fiscal squeezes under the Conservative majority-party governments led by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. The first comprised a hard post-election squeeze on revenue in the middle of a major recession and mass unemployment, beginning with an abrupt hike in VAT rates in 1979 and severe tax rises in the 1981 budget. The second comprised a strategy of holding down spending increases that led to public expenditure falling relative to GDP (but not in constant price terms) over an extended period as recession was followed by economic recovery from 1983. These periods of squeeze took place in an era of deep polarization between the two main parties and bitter industrial unrest and were fuelled to a considerable extent by sharply increasing North Sea oil revenue and widespread asset sales in the form of privatization of state-owned enterprises that counted as negative expenditure.

This book explores the untold story of how three influential garment unions worked with the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in support of a new Jewish state. It reveals a coalition at work on multiple fronts. Sustained efforts convinced the AFL and CIO to support Jewish development in Palestine through land purchases for Jewish workers and encouraged the construction of trade schools and cultural centers. Other activists, meanwhile, directed massive economic aid to Histadrut, the General Federation of Jewish Workers in Palestine, or pressured the British and American governments to support the Jews in Palestine and later, recognize Israel’s independence. Ultimately, these efforts led American labor to forge its own foreign policy--and reshape both the postwar world and Jewish history.

The era of globalization saw China emerge as the world’s manufacturing titan. However, the “made in China” model—with its reliance on cheap labor and thin profits—has begun to wane. Beginning in the 2000s, the Chinese state shifted from attracting foreign investment to promoting technological competitiveness of domestic firms. This shift, however, caused tensions between winners and losers, leading local bureaucrats to compete for resources in government budget, funding, and tax breaks. While bureaucrats successfully built coalitions to motivate businesses to upgrade in some cities, in others, vested interests within the government deprived businesses of developmental resources and left them in a desperate race to the bottom. In Manipulating Globalization, Ling Chen argues that the roots of coalitional variation lie in the type of foreign firms with which local governments forged alliances. Cities that initially attracted large global firms with a significant share of exports were more likely to experience manipulation from vested interests down the road compared to those that attracted smaller foreign firms. The book develops the argument with in-depth interviews and tests it with quantitative data across hundreds of Chinese cities and thousands of firms. Chen advances a new theory of economic policies in authoritarian regimes and informs debates about the nature of Chinese capitalism. Her findings also shed light on state-led development and coalition formation in other emerging economies that comprise the new “globalized” generation.

Michigan very nearly was the first Republican-led state to create its own health insurance exchange. By November 2012, legislation to create an exchange had passed the Michigan Senate and was supported by Governor Snyder and the Speaker of the House. A broad coalition of interest groups lobbied in favor of a state-based exchange, including insurers, businesses, providers, hospitals, and consumer advocates. They were opposed by passionate Tea Party leaders using “targeted activism” to make their presence felt. As in Mississippi, they were supported by national and state conservative think tank organizations. Opponents at the last minute attached an abortion amendment to the key bill and the House Health Policy Committee voted down authorizing legislation in November 2012, killing the possibility of a Michigan-run exchange. Governor Snyder tried to establish a partnership exchange but was blocked by the legislature refusing to appropriate money the state had been promised in federal grants.

This book focuses on the strand of the Irish republican left which followed the ‘alien ideology’ of Soviet-inspired Marxism. Moscow-led communism had few adherents in Ireland, but Irish and British officials were concerned about the possibility that communists could infiltrate the republican movement, the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Another concern arose for British and American observers from 1969: would the Soviets resist the temptation to meddle during the Northern Ireland Troubles and cause trouble for Britain as a geo-political crisis unfolded? The book considers questions arising from the involvement of left-wing republicans, and what became the Official republican movement, in events before and during the early years of the Troubles. Could Ireland’s communists and left-wing republicans be viewed as strategic allies of Moscow who might create an ‘Irish Cuba’? The book examines another question: could a Marxist party with a parliamentary presence in the militarily-neutral Irish state – the Workers’ Party (WP) – be useful to the Soviets during the 1980s? This book, based on original sources rather than interviews, is significant in that it analyses the perspectives of the various governments concerned with subversion in Ireland. This is a study of perceptions. The book concludes that the Soviet Union had been happy to exploit the Troubles in its Cold War propaganda, but, excepting supplying arms to the Official IRA, it did not seek to maximise difficulties whenever it could in Ireland, north or south.

