Recognition as if sovereigns? A procedural understanding of indigenous self-determination

In the last two decades we have witnessed a growing global acknowledgement of indigenous rights – manifested in the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – challenging the traditional nation-state-centred understanding of political rights and democracy. In this paper, the author argues that indigenous self-determination is to be understood as a way to level the balance of power between indigenous peoples and the nation-states in which they live. Without a solid legal foundation for indigenous peoples to define self-determination in their own languages and to negotiate the conditions of their relation with the nation-states on their own terms, the colonial past (and present) of violent conquest and domination might continue. Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination ought in this perspective to imply recognition of indigenous peoples as having a standing equal to nation-states, i.e. as if they were sovereigns. What self-determination means in political practice would thus be the outcome of negotiations between two (or more) equal political entities. In this way, the right to self-determination has to be interpreted procedurally rather than substantially.     

The Military: A Threat to Democracy?

The military is by its very nature a potential threat to democracy, but in well-established democracies civilian supremacy has generally been maintained, though there are dangers of excessive military influence. S. E. Finer's seminal 1962 study of civil-military relations distinguished between the modes and effectiveness of civilian control in mature, developed and low or minimal political cultures. These categories are distinguished in particular by varying degrees of political legitimacy. Finer's conclusion about the prospects for political stability and democracy in most developing countries was pessimistic. But Finer's conclusions can now be challenged, primarily because the nature of civil-military relations has changed. In mature political cultures like the USA, the threat from the military-industrial complex has receded. Japan, Germany or France — key examples in Finer's second category — have now become mature political cultures; and Russia (newly in this category) is not, despite its many problems, threatened by direct military intervention. Many countries previously classified within low political culture have moved into the second category, and despite some notable exceptions the military have become more cautious about taking responsibility for government.     

Political mobilization in East Central Europe

This article provides an introduction to the special thematic section on political mobilization in East Central Europe. Based on a brief presentation of the main arguments of the individual articles, the authors discuss the recent political volatility in East Central Europe. They highlight the tension between fierce political rhetoric and populist policies on the one hand, and low levels of voter turnout and overall political participation in the region on the other. The authors argue that recent cases of successful as well as unsuccessful political mobilization in East Central Europe point to structural re-alignments in the region’s political landscape. In particular, the parties that are successful are those that manage to communicate their visions in new ways and whose messages resonate with nested attitudes and preferences of the electorate. These parties typically rally against the so-called establishment and claim for themselves an anti-hegemonic agenda. The introductory essay also asserts that these developments in East Central Europe deserve attention for their potential Europe-wide repercussions – especially the idea of “illiberal democracy,” which combines populist mobilization and autocratic demobilization and finds adherents also in more established European democracies.     

Structural versus Piecemeal Definitions of Social Issues: A Subjective Factor in Systern-Transcending Struggle

Virtually all social scientists, Marxists or non-Marxists, agree that various aspects of advanced contemporary societies have become increasingly interdependent. Therefore it would seem that piecemeal definitions of issues and social problems are becoming more and more inadequate in dealing with the crucial systemic characteristics of our societies. Decision-makers as well as the public need not only more information, but systemic information based on structural rather than piecemeal definitions of issues and social problems. This paper explores, firstly, how mainstream sociology and Marxism deal with the complexity and interdependency characteristics of mature capitalist societies. Secondly, it explores some normative conclusions about the type of political information and communication needed in mature capitalist societies, according to Marxist and mainstream sociological interpretations. Thirdly, it provides some empirical illustrations of how we can study piecemeal versus structural definitions of issues and problems in political communications and public opinion. Finally, some assertions about holistic versus piecemeal political communication and policy-making are briefly confronted with Popper's views about the compatibility of piecemeal versus utopian or holistic social engineering with political democracy.     

Public affairs,privacy, and family stress: a case study in rural northern Sweden in the mid-nineteenth century

This article is a case study based on court records. What seems initially to be a petty theft gives rise to remarkable events. Affairs that are initially private later become public. Various events in and around the court throw light upon the way court and community respond to family stress in a mid-nineteenth century rural northern Swedish community. Testimonies by a large number of witnesses in court reveal a society in transition with elements of a money market, which means here a huge amount of ready money in circulation and arenas ready to shelter private transactions.     

Foreign Policy Dimensions: A Comparison Between the United States and Sweden

In this article we compare the structuring of citizens' attitudes on foreign policy issues in the U.S.A. and Sweden. Most of the studies in this area have been carried out on U.S. data, which have made any generalization of the findings to other states difficult. The material is the 1995 SOM study, with a sample of 2,800 individuals. Swedish citizens' foreign policy attitudes were structured along two dimensions. The first dimension showed similarities with Wittkopf's "militant internationalism" dimension; the second dimension showed similarities with Chittick, Billingsley, and Travis's "multilateralism-unilateralism" dimension. As in the United States, ideology has a high explanatory power on individuals' placement on the first dimension, but in Sweden gender and attitudes on "green issues" have some additional explanatory power. On the second dimension education has high explanatory power in both Sweden and the U.S.A., but in Sweden attitudes on "green issues" are also of importance. In the article we argue for a plausible theoretical interpretation of the Swedish foreign policy dimensions that is somewhat different from the one offered in the American case.