The article analyzes the socio-political views of Russian citizens about the future of the Russian state and Russian society. Analyzing the dynamic data series of the monitoring “How do you Live, Russia?” and its last wave of November–December 2020, the authors consider the changes in mass consciousness in terms of assessing the effectiveness of the government’s efforts to ensure the most important rights, freedoms and norms of the social state and the democratic regime, which manifests itself in the attitude to the existing political system and affects the level of trust in the government, where the executive power traditionally leads. Identifying the expectations of Russian citizens about the possible development of the country in the political, economic and cultural spheres, the authors conclude that the level of socio-political optimism allows one to describe the existing political system as fairly stable, on the one hand, with a high level of legitimation, on the other with a high level of alienation of citizens from power
This article argues that the Commonwealth’s non-statutory executive power should be interpreted using an ‘historical constitutional approach’, first developed by JWF Allison for the United Kingdom. Some argue that the non-statutory executive power should be informed by the Crown’s historical prerogative powers and the common law (the ‘common law view’), while the High Court has recognised an inherent ‘nationhood power’ sourced directly in section 61 of the Australian Constitution, that does not require reference to the common law or the prerogatives (the ‘inherent view’). Peter Gerangelos identified a potential jurisprudential shift after Gageler J seemingly adopted an historical approach in Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 257 CLR 42. This article argues that interpreting section 61 through an historical constitutional lens would be in keeping with the origins, influences, and common law limitations on the development of the Crown’s powers in Australia since Federation. This will better ensure fidelity to fundamental constitutional principles than the inherent approach.
The study analyses citizens’ normative concepts of authorities. The concepts serve as reference for comparing real authorities with their ideal counterpart. Images of ideal authorities have a complicated psychological structure connected with archetypes of national political culture. This defined the set of research instruments that include: focused interviews, semantic differential method, projective methods (associative test, method of unfinished sentences, drawing test “Ideal Authorities”), and some others. The sample included 450 respondents from 20 regions. The study has shown the following. Besides immediate reactions to the authorities’ decisions and particular events, political behavior and mentality are also determined by deeper factors connected with ideal representations, values and archetypes that serve as references for citizens in their evaluation of real authorities. Images of the future play the role of an action acceptor preempting and tuning people’s behavior in the present. The absolute majority of the respondents (86%) believe that authorities are an intrinsic part of our social design. This does not mean that real authorities are so attractive for them. But in some ideal future the overwhelming majority (74.9%) evaluate authorities positively. The author’s data show that in recent years normative representations of authorities have essentially transformed in Russia. Citizens revised their expectations from authorities. On the unconscious level of authorities’ perception, the need for love, respect and care about people dominates over material needs. Lack of this need’s satisfaction causes the growth of political distrust, absenteeism and escapism. A number of archetypical representations in the images of ideal authorities have been revealed; these representations – of an integral, indivisible and sacred nature of authorities – constitute the core of Russian mass political mentality. The respondents do not share the idea of division of power into different branches or levels and their checks and balances. Executive power dominates the legislative and judicial ones not only in the present but also in the image of the future. Opposition seems to be equally incompatible with our tradition and is seen as artificial and “fake”. This attitude also concerns many other concepts of contemporary official political discourse. They are formally recognized but on unconscious level are called into question. New “democratic” norms and values constitute the peripheral part of political mentality. This layer of normative representations of authorities includes the ideas of power separation, the competition of elite groups and parties, the multiparty system etc. Thus, the structure of the images of authorities looks very heterogeneous and mosaic. Traditional representations and images dominate in it, but new ones have already penetrated mass mentality and gained a foothold in it though our citizens cannot understand why they need these images. These peripheral representations in the case of a crisis can be replaced by deeper and more authentic mental structures.
