Somalia (SOM)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is one of the most famous figures in Latin America today. The steps of his policy of New Socialism in the 21st century have forced many political scientists to rethink the regime in Venezuela. The political reforms currently underway by the current Venezuelan president have led political scientists to link him to authoritarian regimes. Thanks to the historical legacy of Latin American states in the form of authoritarian regimes, which often appeared in power in the complex history of the region, the question arose as to whether the regime of Hugo Chávez could not be included among them.

As a basic division of political regimes, the work uses a division into democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. The simple and direct line between these concepts is probably impossible to determine with absolute precision. The fundamental problem remains the separation of clearly defined undemocratic totalitarian regimes and purely democratic ones. Authoritarian regimes as a separate entity move on the very edge of the two and connect certain parts of them, and therefore, as the definition of democratic regimes is not entirely clear, the naming of authoritarian regimes is difficult to separate.

Inspiration through the Iberian Peninsula is one of the historical reasons for the emergence of authoritarian regimes in Latin America. This interconnectedness dates back to the first conquistadors who brought Spain to the American continent and the political system of the then kingdom. The organization of the colonial society of Latin America, of course, followed the style of the other colonial powers.

The next chapter will focus on the history of Venezuela and its experience with undemocratic regimes, as well as the phenomenon of current President Hugo Chávez, a strong representative of the Bolivarian Republic, and will seek to shed light on the position and style of government. The facts presented here will then serve to analyze the Chávez regime in the final chapter.

President Hugo Chávez has dedicated his government to the fight against the neoliberal economy, US President Bush and other influences that pose a threat to his Venezuelan people. The result was an initiative to promote revolutionary socialism in the 21st century. This mix of steps leading to increasing alienation from the outside world has brought him great support from its people and a contradictory response both on the American continent and overseas.

In assessing the current ten years of the Hugo Chávez regime, several aspects of his government need to be taken into account. The main fact that speaks for the democracy of the Hugo Chávez regime is his re-election. Although he changed the constitution in February 2009 and can therefore be elected in the next presidential election in 2012, he must still win this battle with opposition candidates in the public field.

Authoritarian regimes in Latin America on the example of Hugo Chávez. The aim of this work is to find out whether the regime of Hugo Chávez can be classified as an authoritarian regime or whether it is a democratic regime.

Authoritarian regimes in Latin America on the example of Hugo Chávez: References

Fighting for Somalia continues. In December, the African Union ( AU ) approved the merger of its troops with Kenyan troops, which passed under the command of the AU. Djibouti and Sierra Leone, each with 1,500 troops, have also decided to contribute to the operation in Somalia. The African Union has so far had 9,000 troops in the capital, but says it needs at least 20,000 troops to maintain order in the country. During December, January and February, air operations continue with partial success. At the end of December, AU troops conquered Beledweyne, but more importantly, the conquest of the Badhadhe Islamist base in February, which is only 180 km from the port city of Kismayo. Like Kismayo, Badhadhe represents an important logistical point for al-Shabaab. However, al-Shabaab retaliated and attacked the Ethiopian base with a suicide attack that killed 10 Ethiopian soldiers. The abduction and killing of humanitarian workers in Somalia also continues.

Somalia has experienced the longest period of absence of effective central power since the collapse of the world's bipolar order, during a long-running armed conflict that broke out in 1988 and continues to this day. Most Somali society agreed to overthrow Maxamed Syiaad Barre's bloody dictatorship, but after 1991 they could no longer unite on the shape of the new Somali state. The absence of the state apparatus and public institutions in the form of, for example, the army, police, education or health care, led local people to various forms of adaptation to new conditions, mostly in the form of quasi-states or smaller " clans ", in an effort to prevent chaos, crime and famine.

The former Somali Republic has been the territory since 1991 with the longest absence of a central authority with effective tools to enforce power throughout the country. Somalis thus face great complications in the areas of communication with other states, ensuring internal and external security or the necessary coordination in education, health care, transport and environmental protection. None of these services are provided at the national level. Somalia has become a typical example of the disintegration of the state and has reached the final stage of collapse.

Before embarking on the theory and development of attempts to rebuild Somalia, I would like to introduce the reader to a brief description of the developments that preceded the break-up of Somalia. It cannot be overlooked, as clan political factions and leaders played a major role in the gradual disintegration of the Somali dictatorship, and they subsequently became the main actors in the conflict. Since the 1990s, they have had a major influence on developments in Somalia in attempts at national reconciliation and the restoration of the state. It is also desirable for the reader to understand the nature of the Barre regime so that he can form an idea of the Somalis' experience of the nation-state.

The Somalis experienced British and Italian colonial rule, during which the current socio-political system of organization of society was changed. Independence was followed by the euphoria of independence, when the Somalis tried to establish a Western model of democratic institutions, but a significant cultural gap led to its decline. The 1969 military coup gradually transformed Somalia into a dictatorship that resulted in an ongoing civil war in 1988. The unfortunate experience with the liberal-democratic state apparatus as well as the dictatorship and the centrally planned economy, provoked considerable prejudices in Somalis against the need to restore the state.

In the last few years, modern piracy off the Somali coast has begun to crowd out statistics with the number of attacks by pirates in other parts of the world, especially in South-East Asia and the Gulf of Guinea. After a long time, the Somalis again drew the attention of foreign media to the ruined Somalia. As modern piracy is a problem of media interest, in contrast to the internal political situation in Somalia, about which the world media rarely report, we also learn about it from the Czech media.

The situation in Somalia is closely linked to what is happening in the region, as Somalis also inhabit the territory of present-day Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. On the other hand, Somali society itself found itself in a crisis in 1991, exacerbated by the struggle for increasingly necessary livelihoods - fertile land, pastures and food supplies. Moreover, past injustices, especially the Isaxaag genocide in Somaliland and the Hawaiian-Daarood split, have been an insurmountable obstacle to reconciliation for some clans.

The development of Somalia after 1990 and the problem of piracy

The development of Somalia after 1990 and the problem of piracy

This work deals with Somalia, as one of the failed states, the so-called failed state. Somalia has experienced the longest period of absence of effective central power since the collapse of the world's bipolar order, during a long-running armed conflict that broke out in 1988 and continues to this day.