AbstractThis chapter presents and analyses various official statements, 2021 election programmes and party manifestos, media reports as well as public hearings with regard to the changing view of China in the German public discourse. While the importance of economic interests is still the overarching topic in German-Chinese relations (China has been Germany`s most important trading partner since 2015), there has been a shift towards a more critical stance with regard to human rights issues in recent years. Germany was also the driving force behind the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with China, which the EU signed in December 2020 under Germany’s presidency of the EU Council but so far never ratified.After the formation of a new SPD led government under chancellor Olaf Scholz, the two smaller coalition partners, the Alliance 90/The Greens, and the FDP, are said to have a much more critical view of China’s human rights issues. In particular, the new German foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock has publicly vowed to change Germany’s China policy. While Germany has remained within the hedging zone a shift from “economic pragmatism” to “soft balancing” can be observed, most noticeably in political terms: in particular, the new foreign minister Annalena Baerbock stresses the necessity for a closer cooperation both with the United States, but also a common policy of the EU towards China. Thus Germany, and the EU in general, seems to have shifted from “economic pragmatism” to “dominance denial” since the new government came into power, and the war in Ukraine has led to an even closer alliance of Germany, with the EU and the United States.

Abstract In previous chapters the relative stability of government in Israel during the founding period was attributed to the pattern of party government led by Mapai, which established and directed the new state structures, headed all cabinets, chose its coalition partners, manned the important ministries, set national priorities, determined the political agenda, and centralized and con­ trolled policy-making and its implementation. In successfully meeting the political, military, economic, and social challenges that accompanied newly acquired statehood, the government demonstrated considerable capacity to rule under difficult conditions.

Abstract The 1960s were with the benefit of hindsight the high tide of the people’s parties in Western Europe. Under their wings and leadership (often in the form of coalition governments), democracy took on a consensual tone in which pragmatic governing in the name of the general interest preceded over ideological strife. The leaders of the Social democrat and Christian Democrat parties agreed on the importance of collaboration, consensus, and compromise and brought these into practice in the form of government led and controlled by these parties on all levels. This chapter shows how they were motived by a lasting quest for political stability that was the legacy of the Interwar era and how this quest for stability led to party control and patronage in all levels of the state apparatus as well as a desire to curb any social tensions, for instance by controlling social partners of the government and the public media. However, if the 1960s were the high tide of the people’s party they were also a turning point, and the end of the decade witnessed growing unease and dissatisfaction with the power of the people’s parties and what was perceived as their managerial style of politics.

This chapter examines Scottish politics between the general elections of 1945 and 1959. Traditionally, this period has been portrayed as one in which Scottish politics, mirroring wider British trends, was characterised by a cross-party consensus that viewed the principal function of government as being to ensure full employment and manage the nascent welfare state. Pivoting around the fortunes of the Unionist Party, this chapter challenges such narratives; it reveals instead the importance to Unionism of an electoral appeal phrased in terms of a liberal individualism. This rhetoric, animated by fears of totalitarianism, enabled the creation of an anti-socialist coalition that could attract many erstwhile Liberals, as well as voters with nationalist sympathies. The fragmenting of that coalition in the second half of the 1950s is then traced, as the anxieties caused by inflation and taxation led to a sense of dissatisfaction among Unionist supporters, creating the opportunity for the partial re-emergence of independent Liberalism.

This chapter reviews the development of ‘partnership’ rhetoric and policy through successive UK governments, and the impact of this on the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland. We will see that whilst notions of voluntarism and active citizenship played an important role in the Thatcherite project of rolling back the state, it was during the New Labour era that ‘partnership’ became a key theme in policy narratives surrounding the sector and government-sector relationships. The chapter then traces the nature of the relationship between the sector and the coalition and Conservative-led governments at a time of austerity and the roll-out of an increasingly punitive form of neoliberalism. The second part of the chapter explores the historical role of the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland and how the sector has been shaped by a complex mix of Westminster policy, EU peace programmes and political processes specific to NI.

