Suchergebnisse

In the end of the year 2003, hundreds of thousands of Georgians went out to the streets in order to protest against the fraudulent presidential elections. Incumbent E.Shevarnadze was forced to resign. This event, called Rose Revolution, raised hope of the end of political chaos and brought a brand new democracy to the World. However, political reforms in the country revealed a different trend. According to the Freedomhouse ratings, Georgia still remains only a partly-free country as before the Revolution. Paradoxically, just a few years after the Roses of democracy were planted to the Georgian soil, the opposition again finds itself in the streets protesting against the lack of democracy. This situation raises a research question why the consequences of the Rose Revolution, which seemed a manifest of democracy in its essence, were so short-lasting. In search for the answer the author of this master thesis argues for an alternative context of analysis and theoretical background which differ from the ones prevailing in the scientific discourse on the issue. Many works rest on the premise that The Rose Revolution was an extraordinary event in the country. One of the main aims of this case study is to prove that it was not unique. Furthermore, taking into consideration "devaluation" of the term revolution in nowadays political science Georgia is worth a diagnosis of entire "revolutionary syndrome" as a similar model of the government change has taken place already a few times during the thirteen years of independence before the Rose Revolution and unsuccessful attempts to repeat it were demonstrated recently. The inquiry reveals that analysis of this phenomenon has to be performed in the context of country's political history. Otherwise, one cannot get a full and deep picture of its causes. It is not enough to refer to ad hoc success criteria of the Rose Revolution but to seek for the institutionalized thinking and behaviour patterns of the political actors which leads to the radicalization of political conflict. This goes as the second aim of this paper. The findings of this study show that the recent stagnation, if not setback, of democratization in Georgia disproves a somehow romantic scientific discourse which sees the Rose Revolution as a victory of democracy against authoritarianism. The Rose Revolution in its essence was not an extraordinary event in country's political context and not a democratic breakthrough. There are some historically formed patterns of political actors' interplay which are favourable for radicalization of political conflict. Firstly, under formally existing multi-party system, a single party permanently dominates in all branches of governance. For this reason political struggle becomes a zero-sum game. Secondly, political parties almost unexceptionally are created and dominated by a single leader. In such situation they become not organizations of political representation but more a projection of personal power and an instrument for its realization. The struggles among such parties are based not on ideological but on personal arguments. In this case, clear guidelines for solving such conflicts and making compromises do not exist. Thirdly, political leaders in Georgia tend to present themselves as apolitical. That is, they claim to represent not the interests of particular groups or ideologies but universal interests which are common to all the citizens. For this reason, a normal pluralism of interests is denied and political opponents are treated as the traitors or state enemies. Finally, a tradition of resistance to the state and bureaucratic hierarchy traces back a few centuries into Georgia's history and has acquired a self-contained value. The vitality of tradition of revolt is proved by using protest as a prevailing means of solving conflicts.

In the end of the year 2003, hundreds of thousands of Georgians went out to the streets in order to protest against the fraudulent presidential elections. Incumbent E.Shevarnadze was forced to resign. This event, called Rose Revolution, raised hope of the end of political chaos and brought a brand new democracy to the World. However, political reforms in the country revealed a different trend. According to the Freedomhouse ratings, Georgia still remains only a partly-free country as before the Revolution. Paradoxically, just a few years after the Roses of democracy were planted to the Georgian soil, the opposition again finds itself in the streets protesting against the lack of democracy. This situation raises a research question why the consequences of the Rose Revolution, which seemed a manifest of democracy in its essence, were so short-lasting. In search for the answer the author of this master thesis argues for an alternative context of analysis and theoretical background which differ from the ones prevailing in the scientific discourse on the issue. Many works rest on the premise that The Rose Revolution was an extraordinary event in the country. One of the main aims of this case study is to prove that it was not unique. Furthermore, taking into consideration "devaluation" of the term revolution in nowadays political science Georgia is worth a diagnosis of entire "revolutionary syndrome" as a similar model of the government change has taken place already a few times during the thirteen years of independence before the Rose Revolution and unsuccessful attempts to repeat it were demonstrated recently. The inquiry reveals that analysis of this phenomenon has to be performed in the context of country's political history. Otherwise, one cannot get a full and deep picture of its causes. It is not enough to refer to ad hoc success criteria of the Rose Revolution but to seek for the institutionalized thinking and behaviour patterns of the political actors which leads to the radicalization of political conflict. This goes as the second aim of this paper. The findings of this study show that the recent stagnation, if not setback, of democratization in Georgia disproves a somehow romantic scientific discourse which sees the Rose Revolution as a victory of democracy against authoritarianism. The Rose Revolution in its essence was not an extraordinary event in country's political context and not a democratic breakthrough. There are some historically formed patterns of political actors' interplay which are favourable for radicalization of political conflict. Firstly, under formally existing multi-party system, a single party permanently dominates in all branches of governance. For this reason political struggle becomes a zero-sum game. Secondly, political parties almost unexceptionally are created and dominated by a single leader. In such situation they become not organizations of political representation but more a projection of personal power and an instrument for its realization. The struggles among such parties are based not on ideological but on personal arguments. In this case, clear guidelines for solving such conflicts and making compromises do not exist. Thirdly, political leaders in Georgia tend to present themselves as apolitical. That is, they claim to represent not the interests of particular groups or ideologies but universal interests which are common to all the citizens. For this reason, a normal pluralism of interests is denied and political opponents are treated as the traitors or state enemies. Finally, a tradition of resistance to the state and bureaucratic hierarchy traces back a few centuries into Georgia's history and has acquired a self-contained value. The vitality of tradition of revolt is proved by using protest as a prevailing means of solving conflicts.

