Suchergebnisse

Članak razmatra tri relevantna principa demokracije, inherentna suvremenom društvu: modernost, politika priznanja i sekularizam. Glavno pitanje kojim se bavi je održivost ovih principa kao temelja za zasnivanje kozmopolitske demokracije i utjecaja na daljnju demokratizaciju ljudskog svijeta. Članak (i) istražuje vezu između modernizacije i demokracije kroz perspektivu višestruke moderne kao mogućnosti za proširenje demokracije na nedemokratsko područje svijeta, (ii) analizira politiku priznanja kao temelj za kulturnu koegzistenciju i politički pluralizam, (iii) razmatra problem a) kako ideja sekularizma ugrožava (prijeti) ideju religioznosti i obratno te čine li to uopće; b) koliko je sekularizam sekularan te je li uopće (problem privatne i javne sfere); c) može li sekularizam ostati temeljni princip (kozmopolitske) demokracije. ; This paper reflects on three relevant principles of democracy which are inherent to the contemporary society. These principles are modernity, the politics of recognition, and secularism. The main question is concerned with the sustainability of these principles as the grounds for the foundation of cosmopolitan democracy, and further influence on the democratization of the human world. This paper (i) examines a relationship between modernization and democracy through the perspective of multiple modernities as a possibility for the extension of democracy over the non-democratic parts of the world; (ii) analyzes politics of recognition as a grounds for cultural coexistence and political pluralism and (iii) reflects on the issue of a) how the idea of secularism if/how the idea of secularism treats the idea of religiousness and vice versa, b) how much is secularism secular (the issue of public versus private sphere), and c) can secularism remain to be the basic principle of (cosmopolitan) democracy. ; Cet article examine trois principes pertinents de la démocratie, inhérents à la société actuelle : modernité, politique de reconnaissance et sécularisme. La principale question qu'il pose est celle du maintien de ces principes en tant que fondements pour l'établissement d'une société démocratique et de leur influence sur la démocratisation du monde humain. Cet article (i) étudie la relation entre la modernisation et la démocratie à partir de la perspective des multiples modernités comme possibilité d'étendre la démocratie dans les parties non-démocratiques du monde, (ii) analyse les politiques de reconnaissance comme fondement pour la coexistence culturelle et le pluralisme politique et (iii) réfléchit sur la question de savoir : a) si/comment l'idée du sécularisme traite de l'idée de la religiosité et inversement ; b) dans quelle mesure le sécularisme est séculaire (problème de la sphère publique vs. la sphère privée) ; c) si le sécularisme peut encore rester le principe de base de la démocratie (cosmopolite). ; Dieser Artikel reflektiert über drei relevante Demokratieprinzipien, inhärent der Gesellschaft von heutzutage: modernität, Politik der Anerkennung und Säkularismus. Die Hauptfrage, mit der es sich befasst, ist die Nachhaltigkeit dieser Prinzipien als Grundlage für die Gründung der kosmopolitischen Demokratie und für den Einfluss der weiteren Demokratisierung der menschenwelt. Aus der Perspektive der multiplen modernitäten untersucht der Artikel (i) die Beziehung zwischen der modernisierung und Demokratie als eine möglichkeit für die Ausbreitung der Demokratie auf die nicht demokratischen Gebiete der Welt, (ii) analysiert die Politik der Anerkennung als Fundament für die kulturelle Koexistenz und politischen Pluralismus, (iii) erwägt die Frage a) ob/wie die Idee des Säkularismus die Idee der Religiosität behandelt und umgekehrt; b) ob/inwieweit der Säkularismus säkular ist (das Thema der öffentlichen Sphäre vs. Privatsphäre); c) ob der Säkularismus als Grundprinzip der (kosmopolitischen) Demokratie verbleiben kann.

Hrvatski izvornik: Ercegović, Kristina (2013): Sam svoj gazda: Kako uspjeti u poduzetništvu unatoč svemu i svima. Zagreb: V.B.Z.: 11 – 46. Njemački izvornik: Volker, Kitz (2018): Meinungsfreiheit!: Demokratie für Fortgeschrittene. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer: 9 – 45. ; Kroatischer Ausgangstext: Ercegović, Kristina (2013): Sam svoj gazda: Kako uspjeti u poduzetništvu unatoč svemu i svima. Zagreb: V.B.Z.: 11 – 46. Deutscher Ausgangstext:Volker, Kitz (2018): Meinungsfreiheit!: Demokratie für Fortgeschrittene. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer: 9 – 45.

