Read e-book Education, Politics, Rhetoric, and Ombudsing: Second Edition, Revised

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Education, Politics, Rhetoric, and Ombudsing: Second Edition, Revised file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Education, Politics, Rhetoric, and Ombudsing: Second Edition, Revised book. Happy reading Education, Politics, Rhetoric, and Ombudsing: Second Edition, Revised Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Education, Politics, Rhetoric, and Ombudsing: Second Edition, Revised at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Education, Politics, Rhetoric, and Ombudsing: Second Edition, Revised Pocket Guide.

Published daily by the Lowy Institute. Among the irregularities identified by the review were manipulation of administrative records, excessive concentration of doctoral supervision responsibilities in the hands of individual supervisors, and widespread plagiarism. Wiranto, who was supervised by Djaali, graduated cum laude from UNJ with a doctorate in human resources management in The review findings came in the wake of growing tensions between Djaali and UNJ staff over his appointment of several family members to academic and administrative positions. Shortly before the announcement of the review findings, the National Ombudsman upheld a complaint by staff that the rector had abused his authority and engaged in nepotism in making these appointments.

Over the past few decades, the country has done much to improve access to education, particularly at the primary and junior secondary level. Today, Indonesian children are starting school earlier and staying in education longer than they ever have before. Most analyses have attributed these problems to inadequate funding, human resource deficits, perverse incentive structures, and poor management. There is no doubt that these factors have mattered. Rather than being mechanisms through which the country achieves educational and economic objectives, public educational institutions in Indonesia have instead become vehicles through which predatory elites accumulate resources, distribute patronage, mobilise political support, and exercise political control.

School principal and university management positions are regularly sold to the highest bidder in exchange for the opportunity to use these positions for personal enrichment and the lubrication of patronage networks.

Attacks on Women’s Rights in Poland | HRW

At the same time, teachers have become deeply embroiled in electoral politics, especially at the local level. It is not uncommon for teachers who support successful local political candidates to be rewarded with promotions or attractive appointments, and for those who back losing candidates to be demoted or banished to outlying parts of a region.

The school system has also been used to promote values over skills. The New Order made courses in Pancasila, the state ideology, compulsory at all levels of the education system — a move aimed at ensuring allegiance to the state, not learning. All this has served to undermine learning and, in particular, acquisition of skills needed to enhance national economic competitiveness. The UNJ case suggests that this emergency continues.

In the first case, it is a projet de loi ; in the latter case, a proposition de loi. Propositions de loi cannot increase the financial load of the state without providing for funding. Projets de loi start in the house of the government's choice except in some narrow cases [25]. Propositions de loi start in the house where they originated. After the house has amended and voted on the text, it is sent to the other house, which can also amend it. If the houses do not choose to adopt the text in identical terms, it is sent before a commission made of equal numbers of members of both houses, which tries to harmonize the text.

If it does not manage to do so, the National Assembly can vote the text and have the final say on it except for laws related to the organization of the Senate. The law is then sent to the President of France for signature. The President can also, only once per law and with the countersigning of the Prime Minister, send the law back to parliament for another review.

After being countersigned by the Prime Minister and the concerned ministers, [31] it is then sent to the Journal Officiel for publication. Because of the importance of allowing government and social security organizations to proceed with the payment of their suppliers, employees, and recipients, without risk of a being stopped by parliamentary discord, these bills are specially constrained.

However, these are nowadays considered unconstitutional. If Parliament cannot agree on a budget within some specified reasonable bounds, the government is entitled to adopt a budget through ordinances : this threat prevents parliamentarians from threatening to bankrupt the executive. Because of the major changes involved, the application of the law was gradual, and the first budget to be fully passed under LOLF will be the budget, passed in late The LOLF divides expenses according to identifiable "missions" which can be subdivided into sub-missions etc. The performance of the administration and public bodies will be evaluated with respect to these missions.

The budget of the national government was forecast to be billion Euro in This includes neither Social Security , nor the budgets of local governments.


  1. Emergency Politics: Paradox, Law, Democracy.
  2. Vatz c.v. | and syllabi!
  3. Politics of France.

This is known as the cumul of electoral offices. Proponents of the cumul allege that having local responsibilities ensures that members of parliament stay in contact with the reality of their constituency; also, they are said to be able to defend the interest of their city etc.

In recent years, the cumul has been increasingly criticized. Critics contend that lawmakers that also have some local mandate cannot be assiduous to both tasks; for instance, they may neglect their duties to attend parliamentary sittings and commission in order to attend to tasks in their constituency. The premise that holders of dual office can defend the interest of their city etc.

Finally, this criticism is part of a wider criticism of the political class as a cozy, closed world in which the same people make a long career from multiple positions. As a consequence, laws that restrict the possibilities of having multiple mandates have been enacted. The Economic and Social Council is a consultative assembly. It does not play a role in the adoption of statutes and regulations, but advises the lawmaking bodies on questions of social and economic policies.

The executive may refer any question or proposal of social or economic importance to the Economic and Social Council. They are published in the Journal Official. French law provides for a separate judicial branch with an independent judiciary which does not answer to or is directly controlled by the other two branches of government.

