Explore the vast range of titles available.

The politicisation of biblical language has become more acute with the rise of Christian nationalism and right-wing movements in many countries. This article explores the American political scene and its rhetorical appropriation of biblical language. Fightin’ words drawn from presumed Pauline texts, have become staple rhetoric among candidates seeking to attract Christian voters to their cause. The article then discusses the use of such discourse by Republican and Democrat politicians in recent decades. Next, it attempts to reduce, if possible, combative speech by examining three verses: 1 Timothy 1:18, 6:12, and 2 Timothy 4:7. It asks whether Bible translators have accurately conveyed the Greek text of these verses in English. The article argues that modern translations have overlooked the contextual meaning and lexical background found in the material culture of the Graeco-Roman world. It is hoped that the proposed new translations will produce less toxic debate in future political discourse.

Purpose: This paper aims to analyse the state of democracy in Spain on the basis of the data and values provided by the principal international democracy indices, with particular emphasis on the concept of the Rule of Law as tempered power. It focuses specifically on the parameters relating to judicial independence, the politicisation of the Administration, and the perception of corruption, and proposes measures to improve governance at the central level of the General State Administration.Design/Methodology/Approach: The study adopts a mixed methodology, employing both quantitative and qualitative methods. Its aim is to examine the implications of Spain’s scores in the democracy and Rule of Law indices, and also to analyse the constraints on the exercise of arbitrary power (Krygier), evaluating the causes of these effects with a view to proposing reforms in the field of Public Administration.Findings: The study finds that, although Spain remains within the first quartile of the democracy indices analysed, its scores on the Rule of Law indicator have declined over the last decade.Academic contribution to the field: The research consists primarily of a single-country study of Spain, using both quantitative and qualitative data in order to situate the current state of one of the principal indicators of democracy in Spain, namely the Rule of Law, within objective parameters and to analyse the main trends identified. It compares the global and Spanish situations and proposes mechanisms which, in the authors’ view, would enable Spain not only to improve its position in these indices but, above all, to strengthen constraints on arbitrary power through the adoption of a teleological approach.Research limitations/implications: The breadth of the object of study, namely the relationship between the Rule of Law and democracy, requires the analysis to be limited to a specific territory (Spain), a particular level of government (the General State Administration), and a defined time frame (from 2012, coinciding with the major global economic crisis, to the present). Likewise, the scope of the research precludes a detailed study of all the attributes that constitute the Rule of Law and, moreover, not all the indices employ the same attributes or methodologies.Practical/social implications: The study has significant practical and social implications. Beyond what is established by the various indices, current events in Spain have confirmed the existence of problematic aspects of the Rule of Law linked to the politicisation of justice and the Administration, as well as corruption, all of which affect society’s perception of the functioning of democracy.Originality/Value: This research is particularly timely, as some leaders of Spain’s principal centre-left governing party have been implicated in corruption cases. At the same time, the current Prime Minister came to power in June 2018 following the success of a motion of no confidence prompted by corruption affecting the centre-right party then leading the government. Accordingly, without calling Spain’s democratic character into question, it is necessary to focus on those elements that may help to enhance the purpose of the Rule of Law as a means of tempering the exercise of power. Namen: prispevek analizira stanje demokracije v Španiji na podlagi podatkov in vrednosti, ki jih izkazujejo glavni mednarodni indeksi demokracije, s posebnim poudarkom na konceptu vladavine prava kot sredstva omejevanja oblasti. Posebej obravnava parametre, povezane s sodno neodvisnostjo, politizacijo uprave in zaznavo korupcije, ter predlaga ukrepe za izboljšanje upravljanja na osrednji ravni splošne državne uprave.Zasnova/metodologija/pristop: raziskava temelji na mešani metodologiji, ki združuje kvantitativne in kvalitativne metode. Njen namen je preučiti učinke rezultatov Španije v indeksih demokracije in vladavineprava ter analizirati omejitve izvrševanja samovoljne oblasti (Krygier), ovrednotiti vzroke teh učinkov in na tej podlagi predlagati reforme na področju javne uprave.Ugotovitve: študija ugotavlja, da se Španija sicer uvršča v prvi kvartil analiziranih indeksov demokracije, vendar je v zadnjem desetletju mogoče zaznati upad rezultatov pri kazalniku vladavine prava.Akademski prispevek k področju: raziskava je v osnovi študija posamezne države, tj. Španije, in uporablja kvantitativne ter kvalitativne podatke, da bi trenutno stanje enega osrednjih kazalnikov demokracije v Španiji, to je vladavine prava, umestila v objektivne parametre ter analizirala zaznane glavne trende. Ob tem primerja globalni in španski položaj ter predlaga mehanizme, ki po presoji avtorjev Španiji ne bi omogočili le izboljšanja njenega položaja v teh indeksih, temveč predvsem okrepitev omejitev samovoljne oblasti s teleološkim pristopom.Omejitve/implikacije raziskave: široko zastavljen predmet raziskovanja, to je razmerje med vladavino prava in demokracijo, zahteva njegovo omejitev na določeno ozemlje (Španijo), raven oblasti (splošno državnoupravo) in časovni okvir (od leta 2012, ki sovpada z veliko svetovno gospodarsko krizo, do sedanjosti). Poleg tega obseg raziskave ne omogoča podrobne obravnave vseh atributov, ki sestavljajo vladavino prava, pri čemer velja tudi, da vsi indeksi ne uporabljajo enakih atributov in ne temeljijo na enakih metodologijah.Praktične/družbene implikacije: študija ima pomembne praktične in družbene implikacije. Poleg ugotovitev, ki izhajajo iz različnih indeksov, so namreč aktualni dogodki v Španiji potrdili obstoj problematičnih vidikov vladavine prava, povezanih s politizacijo pravosodja in uprave ter skorupcijo, ki vplivajo na družbeno zaznavanje delovanja demokracije.Izvirnost/vrednost: raziskava nastaja v času, ko so nekatere vodilne osebnosti glavne španske sredinsko leve vladajoče stranke povezane s korupcijskimi primeri. Zdajšnji predsednik vlade je prišel na oblast junija 2018 po uspehu konstruktivne nezaupnice, katere povod je bila korupcija, povezana s sredinsko desno stranko, ki je tedaj vodila vlado. Zato je, ne da bi bilo postavljeno pod vprašaj demokratično bistvo Španije, pozornost treba usmeriti k tistim elementom, ki lahko pripomorejo k boljšemu uresničevanju namena pravne države kot sredstva za omejevanje izvrševanja oblasti.

