Browsing by Author "Sepp, Jorma"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Andrus Ansipi ja Edgar Savisaare demokraatiadiskursused Eesti Päevalehes ja Postimehes aastatel 1998-2009
(Tartu Ülikool, 2012) Sepp, Jorma; Seppel, Külliki, juhendaja; Tartu Ülikool. Sotsiaal- ja haridusteaduskond; Tartu Ülikool. Ajakirjanduse ja kommunikatsiooni instituut
Democracy discources of Andrus Ansip and Edgar Savisaar in newspapers Eesti Päevaleht and Postimees between 1998-2009. In this research the main focus is pointed on the discourse of Estonian politicians Andrus Ansip and Edgar Savisaar in Eesti Päevaleht and Postimees during the years of 1998 till 2009. The goal is to frame the changes of their political course in time. Combined research measures were used (quantitative text analysis and critical discourse analysis). Total of 80 articles (opinions, news and interviews) were analyzed. The theoretical basis of this paper is composed of the theory of liberal democracy peculiar to European Union. It was divided into two models: defensive and developing democracy. In addition it included the four influences of liberal democracy: elite, pluralism, neoprulalism and new right-sided influences. Theoretical part gives an overview of the theory of political discourse. For specific analysis a political context has been pointed out, the timeframe that selected politicians were active. In empirical part the articles were analyzed and they were compared to speeches by politicians during 1998 – 2009, to frame their political discourse and prove or disprove the hypothesis: the political discourse of politicians change with their power position. It can be noticed by Andrus Ansip and Edgar Savisaar discourse that it has changed with the change of power positions. Andrus Ansip discourse as major of Tartu emphasized equality and political elite of which the discourse framed as developing democracy influenced by the elite. By the change of power position and being now involved in Estonians politics the economical values and citizens freedom debate rise. For that his discourse framed as defensive and neopluralistic democracy. As becoming prime minister the economical debate deepened and to the framework a new-right-sided-influence added. The discourse of Edgar Savisaar is the opposite of Ansip. During the years his discourse has not changed from social equality debate what for his discourse stays in every power position as developing democracy model. But by the changes in positions different democratic influences can be found in his texts. Therefore his discourse is mainly framed only as developing democracy model, which is mainly influenced by socially topical political topics. The empirical analysis shoes that hypothesis raised is partly true. Andrus Ansip has changed his discourse as he moved from local politics to Estonians politics. It turned from developing democracy model to defensive democracy and from elite’s influence to neoprulalistic and new-right-sided influence. But Edgar Savisaar has not changed his discourse as it has stood in the frames of developing democracy on different power position. Although it has been influenced different strains of democracy on every position.
Arutleva demokraatia arengust Eestis ’’Jääkeldri protsessi’’ näitel
(Tartu Ülikool, 2014) Sepp, Jorma; Lauristin, Marju, juhendaja; Tartu Ülikool. Sotsiaal- ja haridusteaduskond; Tartu Ülikool. Ühiskonnateaduste instituut
Dominantse erakonna mõju poliitilisele kultuurile: erakond Ühtne Venemaa näitel
(Tartu Ülikool, 2012) Sepp, Jorma; Pääbo, Heiko, juhendaja; Tartu Ülikool. Sotsiaal- ja haridusteaduskond; Tartu Ülikool. Riigiteaduste instituut
The aim of the thesis was to find out how a dominant party affects the political culture, using the Russian Federation and the United Russia party as an example. The theoretical part gives a thorough overview of the concepts of political culture and dominant party. Theories presented point out the meaning of political culture and explain it in the context of an authoritarian system and also explain the relationship between citizens and authoritative political culture. Also, it discusses the notion of ‘dominant party’. For carrying out the empirical research, a method of grounded theory was used, based on a hypothesis that was tested for validity – the stronger the control of the dominant party in the political culture, the more passive the changes in the political system. The empirical study of the Russian Federation and the United Russia party showed that the party is dominant in its country and oriented towards power. The party has chronological dominance, dominant bargaining position, access to state resources, and it has monopolized the media. Also, it has a flexible political strategy, active mobilization of socio-economic groups and a party-created dominance that cannot be ignored in the country. The empirical analysis also revealed that the party has influenced the political system of the country by using its dominance, as the access to state resources favors the actions of the party and does not give political freedom and equality to the opposition. The analysis pointed out that the country is majorly affected by the Soviet legacy. Leading politicians have been socialized in it and they carry it on via new symbols. The same conclusion appeared in the analysis of Russian political system where United Russia is similar to a Soviet Union Communist party, affecting political institutions and thereby also the political culture to its advantage. By analyzing the civil society system, it appeared that the political culture of the Russian Federation can be described as a subject-oriented political culture where citizens know about the situation in their political system but do not see their possibilities to affect it. Qualitative data showed that the political system is at the beginning of transition to a participational political culture, as there is very limited amount of active grassroots politics present in Russia. As a result of the dominant United Russia, the political culture of Russia is not independent and does not create political structure. In conclusion, the study revealed that the stronger the role of dominant party in the political culture, the more passive the changes in the political system. As a result of nationwide activities of the dominant party, the political structure it has created affects the political culture but not vice versa. Due to that fact, it can be said that the political system of a country does not accept changes caused by changes in the society.