The Last Bastion of Unitarism? Local Institutions, Party Politics, and Ramifications of EU Accession in Lithuania
A Japanese political scientist specializing in the former Soviet republics examines the system of regions taking shape within Lithuania. Driven in part by EU accession requirements, the current system is compared with the Soviet past and with that of Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic. The paper, based substantially on field work in 2001, argues that emergence of the country's most recognizable and operational regions, second-tier municipalities, has bolstered the competitive character of Lithuanian politics. A detailed analysis of elections of deputies to municipal councils, and subsequent election of mayors to head those councils, demonstrates patterns of coalition building designed to maintain a power balance among local party organizations. Three case studies demonstrate divergent contexts within which a national trend—the rise and fall of Lithuania's bipolar party system—is played out. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: H11, H77, O18. 1 figure, 5 tables, 42 references.
The Changing Fortunes of Japan's Progressive Governors
Japan has a dominant party system under which one party always controls the government.1 The dominant party in Japan is the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). In democratic theory, the major defect of a dominant party system is that the electorate cannot "kick the rascals out." Even if the LDP were to lose its majority, the probable outcome would be an LDP-dominated coalition. The threat of losing power is the strongest guarantee of elite responsiveness to the electorate. When this threat is weak or nonexistent, other mechanisms can ensure some degree of responsiveness but they are necessarily weak substitutes. In Japan factionalism in the LDP helps to guarantee the responsiveness of the governors to the governed. The prime minister need not worry about losing power to other parties, but he must worry about keeping his own party behind him. Other faction leaders will use any policy failure or electoral embarassment to unseat an incumbent. Although the electorate cannot readily kick out the LDP, a decline in LDP votes can kick out the prime minister; personnel turnover partially substitutes for party turnover. Moreover, the LDP does lose elections. Losing does not mean a loss of power, but it does mean a diminution of power. The LDP has gone from a stable majority, one in which it controls all Diet committees, to an unstable majority, in which the party has found it expedient to enter into a
Euthanasia — again: “Letting die” is not in the patient's best interests: a case for active euthanasia
Recent discussions in the Journal on the subject of euthanasia have relied on intuitive appeals to distinctions traditionally considered to be morally relevant, such as the distinction between acts and omissions (or killing and letting die), or ordinary and extraordinary means of treatment. These discussions remained inconclusive. However, the question of euthanasia no longer remains inconclusive if one adopts the perspective suggested by the United States President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research and by the World Medical Assembly – that a doctor should act in his or her patient's best interests. From this vantage point, it is argued, there will be instances when active euthanasia is the proper cause of action.