Search results

Two stages in the conceptualization of & research on political tolerance are addressed: the studies of Stouffer (1955), Prothro & Grigg, & others; & the work of J. Sullivan (1979) & his collaborators. In relation to earlier research, Sullivan & his collaborators have established a "contentual control" of tolerance by precisely distinguishing political attitudes toward generally unpopular groups in society from tolerance itself or from the readiness to put up with those groups with which individuals otherwise do not agree. We believe, however, that this does not sufficiently define political tolerance. We therefore define tolerance as the readiness to put up with certain groups with which individuals do not otherwise agree -- in correspondence with the ensemble of universal political liberties (ie, the general norms of democracy) -- but only up to certain limits. Tolerance can reach certain limits because political liberties are not absolute values but are restricted by other relevant values of society. This complicates also the methodology of the study of this very complex phenomenon. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the specific features of the American political system, its structure, & the political effects that it produces. She pays particular attention to the 1992 congressional elections & how they differed from previous ones, especially in that more women, members of ethnic communities, & young people, were elected to the House of Representatives. The changes in the composition of Congress are the result of three essential factors: (1) the long battle for the recognition of civil rights, especially for women; (2) the inclination of the electoral body to limit the congressional term of office; & (3) a better possibility of tailoring electoral units so that minorities can become majorities & secure a larger representation in Congress. 1 Table, 22 References. Adapted from the source document.

Political attitudes & activity of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of American democracy, are described in this text. The author describes Jefferson's role in political activities of major importance for the creation of the US: compiling the Declaration of Independence, operating the Legislative Assembly of the state of Virginia, enacting of the separation of church & state, creating American foreign policy & the policy of Western colonization, introducing the first ten Constitutional amendments as a guarantee of human & civil rights, & elaborating on the principles of the organization of federal government. Jefferson fought against excessive legislation on powers of central political institutions. He established the tradition of Republicans versus Federalists led by Hamilton. That opposition gave birth to the modern American two-party system. Jefferson's presidency was also significant due to the elimination of centralist & oligarchic tendencies of previous Federalist governments. The author suggests that Jefferson's political theory & practice have left a permanent mark on the contemporary theory of democratic republicanism. 45 References. Adapted from the source document.

Kant's philosophy in its entirety outgrew its Humeist heritage of rational empiricism, ie, relativism. This relativism is particularly unwelcome in the realm of morality -- hence his philosophy of a priori concepts. Since law, as the minimum of morality, would be invalidated by the political (value) relativism, Kant has no politics apart from law -- specifically civil, Roman law -- which he declares natural (& absolutely rational). Roman private legal principles are the axiomatic foundations on which a structure of deductional theorems of political reasoning is erected. Ubi ius ibi remedium is the central principle, which serves to deny & circumvent rights -- including the right to revolt -- that would make up a set of political supra "rights." In the age of enlightened absolutism -- a schematic derivative of the philosophy of rationalism -- government ceased to be diffuse. Its bearers became too unequivocal, & the whole system turned into a highly visible & assailable target. For Kant (as well as for Hobbes), anarchy is the worst form of tyranny. While Montesquieu & Rousseau sought refuge from tyranny in the diffusion of power, & Raynal & Mably claimed that the right to resist oppression is not only the ultimate remedium but a civil duty, Kant (long before the French revolution & Burke) considers as nonpermissible not only the right to resist oppression but also that against revolutions instigated by legitimate sovereigns. Adapted from the source document.

The author presents two alternative concepts of democracy: the procedural, which values systems according to the procedures that a government makes use of in its day-to-day functioning; & the substantial, which insists on the political decisions' content as the criterion of a system's democracy. Based on these two concepts, the theoreticians of democracy have construed three different models of democracy (majority, pluralist & consensual); the first two are on the line of the procedural, & the third of the substantial theory of democracy. The advocates of the majority model are of the opinion that a government is primarily responsible to public opinion, ie, the citizens' majority; the pluralists consider democracy to be the government of several interest groups, of which none is powerful enough to impose its interest; the consensual model emphasizes the need for the government to guarantee, through its decisions, human & civil rights. This model also points out the need for protecting national minorities by employing mechanisms that enable their participation in the government. The author concludes that the latter model would best suit the societies of Central & Eastern Europe since they, due to their historical, social & cultural circumstances are not in the position to evolve Western models based on the procedural understanding of democracy. Adapted from the source document.

The author considers Croatia's priority in foreign affairs to be the establishment of peace & reintegration of occupied Croatian territory. The international community lent its support to solving Croatia's problems only with certain conditions attached: respect for human & democratic rights, especially the rights of minorities; & respect for the integrity of other countries. The basic problem faced by the international community is that since the end of the East-West polar orientations, there is no concept for solving the conflicts that have erupted in postcommunist countries. In Croatia, the war was viewed (wrongly) as a civil war. The controversy in the Croatian policy, as seen by the author, is in the requirement for absolute adherence to democratic principles, which is difficult to realize in times of war, & in the acceptance of complete democracy as a precondition to peaceful reintegration of occupied Croatian territory. Adapted from the source document.

In the wake of the 'Kant revival,' which has spawned a plethora of works on his philosophy by its contemporary interpreters & advocates such as Herbert Schnadelbach, Hans Lenk, Konrad Cramer, Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, Volker Gerhardt, Karl-Otto Apel, Otfried Hoffe & others (whose studies were published this year under the title of Kant in der Diskussion der Moderne), the author tries to prove, by means of an analysis of Kant's treatise Uber den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fur die Praxis, that not only did Kant in his later works draft & expound the program of a practical philosophy of morality & right, politics, & history, but also that in the last three chapters of this work, this philosophy evolves into a modern liberal theory of morality, state law, & international or "international civil" law built around the central principle of Kant's practical philosophy: "Was aus Vernunftgrunden fur die Theorie gilt, das gilt auch fur die Praxis.". Adapted from the source document.