U ovom su radu analizirani stavovi srednjoškolaca prema selektiranim demokratskim vrijednostima, odnos između shvaćanja i sociodemografskih obilježja učenika srednjih škola te su uspoređena gledišta učenika, njihovih roditelja i profesora. Korišteni su podaci prikupljeni 1993. i 1998. godine u sklopu projekata "Genealogija i transfer modela interkulturalizma" i "Školski kurikulum i obilježja hrvatske nacionalne kulture". Analiza rezultata pokazala je da je 1998. godine došlo do znatnih promjena u stavovima srednjoškolaca prema demokratskim vrijednostima u odnosu prema prijašnjem istraživanju. Promjene se očituju u statistički značajno manjem stupnju prihvaćanja vrijednosti, i to prema sedamnaest, od ponuđenih devetnaest vrijednosti. Nadalje, u oba je istraživanja utvrđeno da varijable socioobrazovnog statusa znatno distingviraju ispitanike s obzirom na njihove stavove. Učenici s boljim uspjehom u školi, polaznici gimnazija i oni s višim obrazovnim aspiracijama i podrijetlom imaju pozitivniji odnos prema demokratskim vrijednostima. Velike su razlike utvrđene s obzirom na stupanj prihvaćanja vrijednosti između učenika, roditelja i profesora. Općenito, najveće slaganje sa svim ponuđenim vrijednostima iskazuju profesori, a najmanje učenici. ; This article analyses the attitudes of high school students towards selected democratic values and the relation between attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics, and compares the attitudes of students, their parents and teachers. The data were obtained during 1993 and 1998 within projects "Genealogy and transfer of models of interculturalism" and "School curriculum and characteristics of Croatian national culture". The analysis of the results showed the significant changes in students' attitudes towards democratic values in 1998 in comparison with the previous study. The changes are revealed through statistically significant lower degree of acceptance of 17 out of 19 suggested values. Furthermore, both studies showed that the variables of socio-educational status distinguish the subjects significantly in regard to their attitudes. Students with higher educational achievement, those attending the academic high schools and those with higher educational aspirations have more positive attitude towards democratic values. The significant differences were also found in the degree of acceptance of those values among students, parents and teachers. Generally, teachers showed the highest acceptance of all suggested values, while students showed the lowest. ; In dieser Arbeit werden Einstellungen der Mittelschüler zu den ausgewählten demokratischen Werten sowie das Verhältnis zwischen den Einstellungen und sozio-demographischen Merkmalen der befragten Mittelschüler analysiert und mit den Einstellungen ihrer Eltern und Lehrer verglichen. Die benutzten Daten wurden 1993 und 1998 im Rahmen von Projekten "Genealogie und Transfer des Interkulturalismusmodells" bzw. "Schulkurrikulum und Merkmale der kroatischen Nationalkultur" erhoben. Die Analyse der Ergebnisse zeigte, dass 1998 im Vergleich zu den früheren Untersuchungen zu bedeutenden Änderungen in den Einstellungen der Mittelschüler zu den demokratischen Werten gekommen ist. Diese Änderungen äußern sich in dem statistisch bedeutend geringeren Akzeptieren der vorgeschlagenen Werte, und zwar bei den siebzehn von neunzehn angeführten Werten. Weiterhin wurde in den beiden Untersuchungen festgestellt, dass sich die Befragten durch Variabeln ihrer sozialen Merkmale und ihrer Schulausbildung im Hinblick auf ihre Einstellungen gravierend unterscheiden. Schüler mit besseren Schulleistungen, Gymnasiasten sowie jene mit höheren Bildungsaspirationen und Herkunft haben eine positivere Stellung zu den demokratischen Werten. Bedeutende Abweichungen ergeben sich auch hinsichtlich der Akzeptanz der genannten Werte unter den Schülern, deren Eltern und Lehrern. Insgesamt finden die angebotenen Werte die höchste Zustimmung unter den befragten Lehrern, und die kleinste unter den Schülern.

