Search results

Political parties are an indispensable factor in any modern parliamentary democracy. It would be impossible to parliamentary democracy to function properly without them. Political parties are a constitutional category and they have to act in accordance with constitution, but due to their importance it is already observed that sometimes they go beyond constitution. Each country should find its own way in order to face that challenge. Germany is a good example for that, by giving political parties the freedom to act on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Law, but with the care that the entire system does not endanger itself. That could be seen in three examples. First example is the relationship between the parliamentary group as the emanation of political parties in parliament and deputies. Second example is banning of anti-constitutional political parties. Third example is the election process of judges of the Constitutional Court. The paper concludes that it is necessary to find an ideal formula for the freedom of their actions, according to which political parties are allowed to perform any action that is beneficial to the constitutional order, while not all of them are forbidden, but only the actions that have a devastating effect on the system as a whole.

By reporting on some conflicts but not on others, and by representing conflicts they report on in particular ways, the media strongly influence the dynamics and outcomes of democratisation conflicts, and thus also shape the prospects of success of conflict parties. This paper explores the literature on media and conflict by focusing on the ways in which media frame inter-state and civil wars, institutionalised conflicts and social movements in western democracies, and conflicts in nondemocratic and democratising states. Much of the literature discusses the ways in which western media frame foreign conflicts and domestic election campaigns and policy debates, while there is considerably less focus on domestic conflicts in nonwestern settings, such as those that arise during and after transitions from nondemocratic rule. There are only limited attempts to draw parallels between the media coverage of disparate conflicts. In contrast, this study builds upon research findings in these related areas to draw lessons for empirical research of media framing of the contentious dimension of contemporary democratisation. This study concludes that the political context is the main factor that shapes the media framing of various forms of political conflict. Several dimensions of the political context matter in this respect, such as regime type, international (foreign) or domestic perspective, elite consensus or conflict, policy consensus or uncertainty, policy area, more or less institutionalised nature of the political conflict at stake, and the stage of democratisation. Also, the literature suggests that media framing strongly influences political outcomes and thus fosters or undermines democratic institutions in new democracies. .

Tenth elections for the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia since the reestablishment of a multiparty system were held on March 16th, 2014, under a proportional electoral system. Electoral model essentially established in 2000 also included a single electoral district, closed party lists, five percent electoral threshold for non-minority parties and a use of D'Hondt formula for distribution of seats. Most important results of the March elections include: the lowest voter turnout and close to half of the votes won by the Serbian Progressive Party (which, in turn, gave them 63% of parliament members). Moreover, more than 80 percent of the seats was won by lists led by governing parties, i. e. Progressive or Socialist party. Elections were also not just a disaster for Democratic party, but also for Democratic Party of Serbia, Liberal Democratic Party, and United Regions of Serbia, which all lost seats in the National Assembly. Traditional success of the minority parties of most numerous national minorities (i.e. Hungarians, Bosniaks and Albanians) was noted. Also, for the first time, the parliament will convene without so-called sovereignists and opponents of European integration process. Finally, March elections were marked by a large number of squandered votes.

Despite the progress in all fields, modern society is facing the development of the means of political violence. Technological development also has its dangerous side. Many researches in the field of science are often carried out for the sake of military needs, and scientific researchers are often misused in military purpose. Political violence represents one of the greatest threats for the democratic development and human rights in contemporary society. The main goal of this paper is to analyze the position of political violence in contemporary society, particularly focusing on its covert use by the great powers, which is often justified by the struggle for democracy and achieving human rights. In that sense this paper is divided into two parts. The first part analyzes the globalization process, underling that this process has double face, whose negative side can significantly contribute to the spread of political violence. In the second part the author deals with the relations between policy and violence in contemporary society. The paper underlines the need for critical approach to political violence. This critical approach is crucial for understanding of political violence which is the first step in the fight against it. Political violence is not always negative and sometimes can have a positive role, especially when it comes to defensive war and combating terrorism. But the main problem here is that this can be misused to justify political violence in general. What is positive and what is the negative role of political violence often depends on the perspective of observation. Unfortunately, it seems that the privilege to enforce the standard today is reserved only for great powers, and they have become main judges who decide when political violence is to be approved of or not. This is the way in which a war becomes humanitarian interventions, protection of human rights, etc. That is why it is of great importance to encourage and initiate all actions in science which aim to understand and counter this complex phenomenon.

The migrant crisis that Europe has been facing for many years has triggered an avalanche of xenophobia and the dispersion of anti-migrant sentiments that have become the reference matrix for populist discourse. Anti-migrant discourse emerges in parallel as a form of language use and a form of social and political interaction. The antagonistic stereotypical narrative of migrants begins with the thesis that they constitute a retrograde social group that poses an economic and security threat to the natives and which is not capable of culturally assimilating in the countries of transit and destination (dichotomy Us vs. Them). Spreading anti-migrant discourse becomes a strategy for winning the electorate and an important tool for mobilizing political support. The political engineering of European political parties shows that anti-migrant discourse is not the exclusivity of right-wing parties of the political spectrum (although they are the most closely related), but is becoming an increasingly important topic on the political agenda of left-wing populism. Anti-migrant discourse is reflected through a nationalist and hostile approach to immigration, the glorification of national and sovereign narratives, and hostility to neoliberalism. Anti-migrant narratives have found their footing in the political activities of many European parties that are largely sovereignly profiled. Such a political vault of reasoning transforms migrant into a foreigner and attest on the triumph of communitarianism in regards to cosmopolitanism, which makes the EU's slogan "in varietate concordia" (united in diversity) questionable and subject to deconstruction.