Suchergebnisse

Das vorliegende Werk hat in erster Linie den Wert einer Quelle zu den gegenüber dem Islam mit einem radikalen serbischen Nationalimus verbundenen Bedrohungsvorstellungen, Feindbildern und Expansionszielen. Insbesondere der erste, von Miroljub Jevtic (einem Professor der Politologie an der Universität Belgrad) verfaßte Teil zu den angeblichen geopolitischen Ambitionen der bosnischen und albanischen Muslime auf dem Balkan und zur Bedrohung der serbischen Kultur durch die den Muslimen inhärente Tendenz zum Gottesstaat ist unter diesem Aspekt zu sehen. Jevtic wird in den serbischen Medien oft als renommierter Islamkundler gehandelt. Er entwickelt hier Vorstellungen von einer islamischen Bedrohung des beim Zerfall Jugoslawiens um sein Selbstbestimmungsrecht betrogenen serbischen Volkes, von den bosnischen Muslimen als islamisierten Serben u. ä., die allesamt als klassische nationalistische Momente der aktuellen serbischen politischen Propaganda gelten können. Etwas wissenschaftlicher ist der von Milovan Pecelj verfaßte Teil, der die internationalen Vorschläge zur Konfliktlösung in Bosnien in den Jahren 1993 und 1994 behandelt. Auch bei seinen Interpretationen ist freilich der nationalistische Standpunkt unübersehbar. (SOI-Clw)

Der Autor behandelt nach dem dahinter stehenden Staatsbegriff und mit Blick auf das Verhältnis von Staat und Gesellschaft nacheinander repräsentative Demokratie, Theokratie und die Totalitarismen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Diese sämtlichen, von ihm abgelehnten Staatsformen sieht der Autor durch Wurzeln im christlichen Mittelalter und durch den ihnen gemeinsamen in die Gesellschaft expandierten modernen Staat verbunden. In seiner fundamentalen Systemkritik hält er dem das Bild von einem islamischen politischen System entgegen, das auf der Autonomie der Religionsgemeinschaften - darunter zählt er u.a. auch Atheisten - im weltlichen Bereich aufbaut und auf einer Art direkter Teilhabe des einzelnen ohne Parteienpluralismus. So werde die Gesellschaft (bezeichnet mit dem Koranbegriff der "umma") gestärkt gegen den im nichtislamischen Bereich zum Selbstzweck gewordenen modernen Staat. Eine Staatsreligion soll es nicht geben. Unklar bleiben Mechanismen zur Lösung möglicher Konflikte zwischen den Religions- und Rechtsgemeinschaften und die Frage nach der Umsetzung der (S. 138) postulierten Überlassung von Gesetzgebung, Erziehung, Wirtschaft, Gesundheitswesen und Wissenschaft an eine nicht näher definierte Zivilgesellschaft. Die hier formulierte islamische politische Philosophie und Staatstheorie haben bei dem mit der vorliegenden Übersetzung anvisierten Zielpublikum der muslimisch-bosniakischen Volksgruppe in Bosnien-Herzegowina bis dato kaum Widerhall gefunden, wie das Vorwort bedauernd hervorhebt. (SOI-Clw)

In his main oeuvre from the field of political philosophy ('Basic Traits of the Philosophy of Right'), Hegel wished to reconcile civil society with state. Civil society is for Hegel the way of abstract notion of property concretization. Subjective form of property is evolutioning into objective relationships among title holders. It is in the state where the will is set free from its particular interests and is becoming free in the widest sense of the word. Since civil society is established as per marketing principles, it is subject to inequalities. Since inequalities bear destructive effect on the life in community, civic particularism may be overcome only in institutional way. That institution is the state as the 'seriousness of the spirit', and the essence of civil society. Civil society is a liberal one, and the state is based on liberal principles. For Hegel, contrary to Hobbes and Locke, liberal society is not a social contract among individuals who possessed some natural rights (property), but reciproque and equal agreement among citizens and states which wish to recognize themselves mutually. It is not an own interest, but searching for rational recognition. The same as citizens, states also wish to reconcile themselves mutually, what in the situation in Kosovo and Metohia alike gets the original form.