Mijenjaju li se stavovi građana o demokraciji u uvjetima povećane institucionalne nestabilnosti i promjena u stranačkom sustavu u Hrvatskoj u posljednjih nekoliko godina? Nastojeći odgovoriti na to pitanje, autori polaze od koncepta političke potpore demokraciji kakav je izvorno zamislio David Easton, a nadogradili su ga i operacionalizirali Russel Dalton i Pippa Norris. U članku se analiziraju odnos difuzne i specifične potpore demokraciji u Hrvatskoj od 1999. do 2018. i utjecaj na ponašanje birača u oblicima glasovanja za etablirane stranke (lojalnost), nove i marginalne stranke (glas) te apstinencije (izlazak). Analiza obuhvaća sedam vremenskih točaka anketnih istraživanja izbora od 1999. do 2018. i nadovezuje se na druga istraživanja potpore demokraciji u Hrvatskoj. Rezultati potvrđuju da se s vremenom produbio jaz između normativne potpore i zadovoljstva funkcioniranjem demokracije, što se ogleda u povećanju broja kritičkih demokrata i nezadovoljnih autokrata. Premda su obje skupine još razmjerno ravnomjerno raspoređene među etabliranima i novim strankama, ima naznaka da nezadovoljni autokrati sve češće biraju "glas" umjesto "izlaska". Pritom, ukupna slika unutarnje strukture potpore demokraciji nakon 2015. sve više nalikuje na stanje prije velikih institucionalnih promjena 2000, što pridaje posebnu dimenziju političkim promjenama 2015. i 2016. i otvara pitanje o utjecaju uspjeha novih političkih aktera na potporu demokraciji u Hrvatskoj. ; Have the attitudes of citizens on democracy changed under increased institutional instability and party system changes in Croatia in recent years? In an attempt to answer that question, the authors start with the concept of support for democracy as originally conceived by David Easton, and later further elaborated on by Russel Dalton and Pippa Norris. This article provides an analysis of the relationship between diffuse and specific support for democracy in Croatia between 1999 and 2018 and its impact on voting behaviour including casting a ballot for the established parties (loyalty), for the new and protest parties (vote) or abstention (exit). The analysis involves seven time points in electoral survey research between 1999 and 2018 in Croatia and is complementary to other research on support for democracy in the country. The results confirm that the gap between normative support and the satisfaction with how democracy works increases over time, which is also evident from the increase in the number of critical (dissatisfied) democrats, but also of dissatisfied autocrats. Although both groups are still rather evenly represented among the established and the new political parties, there are indications that the dissatisfied autocrats will more often than not opt for the vote rather than the exit. At the same time, the overall picture of the post-2015 internal structure of democratic support increasingly resembles the pre-2000 era, when major institutional changes took place, giving an added dimension to the political changes of 2015 and 2016 and sparking the question of the future impact that new political actors will have on the support for democracy.

Carl Schmitt je jedan od najposvećenijih protivnika liberalnog univerzalizma sa svojim pojmom pluralističke, racionalne i uključive konsenzualne politike kao progresivnog demokratskog projekta i svojeg razumijevanja političke arene kao pročišćene, od sukoba slobodne, i na taj način progresivne kretnje demokratske logike. U ovom radu nastojat ću pokazati Schmittove pesimističke i negativne stavove, zasnovane na ontološkim i teološkim temeljima, o deliberativnom modelu politike koja tvrdi da partikularna volja može doći do koncepta zajedničkog javnog interesa ili zajedničkog dobra kroz raspravu i dijalog. Nadalje, pokušat ću pokazati da unutar Schmittovog projekta koncept diktature suverena postoji kao nužni kontrapunkt pojmu politič- kog. Schmitt odbija razumijevati politički život kao medij dijalog koji vodi razumskom konsenzusu. U ovom kontekstu, suveren iz Schmittove teorije mora se razumijevati upravo kao sila napravljena da proizvodi homogenost kroz hegemoniju. Hegemonija, u Gramscijevom smislu, nije gola opresivna sila. Namjesto toga, odnosi se na vladajuću silu sposobnu upisati vlastitu ideologiju i pogled na svijet u javnost kroz uvjeravanje. U tom okviru, ljevičarski mislitelji poput Mouffea, koji preporuča da moramo misliti »sa Schmittom protiv Schmitta« kako bismo razvili novo demokratsko političko razumijevanje, svraćaju pozornost na Schmittovu tezu da je svaki politički identitet u funkciju »mi–oni« antinomije, ali im promiče činjenica da je nemoguće deducirati koncept zbiljski demokratske javne sfere iz Schmittove teorije. Kao što će biti naglašenu u radu, demokracija u Schmittovom smislu može biti savršena forma suverenosti, takva kakva usuprot liberalnoj demokraciji rezultira homogenizacijom i isključenjem heterogenosti, te na taj način mora biti začeta kao fundamentalno hegemonijski sistem. Schmittov ideal demokracije zahtijeva da politički identiteti, javno mišljenje, javna sfera i formiranje volje vudu rezultati suverenove volje i bez prostora za raspravu. ; Carl Schmitt is one of the most dedicated opponents of liberal universalism, with its notion of pluralist, rational and non-exclusivist consensus politics as a progressive democratic project and its understanding of the political arena – "purified", being free from struggles and conflict – as the progressive move of democratic logic. In this paper I will first try to show Schmitt's pessimistic and negative stance based on ontological and theological grounds on the deliberative model of politics with its claim about the possibility of making particular wills reach the conception of common public interest or the common good through discussion and dialogue. Secondly, I'll try to show that, within Schmitt's project, the concept of the sovereign dictatorship exists as the necessary counterpoint to the concept of the political. Schmitt refuses to understand political life as a medium of dialogue leading to a rational consensus. In this context, the sovereign in Schmitt's theory should be precisely