The changeover of the ruling of the modern Ukrainian territory between East and West had lasted for around 800 years beginning from the Mongol-Tatar invasion. It was that time when Batu Khan defeated Ancient Rus that the present territory of Ukraine came under complete and absolute ruling of the Tatar East. In the 16th century as a part of Lithuania Ukraine was included into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then passed under the rule of the Polish magnates, under the yoke of the Western Polish civilization. In 1569 the Union of Lublin was signed that formalized the accession of the Ukrainian territory to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the period from the 10th to the 19th centuries there was no such state as Ukraine on the world political map. In the 10th century some part of the territory of present Ukraine was taken by Kievan Rus, in the 13th century — by Golden Horde, in the 14th-15th centuries — by Lithuania, Golden Horde and Russia. In the next centuries the territory of Ukraine was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, Poland and Russia. And only in 1918 the state of Ukraine appeared on the political map.Single Soviet Ukraine created by Bolsheviks did not present any internal cultural and language unity as it was always shared by different empires being the hostile and irreconcilable centers of force in Europe — the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire.In 1917-1920 about dozens of different republics were established in the territory of Ukraine. They were isolated within the borders of their formations. Accordingly, it may be said that in 1917-1920 Ukraine presented a mosaic of different formations which were often formed due to ambitions of some scoundrels and political adventurers striving to get to power and to become the leader of a state. But only the tough policy of Bolsheviks aimed to prevent the disintegration process permitted Ukraine to preserve its territory. After its election the Supreme Council started preparation of the Draft Declaration of Ukraine State Sovereignty simultaneously with the Draft Law on Ukraine State Sovereignty. Both drafts were considered in May 1990. After their discussion it was decided to develop the Draft Declaration of State Sovereignty.On July 16, 1990 the Ukrainian Parliament after long discussions adopted the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine by majority voting. This declaration which did not change and substitute the Constitution of Ukrainian SSR became a very important document for establishment of the Ukrainian statehood having laid the basis for the future Constitution of Ukraine.The concept of the new Constitution of Ukraine envisaged the establishment of the presidential republic. As a result, in June 1991 the laws «On Establishment of the Office of President of Ukrainian SSR with Making Alterations and Additions in the Constitution», «On President of Ukrainian SSR” and “On Election of President of Ukrainian SSR». The office of president was established to strengthen the vertical of executive power and to make it in the future independent of executive power of union bodies. The law assigned broad authorities to the president. Thus, the president acquired the right to cancel the decisions of the USSR bodies of executive power in the territory of Ukrainian SSR if they contradicted its constitution.By mid-1991 the legislative base was created in Ukraine which, in fact, made it an independent state as the laws adopted in 1990 and in the first half of 1991 brought out Ukraine from subordination to the USSR powers. The single economic, political and military space of the USSR practically ceased to exist. By this time Ukraine subordinated only nominally to union authorities. On August 24 the Extraordinary Meeting of Supreme Rada passed the Act on Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. That time it was also decided to conduct on December 01 the republican referendum to confirm the Act of Independence. This was done with a view to demonstrate to the union authorities that the Ukrainian people were endeavoring to become independent, thus, making legitimate the Act of Independence. After becoming independent in 1991 Ukraine entered the new stage of its development. The regional system of Ukraine revealed two clear poles — Donbass and Galichina which determined the country’s development for decades ahead.
During the campaign of may 1940 and the following month, King Leopold III had as principal political counsellor Henri De Man. He played a primordial role during that period, which was rich with extremely important events for the future of Belgium, such as the surrender of the army and the problem of the King reassuming or not his constitutionalprerogative during the occupation. The former socialist minister did not accidentally hold the situation of confident of the King. Indeed, both men became friends before the war.They shared similar conceptions about interior and foreign policyproblems.In fact, Leopold III supported De Man in his attempt, during the winter 1938-1939, to convoke a peace conference. On the other end early 1939 they both expressed rather similar conceptions on the functioning of the Belgian institutions and especially on the lack of authority of the executive power. The projects of manifestoes by De Man concerning the political future of Belgium were grounded on a reinforcement of the executive power. So the manifesto of june 1940, a consequence of De Man's contacts with the King, reveals the role which the King should or could have assumed if Hitler had permitted it.
Understanding the phenomenon of terrorism, his perception and conceptual theories developed for this purpose have a special importance. Only after acquainted with a phenomenon, then we can face it. So after this process we can guarantee the highest possible protection of the rights and fundamental freedoms that can be put under a huge risk of such an operation of revealing the phenomenon. Providing consultancy to policy-making and executive power bodies, the active action in the fight against terrorism including the sciences product offer different fields, as a key instrument in this process is of special importance. Challenges they offer, the desire to serve a cause higher still, that of increasing the rights and fundamental freedoms on the highest pedestal, requires the scientists to do something more, which will inspire many other efforts in the future to assist in preventing and combating the terrorist threat. In this spirit, the technology offered policies for the EU and generally front against terrorism, a key instrument for achieving this goal.
This study examines the legitimacy of the recurrent conduct, adopted by the Jordanian
Executive Power, of issuing Provisional General Budget Laws, in the absence of the
Legislative Power. This study proves the unconstitutionality of such conduct, and looks
at the prospects of progress in the future.
Issuing Provisional General Budget Laws is a culmination of several misconceptions
of some important Constitutional Articles; especially the ones that reflect how the principle
of separation of powers is adopted in the Jordanian Constitution, and how the
different interlocking functions of both the Executive and the Legislative Powers should
be interpreted and applied.
Article 94, providing for the legislative function of the Executive Power in the
absence of the Legislative Power, is interpreted and applied broadly. Issuing Provisional
General Budget Laws mean that the Executive Power assumes the legislative Power and
not a temporary legislative role, as provided in the Constitution. Hence, contradicting
another two important systems provided therein: first, the financial check, as part of the
checks and balances system, provided in Chapter Eight, especially Article 112. Second,
the apportionment method, provided in Article 113, which should be applied in the
absence of the Legislator.
Unfortunately, the 2011 Constitutional Reform, although somewhat progressive, does
not remove such well-rooted misconceptions; leaving the Constitutional Court as the
last resort in rectifying the situation.
This chapter summarizes the book, offering a discussion on the Cold War Paradigm, CLDC and interconnected double feedback loops in providing an analytical model to understand inter-branch power struggles and how policy is developed as a congressional check on executive power. The chapter also summarizes the intertwined nature of executive privilege and FOIA, and how the policy of FOIA continues to be relevant to current political debates within the contemporary period. FOIA has been amendment multiple times since the 1974 amendments, and every successive administration has sought to contain and control the flow of information. As we move into the Trump administration, the issue of executive privilege has resurged again, forcing Congress into a positon to once again learn new ways of seeking to contain executive power.