The concept of a policy advisory system (PAS) is devised to study the diverse range of actors involved in the policy formulation process from a system level. An optimal PAS should be adaptable, autonomous and transparent, and should deliver substantive and timely advice. This article discusses factors influencing developments in Ireland’s PAS, including the broader trends of politicisation and externalisation. The findings are informed by interviews and a survey circulated to Irish civil servants who perform policy worker tasks and are engaged in providing advice to ministers. The research finds that new structural and institutional arrangements introduced to Ireland’s PAS have created a greater capacity for evidence-based advice in the internal PAS and a more contested space for policy advice. It also highlights that this has not fundamentally disturbed embedded characteristics of the Irish policymaking environment. Political demand pressures from ministers (both personal and electoral) can drive elements of politicisation within the civil service whereby policy advice is weighted or discarded based on ministerial preferences.

Ever since Slovenia became independent, the European idea has been viewed fondly by the political elite and the public. The absence of any successful Eurosceptic parties has meant the main goals concerning European integration became national projects. Euroscepticism has remained limited, although in more recent years politicisation has steadily grown through political parties’ positions on EU issues. At the same time, the country’s political elite has lost sight of the specific strategy Slovenia should play in the EU. Moreover, alignment with other EU member states has begun to vary depending on the ruling party. After twenty years of membership, this has led to Slovenia being seen as one of the more submissive actors in EU policymaking. In the article, by applying an analytical framework of politicisation, we consider the changing attitudes to the EU in Slovenia through the twenty years of its membership. The central research question is: in which ways have European issues become politicised over the last twenty years in Slovenia? The research question is addressed by considering a chronological approach and analysis of events, participation in European elections and public opinion data. We argue that, as a newer member state, Slovenia politicises European issues to a limited extent.