understood as a force constructed to reproduce homogeneity in a hegemonic manner. Hegemonia, in a Gramscian sense, is not a bare oppressive force. Rather, it refers to a ruling force which is able to inject its own ideology and world view into the public through persuasion. In this framework, leftist thinkers like mouffe, who recommended that we should think "with Schmitt against Schmitt" in order to develop a new democratic political understanding, draw attention to Schmitt's thesis that every political identity functions as "we-they" antinomy, yet they miss the fact that it is impossible to deduce a conception of a truly democratic public sphere from Schmitt's theory. As it will be emphasized in this paper, democracy in the Schmittian sense can be the perfect form of sovereignty, one which in contrast to liberal democracy results in homogenization and the exclusion of the heterogeneous and thus must be conceived as a fundamentally hegemonic system. The Schmittian ideal of democracy requires that political identities, public opinion, public sphere and will formation are the products of a sovereign will and not of open and free discussion. ; Carl Schmitt est l'un des opposants les plus puissants de l'universalisme libérale de par sa notion de consensus politique pluraliste, rationnel et non exclusiviste en tant que projet démocratique progressiste, mais aussi de par sa compréhension de l'arène politique - « purifiée », libre de toutes luttes et de tout conflit – en tant que mouvement progressiste de la logique dé- mocratique. Dans cet article, je vais en premier lieu tenter de montrer l'opinion pessimiste et négative de Schmitt – basée sur des fondements ontologiques et théologiques – concernant le modèle délibératif de la politique et sa prétention à penser que la formation de volontés particulières pourrait toucher l'intérêt public commun ou le bien commun à travers la discussion et le dialogue. En second lieu, je vais tenter de montrer qu'à l'intérieur du projet de Schmitt le concept de dictature souveraine existe comme contrepartie nécessaire au concept du politique. Schmitt refuse de penser la vie politique comme instrument de dialogue menant au consensus rationnel. Ainsi, le souverain dans la théorie de Schmitt doit précisément être compris comme une force construite pour reproduire une telle homogénéité de manière hégémonique. Hegemonia, au sens gramscien, n'est pas une simple force oppressive ; il s'agit plutôt d'un terme qui se réfère à une force dirigeante capable d'injecter sa propre idéologie et vision du monde dans le domaine public à travers la persuasion. Dans ce contexte, certains penseurs de gauche telle que mouffe qui nous recommande de penser « avec, et contre, Schmitt » dans le but de développer une nouvelle compréhension de la politique démocratique, attirent notre attention sur la thèse de Schmitt où chaque identité politique fonctionne par l'antinomie « nous/eux ». Toutefois, ces penseurs passent à côté du fait qu'il est impossible de déduire une conception de réelle sphère publique démocratique sur la base de la théorie de Schmitt. Comme cet article le souligne bien, la démocratie au sens schmittien peut être la forme parfaite de souveraineté, une forme qui – en contraste avec la démocratie libérale – aboutit à une homogénéisation en excluant l'hétérogé- néité, et ainsi doit être conçue comme un système fondamentalement hégémonique. Selon l'idéal schmittien de démocratie, les identités politiques, l'opinion publique, la sphère publique et la formation de volontés doivent être les produits, non pas d'une discussion ouverte et libre, mais d'une volonté souveraine. ; Carl Schmitt ist einer der mächtigsten Gegner des liberalen Universalismus mit dessen Vorstellung von pluralistischer, rationaler und nicht exklusivistischer Konsenspolitik als einem progressiven demokratischen Projekt und dessen Verständnis der politischen Arena – "gereinigt", frei von Kämpfen und Konflikten – als eines progressiven Schritts der demokratischen Logik. In diesem Beitrag werde ich zunächst versuchen, Schmitts pessimistische, negative und auf ontologischer und theologischer Grundlage ruhende Haltung zum Beratungsmodell der Politik darzulegen, mit dessen Behauptung über die möglichkeit, partikulare Willen zu veranlassen, durch Diskussion und Dialog die Konzeption des gemeinschaftlichen öffentlichen Interesses oder Gemeinwohls zu erreichen. Zweitens werde ich versuchen zu zeigen, dass im Rahmen des schmittschen Projekts der Begriff der souveränen Diktatur als notwendiger Kontrapunkt zum Begriff des Politischen existiert. Schmitt weigert sich, das politische Leben als ein medium des Dialogs zu begreifen, das zu einem rationalen Konsens führt. In diesem Zusammenhang soll das Souveräne in der schmittschen Theorie eben als eine Gewalt aufgefasst werden, die konstruiert ist, um eine solche Homogenität in einer hegemonialen Art zu reproduzieren. Die hegemonia im gramscischen Sinne ist nicht eine bloß repressive Kraft; vielmehr bezieht sie sich auf eine herrschende Kraft, die imstande ist, durch Überzeugungsvermögen ihre eigene Ideologie und Weltanschauung in die Öffentlichkeit zu injizieren. Linksorientierte Denker wie mouffe, die empfohlen haben, wir sollten "mit Schmitt gegen Schmitt" denken, um ein neues demokratisches politisches Verständnis zu entwickeln, lenken in diesem Kontext das Augenmerk auf Schmitts These, jede politische Identität funktioniere durch die "wir – sie"-Antinomie, doch sie übersehen die Tatsache, dass es unmöglich ist, aus der schmittschen Theorie die Vorstellung von einer wahrhaft demokratischen öffentlichen Sphäre abzuleiten. Wie es in dieser Arbeit betont wird, kann die Demokratie im schmittschen Sinne die perfekte Form der Souveränität sein, die – im Gegensatz zur liberalen Demokratie – in der Homogenisierung und Ausgrenzung des Heterogenen resultiert und daher als ein grundlegend hegemoniales System erachtet werden muss. Das schmittsche Ideal der Demokratie erheischt, dass politische Identitäten, öffentliche meinung, öffentliche Sphäre und Willensbildung keine Produkte einer offenen und freien Diskussion, sondern eines souveränen Willens sind.