This chapter examines governments in Spain, which stands out in comparative European perspective. Between its transition to democracy in the 1970s and 2019, it did not have a coalition government. Instead, governments were either single-party minority or majority ones. It was not until 2020 that Spain had its first coalition government—a minority one. This chapter reviews the institutions relevant to the life cycle of governments, the parliamentary party system and changes therein, and the record of government formation, governability, and government termination until 2018. In comparative perspective, Spain’s governments before 2015 generally formed rather easily, governed without great difficulty, and were quite stable. In contrast, the party system change in 2015 led to severe difficulties of government formation and governability.

Abstract The Conclusion briefly takes the narrative of the book from the State Treaty of 1955 to the end of the Socialist government led by Bruno Kreisky in 1983. The political culture of the Republic of Austria that exists today (2022) is essentially the product of the political reconciliation engineered by the Great Coalition between 1945 and 1955 and Kreisky’s massive cultural and social revolution accomplished between 1970 and 1983. Kreisky’s revolution was based on the slow transformation of the Austrian economy to an urban service basis, the radical numerical decline of agrarian voters, the emergence of new social-interest movements related to environmentalism and women’s rights, and the frustration on the part of many younger state officials, educators, media professionals, artists, and journalists about the conservative cultural policy priorities of elements of the Catholics, which seemed to be retarding Austria’s social modernization. Kreisky sought to resolve the profound tensions between Otto Bauer and Karl Renner relating to the strategy and identity of the Social Democratic Party that were discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of this book. Rather than a social revolution confined to Red Vienna, the egalitarian and libertarian impulses of the 1920s were uploaded into Austrian national culture on a state level. Sensitive to the anti-bureaucratic, youth-based cultural revolutions that were sweeping Western European societies in the 1960s and 1970s, Kreisky brilliantly combined appeals to heightened individual liberty and new private cultural prerogative—abortion rights, higher educational opportunities—with invocations of the eudemonistic power of the state in social welfare.

This chapter discusses a second type of political system where individual leaders are empowered: parliamentary systems with a single party controlling the government. Great Britain and Canada have been important players in Afghanistan, with both showing significant variation in what they were willing to do over time. One key difference is that Canada was led by a minority government for nearly all of its time in Afghanistan. Thus, these two countries have very similar institutions, similar political cultures, and large variations in how they have performed in Afghanistan and how they have been governed at home. These differences allow one to distinguish the key forces shaping decision making when prime ministers are unencumbered by the requirements of maintaining a domestic political coalition. This chapter then touches on two other countries in this category: Spain and Turkey.

Abstract This introductory chapter seeks to put the remaining chapters of this volume in proper context. The chapter begins with a survey of theoretical and empirical literature on the role of leadership in foreign policy. It, then, surveys theoretical and empirical literature on foreign policies of coalition governments—on differences between coalitions and single-party governments as well as on the relationship between a coalition’s ideology and foreign policy. This is followed by an overview of the Congress party’s foreign policy—i.e., the core values, evolution, distinguishing characteristics, basic principles, broad objectives, and major elements of the foreign policy of Indian National Congress—the leading party of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition. It then provides a brief overview of the salient features of India’s foreign policy under the two UPA governments led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh—in terms of the broader objectives they sought to achieve and the broader principles they adhered to. It then goes on to explain the rationale for undertaking this book project. The chapter concludes by providing an overview of the volume.

