Political parties dominate India’s national elections, not candidates
A common perception regarding Indian politics is that it is the candidate, and not the party, who wins the elections. This makes it important for parties to pick the “right” candidates, and parties in India do spend enormous effort in local consultations and identity arithmetic while choosing who to allocate party tickets to. The belief that candidates win or lose elections has also led to many more independent candidates throwing their hat into the electoral arena. How do these independent candidates fare? In this piece, the writers show the impressive growth over time in the number of candidates, particularly independent candidates, standing for the elections, but also that there is a very small likelihood of an independent candidate actually winning a parliamentary seat. Parties dominate India’s national elections.
3 charts challenge lazy thinking on voter turnout and its link to literacy & urbanisation
India is known for a fairly high election turnout, but who turns out to vote in India, and why? In our last article, we discussed how constituency size, organisational networks, and social pressures may play a role in influencing voter turnout. Two other factors are commonly cited as having an impact on turnout: literacy and urbanisation. Our findings suggest that the impact of overall education levels and urbanisation on voter turnout in India may be more nuanced than what political observers have traditionally believed.
Why voters don’t turn up in larger numbers in Lok Sabha elections – all politics is local
Historically, national elections in India have had an average voter turnout of about 60 per cent, but there have been massive differences in turnout both across India and across different elections. Voter turnout is important for the legitimacy of democratic elections, and Indian elections are known for their high turnout. It is also crucial in determining who wins an election because the party preferences of those who vote occasionally are probably different from the party preferences of those who vote each time. There is great variation in voter turnout in India across constituencies and over time. This study shows that the size of the constituency also seems to have a large bearing on voter turnout.
This data shows why Indian MPs don’t truly represent their people
As the national elections of 2019 draw close, and incumbents prepare to face voters again, a straightforward question follows: how many people does a Member of Parliament really represent? On average, an Indian parliamentarian today represents constituencies with more than 1.5 million or 15 lakh eligible voters, or close to 2.5 million or 25 lakh citizens. This is more than the population of over 50 countries across the world and almost four times the number of citizens a Member of Parliament represented in the first Indian election in 1952. The sheer size of the electorate that each MP is supposed to represent may be seriously undermining representative democracy in India.
Veivalg og spenninger i norsk sikkerhetspolitikk: Norges forhold til NATO og EU
Norges sikkerhetspolitiske orientering har vært solid plantet i NATO-medlemskapet og det tette bilaterale samarbeidet med USA siden 1950-tallet. Parallelt har EU med jevne mellomrom også stått på den norske sikkerhetspolitiske dagsorden. Norsk sikkerhetspolitikk har vært preget av en rekke spenninger og veivalg i avveiningen mellom den transatlantiske og den europeiske pillaren, og der utviklingen av EUs felles sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk og USAs skiftende utenrikspolitikk har stått sentralt. Artikkelen drøfter også hvilke nye utfordringer og samarbeidsmuligheter vi ser konturene av i en tid der etablerte institusjoner og samarbeidsmønstre utfordres av en mer omskiftelig sikkerhetspolitisk situasjon, det globale maktskiftet fra Vesten til Asia, geopolitisk rivalisering, anti-liberale strømninger, og økt motstand mot EU.
Illiberalism, geopolitics, and middle power security: Lessons from the Norwegian case
Middle powers have played a key role in supporting global governance, a rules-based order, and human rights norms. Apart from conveying and effectuating global solidarity and responsibility, multilateral cooperation has been an arena where middle powers seek protection and leverage relatively modest power to greater effect, sometimes as “helpful fixers” to great powers. This article argues that geopolitical revival and the contestation of the liberal order are challenging middle powers' traditional sheltering policies, based on empirical evidence from the Norwegian case. First, the weakening of multilateral organizations is making middle powers more vulnerable to great power rivalry and geopolitics, and Norway's relationship with Russia is particularly pointed. Second, existing shelters such as NATO and bilateral cooperation with the US are negatively affected by the latter's anti-liberal foreign policies, making looser sheltering frameworks important supplements. While Norway's and other middle powers' traditional policies within the “soft power” belt may continue, “doing good” may become less prioritized, due to the need for security.
Mørke skyer over Mali
Massakren i Mali i mars representerer bare det foreløpige bunnpunktet i en pågående voldsspiral mellom ulike etniske grupper, skriver NUPI-forskerne Natasja Rupesinghe og Morten Bøås i denne kronikken fra Klassekampen.
Improving Future Ocean Governance – Governance of Global Goods in an Age of Global Shifts
Japan’s G20 presidency in 2019 will take the lead in promoting environmentally sustainable economic growth and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As a gathering of coastal states, under Japan’s presidency the G20 will specifically work to reduce marine plastic pollution and support marine biodiversity. This policy paper highlights how oceans are governed spaces and points to the key role of the oceans in realizing the SDGs. We argue that the G20 can and should play an important role in addressing major governance gaps in ensuring the sustainable management of oceans. Recognizing that there are increased geopolitical tensions, and that we do indeed already have comprehensive multi-level governance systems in place to handle many aspects of the growing ‘blue economy’ and avoiding the tragedy of the commons, the G20 should primarily stress the need for full and effective implementation of existing instruments and measures at the national, regional and global levels and increased consistency across levels of governance. This would effectively address many of the challenges and make use of the opportunities of the oceans. However, the rapidly moving horizon of technological development and insufficient progress in mitigating global climate change represent new governance challenges that require renewed effort and innovative thinking for a sustainable future for the oceans. This policy paper provides recommendations as to how G20 states can: consolidate their own capacity and assist non-G20 states in taking responsibility for strengthening marine science and implementation of existing regulatory frameworks, exercise innovative global and regional leadership to address emerging opportunities and associated governance challenges and facilitate the meaningful involvement of the private sector and the public in ensuring a collective governance order around oceans.
Lærdom fra historien - og en titt inn i glasskulen - på NATOs 70-årsdag
Les brennaktuelt spesialnummer av Internasjonal Politikk gratis på nett.
Informasjon verdt å drepe for
Er gravejournalistikk viktig for å avdekke hemmelighold i finansverdenen?