Cilj rada jest identificiranje europskih društveno-kulturnih i odgojno-obrazovnih vrijednosti koje, uz političke, društvene, kulturne, tehnološke i druge promjene u Hrvatskoj, dovode do potrebe preispitivanja i promišljanja dugoročnih i kratkoročnih odgojno-obrazovnih vrijednosti i ciljeva te do razumijevanja i interpretacije njihovih značenja. Vrijednosti su kategorizirane u tri skupine: a) metapolitičke vrijednosti, koje služe socijalnoj homogenizaciji, b) vrijednosti koje izražavaju društvene, a istodobno i odgojno-obrazovne ciljeve i c) vrijednosti koje odražavaju svojstva osobnosti ili karaktera. Autorica razmatra neke vrijednosti/ciljeve relevantne za promjene u odgojno‐obrazovnom kontekstu kao što su jednakost, kompetentnost, uspjeh, odgovornost, demokracija, tolerancija, kompromis, njihova značenja i proturječnosti. S obzirom na to da su škole temeljni nositelji promjene i procesa remoralizacije, očekuje se etička refleksija i vizualizacija odgojno-obrazovnih vrijednosti i ciljeva te (re)definiranje hijerarhije vrijednosti i ciljeva na njihovoj razini. ; The aim of this study is to identify European socio-cultural and educational values which, together with political, social, cultural, technical and other changes in Croatia, require reconsideration and deliberation of the long-term and short-term educational values and goals, as well as understanding and interpretation of their meanings. The values are categorized in three groups: a) metapolitical values serving the purpose of social homogenization, b) values expressing social and at the same time educational goals, and c) values representing the characteristics of personality and character. The author examines some of the values/goals relevant for the changes in the educational context, such as equality, competence, success, responsibility, democracy, tolerance, compromise, and their meanings and inconsistencies. Given that schools are the basic bearers of change and of the process of remoralization, the ethical reflection and visualization of educational values and goals and the (re)definition of the hierarchy of values and goals is expected on their level. ; Diese Arbeit setzt sich zum Ziel, europäische soziale, kulturelle und erzieherische Bildungswerte zu bestimmen, die zusammen mit den politischen, gesellschaftlichen, kulturellen, technologischen und sonstigen Veränderungen in Kroatien ein Umdenken und Hinterfragen von lang- und kurzfristigen Erziehungs- und Bildungswerten bzw. -zielen sowie eine Reinterpretation deren Bedeutung notwendig machten. Die Werte sind in drei Kategorien eingeteilt: a) metapolitische Werte, die der sozialen Homogenisation dienen, b) Werte, die gesellschaftliche, zugleich jedoch auch Erziehungs- und Bildungsziele ausdrücken und c) Werte, die Persönlichkeits- oder Charaktereigenschaften versinnbildlichen. Die Autorin erörtert einige Werte/Ziele, die für Veränderungen im Erziehungs- und Bildungskontext relevant sind, wie z. B. Gleichheit, Kompetenz, Erfolg, Verantwortungsgefühl, Demokratie, Toleranz, Kompromissbereitschaft, und analysiert deren Bedeutung und Widersprüchichkeit. Im Hinblick darauf, dass die Schulen Hauptträger der Veränderungen und des moralischen Erneuerungs-prozesses sind, wird eine ethische Reflexion und Visualisierung von erzieherischen Bildungswerten und -zielen sowie eine Redefinition der Werte- und Zielhierarchie auf dieser Ebene erwartet.