Abstract Most of the debates about the state of American political parties-and the nature of party decline and renewal-have centered on questions about the organizational capacities of the parties and their ability to carry out partisan policy goals once in government. In this chapter, by contrast, we extend our analyses of social cleavages to consider how cleavages shape the two major parties electoral coalitions, and also where the votes that put parties (and their candidates) in office in the first place come from. A number of commentators have argued that the social bases of party coalitions have changed in ways that have significantly influenced their policy agendas. The growing gender gap, for example, has led to discussions of a possible ‘feminization’ of the Democratic Party. The widely used ‘Reagan Democrat’ label is based on the idea that since 1980 Republican presidential candidates are receiving a growing proportion of their votes from white, working-class voters. Others have asserted that the growing importance of educated middle-class voters has encouraged the Democrats to abandon their traditional focus on public policies aimed at the working and lower middle classes in favor of a policy agenda that addresses the interests of the educated middle class. The growing influence of the Christian Right agenda in the Republican Party is often attributed to their growing numbers at the ballot box. Virtually all commentators on race and politics have noted that the increasing importance of black votes to Democratic candidates makes Democratic politicians reluctant to abandon a strong civil rights platform.

Political parties started to be established in Turkey in the second half of the 19th century with the formation of societies aiming at the reform of the Ottoman Empire. They reaped the fruits of their labour in 1908 when the Young Turk Revolution replaced the Sultan with the Committee of Union and Progress, which disbanded itself on the defeat of the Empire in 1918. Following the proclamation of the Republic in 1923, new parties started to be formed, but experiments with a multi-party system were soon abandoned in favour of a one-party system. From 1930 until the end of the Second World War, the People’s Republican Party (PRP) was the only political party. It was not until after the Second World War that Turkey reverted to a multiparty system. The most significant new parties were the Democrat Party (DP), formed on 7 January 1946, and the Nation Party (NP) formed on 20 July 1948, after a spilt in the DP. However, as a result of the coup of 27 May 1960, the military Government, the Committee of National Union (CNU), declared its intentions of seizing power, restoring rights and privileges infringed by the Democrats, and drawing up a new Constitution, to be brought into being by a free election. In January 1961, the CNU relaxed its initial ban on all political activities, and within a month eleven new parties were formed, in addition to the already established parties. The most important of the new parties were the Justice Party (JP) and New Turkey Party (NTP), which competed with each other for the DP’s electoral support. In the general election of October 1961, the PRP’s failure to win an absolute majority resulted in four coalition Governments, until the elections in October 1965. The General Election of October 1965 returned the JP to power with a clear, overall majority. The poor performance of almost all the minor parties led to the virtual establishment of a two-party system. Neither the JP nor the PRP were, however, completely united. With the General Election of October 1969, the JP was returned to office, although with a reduced share of the vote. The position of the minor parties declined still further. Demirel resigned on 12 March 1971 after receiving a memorandum from the Armed Forces Commanders threatening to take direct control of the country. Thus, an “above-party” Government was formed to restore law and order and carry out reforms in keeping with the policies and ideals of Atatürk. In March 1973, the “above-party” Melen Government resigned, partly because Parliament rejected the military candidate, General Gürler, whom it had supported in the Presidential Elections of March-April 1973. This rejection represented the determination of Parliament not to accept the dictates of the Armed Forces. On 15 April, a new “above party” government was formed by Naim Talu. The fundamental dilemma of Turkish politics was that democracy impeded reform. The democratic process tended to return conservative parties (such as the Democrat and Justice Parties) to power, with the support of the traditional Islamic sectors of Turkish society, which in turn resulted in the frustration of the demands for reform of a powerful minority, including the intellectuals, the Armed Forces and the newly purged PRP. In the last half of the 20th century, this conflict resulted in two periods of military intervention, two direct and one indirect, to secure reform and to quell the disorder resulting from the lack of it. This paper examines the historical development of the Turkish party system, and the factors which have contributed to breakdowns in multiparty democracy.

