Suchergebnisse

The author analyzes the relationship among atomism, pluralism, & democracy from the standpoint of contemporary Rawlsian & Kafkian theory of justice. The author views fairness & justice as forms of substituting democratic decision making in multicultural communities. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the relationship among atomism, pluralism, & democracy from the standpoint of contemporary Rawlsian & Kafkian theory of justice. The author views fairness & justice as forms of substituting democratic decision making in multicultural communities. Adapted from the source document.

This article analyses the representation and main characteristics of comparative politics articles published in the journal Politicka misao. Starting from the assumption that the political and academic fields are engaged in a process of 'reciprocal legitimation', we divided the period of analysis into two phases and research subsamples. The first encompasses articles published in the period 1964-1989, while the second covers articles published in the period 1990-2013. Content analysis reveals that during the first phase comparative politics articles were weakly represented in the journal. The few articles that belong to the field were mostly written from a Marxist perspective, and occasionally from the perspective of old normative institutionalism. Overall they were methodologically unreflective, descriptive and configurative. The most frequent topics were self-managing democracy, communist and revolutionary parties, anti-imperial movements and conflicts in Third World countries. The time period after 1990 is characterised by a strengthening of the field of comparative politics. First of all, there is a notable increase in the number of articles dedicated to elections, electoral systems, political parties and party systems, legislatures and governments, constitutionalism and the judiciary, political culture, nationalism, as well as European institutions and processes. Secondly, theoretical approaches are more diversified, ranging from new institutionalism, behavioralism and pluralism to rational choice theory and cultural theory. Though case studies and focused studies with a small-N are the most frequent empirical strategies, overall methodology remains the weakest element of domestic academic production in comparative politics, while explicitly methodological discussions remain extremely rare. Adapted from the source document.

This paper deals with Bhikhu Parekh's theory of intercultural evaluation. Parekh's approach to multiculturalism is based on an open dialogue between minorities & the majority on cultural practices that should be tolerated. In the first part, author criticizes Parekh's concept of operative public values, which Parekh uses as a starting point for intercultural debate. In the second part, author deals with the problem of consistency between Parekh's theoretical arguments & their application to particular cases. In the conclusion, author argues that Parekh's aspiration to avoid both claims of liberal universalism & cultural relativism is unsuccessful because he fails to provide a convincing theoretical argument on how to resolve disputes on cultural values & practices. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author deals with the issue of the relationship between liberalism & multiculturalism & points out certain tensions stemming from the debate between liberals & multiculturalists. The paper mentions the theoretical interventions of political philosophers such as Charles Taylor (multiculturalist), John Gray (postmodern liberal conservative) & Brian Barry (liberal universalist). By looking into Barry's attack on Taylor & Gray, the author tries to show Barry's mistake in accusing those two of relativism derived from incommensurability, but also gives him credit for unerringly recognizing the weaknesses of the relativist criticism of liberalism. According to the author, many theoreticians participating in the academic dispute between the liberals & the multiculturalists assume that the real targets are the liberal egalitarians (Rawls & his disciples). This has created a dramatically erroneous impression that the USA are liberal in an egalitarian way. Thus, while the leftist critics of egalitarian liberalism were finding fault with the abominable universalist theory, the antiliberals (& the antimulticulturalists) have gained prominence. 7 References. Adapted from the source document.

Classical liberalism as opposed to traditional concepts has established a notion of justice that envisages the equality of individual (negative) freedoms & (tutelary) rights. Under the influence of socialist criticism, modern-day liberals have been trying to include within the concept of justice the problem of the distribution of positive freedoms & rights. The already classic attempt of solving this problem is John Rawls's theory that defines justice as fairness, based on the principles of the equality of basic freedoms of individuals compatible with the freedom of other individuals; the distribution of goods that will most benefit the least privileged; & the primacy of freedom over social equality & justice over economic efficiency. In a pluralist society, these principles should facilitate the establishment of the "overlapping consensus" among divergent social groups on the issues of the basic social structure. In his attempt to solve the problems of social equality, which Rawls's theory leaves open-ended, Michael Walzer postulates the principle of complex equality, which requires different ways of distribution for different types of goods. These types cannot be specified in advance; however, their distribution is the most remarkable skill of liberal politics. Finally, the author claims that the problem of a just political organization of multicultural societies can be solved by applying Rawls's principles of fairness to the negotiating processes & to achieving consensus among divergent cultural groups on certain issues. Adapted from the source document.