This article analyzes Immanuel Kant's concept of radical evil within the broader corpus of Kant's practical works in order to ascertain whether suicidal terrorism can be interpreted using his philosophical framework. Said analysis establishes the dynamic between radical evil and other characteristics of Kantian human nature – unsocial-sociability and propensity towards humanity, whilst focusing on the political implications of said dynamic. When analyzed utilizing the established framework of politics of radical evil, suicidal terrorism reveals the extremities of human behavior as well as potential flaws of Kantian philosophy.

Philosophy and Politics in Works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. This paper analyzes the differences between conceptions of philosophy and attitudes towards modern politics of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. It is argued that MacIntyre's conception of philosophy is characterized by a tendency toward historicism uncharacteristic of Leo Strauss. It is also argued that MacIntyre faces problems in his work in assessing the modern state from the point of viewpoint of Aristotelian clasifiation regimes. Leo Strauss avoids such a problem. This difference is due to MacIntyre's propensity for historicism. Because MacIntyre constructs his theory on the basis of the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, and interprets the most important of these traditions more historically than Strauss, MacIntyre cannot apply their philosophical insights to the modern state, which is vastly different from the ancient Greek pole. Strauss avoids this problem because, in his understanding, classical philosophy reflects on the human experience of politics, which is characterized by certain features independent of historical circumstances.

Philosophy and Politics in Works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. This paper analyzes the differences between conceptions of philosophy and attitudes towards modern politics of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. It is argued that MacIntyre's conception of philosophy is characterized by a tendency toward historicism uncharacteristic of Leo Strauss. It is also argued that MacIntyre faces problems in his work in assessing the modern state from the point of viewpoint of Aristotelian clasifiation regimes. Leo Strauss avoids such a problem. This difference is due to MacIntyre's propensity for historicism. Because MacIntyre constructs his theory on the basis of the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, and interprets the most important of these traditions more historically than Strauss, MacIntyre cannot apply their philosophical insights to the modern state, which is vastly different from the ancient Greek pole. Strauss avoids this problem because, in his understanding, classical philosophy reflects on the human experience of politics, which is characterized by certain features independent of historical circumstances.

Philosophy and Politics in Works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. This paper analyzes the differences between conceptions of philosophy and attitudes towards modern politics of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. It is argued that MacIntyre's conception of philosophy is characterized by a tendency toward historicism uncharacteristic of Leo Strauss. It is also argued that MacIntyre faces problems in his work in assessing the modern state from the point of viewpoint of Aristotelian clasifiation regimes. Leo Strauss avoids such a problem. This difference is due to MacIntyre's propensity for historicism. Because MacIntyre constructs his theory on the basis of the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, and interprets the most important of these traditions more historically than Strauss, MacIntyre cannot apply their philosophical insights to the modern state, which is vastly different from the ancient Greek pole. Strauss avoids this problem because, in his understanding, classical philosophy reflects on the human experience of politics, which is characterized by certain features independent of historical circumstances.

Philosophy and Politics in Works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. This paper analyzes the differences between conceptions of philosophy and attitudes towards modern politics of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. It is argued that MacIntyre's conception of philosophy is characterized by a tendency toward historicism uncharacteristic of Leo Strauss. It is also argued that MacIntyre faces problems in his work in assessing the modern state from the point of viewpoint of Aristotelian clasifiation regimes. Leo Strauss avoids such a problem. This difference is due to MacIntyre's propensity for historicism. Because MacIntyre constructs his theory on the basis of the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, and interprets the most important of these traditions more historically than Strauss, MacIntyre cannot apply their philosophical insights to the modern state, which is vastly different from the ancient Greek pole. Strauss avoids this problem because, in his understanding, classical philosophy reflects on the human experience of politics, which is characterized by certain features independent of historical circumstances.