"This work includes talking about the crime of Camp Speicher, in which 1,700 students of the Iraqi army of the Sheea creed were killed by the gangs of the terrorist organization ISIS, with the aim of eliminating the members of this sect because of the misleading ideology carried by those gangs. On 6-12-2014, Iraqi soldiers at Camp Speicher (Speicher Air Base) in Tikrit were subjected to murder and enforced disappearance by terrorist organizations because of their affiliation to the Sheea creed. This crime was among a series of brutal crimes for the genocide of Sheeas in Iraq. This is similar to what happened in the Badoush prison crime in the province of Mosul, which the Iraqi Parliament considered it as a crime of genocide, in which these gangs executed about (400) members of the prison inmates of the Sheea component. After ISIS took control of the city of Tikrit in Iraq, and one day after they took control of the city of Mosul, they captured (2000-2200) soldiers and led them to the presidential palaces in Tikrit, and they shot them there and in other areas and buried some of them alive. This disaster had a negative impact on the families of the victims of the Speicher where they went out in demonstrations demanded that the leaders who handed over the victims of Speicher to ISIS must be prosecuted, and in one of the demonstrations they managed to enter Parliament and demanded that the leaders who handed over Speicher to ISIS be held accountable. After that, many demonstrations took place by the families of the victims, some of which led to the closure of a bridge in Baghdad a few times Protesting the government's delay in clarifying the fate of their children or taking quick measures. The Iraqi parliament and government recently considered the Speicher incident “genocide” in reference to the premeditated murder of Badoush Prison inmates in Nineveh Governorate and the unarmed Speicher military base, the premeditated murder of members of the Albu Nimr, Jabour, al-Lahib, and al-Ubaid tribes, and the killing and displacement of civilians from Kurds, Christians, Yazidis and Shabaks in Sahel Nineveh, Sinjar, deliberate killing and displacement of Turkmens in Tal Afar and Bashir. This decision paves the way for obtaining international recognition from it as a ""genocide"" as stipulated in the Contract of the United Nations in 1948, and Iraq signed it in the fifties of the last century. This study attempts to explain the Al-Ikhnasas Court in looking into the crimes of genocide committed by ISIS against the bereaved students of the Air Force Base (Speicher) due to what this issue raised from the national and international public opinion, especially after the involvement of the Iraqi army leaders in this massacre, according to what witnesses reported in that area and what was reported by soldiers who survived the incident, in addition to the involvement of some members of the Sunni tribes in these crimes with the terrorist organization ISIS. The importance of this study lies in the following aspects: - That ISIS elements were tried according to Anti-Terrorism Law No. 13 of 2005, and from our point of view that the aforementioned law is vague and broader than it should be, and it applies to serious and simple crimes from murder to crimes of sabotage, and the list of crimes punishable by the death penalty according to the aforementioned law is a long list and spacious. - The Iraqi government has embarked on an attempt to develop a legal framework to prosecute ISIS elements, and its mission focused on understanding the procedures and results drawn from those judicial efforts, and its mission also focused on showing the efforts taken by the Iraqi government to address violations in the field of the right to life, including those committed by affiliated forces government as well as other international and domestic actors. The International Criminal Court is specialized in considering specific crimes under Article (5) of its Statute, which are war crimes, aggression and crimes against humanity, which necessitates the adaptation of Speicher's crime within any of the mentioned types of crimes. The assumption of the International Criminal Court in relation to the Speicher crime, includes several positive matters and results at the same time a set of negatives, which must be presented to those positives and negatives in order to give preference between them and the choice of authorizing the court to consider the crime or not. The terrorist organization ISIS has committed serious systematic violations, including war crimes and others, and perhaps those that are not under its control, and that none of these crimes can be addressed within the anti-terrorism law, which cannot address human rights violations. The international community has recognized the heinous violations committed by ISIS against the citizens of Iraq by adopting Resolution (2370) in September of 2017, issued by the Security Council, which authorizes the Security Council to appoint an investigation team to support local efforts to hold ISIS elements accountable by collecting and preserving evidence in Iraq, which can rise to a high level, and it was committed by the elements of the organization. It considers that the decision constitutes a burden and an obligation on Iraq to investigate all allegations of violations committed by government forces for the purpose of holding them accountable, as well as requiring the establishment of special courts and trained judges in relation to ISIS crimes to deal with them. Terrorism is a global curse that has recently spread horizontally to all countries of the world and its effects have been concentrated vertically in some countries, and no one denies that the parties to this phenomenon are increasing (perpetrators and victims) and the United Nations in particular and the international community in general has not succeeded in reducing it despite the fact that the resolutions of the UN Security Council It is increasing, but the proportionality is absent between these decisions and the practical reality. The phenomenon of terrorism is spreading rapidly, and the perpetrators of terrorist acts are on the rise, corresponding to an increase in the victims of terrorism. Also, the circumstances and events that Iraq is going through, especially after 2003, put it at the forefront of countries which suffers from terrorism that has killed the people, using methods and forms that were not previously known and brutal and bloody cruel. ) for the year 2005, and since terrorism was not limited to Iraq, but included many countries, and was not specific to a place or time, nor was it recent in terms of composition. In addition, the aforementioned law cannot be aware of all violations of international and humanitarian law, as we mentioned previously, which requires the necessity of referring the criminals to a competent court. The Court conducts its rule under Article (13) of its Statute when referred to it by a state party to the same system or by the Security Council or when the Public Prosecutor conducts the investigation on his own, and then how does the Court take its measures regarding the aforementioned crime if we take a look Considering that the State of Iraq is not a member of the Statute of the Court. The rule of the court is free from the death penalty, which makes the idea of authorizing the court to consider the crime rejected by most Iraqis, especially the families of the victims. What are the negative aspects of the Iraqi national judiciary’s view of the Speicher crime, and how can it be avoided if the International Criminal Court plays this role? What are the guarantees provided by the court in the event that it proceeds with its procedures regarding this crime? The research on this subject is according to the appropriate method, which is the analytical and comparative method, which works on studying and comparing topics by analyzing ideas and jurisprudential rulings, and the positions of the governments of countries and the United Nations, as well as the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, and comparing arbitration between Iraqi courts. And the international courts regarding the trial of the perpetrators of the Speicher base crime, and then come up with a set of conclusions and recommendations."