Članak nastoji rasvijetliti tendencije suvremene etizacije u različitim područjima života, od gospodarstva i tehnike do znanosti i politike, s posebnim naglaskom na pravnu domenu. Ključno je pitanje: kako se danas masovno nabujala etizacija svijeta života odnosi prema načelu odvajanja prava i morala te prema vladavini prava kao minimuma morala u društvu? Teoretsko je polazište za ovo razmatranje Thomasiusova podjela naravnoga prava na honestum, decorum i iustum te Kantova dihotomija metafizičkih temelja nauka o pravu i kreposti u Metafizici ćudoređa. Taj je okvir upravo vrhunac prosvjetiteljskih nastojanja za strogim odvajanjem sfere zakonitosti i moralnosti. Postavlja se u tom sklopu pitanje, potkopavaju li suvremene etičke tendencije prosvjetiteljsko naslijeđe zaštite ljudskih prava. Na temelju takva dihotomna modela dalje se raščlanjuje utjecaj nedavne ekspanzije profesionalnih, medicinskih, znanstvenih, poslovnih i drugih oblika etike, masovno uspostavljanje etičkih povjerenstava, politička korektnost i djelovanje javnoga mnijenja na okvir ljudskih temeljnih sloboda. Za ilustraciju prikazana su dva ogledna primjera iz Hrvatske – normativni nedostaci etičkoga kodeksa i zloporaba etičkoga tijela u političke svrhe. U zaključku se obrazlaže kako suvremena etizacija može donijeti dobre plodove promicanjem ćudorednih pitanja i pravne zaštite. Međutim, ona ne smije prekoračivati granice i potkopavati vladavinu prava. Razdvajanje morala i prava znatna je baština demokratske ustavne države. Neobuzdana i preobilna etizacija raznih sfera, međutim, može biti pogubna za dobro uređenje i blagostanje u suvremenom, sve više pluralističkom i multikulturnom društvu. Primjerenije je stoga da o pravu sude nepristrani sudci i neovisni sudovi, držeći se u pravorijeku stoljećima izborenih i utvrđenih mjerila pravednosti; oni to zacijelo čine znatno pravednije nego što bi to činili provizorni etički odbori i ad hoc imenovani povjerenici. Etika se može baviti unutarnjom stranom djelovanja i moralnim maksimama. No, etičke maksime nisu uvijek vezane uz izvanjsku pravnu prisilu. O toj bitnoj razlici, koju bi svako društvo trebalo pažljivo razgraničiti i propisati, ovisi u bitnome ostvarenje ljudske slobode u njezinoj punini. ; This paper seeks to shed light on the trends of contemporary ethicisation in various areas of life, from business and technology to science and politics, with special emphasis on the legal domain. The key question is: how does nowadays immensely enlarged ethicisation of the lifeworld relate to the principle of separating legality from morality and the rule of law as the minimum of moral in the society? Theoretical framework for this analysis is Thomasius' division of natural law into honestum, decorum and iustum, as well as Kant's dichotomy of the metaphysical foundations of the doctrine of law and virtue in the Metaphysics of Morals. This framework represents the pinnacle of the demand of the Enlightenment era for a separation of the spheres of legality and morality. The question is raised as to whether contemporary ethical tendencies undermine the legacy of the Enlightenment regarding the protection of the human rights. Based on this dichotomous model, the impact of the recent expansion of professional, medical, scientific, business and other forms of ethics, the massive establishment of ethics committees, political correctness, and the mediation of public opinion on the framework of human fundamental freedoms is further elaborated. By way of illustration, two exemplary case studies from Croatia are presented—the normative flaws of a code of ethics and the misuse of an ethical body for political purposes. The conclusion elaborates how contemporary ethicisation can produce good results by promoting legal issues and legal protection. However, it should not exceed the limits and undermine the rule of law. The separation of morality and law is an important legacy of the democratic constitutional state. The unbridled and extensive ethicisation of various spheres, though, can be devastating to good order and well-being in the contemporary increasingly pluralistic and multicultural society. Therefore, the impartial tribunals should judge by the centuries-old and established standards of justice; they do it more equitably than the provisional ethical committees and the ad hoc appointed commissioners would. Ethics may continue to deal with the inner side of action and maxims. Nevertheless, the ethical maxims are not always bound to external compulsion. The full realisation of human freedom depends on this essential distinction, which every society should carefully determine and regulate. ; Cet article vise à faire la lumière sur les tendances de l'éthisation contemporaine dans divers domaines de la vie : des affaires et technologie à la science et politique, en mettant un accent particulier sur le domaine juridique. La question clé est la suivante : quel est le rapport entre l'éthisation contemporaine du monde de la vie, massivement accrue, avec le principe de la séparation entre le