Articles

Paradoxically both leading parties of Canada — Liberal and Conservative — can consider themselves “winners” in the 43rd Canadian general election: the Liberals remained the ruling party, while the Conservatives signifi cantly increased their representation in the House of Commons. At the same time, almost all parties in Canada feel like losers, as no one has fully achieved their goals. The 2019 election showed a continuing (if not intensifying) rift and confrontation between the eastern provinces that vote mostly for Liberals (along with British Columbia), and predominantly Conservative-supporting western Canada. The 2019 election again brought to the forefront of public debate the question of the principles of Canada’s electoral system — single-member plurality voting (“first-past-the-post”), now almost 150 years in use — and the prospects for reforming it to refl ect greater proportionality. It can be assumed that the elections of 2019 in Canada will be followed by a rather long “respite,” during which the Liberal minority government will be forced to cooperate with the offi cial opposition and with other political parties to pass the necessary bills. It will take a long time for the Сonservative Party to mobilize its forces in order to more successfully challenge the ruling Liberals in the next election.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the strategic attitudes of modern radical left parties towards participation in government. Using the example of two radical left parties — the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) and the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), which were major parties in the coalition governments in Cyprus (2008–2013) and Greece (2015–2019), respectively — the author examines the factors that led them to government participation and analyzes their experience and subsequent political fates after the end of their term in offi ce. The study shows that the experience of government participation by radical left parties in terms of their electoral results and political achievements can be ranked from negative to catastrophic. The real infl uence of the radical left parties on the government policy was minimal; at best they managed to achieve only moderate social democratic reforms, while any truly radical transformation of society was negated. The radical left parties have not yet resolved the issue of how to implement their declared anti-neoliberal program, taking into account not only the balance of forces within a country, but also the need to overcome the restrictions imposed by the complex institutional frameworks of the European Union, the Eurozone and the WTO.

This study is devoted to problematic aspects in the implementation of the Russian politics of memory. The methodological basis of the work is a descriptive analysis of expert interviews. The eff ectiveness of the politics of memory is evaluated by the experts from a pragmatic point of view: its main tasks are seen as the creation of a positive Russian image in the domestic and foreign policy arenas; the formation and strengthening of nation-state identity; and the consolidation of Russian society. Attempts to use politics of memory as an instrument for settling international relations via concessions are assessed negatively by the experts. The building of a national politics of memory is assumed solely on the basis of the “memory of the winners.” An appeal to a discourse on “the memory of the vanquished” is seen as a destructive approach fraught with serious political risks. Among the latter are the erosion of Russian identity; the particularization of society; the growth of social anomie; and an increase in the infl uence of political and religious radicals. The article further emphasizes the principal “sore points” of Russian politics of memory: its opportunistic nature; the controversial, complex nature of the content side; a disregard for foreign experience; and the presence of outdated elements among the tools for infl uencing the target audience. Another problem is the presence in Russian mass culture of such patterns as the theme of the hero’s victory “in spite of the system” and the physical and moral anti-esthetics in demonstrations of “our own” [svoi] being passed off as realism.