Suchergebnisse

Adapted from the source document.

After the restoration of independence of Lithuania the legal basis and administrative structures of heritage preservation were changed many times, though the maintenance, use and state of heritage were not improved, and its decay did not decrease. Undemocratic and inhumane legal basis and management of heritage preservation based on restrictions, prohibitions and penalties without any compensatory incentives for imposed restrictions and economic disadvantages increasingly raises discontent not only from society but also from heritage owners and users.The owners and users of land where heritage objects are situated realize that their property can be used more efficiently and profitably and that social and economic restrictions imposed by heritage protection regulations contravene their rights. Instead of investing into preservation of heritage objects, owners usually attempt to get rid of them.Conflicts between heritage preservation institutions, owners of heritage objects and society are especially inherent in historic city centers where commercial interests are expanding and master plans and development projects propose intensive modernization and development of high rise buildings.Countries with long-lasting democracy traditions are looking for solutions how, without contradicting heritage preservation ethics and social justice, to encourage owners and users of heritage objects to protect and use rationally the legacy inherited from the past simultaneously retaining and stimulating vitality of historic centers and improving quality of life of their inhabitants.The problem is multipartite and ambivalent. Only changes and improvements in heritage preservation systems enacted in latter years in the countries of stable democracy, emphasizing the problem of development and protection ethics, the questions of respect of heritage values and implementation of social justice in juridical and practical heritage preservation activities are discussed in the paper.

After the restoration of independence of Lithuania the legal basis and administrative structures of heritage preservation were changed many times, though the maintenance, use and state of heritage were not improved, and its decay did not decrease. Undemocratic and inhumane legal basis and management of heritage preservation based on restrictions, prohibitions and penalties without any compensatory incentives for imposed restrictions and economic disadvantages increasingly raises discontent not only from society but also from heritage owners and users.The owners and users of land where heritage objects are situated realize that their property can be used more efficiently and profitably and that social and economic restrictions imposed by heritage protection regulations contravene their rights. Instead of investing into preservation of heritage objects, owners usually attempt to get rid of them.Conflicts between heritage preservation institutions, owners of heritage objects and society are especially inherent in historic city centers where commercial interests are expanding and master plans and development projects propose intensive modernization and development of high rise buildings.Countries with long-lasting democracy traditions are looking for solutions how, without contradicting heritage preservation ethics and social justice, to encourage owners and users of heritage objects to protect and use rationally the legacy inherited from the past simultaneously retaining and stimulating vitality of historic centers and improving quality of life of their inhabitants.The problem is multipartite and ambivalent. Only changes and improvements in heritage preservation systems enacted in latter years in the countries of stable democracy, emphasizing the problem of development and protection ethics, the questions of respect of heritage values and implementation of social justice in juridical and practical heritage preservation activities are discussed in the paper.

After the restoration of independence of Lithuania the legal basis and administrative structures of heritage preservation were changed many times, though the maintenance, use and state of heritage were not improved, and its decay did not decrease. Undemocratic and inhumane legal basis and management of heritage preservation based on restrictions, prohibitions and penalties without any compensatory incentives for imposed restrictions and economic disadvantages increasingly raises discontent not only from society but also from heritage owners and users.The owners and users of land where heritage objects are situated realize that their property can be used more efficiently and profitably and that social and economic restrictions imposed by heritage protection regulations contravene their rights. Instead of investing into preservation of heritage objects, owners usually attempt to get rid of them.Conflicts between heritage preservation institutions, owners of heritage objects and society are especially inherent in historic city centers where commercial interests are expanding and master plans and development projects propose intensive modernization and development of high rise buildings.Countries with long-lasting democracy traditions are looking for solutions how, without contradicting heritage preservation ethics and social justice, to encourage owners and users of heritage objects to protect and use rationally the legacy inherited from the past simultaneously retaining and stimulating vitality of historic centers and improving quality of life of their inhabitants.The problem is multipartite and ambivalent. Only changes and improvements in heritage preservation systems enacted in latter years in the countries of stable democracy, emphasizing the problem of development and protection ethics, the questions of respect of heritage values and implementation of social justice in juridical and practical heritage preservation activities are discussed in the paper.