The paper poses the question: is multiculturalism, in the situation of posttraditional social pluralization, an appropriate theoretical & practical model of integration in multiethnic & multicultural societies? In order to provide an answer, the author first analyzes the social processes responsible for speeding up contemporary social & cultural changes. The starting point of the analysis are the key insights of the theory of reflexive modernization. This is followed by an outline of the model of multiculturalism; the author explains why the demands for the group-specific protection of cultural minorities are focal to it. Particular attention is given to the ideas of C. Taylor & W. Kymlicka, & J. Habermas' criticism. The assumption is that in the posttraditional social conditions, juxtaposing collective vs. individual rights misses the point because in the circumstances of constant change & growing social reflexivity only the cultures capable of reflexive self-transformation can survive. Each project of culture protection that is comparable to the protection of "endangered species," which presupposes collective rights & duties, saps culture of its vitality & hinders the individuals in their critical reflexion of their identities. & contrary, in case of radical multiculturalism & rigid assimilationism -- in both cases cultures are understood as natural species outside social context -- posttraditional/reflexive reconstruction of identity can assume fundamentalist character. The author claims that the recognition of cultural minorities remains one of the central issues of present-day liberal democracies; however, the recognition of diversity ought to be based on democratic public debate through which individuals can work out their relationship towards different cultural traditions. 25 References. Adapted from the source document.

The paper poses the question: is multiculturalism, in the situation of posttraditional social pluralization, an appropriate theoretical & practical model of integration in multiethnic & multicultural societies? In order to provide an answer, the author first analyzes the social processes responsible for speeding up contemporary social & cultural changes. The starting point of the analysis are the key insights of the theory of reflexive modernization. This is followed by an outline of the model of multiculturalism; the author explains why the demands for the group-specific protection of cultural minorities are focal to it. Particular attention is given to the ideas of C. Taylor & W. Kymlicka, & J. Habermas' criticism. The assumption is that in the posttraditional social conditions, juxtaposing collective vs. individual rights misses the point because in the circumstances of constant change & growing social reflexivity only the cultures capable of reflexive self-transformation can survive. Each project of culture protection that is comparable to the protection of "endangered species," which presupposes collective rights & duties, saps culture of its vitality & hinders the individuals in their critical reflexion of their identities. & contrary, in case of radical multiculturalism & rigid assimilationism -- in both cases cultures are understood as natural species outside social context -- posttraditional/reflexive reconstruction of identity can assume fundamentalist character. The author claims that the recognition of cultural minorities remains one of the central issues of present-day liberal democracies; however, the recognition of diversity ought to be based on democratic public debate through which individuals can work out their relationship towards different cultural traditions. 25 References. Adapted from the source document.

Haberle clarifies his conception of constitution as culture & discusses his interpretation of the relationship between state & society, both based on the fundamental principles spelled out in this document. Other, related issues addressed here are the following: (1) the concept of political culture; (2) constitution as the expression of a nation's mentality & cultural heritage; (3) the constitution-public relationship; (4) constitutional theory as a theory of open society; (5) culture as a sine qua non element of the creation & functioning of the state; (6) the fallacy of Carl Schmitt's friend-foe theory; (7) the tradition of constitutional theory in Germany; (8) the significance of the year 1989 in the history of Europe; (9) the preparation of a draft of the Constitution of the European Union; (10) optimistic & pessimistic views of humans, ie, John Locke vs Thomas Hobbes; & (11) the constitution & constitutional theory & law in Croatia. Z. Dubiel

The paper analyzes the link between Kant's 'Perpetual peace' and the democratic peace paradigm with which contemporary International Relations are being interpreted. In doing so, the monadic and dyadic versions of liberal theory of democratic peace are explained through the institutional-structural and cultural-normative models. The theory of democratic peace is critically analyzed, with emphasis on the causal relationship between the independent variable, the democratic regime, and the dependent variable, peace. Empirical studies of cases in which the crises among democratic states have not resulted in war are also questioned, which brings into doubt the causal logic of the theory itself. In critical thought about the democratic peace theory, special emphasis is placed on the realistic interpretation of causes that are believed to contribute to democratic peace, as well as on the existence of the so-called 'democratic war'. There exist a number of factors explaining this foreign policy behavior of democracies and their hiding behind the theses of the theory of democratic peace. An example is the position of power that democracy occupies in International Relations, with which, aside from liberal dependent variables, realistic variables must be taken into account as well, such as the concentration of power, economic interdependence and national interest. Adapted from the source document.

The methodological assumptions of rational choice theory -- methodological individualism & rationality -- are not generally considered suitable for analyzing nations. Nevertheless, if we accept that the political process is at least partially rational, & that nation-building & change are part of that process, this will provide an opening to look at nations from the unorthodox perspective of rational choice. The club theory, as part of rational choice theory, offers great opportunities for establishing analogies between clubs & nations, & thus for shedding new light on some features of modern polities. Establishing a polity, by the club analogy, entails two basic selections: the selection of members & the selection of a sovereign territory that will serve to provide physical protection & material resources for its members. The choice of membership is in general based on the choice of desirable membership characteristics (usually cultural ones). The choice of a sovereign territory is linked to the decision on the part of the members to engage in collective action to acquire the sovereign territory. Adapted from the source document.