0
The project where the client watches tele (Television or Cinema).
What else can I help you with?
What is clientelism What are the forms of clientelism?
clientism is a form of personal,dyadic exchange usually categorized by a sense of obligation, and often also by an unequal balance of power between those involved.
The practice of giving government jobs to the supporters and friends of government leaders in known as what?
Clientelism, or in the case of family members: nepotism.
What has the author James Walston written?
James Walston has written: 'The Mafia and clientelism' -- subject(s): History, Political Patronage, Politics and government
What is the meaning of meritrocracy?
Merged as a reaction to clientelism. It means; being settled into a position only for the sake of that person's qualifications rather then his/her political or ideological tendencies. Merit = enough in quality
What is cacique democracy?
Cacique democracy is a term used to describe a system of political power in which local leaders, known as caciques, have significant influence over the political process. These leaders often exert control over the election process and have the ability to manipulate the outcome in their favor. Cacique democracy is typically associated with corruption, clientelism, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few dominant individuals.
What is a political machine?
A political machine is an unofficial system of political organization based on patronage, the spoils system, "behind-the-scenes" control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a representative democracy. Machines sometimes have a boss, and always have a long-term corps of dedicated workers who depend on the patronage generated by government contracts and jobs. Machine politics has existed in many United States cities, especially between about 1875 and 1950, but continuing in some cases down to the present day. It is also common (under the name clientelism or political clientelism) in Latin America, especially in rural areas. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is often cited as another political machine, maintaining power in suburban and rural areas through its control of farm bureaus and road construction agencies. The key to a political machine is patronage: holding public office implies the ability to do favors (and also the ability to profit from graft). Political machines generally steer away from issues-based politics, favoring a quid pro quo (something for something) with certain aspects of a barter economy or gift economy: the patron or "boss" does favors for the constituents, who then vote as they are told to. Sometimes this system of favors is supplemented by threats of violence or harassment toward those who attempt to step outside of it.
Why do South African officials involve themselves in corruption and graft?
South Africa's ANC politicians inherited a nation that despite decades-long sanctions against it, was rich and prosperous and so had a lot of money to go round. Of course, having good credentials as ANC freedom fighters don't automatically qualify ANC leaders as able administrators or incorruptible officials. Moreover, they looked around them and saw that fifty years and litterally trillions of dollars in development aid (among other things) had created a culture all over Africa where corruption and clientelism had become the norm rather than the exception. It's a sad fact of life that you will be hard pressed to find capable, hard-working and non-corrupt politicians anywhere in Africa. South Africa's new political leaders - many of whom have risen to the top solely on the basis of their liberation fight credentials, have proven to be no exception to the rule.
How cold war affected Africa development?
Both the Communist bloc and the Western nations tried to tried to extend their influence to Africa. The result mostly was that these countries were inundated with 'development' money in return for their support for either the East or the West. The West mostly won out in Africa, but pouring trillions of dollars in often little-developed economies and mostly rural societies did not lead to major development. Much more, it lead to large-scale corruption and self-enrichment by those countries' elites, to clientelism, spending on armies and weaponry and to a massive growth of people employed by the Governments - and as a consequence, to an enormous bureaucracy that slowed down economic growth rather than stimulating it. Despite having gotten much more in aid money than ever was taken out of Africa in 70 years of colonialism, the East/West race to 'buy' African countries' loyalty ended with many of them being now worse off than they were in the Sixties.
How is Roman political corruption impacting America?
This question is labelled under 'Ancient Rome" and "Roman Empire", but Ancient Rome nor its assumed 'political corruption' has had any discernible impact on the USA. The impact of ancient Rome on the US political scene can be seen only in the fondness for pillars at the front of US Court Houses and State and Federal Legislature buildings.Ancient Rome moreover would not have been considered by its contemporaries to be 'politically corrupt'. Provincial administrators enriched themselves during their tenure, but that was seen as only natural and nobody took offence as long as they kept the taxes coming in. Roman Emperors appointed people (often friends and associates) to positions of power without anyone's approval, but apart from the odd exception like Caligula they were usually smart enough to appoint people who could do their jobs. US Presidents have the same habit in appointing people but no one would call that 'corruption' and most appointees have to be approved by Congress anyway.But it may be this: the Romans in general had a widespread culture of political and social clientelism, a quid pro quoculture in which you as a humble citizen supported people that were politically or socially powerful and regularly showed them your respect, and in return they would support and help you with your problems.Present-day politicians in the USA work - much more than for instance their Parliamentary collegues in most northwestern European countries - in a similar 'clientelist' culture, in which their voters carefully check what their chosen Congressman or Senator has done for them in return for their votes; which has given rise to the frequent 'pork barrel' policies of Congressmen.So there is a similar 'clientelist' attitude toward politicians in Rome as in the USA; only the Romans never saw it as 'corruption' and neither I guess do most US voters.
How did the institution of family and clientage and the establishment of patrician and plebeian classes contribute to the stability of the early roman republic?
They contributed to instability, rather than stability. Clientage or clientelism refers to the patron-client relationship, where a poor or poorer man (the client) depends on a rich man (the patron) for favours, jobs, or cash hand-outs. This relationship bound the families of clients to the family of the powerful patrons and provided the latter with political support when needed. It strengthened the position of the rich. It did not really contribute to stability because it helped strengthened the hand of the patricians against the plebeians in the Conflict of the Orders (see below). The patricians were not established during the Republic. These aristocratic families claimed origin from the beginning of Rome. The founder, Romulus, selected 100 patres familia (fathers of the family) or leading men form the leading clans of Rome at the time to seat in the senate (the name was derived from senex, old man, and was like a council of elders) as an advisory body. This ancestry was a key factor of the patrician claim of superiority to other Romans. The plebeians (the commoners became an important social group in the late Monarchy. The Early republic saw the beginning of the rebellion of the plebeian movement against the rich patricians with the rebellion of the 1st plebeian secession in 494 BC. The reason for this was the abusive ways in which the patricians exploited the poor plebeians and the monopoly of power patricians had established in the Early Republic. This started the Conflict of the order, a conflict between patricians and plebeians, which lasted two hundred years. This conflict was very destabilising as the plebeian agitations often threatened Rome's ability to defend herself and undermined unity. Internal instability was a characteristic of the Early Republic and part of the Mid Republic. Instability reoccurred in the Late Republic, again, because of agitations by the poor plebeians.