After the restoration of independence of Lithuania the legal basis and administrative structures of heritage preservation were changed many times, though the maintenance, use and state of heritage were not improved, and its decay did not decrease. Undemocratic and inhumane legal basis and management of heritage preservation based on restrictions, prohibitions and penalties without any compensatory incentives for imposed restrictions and economic disadvantages increasingly raises discontent not only from society but also from heritage owners and users.The owners and users of land where heritage objects are situated realize that their property can be used more efficiently and profitably and that social and economic restrictions imposed by heritage protection regulations contravene their rights. Instead of investing into preservation of heritage objects, owners usually attempt to get rid of them.Conflicts between heritage preservation institutions, owners of heritage objects and society are especially inherent in historic city centers where commercial interests are expanding and master plans and development projects propose intensive modernization and development of high rise buildings.Countries with long-lasting democracy traditions are looking for solutions how, without contradicting heritage preservation ethics and social justice, to encourage owners and users of heritage objects to protect and use rationally the legacy inherited from the past simultaneously retaining and stimulating vitality of historic centers and improving quality of life of their inhabitants.The problem is multipartite and ambivalent. Only changes and improvements in heritage preservation systems enacted in latter years in the countries of stable democracy, emphasizing the problem of development and protection ethics, the questions of respect of heritage values and implementation of social justice in juridical and practical heritage preservation activities are discussed in the paper.

Adapted from the source document.

We can name three Christian democratic ideology parties on Lithuania political scene: Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania, Christian Democrats Union and Modern Christian Democrats. Modern Christian Democrats seceded from the matrix (parent) party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats in 2000. Analyzing the Christian democracy process in post- communistic Lithuania it is important to state that it is one of the trends under a tradition which is difficult to assign to right or left economic frames. The Christian Democrats parties were named leftist because they contradicted the liberals and they aspired to limit the economic capital influence on politics in the XXth century. After few decades the main opponents of the right parties were socialists and the policy contemptuous human rights. The experience of politic democracy accumulated in the period of Lithuania between the two wars was a relevant factor in for mation of the contemporary system of political parties. In 1989 restored the Party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats became unambiguous reforms orientated and was classified as a right party. Experience of democracy of the party in inwar Lithuania was also a meaningful factor which formed the modernist party system. The Christian Democrats Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos krikscionių demokratų partija, LKDP) - 16 seats – was founded in 1905 and re-established in 1989 likewise the Homeland Union the Christian democrats are right of centre. Prior to the 1996 elections the party had agreed to form a coalition with the conservatives (even though it stands closer to the social democrats of the LSDP regarding economic issues). Some time in 1994 the Christian democrats were very popular - exactly when the Homeland Union became more radical. Lithuanian Christian democracy can be proud of its past experience and its successful activity after reestablishing the independence.[.].

We can name three Christian democratic ideology parties on Lithuania political scene: Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania, Christian Democrats Union and Modern Christian Democrats. Modern Christian Democrats seceded from the matrix (parent) party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats in 2000. Analyzing the Christian democracy process in post- communistic Lithuania it is important to state that it is one of the trends under a tradition which is difficult to assign to right or left economic frames. The Christian Democrats parties were named leftist because they contradicted the liberals and they aspired to limit the economic capital influence on politics in the XXth century. After few decades the main opponents of the right parties were socialists and the policy contemptuous human rights. The experience of politic democracy accumulated in the period of Lithuania between the two wars was a relevant factor in for mation of the contemporary system of political parties. In 1989 restored the Party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats became unambiguous reforms orientated and was classified as a right party. Experience of democracy of the party in inwar Lithuania was also a meaningful factor which formed the modernist party system. The Christian Democrats Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos krikscionių demokratų partija, LKDP) - 16 seats – was founded in 1905 and re-established in 1989 likewise the Homeland Union the Christian democrats are right of centre. Prior to the 1996 elections the party had agreed to form a coalition with the conservatives (even though it stands closer to the social democrats of the LSDP regarding economic issues). Some time in 1994 the Christian democrats were very popular - exactly when the Homeland Union became more radical. Lithuanian Christian democracy can be proud of its past experience and its successful activity after reestablishing the independence.[.].

