In many respects, the year 2020 is unique in human history. The global crisis caused by the spread of the Sars-CoV-2 virus put almost every country on the planet in an unimaginable situation of combating the pandemic and reasonable attempts to preserve the entrenched models of living and working. This also applies to holding elections in democratic political systems whose terms are usually predetermined by constitutional norms. A democratic multi-party election -viewed as an act of free and fair decision-making by voters about who is to lead certain bodies of government and take certain positions of power -presupposes, overall, usual election circumstances, especially in terms of health and life safety of the participating voters and candidates. South Korea was the first country in the world to hold a parliamentary election amid the first wave of the coronavirus spread in April 2020, whereas in Europe, the four successor states of the former Yugoslavia did so. Serbia held its parliamentary election after an initial postponement in June, Croatia and North Macedonia in July, and Montenegro in August 2020. Held in unprecedented epidemiological conditions, the parliamentary election in each of these states amounted to a test of voters' attitude toward the respective government heading the state during the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the most-similar method of comparative analysis, this paper defines the term 'pandemic election' and analyses whether coping with the current crisis based on the election results benefited the current government or the opposition and why. When human health is at risk, is democracy at risk as well? Specifically, did the Covid-19 pandemic impinge on the process of parliamentary elections and their results? If it is the case, how did it affect them? Who won these elections: the parties in power faced with the crises amid the pandemic or the opposition parties that criticized their respective governments for their actions.

No abstract

The war in Ukraine is the most significant threat to the peace of the Euro-Atlantic area in decades. After 4 years of Trump’s weakening of transatlantic relations, Biden’s presumed foreign policy doctrine includes their quick renewal, or re-Atlantisation. The article problematises the ‘new’ strategy of containment given Russia’s aggression, the state of transatlantic relations, and the current global order’s configuration, whereby the transatlantic bond is being strengthened and the formation of Biden’s foreign policy doctrine is being followed by a ‘grand-strategic’ shift. Four different models of transatlantic relations (mutual autonomy, strategic autonomy, strategic partnership, situational partnership) are discussed where variables include the approach taken by the USA to transatlantic relations, and the approach of Europe’s EU and NATO members to transatlantic relations are addressed. The main argument is that transatlantic relations during Biden’s mandate have constantly oscillated between a stra-tegic partnership, especially related to common goals of democracy promotion and containment and situ-ational partnership. Situations like the war in Ukraine have simultaneously acted to strengthen the American–European partnership based on the shared security and political interests.Keywords: transatlantic relations, reatlantisation, USA, Europe, Biden doctrine, war in Ukraine, strategic part-nership, situational partnership

In 2020, Croatia marked three decades of holding multi-party democratic elections for its Parliament. During this dramatic period manifested by the declaration of independence, the war for independence, the post-war period, and the entry into NATO and the European Union, Croatia used for its parliamentary elections both majority and PR electoral models, as well as their combination. This makes it unique among all transition countries in Central, East, and Southeast Europe. In 2015, the Croatian Parliament enacted into law new electoral rules according to which parliamentary elections were held last six years. The introduction of the preferential vote for parliamentary elections which has been used in Croatia for the elections to the European Parliament in 2013 seemingly has made possible a greater influence of voters on the election of candidates. In short, in the parliamentary elections, the same as in the European elections, voters can give one preferential vote to one of the candidates proposed on the electoral list of a party, a coalition, or a group of independent candidates. However, the high percentage of votes which must be won by the candidates on lists for the preferential vote to have any effect again brings to the fore political parties and their leaders, rather than individual candidates. The Croatian party system is one of the most stable ones in Europe, so the question arises how much this was affected by the electoral rules and political parties with their public and hidden incentives, respectively.