On Monday 19 September 1803, the most significant trial in the history of Ireland took place in Dublin. At the dock stood a twenty-five-year-old former Trinity College student and doctor's son. His name was Robert Emmet and he was standing trial for heading a rebellion on 23 July 1803. The iconic power of Robert Emmet in Irish history cannot be overstated. Emmet looms large in narratives of the past, yet the rebellion which he led remains to be fully contextualised. This book repairs this omission and explains the complex of politicisation and revolutionary activity extending into the 1800s, detailing the radicalisation of the grass roots, their para-militarism and engagement in secret societies. Drawing on a range of sources, the book offers a comprehensive insight into a relatively neglected period of history.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2026 11(1), 347-369 | Article | (Table of Contents) 1. Introduction. – 2. Politics, Technocracy, Non-Majoritarianism in the EU. – 2.1 The Standard Account… – 2.2 …and its Complications. – 3. Competition Law and Limited Politicisation. – 3.1 The Goals of EU Competition Law: An Inclusive and Flexible Mandate as Limited Politicisation. – 3.2. Legal Arrangements for Limited Politicisation. – 4. Conclusions. | (Abstract) The article revisits the idea that non-majoritarian institutions, broadly understood as governance arrangements that delegate the pursuit of constitutionally pre-set goals to bodies insulated from politics, are apolitical and technocratic. To do so, it draws on scholarship exploring the links between delegation and politicisation, as well as scholarship emphasising the experimentalist features of policymaking by independent regulators. The paper argues that limited politicisation of the regulatory process can strengthen independent economic regulation in the EU. Limited politicisation is enabled via substantive concepts and doctrines that allow for a plurality of interests, goals, and perspectives to permeate the enforcement of rules that are apparently narrowly directed to a single objective, as well as procedural arrangements that allow for stakeholder participation or periodic revision of regulatory solutions. These doctrines and mechanisms have become pervasive in EU economic regulation, as illustrated by examples from EU competition law. While they politicise the regulatory process, thus strengthening the democratic credentials of economic regulation, said arrangements need not undermine the non-majoritarian character of the institutions deploying them and the effectiveness of their regulatory action. As such, limited politicisation may allow regulators to resist pressures from elected officials, proving useful at times of backlash against NMI’s independence and growing authoritarianism. This article is a contribution to a Special Section that critically analyses the role of non-majoritarian instruments and institutions with respect to three challenges that shape contemporary democracies in Europe: socio-economic inequality and discrimination, growing authoritarianism, and the pressing climate crisis.

Stagnating political participation, the growth of delegated agencies and the prevalence of rationalistic-technocratic discourse all represent interlinking aspects of what can been termed 'the depoliticised polity'. Existing research has overwhelmingly focused on institutional or governmental depoliticisation strategies and fails to acknowledge repoliticisation as a critical counter-trend. This article argues that these weaknesses can be addressed through 'a three faces' approach that embraces societal and discursive depoliticisation strategies as complementary statecraft dynamics that often underpin more tangible governmental strategies. By revealing the existence of multiple forms of depoliticisation this approach also offers new insights in terms of politicisation and sociopolitical change.

The article develops the relation of politicisation and democracy theoretically, normatively, and conceptually. Politicisation is defined as marking something as collectively relevant and as an object of politics, and hence as debatable or contested. Democracy, and concretely liberal or representative democracy, means organised self‐government of the citizens via elected representants. It is marked by a set of institutions and rights based on the rule of law on the one hand, and by political action and (regulated) controversies and processes of collective decision‐making on the other. How do the two relate to one another? The article proceeds as follows. First, I conceptualise politicisation and its linkages to the concept of politics. Two ideal‐typical conceptions of politics are developed, i.e., (a) a spatial understanding of politics as a system, area, field, or sphere, and (b) an understanding of politics as action. The following reflections are based on an action‐oriented understanding of politics and politicisation, arguing that politics consists of political action(s) and politicisation is the act of marking an issue as political. Therefore, both politics and politicisation potentially can take place anywhere and anytime, inside and outside of the classical political system. The third section discusses conceptually and theoretically whether and to what extent politicisation is compatible with liberal representative democracy: if politicisation is action, then it can be both democratic and anti‐democratic action, and the ensuing question is how liberal representative democracies react to this challenge. On this basis, the grey zones around populism, polarisation, and democratic backsliding are discussed, in order to further clarify existing and possible current interrelations between politicisation and liberal representative democracy. The article concludes with a typology of four types of interrelations between politicisation and democracy.

This book examines the contribution of different Christian traditions to the waves of democratisation that have swept various parts of the world in recent decades, offering an historical overview of Christianity's engagement with the development of democracy, before focusing in detail on the period since the 1970s. Successive chapters deal with: the Roman Catholic conversion to democracy and the contribution of that church to democratisation; the Eastern Orthodox ‘hesitation’ about democracy; the alleged threat to American democracy posed by the politicisation of conservative Protestantism; and the likely impact on democratic development of the global expansion of Pentecostalism. The author draws out several common themes from the analysis of these case studies, the most important of which is the ‘liberal-democracy paradox’. This ensures that there will always be tensions between faiths which proclaim some notion of absolute truth and political order, and which are also rooted in the ideas of compromise, negotiation and bargaining.