In this paper, we consider the relationship between the entrepreneurial state and the crisis (caused by economic and non-economic reasons and vice versa). Thus, it is about the interactive attitude of the entrepreneurial state in resolving the crisis and the impact of the crisis on the further development of new economic competencies and competencies of the state in the economy. The entrepreneurial state is seen as an entrepreneur and one of the most important economic actors, which accepts long-term investment risks, bearing in mind the broader picture and the common good. The development of new technologies and new technology companies in the United States and other developed countries has been possible, thanks to the investment of the American entrepreneurial state and its agencies. We start from the assumption that the American crisis, in 2008. caused by high debts, the private sector, not the US public debt, which today is enormously high and skyrocketing. At the heart of this consideration is the thesis that the classical economic theory of non-interference of the state in economic life, which stands aside in the recent era of the development of global capitalism, does not hold water. On the contrary, it turns out that government risky investment in the long run is the basis of a modern economy in which the private sector can develop only on the premises of this huge investment in the development of modern new technologies. Most innovation today and research institutes in the United States are due to the investments of the American state. The paper discusses the impact of the crisis on the understanding of the entrepreneurial state and its role in innovation, the role of new technologies and innovations in economic growth, entrepreneurial state and risks, entrepreneurial state and knowledge economy, entrepreneurial state in "pushing" versus "pulling" the green industrial revolution and the cost of investment, innovation, and development of the American entrepreneurial state. ; U ovom radu razmatramo odnos preduzetničke države i krize (izazvane ekonomskim i neekonomskim razlozima i vice versa). Dakle, riječ je o interaktivnom odnosu preduzetničke države u rješavanju krize i uticaju krize na dalji razvoj novih ekonomskih ingerencija i nadležnosti države u ekonomiji. Preduzetnička država se posmatra kao preduzetnik i jedan od važnijih ekonomskih aktera, koji prihvata rizike ulaganja na dugi rok, imajući na umu širu sliku i opšte dobro. Razvoj novih tehnologija i novih tehnoloških kompanija u SAD i drugim razvijenim zemljama bio je moguć zahvaljujući investiranju američke preduzetničke države i njenih agencija. Polazimo od pretpostavke da su američku krizu 2008. godine izazvali visoki dugovi privatnog sektora, a ne javni dug SAD, koji je danas enormno visok i vrtoglavo raste. U osnovi ovog razmatranja stoji teza da klasična ekonomska teorija o nemiješanju države u privredni život, koja stoji po strani u najnovije doba razvoja globalnog kapitalizma, ne drži vodu. Naprotiv, pokazuje se da je državno rizično investiranje na dugi rok u osnovi savremene ekonomije u kome privatni sektor može da se razvija samo na premisama tog golemog ulaganja u razvoj modernih novih tehnologija. Većina inovacija danas i istraživačkih instituta u SAD duguje ulaganjima američke države. U radu razmatramo uticaj krize na shvatanje preduzetničke države i njene uloge u inovacijama, ulogu novih tehnologija i inovacija u privrednom rastu, preduzetničku državu i rizike, preduzetničku državu i ekonomiju znanja, preduzetničku državu u "guranju" nasuprot "podbadanju" zelene industrijske revolucije, koristi i cijene investiranja, inovacije i razvoj američke preduzetničke države.

United States participation in international politics during the period between the two world wars, come not only from the general and often declarative interest in peace, but was also a consequence of extremely rapid expansion of their foreign trade and overseas capital investments. It was a period of intense financial diplomacy, when efforts to maintain the gold standard, to determine the amount of reparations and the manner of payment of war debts, brought confusion not only in relations between victors and vanquished, but also in relations between the United States and its former European allies. Abandonment of the gold standard and the creation of the tripartite agreement between the United States, Britain and France, in the 1936, was a milestone in the development of international monetary cooperation and the role of United States in international economic relations. .

Effectiveness of the administrative system as a whole depends on the quality of its organization. The Organizational structure reflects functional dynamic of the public administration. On the other hand, functional requirements of efficiency and effectiveness of the administrative system determine organizational forms. The scope, character and nature of administrative actions require optimal and coordinated external (macro-organization) and internal (micro-organization) organizational structure, which will allow optimal functioning of an administrative system. Therefore, the organizational structure is not immutable category, because tasks and roles, activities and goals, are changing in the same government system and sometimes even the whole system, so it is necessary to change the administrative organization. Administrative organization is systemic (external and internal) open dynamic structure of state government agencies and other bodies and organizations with public (administrative) powers prescribed in the course of lawful relationships of dynamic interaction, based on the hierarchy or coordination, depending on the nature and objectives of administrative tasks. Current organization of the state administration has not been made according to the principles of modern management. It is a result of the political spoils system, and reflects the need for political control of the administrative departments. It lacks functional analysis and expert approach.