We can name three Christian democratic ideology parties on Lithuania political scene: Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania, Christian Democrats Union and Modern Christian Democrats. Modern Christian Democrats seceded from the matrix (parent) party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats in 2000. Analyzing the Christian democracy process in post- communistic Lithuania it is important to state that it is one of the trends under a tradition which is difficult to assign to right or left economic frames. The Christian Democrats parties were named leftist because they contradicted the liberals and they aspired to limit the economic capital influence on politics in the XXth century. After few decades the main opponents of the right parties were socialists and the policy contemptuous human rights. The experience of politic democracy accumulated in the period of Lithuania between the two wars was a relevant factor in for mation of the contemporary system of political parties. In 1989 restored the Party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats became unambiguous reforms orientated and was classified as a right party. Experience of democracy of the party in inwar Lithuania was also a meaningful factor which formed the modernist party system. The Christian Democrats Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos krikscionių demokratų partija, LKDP) - 16 seats – was founded in 1905 and re-established in 1989 likewise the Homeland Union the Christian democrats are right of centre. Prior to the 1996 elections the party had agreed to form a coalition with the conservatives (even though it stands closer to the social democrats of the LSDP regarding economic issues). Some time in 1994 the Christian democrats were very popular - exactly when the Homeland Union became more radical. Lithuanian Christian democracy can be proud of its past experience and its successful activity after reestablishing the independence.[.].

The meaning and usage of the universal term 'democracy' differs from one nation to another. They also differ in various institutional contexts. Legislation, political speeches, public opinion and the media interpret democracy in different ways. Different usages of democracy manifest political differences, which, as the term itself indicates, are of political origin and follow universal values, which can be interpreted in many ways. On the one hand, the historical troubles of Lithuania (specific features of the national identity such as a long common history with Poland, life under the Russian tsars, national rebirth, short but very painful Soviet experience) are reflected in the contemporary usage of the term 'democracy' in Lithuania. They are rather invisible. On the other hand, the actual meaning of democracy is related to its assumed meaning in the Soviet times. Our thesis is rather positive one. On the basis of our empirical data, collected from a survey, and content analysis, we show that the most pertinent explanation of how democracy is understood and interpreted in contemporary Lithuania is to be captured by the "stratification" approach, i.e. the study on how various social groups, differing in their political, economic and cultural resources, perceive democracy. In this research we also show how the notion of democracy gradually expands and incorporates fresh and new meanings differentiated by individual social-political experiences and expectations.

The meaning and usage of the universal term 'democracy' differs from one nation to another. They also differ in various institutional contexts. Legislation, political speeches, public opinion and the media interpret democracy in different ways. Different usages of democracy manifest political differences, which, as the term itself indicates, are of political origin and follow universal values, which can be interpreted in many ways. On the one hand, the historical troubles of Lithuania (specific features of the national identity such as a long common history with Poland, life under the Russian tsars, national rebirth, short but very painful Soviet experience) are reflected in the contemporary usage of the term 'democracy' in Lithuania. They are rather invisible. On the other hand, the actual meaning of democracy is related to its assumed meaning in the Soviet times. Our thesis is rather positive one. On the basis of our empirical data, collected from a survey, and content analysis, we show that the most pertinent explanation of how democracy is understood and interpreted in contemporary Lithuania is to be captured by the "stratification" approach, i.e. the study on how various social groups, differing in their political, economic and cultural resources, perceive democracy. In this research we also show how the notion of democracy gradually expands and incorporates fresh and new meanings differentiated by individual social-political experiences and expectations.