France has a civil law legal system, the basis of which is codified law; however, case law plays a significant role in the determination of the courts. The most distinctive feature of the French judicial system is that it is divided into judicial and administrative streams. The judicial stream of courts adjudicates civil and criminal cases. The judicial court stream consists of inferior courts, intermediate appellate courts , and the French Court of Cassation , the supreme court.

Judges are government employees but are granted special statutory protection from the executive. Judges have security of tenure and may not be promoted or demoted without their consent. Their careers are overseen by the Judicial Council of France. The public prosecutors, on the other hand, take orders from the Minister of Justice.

Education in Indonesia

In the past, this has bred suspicion of undue political pressure to dismiss suits or claims against government officials charged with corruption, and the status of public prosecutors and their ties to government are frequently topics of debate. Trial by jury is available only for severe criminal cases, which are the jurisdiction of the Courts of Assizes. A full Court is made up of a 3-judge panel and a petty jury of 9 jurors vs.

Jurors are selected at random from eligible voters. In most other courts, judges are professional, except that the criminal court for minors is composed of one professional and two lay judges. Also, several specialty courts of original jurisdiction are sat by judges who are elected into office. For instance, labor tribunals are staffed with an equal number of magistrates from employers' unions and employees' unions.

The same applies to land estate tribunals. Pre-trial proceedings are inquisitorial by nature, but open court proceedings are adversarial. The burden of proof in criminal proceedings is on the prosecution , and the accused is constitutionally presumed innocent until proven guilty. Courts of administrative law adjudicate on claims and suits against government offices and agencies. The administrative stream is made up of administrative courts, courts of administrative appeal, and the Council of State as the court of last resort.

The Council of State hears cases against executive branch decisions and has the power to quash or set aside executive-issued statutory instruments such as orders and regulations when they violate constitutional law, enacted legislation, or codified law. Court proceedings mostly involve written hearings and are inquisitorial , with judges having the parties submit written testimony or arguments.

Any jurisdictional dispute between the judicial and administrative streams are settled by a special court called Tribunal des conflits , or "Court of Jurisdictional Dispute", composed of an equal number of Supreme Court justices and councillors of State. Neither judicial nor administrative courts are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of acts of Parliament. While technically not part of the judicial branch, the Constitutional Council examines legislation and decides whether or not it violates the Constitution.

After their enactment, laws can all be reviewed by referral from the highest administrative court, the Conseil d'Etat, or by the highest judicial court, the Cour de Cassation. The Constitutional Council may declare acts to be unconstitutional, even if they contradict the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen cited in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Council members to the Constitutional Council are appointed for nine years three every three years ; three are appointed by the President, three by the President of the National Assembly, and three by the President of the Senate. The former presidents are also members for life of the Constitutional Council.

France's main Court of Audit Cour des Comptes and regional audit courts audit government finances, public institutions including other courts , and public entities. The court publishes an annual report and can refer criminal matters to public prosecutors. It can also directly fine public accountants for mishandling funds, and refer civil servants who misused funds to the Court of Financial and Budgetary Discipline. The main and regional audit courts do not judge the accountants of private organizations. However, in some circumstances, they may audit their accounting, especially when an organization has been awarded a government contract over a public utility or a service requiring the permanent use of the public domain or if an organization is a bidder on a government contract.

The Court is often solicitated by various state agencies, parliamentary commissions, and public regulators, but it can also petitioned to act by any French citizen or organization operating in France. The Court's finances are overseen by financial commissions of the two Houses of the French Parliament which also set the Court's working budget in the annual Act of finances. The ombudsman is charged with solving, without the need to a recourse before the courts, the disagreements between citizens and the administrations and other entities charged with a mission of a public service; [33] proposing reforms to the Government and the administrations to further these goals; and actively participating in the international promotion of human rights.

The ombudsman is appointed for a period of 6 years by the President of the Republic in the Council of Ministers. He cannot be removed from office and is protected for his official actions by an immunity similar to parliamentary immunity. He does not receive or accept orders from any authority.

The current ombudsman is Jean-Paul Delevoye. France uses a civil law system; that is, law arises primarily from written statutes; judges are not to make law, but merely to interpret it though the amount of judge interpretation in certain areas makes it equivalent to case law. Many fundamental principles of French Law were laid in the Napoleonic Codes.

Basic principles of the rule of law were laid in the Napoleonic Code: laws can only address the future and not the past ex post facto laws are prohibited ; to be applicable, laws must have been officially published see Journal Officiel. In agreement with the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen , the general rule is that of freedom, and law should only prohibit actions detrimental to society.

As Guy Canivet , first president of the Court of Cassation , said about what should be the rule in French law: [34]. That is, law may lay out prohibitions only if they are needed, and if the inconveniences caused by this restriction do not exceed the inconveniences that the prohibition is supposed to remedy.

France does not recognize religious law , nor does it recognize religious beliefs as a motivation for the enactment of prohibitions. As a consequence, France has long had neither blasphemy laws nor sodomy laws the latter being abolished in There are also more and more regulations issued by independent agencies, especially relating to economic matters. Finance Acts shall determine the resources and obligations of the State in the manner and with the reservations specified in an institutional Act. Social Security Finance Acts shall determine the general conditions for the financial balance of Social Security and, in light of their revenue forecasts, shall determine expenditure targets in the manner and with the reservations specified in an institutional Act.

