Political Parties

The 20th Century revolved politically around competing interpretations of Capitalism, Communism, Socialism and Fascism. These are all ways to organize the lives of people on a large scale. Are real alternatives or new interpretations likely to emerge in the challenging years ahead? What might they look like?

""Una de las características del sistema presidencialista colombiano radica en el manejo de la política exterior, toda vez que ésta recae en el Ejecutivo, primordialmente en el Presidente de la República y en el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. El dominio presidencial de la agenda exterior colombiana es evidente en su formulación y en su puesta en marcha y la participación de otros actores del sistema político (tales como la sociedad civil, la academia, los sindicatos y los partidos políticos) en dichos procesos tiende a ser mínima, o en su defecto, nula.
En el caso de los partidos políticos colombianos, estos tienden a ser invitados de piedra en la construcción y puesta en marcha de la política exterior.""

"Os Partidos Políticos nas Relações Internacionais do Brasil, 1930-1990, Brasília: 29 março 1993, 57 pp. Versão resumida do trabalho nº 327, apresentado em 02.04.93 no IV Seminário Nacional do Projeto “Sessenta Anos de Política Externa Brasileira: 1930-1990”. Publicado na revista Contexto Internacional (Rio de Janeiro: vol. 14, nº 2, julho/dezembro de 1992, pp. 161-208). Trabalhos Publicados nº 116.
Os Partidos Políticos nas Relações Internacionais do Brasil, 1930-90
Trabalho de pesquisa que, para o período de 1930-90, discute, por um lado, o papel dos partidos brasileiros no debate e encaminhamento de questões relativas às relações internacionais do País, e a examina, por outro, o espaço e a importância dos temas de política externa nos programas e atividades dos partido ao longo desse período.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Resumo
Trabalho de pesquisa que, para o período de 1930-90, discute, por um lado, o papel dos partidos brasileiros no debate e encaminhamento de questões relativas às relações internacionais do País, e a examina, por outro, o espaço e a importância dos temas de política externa nos programas e atividades dos partidos ao longo desse período. A Revolução de 1930, ao fortalecer o aparelho de Estado e centralizar e concentrar a maior parte das atividades políticas e administrativas em moldes burocráticos, opera uma primeira "retirada" dos partidos políticos da política externa, fenômeno que seria acentuado no regime burocrático-modernizador inaugurado pelo golpe militar de 1964. Entre 1946 e 1964, o Brasil vive uma experiência de multipartidarismo efetivo, mas permeado de crises políticas e militares, e com uma agenda externa essencialmente voltada para a relação com os Estados Unidos. Nesse período, os partidos não dispunham, seja em seus programas, seja em sua prática efetiva, de diretrizes bem-definidas para os temas de política externa. Durante o regime militar, que institui um bipartidarismo artificial, é a política externa oficial que dispensa totalmente os partidos políticos. Durante a fase do multipartidarismo limitado (entre 1979 e 1985) e depois, no decorrer da redemocratização, o sistema político torna-se mais e mais "partidarizado" e os partidos começam a operar um gradual retorno aos temas de política externa. Todavia, o interesse por questões internacionais ainda é relativamente limitado, de que é exemplo a campanha presidencial de 1989.

The Political Parties in Brazil’s International Relations, 1930-90
Abstract
This research paper, covering Brazil's political history from 1930 to 1990, dissertates, by one side, on the role of political parties in the domestic debate and the making of Brazil's international relations, and examines, by the other side, the extent and significance of the foreign affairs issues in the programs, policies and activities of the brazilian political parties during this period. The 1930 Revolution, while reinforcing the State apparatus and centralizing and concentrating most of the political and administrative activities according to bureaucratic patterns, determines a first "withdrawal" of political parties from foreign policy, a process to be reinforced by the modernizing-bureaucratic regime established by the 1964 military coup d'État. Between 1946 and 1964, Brazil lives under an effective multiparty system, albeit eroded by political-military crises, and has an external agenda essentially determined by the relationship with the U.S. During this period, political parties seldom had, either in their programs or in daily praxis, specific guidelines to deal with foreign policy issues. Under the military regime, in contrast, which instituted a bipartite system, it is the official foreign policy structure which discharges political parties from any effective role in this field. During the limited multipartism (i.e., between 1979 and 1985) and, afterwards, on the course of redemocratization, the political system becomes more and more "party-like" and the parties start to perform a gradual return to foreign policy issues. Nevertheless, interest and effective action on international issues by political parties are very circumscribed, as confirmed by the 1989 presidential campaign."""

