THE ORIGINS OF INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY CONTINUE TO BE AN object of scholarly dispute. It seems to be very probable that this will continue to be so forever. An enormously complex transformation occurred in a very large, diversified and intricate society, and the event was unique: no imitative industrialization can be treated as an event of the same kind as the original industrialization, simply in virtue of the fact that all the others were indeed imitative, were performed in the light of the now established knowledge that the thing could be done and had certain advantages (though the emulated ideal was of course interpreted in all kinds of quite diverse ways). So we can never repeat the original event which is to be understood, which was perpetrated by men who knew not what they did, and this was of its essence: we cannot do this, for quite a number of cogent reasons - the sheer fact of repetition makes it different from the original occasion; one cannot in any case reproduce all the circumstances of early modern Western Europe; and experiments on such a scale, for the sake of establishing a theoretical point, are morally hardly conceivable. In any case, to sort out causal threads in so complex a process, we should need not one, but very, very many re-runs, and these will never be available to us.

This article analyses party positions on European Union (EU) solidarity in Germany in the run-up to the 2021 German federal elections. While previous studies have investigated whether and under which conditions individuals support or reject different types of EU solidarity, little is known about how political parties position themselves on the issue. The study draws on an original expert survey on German party positions, including various items on EU solidarity. First, we demonstrate that the GAL–TAN dimension strongly shapes party positionings on EU solidarity. Second, the support by political parties varies along the long- or short-term institutionalization of types of EU solidarity. Third, the findings have political implications for the current German government coalition, revealing potential problems for a joint political agenda on EU affairs.

THE ENERGY POLICY OF A COUNTRY OR OF A GROUP OF COUNTRIES IS simply the optimal use of resources, which are limited although essential to all branches of the economy and to the well-being of the people. The volume of energy consumption at a given time is in direct relation to the degree of industrialization and the increase in the consumption of energy is in direct relation to the increase in overall demand, in other words, of the gross national product.

The study of party system institutionalization in Latin America is complicated by the fact that political development in the region has been indelibly marked by period-specific stages and challenges of capitalist development. These periods are associated with distinct patterns of social mobilization, class conflict and political incorporation or exclusion of labour and popular constituencies. These patterns heavily condition the programmatic structuring of partisan competition and its impact on party system institutionalization. Important theoretical insights can be derived from the study of intra-regional variation in period-specific challenges and effects, but this requires careful attention to the factors that differentiate cases.

Largely Implemented During The Tumultuous Years between 1923 and 1937, Turkey's laws, education system, civil service, economy, military, international outlook and trade are all founded on the premise of a Western-oriented separation between religion and state. This system has survived seventy years of economic, political and social transformation with remarkable resilience: Islamic brotherhoods, most recently a particularly vehement tarikat called the Aczmendi, are still prosecuted for calling openly for return to Islamic rule.

IN THIS COMMENT ON THE TWO TREATISES ON TOLERATION COMPOSED for us by Preston King and Bernard Crick, I wish to raise three quite familiar questions. The first is how far the growth of toleration in the past, its prevalence in the present and its fostering in the future, may be related in any society to the general level of information,education and enlightenment, of rational knowledge and discourse, there obtaining. This vague issue can only be handled superficially in so short a space, but it has to be faced, though not directly tackled by King and Crick, because it seems to me to be entailed by the other two. They are, how far specifically political knowledge about present and past actions, beliefs and behaviour – political science in fact – is itself related to the tendency towards toleration. Finally, how effective the raising of the extent of enlightenment, general or politicalscientific, is likely to be in creating tolerant attitudes and tolerant practice.

BOTH HALVES OF MY TITLE MAY REQUIRE EXPLANATION. WHY, IN AN issue devoted to political forces, an article on one man, and why the use of the vague term ‘equilibrium’? Because China today confronts us with the singular oddity of a country in which the existing political system has been attacked and partially dismantled on orders from the supreme leader, but nevertheless subsists to some extent; and in which the new system which he is striving to create has still not been firmly established or taken definite shape. It is, therefore, impossible to trace with precision the contours of the political forces, and indicate how they are related to one another, but while there may or may not exist in China a political system in the sense of an integrated whole, functioning according to definite rules, there clearly does exist a certain equilibrium – dynamic and unstable, but a kind of equilibrium none the less – between the various illdefined contenders for a share in political power, and the ‘force’ which stands at the centre of this political jungle is unquestionably Mao.

According to the literature, parliamentary scrutiny is either used by the opposition to control the government or by a coalition partner to control the leading minister. Yet, neither the opposition alone nor individual governing parties alone can muster a parliamentary majority to adopt recommendations, resolutions or statements. Therefore, we ask which parties coalesce in co-sponsoring such joint position papers on European Union policy proposals and why. Tying in with the existing literature, we offer three explanations. Firstly, position papers are co-sponsored by so-called ‘policy coalitions’, a group of parties that hold similar preferences on the policy under discussion. Secondly, governing parties form coalitions which support their minister’s position vis-à-vis his or her international partners in Brussels. Thirdly, party groups co-sponsor position papers to counterbalance the leading minister’s deviation from the floor median.

On the empirical side, we study the statements issued by committees of the Finnish Eduskunta and recommendations adopted by committees of the German Bundestag over a period of 10 years. Though having similarly strong parliaments, the two countries are characterized by very different types of coalition governments. These differences are mirrored in the observed co-sponsorship patterns.

THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PASSAGES IN MARX AND ENGELS dealing with the relation they established between party, class and elections. After showing that the proletariat formed a well-defined class by virtue of its place in the relations of production, Marx and Engels emphasized that the workers had been able to overcome their isolation in order to organize themselves. To cease being simply a mass, atomized by competition, they formed an association to strengthen their ‘union’ and make possible their mobilization. Profiting from the use of the means of communication, the workers became conscious of their common interests: ‘the result was the organization of the proletariat into a class and then into a political party’. It was the whole class that transformed itsef into a political party: no division took place. Rejecting the Blanquist conceptions of elitist parties, Marx and Engels added that ‘all previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority’.

IN THE WESTERN MEDIA RECENT EVENTS IN INDIA HAVE OFTEN been trivialized by comparison with a soap opera called Dynasty. A more appropriate analogy would be the Greek tragedy: the rejection of Mrs Gandhi at the polls in 1977; her sweeping return to power in 1980; the death of her heir apparent, Sanjay, in 1980; the invasion of the Golden Temple in June 1984; and on 31 October her assassination. Greatness, tragedy, hubris and nemesis are all there.

A fair assessment of Mrs Indira Gandhi's contribution to her country is far from easy, not least because she was regally enigmatic. Her friendships ranged from Michael Foot to Margaret Thatcher. Her presence was formidable yet both to old and non-political family friends she was a loving sister or aunt. Alone among Indian politicians she drew massive crowds and, Sikhs apart, her death was mourned by her opponents as much as her supporters. Indira had not expected to enter politics but by acting as her widowed father Pandit Nehru's hostess and confidante, and, in the late 1950s, as Congress General Secreta , she gained an invaluable apprenticeship in the techniques of political management and the art of statecraft. When Nehru's immediate successor as Indian Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, died after less than two years in office, Congress chiefs found it easier to nominate Nehru's daughter as their leader than to agree on one of their own number, particularly since they all underestimated her strength of character and purpose.