Programme Acts shall determine the objectives of the economic and social action of the State. Other areas are matters of regulation. This separation between law and regulation is enforced by the Conseil constitutionnel : the government can, with the agreement of the Conseil constitutionnel , modify by decrees the laws that infringe on the domain of regulations. When courts have to deal with incoherent texts, they apply a certain hierarchy: a text higher in the hierarchy will overrule a lower text.

The general rule is that the Constitution is superior to laws which are superior to regulations. However, with the intervention of European law and international treaties, and the quasi- case law of the administrative courts, the hierarchy may become somewhat unclear. The following hierarchy of norms should thus be taken with due caution:.

Upcoming Events

However, in , the national government passed legislation to decentralize authority by giving a wide range of administrative and fiscal powers to local elected officials. In March , regional councils were directly elected for the first time, and the process of decentralization has continued, albeit at a slow pace. Here's a novel idea I actually heard Judy say we'd received two positions and learned much Ye gods, who learned anything? Re: Last night's [Aug. Obama is abandoning the concept of welfare to work. Within a storm of distortion and hyperbole, Mr.

Politics USA, 2nd Edition

Rector stated that the Pres. My complaints are: 1 that Ms. Woodruff said not one word of follow-up to either of these assertions. If the Pres. Rector what actions are being taken or contemplated to put a stop to these crimes? And 2 since Mr. Rector was clearly opposed to the Pres. Woodruff to at least ask why two states' Republican governors specifically asked the Pres. I see more cases of this type of omission or failure to follow-up on PBS than I can count. I will not continue to pay to hear obvious acts of disinformation going unchallenged.

Regarding an item tonight on welfare with two external contributors, from the Heritage Foundation and Georgetown University: To be blunt, I am saddened at your cowardice as a professional journalist. You did not challenge the statements of the Heritage Foundation representative on two very easily tested assertions namely:. Which programs were included in this?

A simple question — not asked.

Why not? Why was it assumed that they were all "welfare"? Also not asked. Surely it was an easy question to ask where this was stated? Which Republican state government was asking for that specific change? What clause in the administration letters approved it? It is desperately sad to see the land of the free become the home of the scaredy-cats unwilling to stand up for the truth as opposed to the "fair and balanced" faux test.

Dear Mr. Getler, I see you write critically about the PBS NewsHour, checking their sources for veracity, missing compelling stories and bias in the news. My criticism of this news program is perhaps mild by comparison, but just as significant: the almost routine failure of PBS studio interviewers to know much of anything about the subject of their interviews. I just watched, for example, Judy Woodruff, a prime practitioner of interviewing in the dark, question a proponent and opponent of Obama's proposal to allow two Republican governors to change welfare rules in Nevada and Utah.

She may have ended the interview by claiming that we learned something from this segment, but there was absolutely nothing I learned about poverty in the United States, a grandiose subject that Woodruff is apparently in no way capable of addressing. Instead, she interviewed like a mesmerized tennis fan, turning to each interviewee at regular intervals, asking them to respond to the other's charges or countercharges. By the end of the interview, the viewer is no wiser about public policy, which should at least be considered in such reporting, rather than the horse race that Woodruff encourages with her superficial inquiries.

In addition, the set-up piece in no way provided adequate information about welfare policy or practices in the US, and Woodard was cowed in the face of a Heritage Foundation advocate who threw billion dollar figures about in arguing that such costly government intervention should end poverty and its failure to do so only signaled the futility of such efforts. She was fortunate the professor from Georgetown University was informed enough to carry the interview for her.


  1. Lesprit public au XVIIIe siècle. Etude sur les mémoires et les correspondances politiques des contemporains, 1715 à 1789 (French Edition)?
  2. Navigation menu!
  3. Un monde meilleur ? : Pour une nouvelle approche de la mondialisation (Hors collection) (French Edition)?
  4. The Indiscretion?
  5. World Money Laundering Report Volume 11 Number 4.
  6. Help With Skin Care: A Guide For Teens, Men and Women of All Ages!
  7. Have We Learned Anything?!

She did the same a few nights ago when interviewing two analysts about the division of the tax burden. I find this so-called news reporting laziness of the worst sort because it poses so earnestly as even handed. In fact it is a disservice to the public because it really offers no information beyond two counter opinions. To NewsHour viewers who wrote in about our discussion of welfare reform on August 9th: I appreciate your writing the PBS Ombudsman, who passed along your comments to me.

and syllabi

Our goal in the interview with Peter Edelman and Robert Rector was to tackle the charge by the Romney campaign last week that President Obama has walked away from the work requirements in the welfare reform law of , an allegation we reported the White House has emphatically rejected. We invited these two men because they are considered among the most knowledgeable people in the country on the welfare system, even as they hold diametrically different views. Just as important, their positions mirror those of the two candidates, so we felt we could conduct a joint interview, reflecting the arguments on both sides.