Suchergebnisse

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; The declaration of the establishment of the «Kingdom of Serbs, Groats and Slovenes» on the 1st of December, 1918 —which in 1929 was renamed to Yugoslavia— fulfilled the long standing desire for the political unification of all South-Slavs. However, the new State which apart from the three old kingdoms of Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia included the entities of the former Hungarian Vojvodina, the former Austrian Slovenia and Dalmatia and the Serbian Macedonia had to tackle certain problems. Its subjects were divided into several ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats and Slovenes —who constituted three quarters of its entire population— and Germans, Hungarians and Albanians as well as other ethnic minorities. The population of the new state was also divided into three religious categories: 47% were Orthodox Christians, 39% Catholics, and 11% Muslims. This paper attempts to analyze five constructive crises which came about in interwar Yugoslavia, and are characteristic of any modern state: 1) The crisis of identity of the state itself and of the various ethnic groups. The ideology of Yugoslavian unification failed to bridge the differences between the ethnic and religious groups; 2) The crisis of legitimacy. This is related with the nature of the regime. From 1918 until the dictatorship of 1929 twenty three governmental crises occured; 3) The crisis of integration, as reflected in the policies and the electoral results of the various political parties which had clear ethnic and geographical limits. During the interwar period none of the existing political parties attained to play this integrating role by securing mass support throughout the country; 4) The crisis of participation of individuals and social groups in controlling the public affairs and manning the state apparatus; 5) The crisis of distribution of goods and services. The ethnic and political contradictions between the Slovenes and Croats in the North and Serbs in the South resulted in the uneven development between these two geographical districts of the state.

Dimitrios Stamatopoulos, The Church as State: representations of the Orthodoxmillet and the model of constitutional monarchy (second half of thenineteenth century)The institutionalised introduction of secular elements into the administrationof the Patriarchate of Constantinople after the ratification ofthe General Regulations (1860-1862) created the conditions for the emergenceof a discourse aimed at the internal reorganization of ecclesiasticalinstitutions based on the state model. This model was adopted not onlyby reform-minded circles but also by representatives of the clericalistwing, each with completely different political aims. The model of constitutionalmonarchy appeared as the most «functional» for solving thecentral political problem posed by the clericalist wing in the discussion:how could a regime of patriarchal centralization be applied without confutingthe essence of reform. This model of constitutionality prevailednot only because the reformers preferred it as an alternative version ofrestructuring the millet but because the clericalists espoused and promotedit in the form of a state model: that of the constitutional monarchy.And their aim was not only to prevent the domination of thelay element but also to avoid the formation of a public sphere, whichin any case in Eastern and Southeastern Europe was inherent in theemergence of a discourse on nation and nationalism. ; Dimitrios Stamatopoulos, The Church as State: representations of the Orthodoxmillet and the model of constitutional monarchy (second half of thenineteenth century)The institutionalised introduction of secular elements into the administrationof the Patriarchate of Constantinople after the ratification ofthe General Regulations (1860-1862) created the conditions for the emergenceof a discourse aimed at the internal reorganization of ecclesiasticalinstitutions based on the state model. This model was adopted not onlyby reform-minded circles but also by representatives of the clericalistwing, each with completely different political aims. The model of constitutionalmonarchy appeared as the most «functional» for solving thecentral political problem posed by the clericalist wing in the discussion:how could a regime of patriarchal centralization be applied without confutingthe essence of reform. This model of constitutionality prevailednot only because the reformers preferred it as an alternative version ofrestructuring the millet but because the clericalists espoused and promotedit in the form of a state model: that of the constitutional monarchy.And their aim was not only to prevent the domination of thelay element but also to avoid the formation of a public sphere, whichin any case in Eastern and Southeastern Europe was inherent in theemergence of a discourse on nation and nationalism.

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; Photini Danou, The words of the voiceless Did ordinary men and women in pre-modern England have an opinion about politics? What was "politics" for the common people at a time when they had not any say in choosing who would rule them? Was popular engagement in state politics only to secure subsistence? Were "knife and fork" politics of the masses so separate from issues of "high politics" of the State? Was pre-modern commoners' mentality, "pre-political" as well? This paper discusses early modern popular political awareness. I argue that commoners in Tudor England pursued their own political agenda, by exploiting the sovereign's self-image as the "protector of the poor". However, as I set out to show, in pursuing their political agenda commoners also raised issues on the content of Englishness, common good, patriotism, legitimate governance and the right of resistance. The political identity of the lower strata was not an entity fixed in its essence. On the contrary, plebeian political identity was rather shifting, changeable, and always constituting its content in particular historical contexts. The commoners' commitment to the ideal of the"nation", their loyalty to the government, their allegiance to their Queen, their obedience to her laws, or their active participation in the enforcement of state policies were not unconditional. The ways they practiced their political identity was interrelated to their superiors' behavior and draw its legitimacy from the public transcript of the English Common wealth. Common prosperity, reciprocity, solidarity and, in general, protection of the poorer and weaker members of English society were ideals that constituted the meaning of "common wealth" in the plebeian mind. Those ideals were prerequisites for their giving of devotion and loyalty to the state. Thus, the commoners' political mentality and behavior ranged from national loyalty to indifference or even animosity to state officials; from cooperation and acquiescence to covered or overt forms of opposition and active resistance.