Focus on decentralisation as a way to improve service delivery has led to significant research on the processes of education-policy adoption and implementation at the district level. Much of this research has, however, focused on understanding the working of the district education bureaucracies and the impact of increased community participation on holding teachers to account. Despite recognition of the role of political elites in prioritising investment in education, studies examining this, especially at the district-government level, are rare. This paper explores the extent and nature of engagement of political elites in setting the education-reform agenda in two districts in the state of West Java in Indonesia: Karawang (urban district) and Purwakarta (rural district). The paper shows that for a country where the state schooling system faces a serious learning crisis, the district-level political elites do show considerable levels of engagement with education issues: governments in both districts under study allocate higher percentages of the district-government budget to education than mandated by the national legislation. However, the attitude of the political elites towards meeting challenges to the provision of good-quality education appears to be opportunistic and tokenistic: policies prioritised are those that promise immediate visibility and credit-taking, help to consolidate the authority of the bupati (the top political position in the district-government hierarchy), and align with the ruling party’s political positioning or ideology. A desire to appease growing community demand for investment in education rather than a commitment to improving learning outcomes seems to guide the process. Faced with public pressure for increased access to formal employment opportunities, the political elites in the urban district have invested in providing scholarships for secondary-school students to ensure secondary school completion, even though the district-government budget is meant for primary and junior secondary schools. The bupati in the rural district, has, on the other hand, prioritised investment in moral education; such prioritisation is in line with the community's preferences, but it is also opportunistic, as increased respect for tradition also preserves reverence for the post of the bupati—a position which was part of the traditional governance system before being absorbed into the modern democratic framework. The paper thus shows that decentralisation is enabling communities to make political elites recognise that they want the state to prioritise education, but that the response of the political elites remains piecemeal, with no evidence of a serious commitment to pursuing policies aimed at improving learning outcomes. Further, the paper shows that the political culture at the district level reproduces the problems associated with Indonesian democracy at the national level: the need for cross-party alliances to hold political office, and resulting pressure to share the spoils. Thus, based on the evidence from the two districts studied for this paper, we find that given the competitive and clientelist nature of political settlements in Indonesia, even the district level political elite do not seem pressured to prioritise policies aimed at improving learning outcomes.