Suchergebnisse

The author presents a view of the European Community with regard to the European Union's stance toward new democracies in Eastern Europe. The original principles of European integration include a relatively simple procedure for new membership, but in the process of developing, adopting, & accepting the Maastricht treaty the entry requirements have been severely sharpened for potential new members. These conditions include the general attachment to the European identity, democratic government, & respect for human rights. For new eastern European democracies, a probationary membership status in the European Union was created in the form of the European Agreement, which contains very special conditions & progressive privileges for economic cooperation with the Union. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, & Slovenia have been included in the European Agreement. The author concludes that this fact will make it harder for other countries to deal with the Union. Adapted from the source document.

By using the analytical framework of the theory of modernization, the author analyzes the fundamental features of social community in postmodern society, in which it rests on kinship, religion, & cultural patterns. In modern society a new form of social community is established -- nation. It emerges within a constituted political framework as a community of individuals, subordinated to an integral legal framework. Contrary to the western model of "state-nation," there is the East European model of "culture-nation" or ethnic nation, which might be said to be an incompletely modernized social community. The dominating model in Croatia is one of the cultural or ethnic community. The consequences of such a model are the strengthening of authoritarian tendencies & the arrested development of democracy. In such a concept of social community there is no place for opposition. In Croatia, cultural & political modernization in the direction of social community with a more prominent role of intellectual elites & other social actors is vital. 15 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the origin & the evolution of the notion of civil society & outlines the contemporary debates on its meaning & democratic potential, as well as its democratic deficits. The concept of civil society (originally devised by Aristotle & used for centuries in political philosophy), was revived in the 1980s, first in the East-European movements against the Stalinist state socialism, & later in the new social movements in the West & in social sciences in general. Today's understanding of this term is the result of the branching out of the classical term: while originally it denoted an association of citizens as a political community, Montesquieu & Hegel came up with the difference between the civil society & the state as a political community. Later, a series of modern authors, in line with Gramsci, additionally differentiated between the civil & the market societies. The case in point is Jurgen Habermas who defines civil society as a system of spontaneously generated non-state & nonprofit associations connected via the venues of public communication & whose goal is not to win the firsthand political power. Another understanding of civil society has resulted from a long cooperation of the UN & its specialized institutions with the nongovernmental organizations that came to the fore at the major thematic UN-sponsored conferences in the l990s. The author criticizes the idealized picture of civil society as a form of the organization & the democracy-promoting communication of citizens. A developed civil society is undoubtedly important for democracy, but this also requires the appropriate checking mechanisms. The potential deficits of the civil society are reform blockade, the risk of the loss of civilness in populist movements & the social asymmetry of civil activism. Finally, the author looks into a variety of proposals that see in the European civil society the means of the democratization of the European Union. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.

Did the social changes of 1989/90, both on the territory of the former Yugoslavia & the entire Eastern Europe, surprise political analysts? Or did the research in social sciences, particularly political science, sociology, & psychology, perhaps supply enough material pointing to the possible changes as well as to the course they were going to take? In this work, the author gives a critical review of his studies conducted & published between 1980 & 1990 &, by hindsight, shows their relevance for understanding the recent radical & dramatic changes. Inevitably, the conclusion is that the author's research had pointed to the existence of all psychological conditions necessary for the events that followed. The long crisis, first economic & later political, gave rise to social unrest, which soon turned into general agitation. The powerful presence of the authoritarian structure of personality in these territories, the enduring xenophobia that, in combination with the appropriate ideological manipulation, easily leads to open inter-ethnic conflicts, the lack of both an adequate political culture & the democratic mechanisms of overcoming conflicts, within the context of decrepitude of an ideological project in a multiethnic community rife with historical conflicts, inevitably led into open conflicts. 5 Tables, 2 Figures, 15 References. 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.