From the Republic to the Estado Novo

Brazil ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riordan Roett

Did the creation of the Republic contribute to the modernization of Brazil? The overthrow of the empire redefined the political contours of Brazil. The two traditional parties of the empire imploded and were replaced with a national Republican Party. Decentralization of political power became a...

1973 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan deVries

The political and economic institutions of the Dutch Republic puzzle the historian. Closely juxtaposed are elements suggesting a tantalizing precociousness and elements which hearken to the medieval past. The Republic was the creation of a revolution; it can be identified as the first European state to throw off a monarchical regime and bring a bourgeois social class to full political power. On the other hand, the foremost motive behind this rebellion was the resistance of medieval, municipal particularism to governmental centralization—to modernization, if you will.


Author(s):  
Hannah Cornwell

This book examines the two generations that spanned the collapse of the Republic and the Augustan period to understand how the concept of pax Romana, as a central ideology of Roman imperialism, evolved. The author argues for the integral nature of pax in understanding the changing dynamics of the Roman state through civil war to the creation of a new political system and world-rule. The period of the late Republic to the early Principate involved changes in the notion of imperialism. This is the story of how peace acquired a central role within imperial discourse over the course of the collapse of the Republican framework to become deployed in the legitimization of the Augustan regime. It is an examination of the movement from the debates over the content of the concept, in the dying Republic, to the creation of an authorized version controlled by the princeps, through an examination of a series of conceptions about peace, culminating with the pax augusta as the first crystallization of an imperial concept of peace. Just as there existed not one but a series of ideas concerning Roman imperialism, so too were there numerous different meanings, applications, and contexts within which Romans talked about ‘peace’. Examining these different nuances allows us insight into the ways they understood power dynamics, and how these were contingent on the political structures of the day. Roman discourses on peace were part of the wider discussion on the way in which Rome conceptualized her Empire and ideas of imperialism.


Author(s):  
Saiful Hakam

Historically, In Indonesia, there are two interpretation of the first verse of Pancasila. The first is [Pengakuan adanya Tuhan] Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence. This translation is used to use by secular group including communist and non-Muslim group especially Buddhist and Hindus. This interpretation was dominant in 1945-1965 when Sukarno as the creator of Pancasila still dominated the political power. Or, this verse was dominant when the secular-nationalist group still had strong position in Indonesia. The fact of it is during the time there was no a policy about official religions from state and the requirement of religious teaching in schools and universities. And, it must be noted that Sukarno as the creator of Pancasila in Guided Democracy era, strongly interpreted Pancasila in his speech and address as the Nasakom that is National, Religion, and Communist. Sukarno as the creator of Pancasila strongly insisted that he was truly nationalist and in his heart he was a truly Muslim. So, it can be said the Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence is the original interpretation of the first verse of Pancasila. My argumentation is originally in the early beginning of the Republic the meaning of religion was religion as a faith not as an institution


Author(s):  
Angela Alonso

The Second Reign (1840–1889), the monarchic times under the rule of D. Pedro II, had two political parties. The Conservative Party was the cornerstone of the regime, defending political and social institutions, including slavery. The Liberal Party, the weaker player, adopted a reformist agenda, placing slavery in debate in 1864. Although the Liberal Party had the majority in the House, the Conservative Party achieved the government, in 1868, and dropped the slavery discussion apart from the parliamentary agenda. The Liberals protested in the public space against the coup d’état, and one of its factions joined political outsiders, which gave birth to a Republic Party in 1870. In 1871, the Conservative Party also split, when its moderate faction passed a Free Womb bill. In the 1880s, the Liberal and Conservative Parties attacked each other and fought their inner battles, mostly around the abolition of slavery. Meanwhile, the Republican Party grew, gathering the new generation of modernizing social groups without voices in the political institutions. This politically marginalized young men joined the public debate in the 1870s organizing a reformist movement. They fought the core of Empire tradition (a set of legitimizing ideas and political institutions) by appropriating two main foreign intellectual schemes. One was the French “scientific politics,” which helped them to built a diagnosis of Brazil as a “backward country in the March of Civilization,” a sentence repeated in many books and articles. The other was the Portuguese thesis of colonial decadence that helped the reformist movement to announce a coming crisis of the Brazilian colonial legacy—slavery, monarchy, latifundia. Reformism contested the status quo institutions, values, and practices, while conceiving a civilized future for the nation as based on secularization, free labor, and inclusive political institutions. However, it avoided theories of revolution. It was a modernizing, albeit not a democrat, movement. Reformism was an umbrella movement, under which two other movements, the Abolitionist and the Republican ones, lived mostly together. The unity split just after the shared issue of the abolition of slavery became law in 1888, following two decades of public mobilization. Then, most of the reformists joined the Republican Party. In 1888 and 1889, street mobilization was intense and the political system failed to respond. Monarchy neither solved the political representation claims, nor attended to the claims for modernization. Unsatisfied with abolition format, most of the abolitionists (the law excluded rights for former slaves) and pro-slavery politicians (there was no compensation) joined the Republican Party. Even politicians loyal to the monarchy divided around the dynastic succession. Hence, the civil–military coup that put an end to the Empire on November 15, 1889, did not come as a surprise. The Republican Party and most of the reformist movement members joined the army, and many of the Empire politician leaders endorsed the Republic without resistance. A new political–intellectual alignment then emerged. While the republicans preserved the frame “Empire = decadence/Republic = progress,” monarchists inverted it, presenting the Empire as an era of civilization and the Republic as the rule of barbarians. Monarchists lost the political battle; nevertheless, they won the symbolic war, their narrative dominated the historiography for decades, and it is still the most common view shared among Brazilians.


