Explore the vast range of titles available.

The premise of her criticism of American policy is, obviously, that there were ''moderate political alternatives to [Anastasio Somoza]'' waiting to be helped into place by the United States. Indeed, this is a leitmotif of the whole book: how ''those who wanted democracy . . . were left in a vise,'' as she puts it in her last paragraph. Now, most reporters in most polarized countries (in war or revolution) tend to have sources whom they essentially trust, respect, believe - when they have to choose between two irreconcilable versions - and in the end sympathize with. In Miss Christian's case, it becomes clear quite early on that her trust and sympathies lie with the elite of articulate, educated ''bourgeois'' Nicaraguans politically active in opposition to Somozas and Sandinistas alike - the landowners, entrepreneurs and pillars of the independent newspaper La Prensa, who figure so prominently in ''Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family.'' S HE is quite right to correct the Sandinistas' falsification of history, by pointing out that, ''as authoritarian regimes go,'' the Somoza regime ''ceded to its political enemies and critics a relatively large amount of space to act in public life'' and that this non-Sandinista opposition played quite as large a part as the Sandinista National Liberation Front (F.S.L.N.) in the overthrow of Somoza in 1979. But there is a question whether her sympathies do not lead her to overestimate their political will, strength and virtue. Weren't they quite as much to blame as the Carter Administration for not preventing the Sandinistas' seizure of the high ground? If this opposition elite had been sufficiently organized and united to pre-empt the Sandinistas, how democratic a system would they have installed? And even if they had held early, free and fair elections, would they have won them? In short, did they really constitute a serious ''third force'' - that American dream? Miss Christian quotes with relish La Prensa's headline reporting its sales on the day it returned to the newsstands in May 1980 (after the pro-Sandinista editors had split away). Borrowing a line frequently used by the Sandinista Front it declared: ''THE PEOPLE ALREADY VOTED: 123,000 COPIES!'' Well, yes exactly, those are [Shirley Christian]'s people. But what about the other 2,617,000? * SECOND caveat must be entered against her rather sweeping characterization of the Sandinistas as ''Leninist.'' By her own account, there was a wide diversity and confusion in their views. True, both the jargon and, more important, some of the tactics used by Mr. [Tomas Borge] or Mr. [Bayardo Arce] are unmistakably Leninist (for example, in persecuting the non-Sandinista trade unions). True, someone like [Humberto Ortega] freely identifies himself with Marxism-Leninism in his speeches. But what speeches! ''Without sandinismo we cannot be Marxist-Leninists, and sandinismo without Marxism-Leninism cannot be revolutionary. For that reason they are indissolubly united and for that reason our moral force is sandinismo, our political force is sandinismo, and our doctrine is Marxism-Leninism.'' Maybe it sounds better in Spanish; but my translation of this flatulent revolutionary claptrap would be: ''We have the Gatling gun and you have not.'' Is it not possible that, while they often use modern Leninist vocabulary and tactics, the key to the Sandinistas' behavior is rather to be found, as Mario Vargas Llosa has suggested in an article in The New York Times Magazine, in ''an old Latin American tradition'' - namely, that ''they believe, although they don't admit it, that real legitimacy resides in the weapons that enable you to take power, and that once you have power there is no reason to share it.'' An old Latin American tradition, Mr. Vargas Llosa adds, ''that they share with a good number of their adversaries'' (my emphasis).

From Gandhi to Martin Luther King, Tiananmen Square to the Orange Revolution, non-violent action against the forces of oppression has played a key role in world history. This book tells the compelling story of each of the major campaigns of civil resistance that have shaped our world over the last century.

\"Drawing on a lifetime of writing about dictatorships and dissidents, Timothy Garton Ash argues that in this connected world that he calls cosmopolis, the way to combine freedom and diversity is to have more but also better free speech. Across all cultural divides we must strive to agree on how we disagree. He draws on a thirteen-language global online project freespeechdebate.com conducted out of Oxford University and devoted to doing just that. With vivid examples, from his personal experience of China's Orwellian censorship apparatus to the controversy around Charlie Hebdo to a very English court case involving food writer Nigella Lawson, he proposes a framework for \"civilized\" conflict in a world where we are all becoming neighbors.\"--Provided by publisher.

While the major trends in European integration have been well researched and constitute key elements of narratives about its value and purpose, the crises of integration and their effects have not yet attracted sufficient attention. This volume, with original contributions by leading German scholars, suggests that crises of integration should be seen as engines of progress throughout the history of European integration rather than as expressions of failure and regression, a widely held assumption. It therefore throws new light on the current crises in European integration and provides a fascinating panorama of how challenges and responses were guiding the process during its first five decades.

The book contains twelve essays by Stephen Holmes, Frances M. Kamm, Mária Ludassy, Steven Lukes, Gyorgy Markus, András Sajó, Gáspár Miklós Tamás, Andrew Arato, Timothy Garton Ash, Béla Greskovits, Will Kymlicka, and Aleksander Smolar. The studies explore a wide scope of subjects that belong to disciplines ranging from moral philosophy, through theory of human rights, democratic transition, constitutionalism, to political economy. The common denominator of the studies collected is their reference to the scholarly output of János Kis, in honor of his sixtieth birthday. János Kis is a distinguished political philosopher who, after many years spent as a dissident under the Communist regime, emerged as an important political figure in Hungary's transition to democracy. Currently he is University Professor of Philosophy at Central European University, Budapest.