Poliarchie / Polyarchies volume 7 n. 1/2024

The concept of obstetric violence has recently gained prominence in both public and scientific discourse, despite the fact that the phenomenon it denotes – the mistreatment of birthing mothers by healthcare professionals responsible for their care – has longstanding roots. Surprisingly, scientific literature has given scant attention to the perspectives of professionals on the topic. In this article, we will explore how the category of obstetric violence has evolved through a grassroots movement of digital activism and we will examine its reception among various birth attendants: midwives, gynaecologists, anaesthesiologists. Our analysis draws on data from 32 semi-structured interviews conducted with professionals across three different birth care settings: two university hospitals, a private birthing house, an alongside birth centre. We will show how the development of the category of OV is part of a broader process of transformation of the caregiver-patient relationship.

The primary objective of this paper is to analyse how secondary victimisation is carried out by Italian judges in the reasons of judgement of their verdicts, particularly in trials for rape. Secondary victimization has long aroused interest in the scientific landscape, especially when referring to women victims of gender-based violence (Shoham et al. 2010); and has been extensively studied in the forms of rape myths (Brownmiller 1975; Estrich 1976; Bohner et al. 1998; Thornton 2022) and genderized stereotypes (Smith 2018). But little or no research is present looking at how language is used by judges in the legal context of a judgement, especially in the Italian sociological landscape. The second aim of this work is, therefore, to fill the literature gap applying Membership Categorization Analysis to two Italian appeal verdicts in trials for rape. By doing so, it is shown how the victim is characterised by the judges through language pertaining rape myths and gendered stereotypes, and how these discriminating elements are used as evidence to evaluate the presence of a crime – therefore making legal a moral judgement on the victims, and not a lawful one towards the defendants.

Understanding public integrity is nowadays an essential pillar of modern democracies. The evolution of integrity has been characterised by a gradual transition, from a ‘meta-legal’ to a legal space, until the recent ‘enhancement’ of the principle, which regulates the good conduct of public officials, as well as good governance in the public sector. The evolution of this principle is also due to the adoption of many national laws, that have significantly affected the public sector. Indeed, some core values such as good administration in public law and, more recently, the concept of ‘good governance’ in the international dimension have encouraged several reforms, which have questioned the traditional conceptualisation of the public sector and its founding principles. Currently, integrity carries a twofold meaning: it refers both to its individual dimension (each single public employee), and to the institutional and organisational dimension (the office as a whole). The paper deals with the evolution of the concept of integrity through the philosophical, legal, political and administrative perspectives.

This article focuses on the intricate dynamics between seismic events and diplomatic relations, challenging a more conventional perspective on disaster diplomacy. Through a comparative analysis of the earthquakes in 1999 and 2023 involving Turkey, Greece, and Syria, the study’s findings unveil that seismic disasters result not in a transformative catalyst but as integral components reinforcing pre-existing foreign policy strategies. The analysis of the disaster management and the diplomatic interplay, elucidated through the case studies, enriches our understanding of the multifaceted nature of global interactions during and post-catastrophe. Finally, the study initiates an exploration of disaster empathy versus disaster diplomacy suggesting a potential framework for further investigation, also in light of even more occurring catastrophes.

This paper analyzes and compares three key elections in Zambia (2021), Kenya (2022) and Nigeria (2023). The aim was twofold: assessing the impact of elections on the democratic process and on the party system. The Zambian elections confirmed a trend towards democracy and party system consolidation, which since 2016 has become a two-party system. 2021’s general elections marked also an important defeat for the incumbent and the consequent government change, with a significant increasing of voter numbers. This double result – the government change and the good level of voter participation – were considered as two indicators of the vitality and the full legitimacy of the democratic process. Contrary, in the other two cases under scrutiny problems of democratic consolidation seems to arise. In both cases the incumbent coalition won but what seriously affected the electoral legitimacy is the decline in voter participation recorded (i.e. dropping to 27% in Nigeria). The role of ethnicity was tested for all three cases by disaggregating the vote at the constituency level.