droit et la morale et la primauté du droit en tant que minimum de morale ? La présupposition de départ pour cette réflexion est la division par Thomasius de la loi naturelle en honestum, decorum et iustum, ainsi que la dichotomie par Kant des fondements métaphysiques de la doctrine du droit et de la vertu dans la Métaphysique des Mœurs, ledit cadre représentant le comble de l'exigence des Lumières pour une séparation stricte entre les sphères de la légalité et de la moralité. La question se pose de savoir si les tendances éthiques contemporaines nuisent l'héritage des Lumières de la protection des droits de l'homme. Sur la base de ce modèle dichotomique, une analyse plus profonde est fournie ayant pour but de démontrer l'impact de l'expansion récente des formes de l'éthique professionnelle, médicale, scientifique, des affaires et autres, de la mise en place massive des comités d'éthique, de la rectitude politique et de la médiation de l'opinion publique. A titre d'illustration, deux études sur des cas exemplaires en Croatie sont ici traitées: les faiblesses normatives d'un code d'éthique et l'abus d'un organe éthique à des fins politiques. En conclusion, il est montré que l'éthisation contemporaine peut porter ses fruits en promouvant les questions morales et la protection juridique. Cependant, elle ne doit pas dépasser les limites de le régime du droit et le nuire. La séparation entre la morale et le droit est un héritage important de l'Etat constitutionnel démocratique. L'éthisation effrénée et étendue à divers domaines peut néanmoins être dévastatrice pour le bon ordre et le bien-être dans la société contemporaine de plus en plus pluraliste et multiculturelle. Par conséquent, les juges impartiaux et les tribunaux indépendants devraient juger selon les normes de la justice séculaires et bien établies ; ils le font de manière plus équitable que le feraient le comité d'éthique provisoire ou les commissaires nommés ad hoc. L'éthique peut continuer à traiter du côté intérieur des actions et des maximes. Néanmoins, les maximes éthiques ne sont pas toujours liées à la contrainte juridique extérieure. De cette distinction essentielle, que chaque société devrait déterminer et réglementer avec soin, dépend avant tout la réalisation de la liberté humaine dans sa plénitude. ; Dieser Aufsatz versucht, die Tendenzen der zeitgenössischen Ethisierung in verschiedenen Bereichen des Lebens, von der Wirtschaft und Technik bis hin zur Wissenschaft und Politik, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtsdomäne, zu beleuchten. Die Schlüsselfrage lautet: Wie verhält sich die heutige massiv angewachsene Ethisierung der Lebenswelt zum Grundsatz der Trennung von Legalität und Moralität sowie zum rechtsstaatlichen Postulat des Rechts als des Minimums der Moral in der Gesellschaft? Als Rahmen für die Untersuchung dient die Aufteilung des Naturrechts in honestum, decorum und iustum bei Thomasius, ferner Kants Dichotomie der metaphysischen Anfangsgründe der Rechts- und Tugendlehre in der Metaphysik der Sitten, wo als Höhepunkt die aufklärerische Forderung nach einer strengen Scheidung der Sphäre der Legalität von der Moralität untermauert wurde. Es wird die Frage erörtert, ob zeitgenössische Ethisierungstendenzen das aufklärerische Erbe der Verteidigung der Menschenrechte untergraben. Ausgehend von diesem dichotomischen Modell wird erörtert, welche Auswirkungen die jüngere Ausweitung der Ethik im Berufsleben, in Medizin, Wissenschaft, Geschäftsbeziehungen sowie sonstige Formen der Ethik, ferner die massiven Gründungen von Ethikkommissionen, die politische Korrektheit und die öffentliche Meinungsbildung auf den Rahmen der menschlichen Grundfreiheiten haben. Zur Veranschaulichung werden zwei Fallbeispiele aus Kroatien angeführt: die normativen Mängel eines Ethikkodexes und der Missbrauch eines ethischen Gremiums zu politischen Zwecken. Abschließend wird festgestellt, dass die zeitgenössische Ethisierung gute Früchte tragen kann, sofern sie die Rechtsfragen und den Rechtsschutz fördert. Aber sie darf dabei nicht die Grenzen überschreiten und den Rechtsstaat untergraben. Die Trennung von Moral und Recht ist ein wichtiges Erbe des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Die ungezügelte und extensive Ethisierung verschiedener Sphären kann indessen für die gute Ordnung und das Wohlleben in der heutzutage immer ausgeprägteren pluralistischen und multikulturellen Gesellschaft verheerend sein. Daher mögen lieber unparteiische Richter und unabhängige Gerichtshöfe nach den in vielen Jahrhunderten errungenen und bewährten Maßstäben der Gerechtigkeit urteilen; sie tun dies gerechter, als es provisorische Ethikkomitees und ad hoc ernannte Beauftrage je tun würden. Die Ethik mag sich weiter mit dem inneren Bereich des Handelns und den Maximen befassen. Die ethischen Maximen sind aber dem äußeren Zwang nicht immer verpflichtet. Von dieser wesentlichen Unterscheidung, die jede Gesellschaft sorgfältig bestimmen und reglementieren sollte, hängt die Verwirklichung der Menschenfreiheit in ihrer Fülle ab.