Am 7.und 8. November hat in Beijing eine internationale Konferenz unter dem Thema “New Developments of the Global Left under the International Financial Crisis and the Prospect of World Socialism” stattgefunden, die gemeinsam vom China Center for Contemporary World Studies bei der Internationalen Abteilung des Zentralkomitees der Kommunistischen Partei Chinas (IDCPC) und des Pekinger Regionalbüros der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung veranstaltet wurde. http://www.rosalux.de/news/40105/internationale-konferenz-in-peking-die-globale-linke-und-perspektiven-des-sozialismus-in-der-welt.html

""The goal of this paper is to contribute to a burgeoning comparative literature about nationalization of party competition
(political parties and party systems) clarifying its terminology and
evaluating different indices of measurement of this phenomenon. Thus, the scholarly literature produced until now is revisited and the diverse conceptualizations of nationalization are examined. In this sense, nationalization in this work is understood as the homogeneity of electoral support across the territory. Then, four measures (Rose and Urwin 1975; Jones and Mainwaring 2003; Moenius and Kasuya 2004 and 2008; Lago and Montero 2010) are evaluated with respect to a battery of criteria they should comply with. Pros and cons of each index are stressed. Finally, recent development of the nationalization literature on Latin America is presented.

This paper argues that there is a great confusion in the terminology used in the literature on nationalization and that even the term itself does not have one only meaning. The study concludes that a proper measure of nationalization should take into account four basic elements: party presence across the country, number of subnational units where it is measured, its magnitude and the size of the party. Though none of the indices is perfect, they offer useful information on electoral evolution of political parties and party systems. The revision of the literature dedicated to Latin American countries reveals that more case
studies of long-term evolution of party systems and explication of its changes and party centred variables are necessary.""

"El artículo plantea una contribución a las explicaciones acerca del comportamiento electoral en Colombia. Las interpretaciones previamente desarrolladas han empleado marcos teóricos que enfatizan en el carácter explicativo de factores como ingreso, características psicosociales y evaluación retrospectiva, expresados en el análisis de los vínculos programáticos, clien-telares y personalistas que se establecen entre partidos y electores. La literatura existente tiene un vacío que este artículo propone saldar a partir del planteamiento de un modelo de gobernabilidad como criterio que asumen los electores en el momento de definir sus preferencias. El hecho de que algunos candidatos sean percibidos con mejores o peores condiciones para asegurar la gobernabilidad política de Colombia, debido a sus vínculos con los actores con poder de veto, constituye un criterio adicional en la selección del candidato presidencial, junto con factores decisivos (e.g., ideología). La evidencia empírica original, basada en el análisis de datos originales de una encuesta nacional, confirma la hipótesis sugerida.

This article makes a contribution in the literature on electoral behavior in Colombia. Previous explanations have employed theories that emphasize the explanatory power of income, psico-social considerations and retrospective evaluation in order to assess the impact of programmatic, clientelistic and personalistic party-voter linkages on vote-choice. There is a gap in the literature that we propose to fill through the inclusion of governability appeals as a criterion that electors use when defining their electoral preferences. The fact that certain candidates are perceived with better conditions (or not) to overcome challenges to governability based on their links with powerful veto players is another factor that influences vote choice in addition to key variables (e.g. ideology). Original empirical information, based on the analysis of a national survey data, confirms the hypothesis proposed."