Author(s):  
Julian E. Zelizer

This chapter examines how legislators associated with the conservative movement thrived in a congressional process that liberals had helped to create. It first considers how Congress was reformed in the 1970s, focusing on its transition from the committee era to the contemporary era and how the reform coalition of 1958–1974 helped end the committee era. It then compares the contemporary Congress to the committee-era Congress and how the new legislative process contributed to the fortunes of the conservative movement. It also discusses the decentralization and centralization fostered by congressional reforms, the creation of the Conservative Opportunity Society in 1983 by young mavericks in the Republican Party, congressional conservatives' disappointment with the presidency of George H. W. Bush, and the Republican congressional reforms of 1995. The chapter argues that the state endured despite the political success of American conservatism in Congress.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-70
Author(s):  
Khamami Zada

The application of Islamic rules in Aceh and Kelantan is also related to the political power. There is a significant difference about political treatment on the application of Islamic law in Aceh and Kelantan. In Aceh, the central government (Indonesia) thinks that it is needed to apply jinâyah law in Aceh as a strategy to solve conflicts. This political rule has been applied in the republic of Indonesia since the leadership of Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Soekarno Putri to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The main factor that influences the Indonesian political government rule is the central conflict with the Acehnese in the leadership of Soeharto presidential to the Helsinski Agreement 2005. Some vertical conflicts happened between the central government and the Acehnese were solved by giving special autonomy in applying the Islamic rules. Not only family law and economic law which are given autonomy to be applied in Aceh, but also the autonomy to apply jinâyah Law. In Kelantan, Federal government (Malaysia) did not have political wish to apply Jinayah Law in Kelantan since the leadership of Mahathir Muhammad, Abdullah Badawi to Najib Razak. Moreover the federal government made the issue of the application of jinâyah law as the political commodity to get the political sympathy from the people, who are the partner of non Moslem voters in the national ranks and some Moslem voters who are not affiliated with PAS. This political needs factor is kept by the Federal Government to respond the Kelantan’s government wish to apply Islamic rules.Copyright (c) 2015 by Al-Ihkam. All right reserved DOI : 10.19105/al-ihkam.v10i1.588 


1980 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald L. Hatzenbuehler ◽  
Robert L. Ivie

A decade ago, Richard Hofstadter wrote that historians were approaching consensus on the political origins of the War of 1812. Blending elements of the work during the early 1960s of Norman K. Risjord, Bradford Perkins, and Roger H. Brown, Hofstadter (1969: 181) concluded that Republicans were convinced “the Republic itself and the fate of republican government had come to rest on the ability of the Republican party to take a forceful stand against foreign incursions on American rights.” Republicans, in other words, melded national with partisan goals and pursued war to save national honor and the Republican party.Today, however, one would have to conclude that Hofstadter’s prediction was premature, based upon the spate of articles published since 1972 addressing the partisan nature of the vote for war in the House of Representatives, the role of the War Hawks in the debates and legislation of the war session, and the leadership (or lack thereof) supplied by James Madison (Hatzenbuehler, 1972b, 1976; Egan, 1974; Stagg, 1976; Hickey, 1976; Fritz, 1977; Bell, 1979).


2017 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 115-132
Author(s):  
Tadeusz Biernat

BETWEEN POLITICS AND LAW. THE PROBLEM OF “POLITICIZATION” THE CREATION OF LAWThe purpose of this article is to analyze the phenomenon of “politicization” of the law making process. Astrong form of politicization is the political instrumentalization of law when the law is treated as the implementation of particular interests of the political power; when is created in violation of the legality of the law-making activities; when it violates the rights of individuals human rights. The weaker but more common form of politicization the creation of law is related to the violation by apolitical authority, legislative body, additional restrictions imposed on it, which are supposed to guarantee ahigh level quality of the law. Three of the most characteristic limitations will be the basis for analyzing the phenomenon of politicization of law making. They are related to: the legitimization of law-making, the democratization of law-making process, and the standards of legislation that are characteristic of lawmaking in ademocratic state under the rule of law. To some extent, these phenomena are interconnected, one can say that they are involved in shaping the pat­tern of the proper legislation by preventing or reducing the politicization of the lawmaking process and its key decisions.


Author(s):  
Emel Çokoğullar ◽  
B. Mehmet Bozaslan

In 1923 with the proclamation of the Republic began a new era. One of the main issues of this period has been to provide the legitimacy of the new regime. Corresponds to the specified purpose education has tried to take advantage of the functional direction. The secular nature of the winning educational institutions, described the principles of the new regime and the real salvation were stated to be realized by obedience to political power and these principles.  In this way, both have tried to create a Turkish nation and commitment to the political power of the shaped by a "manners" the emphasis is prominent.Keywords: Education, Early Republican Period, National Education, The New Regime.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Björg Thorarensen ◽  
Stefanía Óskarsdóttir

The article focuses on the constitutional role of the president of Iceland when the republic was established in 1944, and the evolution of this role during the time Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has been in office. The study shows that the creation of a republic involved hardly any changes in the constitutional role of the head of state neither in regard to executive nor legislative powers. Thus the authors reject the theory that the creation of a republic introduced a dual authority structure, consisting of Althingi and a powerful president, which characterizes semi-presidentialim. However, despite the fact that the text of the constitution, regarding the presidency, has not been changed since 1944, the political importance of the president has increased in recent years. This is mainly the result of Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson´s interpretation of the constitutional role of the president, as well as changes in public attitudes regarding democracy and the role of the president. According to this interpretation, the president acts as Althingi´s keeper who acts as a check on the majority rule of Althingi contrary to what was decided in 1944. The authors maintain that in the absence of formal constitutional changes, were the role of the presidency is better defined; the power of the president vis-à-vis the cabinet and parliament may continue to grow.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document