Raspravljajući o porijeklu hrvatske nacije, autor u prvom dijelu odbacuje tvrdnju da se ona razvijala kao tzv. "jezična nacija". Također osporava gledište da je u tome bitnu ulogu imalo jugoslavenstvo. Zatim pokazuje da je hrvatska nacija nastala u procesu međusobnih interakcija socijalnih i povijesnih vrijednosti, koje su napokon odredile njezinu individualnost spram svake druge zajednice na cjelokupnom prostoru Srednje i Jugoistočne Europe. Sve je to autor dokazao u drugom dijelu rasprave, gdje analizira hrvatski nacionalno-politički program, koji je nastao za revolucije 1848/49. godine. U njemu su hrvatski liberali i demokrati jasno odredili individualnost hrvatske nacije i hrvatske države (ujedinjene Trojedne Kraljevine Hrvatske), i to kao jedinstvene, samostalne i autonomne moderne države u sklopu konfederalnog političkoga i društvenog sustava Srednje Europe (austrijske konfederacije). ; In the present paper the author deals with the origin and development of Croatian nation, and creation of the modern Croatian state (Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia) in the first half of the 19th century, especially during the 1848/49 revolution, at several levels: idea about nation, ideology, political and social programmes, political actions, institutions, and political community. If considered from the point of view of new socio-political processes, when transformation of a people into a modern national-political community takes place, we can see that Slavic peoples in the middle and south-eastern Europe formed multinational states, but followed some quite clear courses: formation of individual ethnic and national communities within a plural social system. Being aware of these historical processes, at the time of formation of their own national communities, these Slavic peoples (according to the level of their social and political organizations), especially in 1848, asked for a change of traditional societies and reorganization of the existing empires, not only by the language national principle, but also by the principle of sovereignty, policy of federalism and confederalism and the principles of international law and international agreement. All this should have made possible formation of essentially new political communities: individual national states within equal and democratic multinational communities, but within a new middle-class society. However, considered from the point of view of formation of the identity and individuality of Croatian nation, which is the subject of this paper, it is indisputable that Croatian national political programme and programme of confederalism as well as legal principles compatible with them (like natural and national laws, Croatian historical and constitutional laws, international law and international agreements), which were the values Croatian politicians based their national policy on since 1848, had the essential influence on the explicit quality of Croatian national-political individuality, and thus, looking historically, on the integration of Croatian nation and creation of Croatian political and state community (the united State of Croatia). The subject and vey complex structure of that political programme had an impact onto clear definition of Croatian national-political community (the united Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia) in relation to other political communities in such a multinational state as it was the Habsburg Monarchy. And that state, in their eyes should have been formed (within the new middle-class society, and a democratic and parliamentary system) on confederal basis, by means of international agreements between quite equal ethnic/national states: within the middle European Austrian confederation. In any case, Croatian nation (if we consider its national integrative processes in terms of events, in terms of idea and ideology and/or in terms of ethnic identity) was not formed nor developed as solely the so-called "language nation", as historiography would like it. For, neither is ethnos (not even ethnic community, or people, or nation, or ethnic identity) only a language-cultural category, nor the Croatian politicians and reformers took only language and culture to determine Croatian people and nation. On the contrary, Croatian nation was formed in the process of interactions of social and historical values which defined its individuality in relation to any other community on the whole area of middle and south-eastern Europe. Also, Croatian nation was not formed only as a natural community (determined by natural conditions of work and society and genealogic structure, i. e. determined by undefined Slavic union and/or undefined Slavic ethnic identity), but, in the course of processes of modernization, it was formed first of all as a historical community, based on group institutions of its own historical community. In other words, Croatian nation was formed on its own cultural, political, state and public-law traditions. It is quite clear that in this process neither Slavism, nor Illyrism, nor Yugoslavism had any role more important that the secondary one, not even for the definition of any particular ethnic identity. Illyrism and Yugoslavism had declarative ideological meaning, expressed through the idea of still non-existing community. On the contrary, Croatianism (as a national principle, as a community and as a legal, state and political system) was an expression of existence of Croatian community as reality. Thus, if we want to discuss the integration of Croatian nation and formation of Croatian political community, i. e. the united State of Croatia, we should realize that these processes were influenced by numerous values and structures, especially spiritual-cultural, political, economic, legal and social. However, the importance of political system and all its substructures – political action, political organization of the community, political programme and formation of a modern national state — should also be noted. Formation of Croatian political and state community, which was clearly stated in the Croatian national and political programme of 1848/49, assumed: 1) associating the segments of Croatian people into one political people, within one integral Croatian political community; 2) uniting of all Croatian provinces into one united Croatian state (Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia, Dreieiniges Koenigreich Kroatien). And these were the most important determinants which led to the political homogeneity and formation of Croatian nation and Croatian modern state.