Crime and violence pose a serious challenge to Mexico. The problem appears to be growing worse, with 2011 on pace to become the most violent year on record. The rising violence in Mexico has resulted in a sharply heightened sense of fear among citizens, who now feel the presence of cartels in their every day lives. The use of extortion and kidnapping by cartels combined with a lack of trust in security forces terrorizes the population and makes them feel like they have no where to turn. Despite this fact, crime rates in Mexico remain lower than in other parts of Latin America. Venezuela, for example, has among the highest homicide rates in the world. Yet the pervasive infiltration of cartels into public life gives Mexicans a heightened sense of the severity of violent crime in their own country. Although accurate statistics are hard to come by, it is quite possible that 60,000 people have died in the last six-plus years as a result of armed conflict between the Mexican cartels and the Mexican government, amongst cartels fighting each other, and as a result of cartels targeting citizens. Mexico has been struggling with drug production and drug transit through its territory from South America to the U.S. for many decades, given the fact that it is the most important transit country for drug production originating from South America. In recent years, the escalating violence in Mexico has led to dramatic deterioration of the security situation. Recent wave of drug-war violence is associated with the beginning of the term of President Felipe Calderón in December 2006. The immediate implications of his assumption of the presidency and his hard-line policy, which he has applied against drug cartels and organized criminal groups across the country, were the deployment of Mexican army to fight cartels and the gradual weakening of the influence of local and state police at the expense of federal troops. This was done in order to combat corruption and collaboration of local law-enforcement institutions with drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). The consequence of such a policy, however, has been increased violence among rival cartels and between them and the federal police and military, resulting in a dramatic increase of the number of victims. The future of US-Mexican counter drug cooperation, as well as of the whole bilateral relation in the area of security, depends on the outcome of US presidential elections. As for Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto takes the office on December 1, 2012 that will mark a comeback of his party PRI after 12 years in opposition. As far as the security strategy of the future Mexican President is concerned, there are no significant changes to be expected. Peña Nieto seems to be aware of the current situation and its consequences as well as of the inevitability of an extremely close and dynamic mutual cooperation with the US.

This article analyses the weaknesses of contemporary democratic orders which stem from the use of modern manipulation techniques employed by those who manage to win the trust for making the government in democratic elections. Contemporary democracies are under the threat of populist promises which are most often unrealistic. The combination of populism and democracy is usually a product of the powerlessness of political elites, i.e. political parties, in states to solve citizenry's most important problems – to increase the growth and development of the economic system, to introduce the rule of law, and to rehabilitate political institutions so they could rationally and efficiently function within the political system. Contemporary democracies are not equally developed, nor do they have equal chances for developing. The facts demonstrate how in many societies and states – formally oriented towards establishing a democratic governance and towards starting the democratisation of societal and political life – democracy gets misused and diminished to democratic phraseology with the help of populism, while in the institutional aspect being diminished to creating a façade of democratic institutions. It has been demonstrated that the patterns of dominance follow and are characteristic for democratic governances to a larger or smaller degree. The essence of democratic governance are politically responsible decisions, rather than mass participation in making political decisions which are not realistic, while being dangerous in terms of their consequences. Democracy means making good decisions for the benefit and good of all citizens, while hierarchy must not be challenged when it is necessary that institutions function in a rational and efficient way. Introducing equality where professionalism, competence and accountability are needed is devastating for the functioning of institutions, therefore for the functioning of democracy as well. Democracy can be tricked with the help of authorities'populism, as was the case with Nazi Germany. After Nazis took power, not all institutions of the Weimar Republic were dismantled nor challenged, nor was the Weimar Constitution changed. However – parallel to state authorities, Constitution and laws – dozens of new orders and laws were enacted, creating an illusion that nothing is changed in German state. What Nazis did was developing a new mechanism, party mechanism, parallel to the state mechanism. The two functioned next to each other. Such patterns lead to the parallelism of power and democracy, which usually led to the totalitarianisation of democracy. In contemporary states – especially those in the process of democratic transition – such parallelism shows how party leaders do not forfeit party leadership once they get elected to state offices. In that way democracies become submissive and captured by political parties, especially their leaderships and leaders. The relation of freedom and democracy has also been analysed. Experiences show that democracy is founded more successfully in places where people managed to gain their liberties, rather than in those places where democracy is yet to provide liberties to citizens. Dangers for democracy tied with the abuse of democratic conditions are being discusses in the last part of the article. Each condition necessary for the functioning of a democratic order can be simulated through manipulative ways. A special danger for contemporary democracies comes from circumstances in which those who come to power do everything so that society and state are riled by anti-political principles: indifference, fear and trepidation, and powerlessness. Anti-political principles jeopardise democratic order, and those who use them demolish democracy. Democracy is facing constant challenges and temptations for scraping democracy in the name of democracy.