The early months of 2014 have been marked with two important
elections in two of the Visegrad Four (V4) countries. Both have been first order elections with very high stakes. Slovak presidential election was to be a test of Robert Fico’s risky maneuver, his attempt to capture the presidential office from amidst his PM mandate. Hungarian legislative election was to decide whether Viktor Orban’s unprecedented 2010 triumph would be reaffirmed
or not. One of these electioans has been characterized by astonishing result continuity (in comparison to the previous election), while the other one by a fundamental change. Contraintuitively, however, this article aims to show that it is Hungary, the country displaying election outcome stability, which
has actually been undergoing a party system change. And, conversely, in case of Slovakia, the country with a seemingly discontinuous election outcome, it would be at least premature to envisage a fundamental party system change.This article, obviously, goes beyond a narrow 2014 comparison of two single
electoral events where, moreover, two different types of elections took place. It sets the current stories into context, i.e., analyzes both party systems, compares their differing logics and offers some tentative explanations for their divergent dynamics of development. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
Tento příspěvek přibližuje, jak se měnily interpretace konceptu totalitarismu od dvacátých let minulého století v příslušném ideologickém kontextu. Autoři vidí v Havelkově úvaze pokus o sociologizující redefinici totalitárního konceptu a komentují ji spíše skepticky. Upozorňují na to, že pokud pomineme čistě ideologická tvrzení, dají se za totalitární v pravém slova smyslu označit pouze dvě období v českých dějinách: německý protektorát (1939–1945) a první roky komunistické nadvlády (1948–1953). Pokud jde o pozdější období československého komunismu (od Stalinovy smrti), autoři navrhují uplatňovat na ně koncept posttotalitarismu, jak jej formuloval Juan J. Linz. To by na jednu stranu umožnilo rozlišovat mezi záměry vládnoucího systému a společenskou realitou, a tím také například pomohlo lépe popsat proměnlivý význam ideologie a mobilizace mas. Na druhou stranu nabízí tento model odlišnou terminologii pro ranou, vrcholnou a pozdní („zmraženou“) etapu posttotalitarismu v období takzvané normalizace. and This article traces the changes in interpretations of the concept of totalitarianism in various ideological contexts since the concept emerged in the 1920s. The authors argue that if one discounts claims of a purely ideological nature, only two periods in twentieth-century Czech history were truly totalitarian: the ‘Protectorate’ (1939–45) and the first few years of Communist rule, that is, from 1948 to 1953. Concerning the post-Stalinist period, the authors suggest that the concept of post-totalitarianism proposed by Juan Linz should be applied. This would make it possible, on the one hand, to distinguish between the goals that the system claimed to be putting into practice, and the reality prevailing in society. It would thus describe, for example, the changing importance of ideology and mass mobilization; on the other hand, the model offers a differentiated terminology for the early, mature, and, ultimately, ‘frozen’ stages of post-totalitarianism during the period of ‘normalization’.