The meaning and usage of the universal term 'democracy' differs from one nation to another. They also differ in various institutional contexts. Legislation, political speeches, public opinion and the media interpret democracy in different ways. Different usages of democracy manifest political differences, which, as the term itself indicates, are of political origin and follow universal values, which can be interpreted in many ways. On the one hand, the historical troubles of Lithuania (specific features of the national identity such as a long common history with Poland, life under the Russian tsars, national rebirth, short but very painful Soviet experience) are reflected in the contemporary usage of the term 'democracy' in Lithuania. They are rather invisible. On the other hand, the actual meaning of democracy is related to its assumed meaning in the Soviet times. Our thesis is rather positive one. On the basis of our empirical data, collected from a survey, and content analysis, we show that the most pertinent explanation of how democracy is understood and interpreted in contemporary Lithuania is to be captured by the "stratification" approach, i.e. the study on how various social groups, differing in their political, economic and cultural resources, perceive democracy. In this research we also show how the notion of democracy gradually expands and incorporates fresh and new meanings differentiated by individual social-political experiences and expectations.

The meaning and usage of the universal term 'democracy' differs from one nation to another. They also differ in various institutional contexts. Legislation, political speeches, public opinion and the media interpret democracy in different ways. Different usages of democracy manifest political differences, which, as the term itself indicates, are of political origin and follow universal values, which can be interpreted in many ways. On the one hand, the historical troubles of Lithuania (specific features of the national identity such as a long common history with Poland, life under the Russian tsars, national rebirth, short but very painful Soviet experience) are reflected in the contemporary usage of the term 'democracy' in Lithuania. They are rather invisible. On the other hand, the actual meaning of democracy is related to its assumed meaning in the Soviet times. Our thesis is rather positive one. On the basis of our empirical data, collected from a survey, and content analysis, we show that the most pertinent explanation of how democracy is understood and interpreted in contemporary Lithuania is to be captured by the "stratification" approach, i.e. the study on how various social groups, differing in their political, economic and cultural resources, perceive democracy. In this research we also show how the notion of democracy gradually expands and incorporates fresh and new meanings differentiated by individual social-political experiences and expectations.

The meaning and usage of the universal term 'democracy' differs from one nation to another. They also differ in various institutional contexts. Legislation, political speeches, public opinion and the media interpret democracy in different ways. Different usages of democracy manifest political differences, which, as the term itself indicates, are of political origin and follow universal values, which can be interpreted in many ways. On the one hand, the historical troubles of Lithuania (specific features of the national identity such as a long common history with Poland, life under the Russian tsars, national rebirth, short but very painful Soviet experience) are reflected in the contemporary usage of the term 'democracy' in Lithuania. They are rather invisible. On the other hand, the actual meaning of democracy is related to its assumed meaning in the Soviet times. Our thesis is rather positive one. On the basis of our empirical data, collected from a survey, and content analysis, we show that the most pertinent explanation of how democracy is understood and interpreted in contemporary Lithuania is to be captured by the "stratification" approach, i.e. the study on how various social groups, differing in their political, economic and cultural resources, perceive democracy. In this research we also show how the notion of democracy gradually expands and incorporates fresh and new meanings differentiated by individual social-political experiences and expectations.

The meaning and usage of the universal term 'democracy' differs from one nation to another. They also differ in various institutional contexts. Legislation, political speeches, public opinion and the media interpret democracy in different ways. Different usages of democracy manifest political differences, which, as the term itself indicates, are of political origin and follow universal values, which can be interpreted in many ways. On the one hand, the historical troubles of Lithuania (specific features of the national identity such as a long common history with Poland, life under the Russian tsars, national rebirth, short but very painful Soviet experience) are reflected in the contemporary usage of the term 'democracy' in Lithuania. They are rather invisible. On the other hand, the actual meaning of democracy is related to its assumed meaning in the Soviet times. Our thesis is rather positive one. On the basis of our empirical data, collected from a survey, and content analysis, we show that the most pertinent explanation of how democracy is understood and interpreted in contemporary Lithuania is to be captured by the "stratification" approach, i.e. the study on how various social groups, differing in their political, economic and cultural resources, perceive democracy. In this research we also show how the notion of democracy gradually expands and incorporates fresh and new meanings differentiated by individual social-political experiences and expectations.