This scientific report overviews the most important results and achievements of the scientific research fulfilled by the political scientists group of the VMU cluster "European public space: politics, communication, discourse" in 2012. Within the analyzed period of time 3 important scientific groups' projects were implemented and two of them were devoted to the analysis of Lithuania's national identity construction and the influencing factors. The genesis of 9 selected political initiatives (non-electoral campaigns) of 2006-2011 in Lithuania were also examined by making media monitoring in 5 main Lithuania's internet media portals. Furthermore, in 2012 four scientific dissertations were finalized and successfully defended. Therefore the scientific group of political science researchers of the cluster made an amount and enriching research and published over 15 scientific articles in 2012.

This scientific report overviews the most important results and achievements of the scientific research fulfilled by the political scientists group of the VMU cluster "European public space: politics, communication, discourse" in 2012. Within the analyzed period of time 3 important scientific groups' projects were implemented and two of them were devoted to the analysis of Lithuania's national identity construction and the influencing factors. The genesis of 9 selected political initiatives (non-electoral campaigns) of 2006-2011 in Lithuania were also examined by making media monitoring in 5 main Lithuania's internet media portals. Furthermore, in 2012 four scientific dissertations were finalized and successfully defended. Therefore the scientific group of political science researchers of the cluster made an amount and enriching research and published over 15 scientific articles in 2012.

This scientific report overviews the most important results and achievements of the scientific research fulfilled by the political scientists group of the VMU cluster "European public space: politics, communication, discourse" in 2012. Within the analyzed period of time 3 important scientific groups' projects were implemented and two of them were devoted to the analysis of Lithuania's national identity construction and the influencing factors. The genesis of 9 selected political initiatives (non-electoral campaigns) of 2006-2011 in Lithuania were also examined by making media monitoring in 5 main Lithuania's internet media portals. Furthermore, in 2012 four scientific dissertations were finalized and successfully defended. Therefore the scientific group of political science researchers of the cluster made an amount and enriching research and published over 15 scientific articles in 2012.

The idea of European identity and multilingualism, especially of a European public sphere – of media-sustained imaginary spaces where all of the diversities and commonalities of multicultural Europe are expressed and celebrated – is an appealing and thought-provoking concept and one that continuously attracts the attention of scholars, policy-makers, writers, journalists, and artists from all over Europe. At the same time, in spite of their popularity, multifaceted nature, and inclusivity, many of these debates lack optimism. Discussions often lead to the conclusion that a common arena for cultural exchange and inspiring debates, maintained and preserved by the conventional mass media, simply does not exist. It does not exist as a common public sphere where differing points of view could be presented, and which would enable the emergence of a mutual discourse rich in diverse interpretations – of a space which would stimulate the imagination of Europe as an experience. Therefore, the goal of the research perspective "European Public Sphere – politics, communication, discourse" is to find commonalities and intersections among those very diverse fields of europenization studies ranging from journalism, communication studies and identity issues, to regional studies, comparative politics and international relations. At the same time, this research perspective seeks to address new questions and includes these into the comparative research agenda. It looks into changes and. [to full text]

The idea of European identity and multilingualism, especially of a European public sphere – of media-sustained imaginary spaces where all of the diversities and commonalities of multicultural Europe are expressed and celebrated – is an appealing and thought-provoking concept and one that continuously attracts the attention of scholars, policy-makers, writers, journalists, and artists from all over Europe. At the same time, in spite of their popularity, multifaceted nature, and inclusivity, many of these debates lack optimism. Discussions often lead to the conclusion that a common arena for cultural exchange and inspiring debates, maintained and preserved by the conventional mass media, simply does not exist. It does not exist as a common public sphere where differing points of view could be presented, and which would enable the emergence of a mutual discourse rich in diverse interpretations – of a space which would stimulate the imagination of Europe as an experience. Therefore, the goal of the research perspective "European Public Sphere – politics, communication, discourse" is to find commonalities and intersections among those very diverse fields of europenization studies ranging from journalism, communication studies and identity issues, to regional studies, comparative politics and international relations. At the same time, this research perspective seeks to address new questions and includes these into the comparative research agenda. It looks into changes and. [to full text]

The idea of European identity and multilingualism, especially of a European public sphere – of media-sustained imaginary spaces where all of the diversities and commonalities of multicultural Europe are expressed and celebrated – is an appealing and thought-provoking concept and one that continuously attracts the attention of scholars, policy-makers, writers, journalists, and artists from all over Europe. At the same time, in spite of their popularity, multifaceted nature, and inclusivity, many of these debates lack optimism. Discussions often lead to the conclusion that a common arena for cultural exchange and inspiring debates, maintained and preserved by the conventional mass media, simply does not exist. It does not exist as a common public sphere where differing points of view could be presented, and which would enable the emergence of a mutual discourse rich in diverse interpretations – of a space which would stimulate the imagination of Europe as an experience. Therefore, the goal of the research perspective "European Public Sphere – politics, communication, discourse" is to find commonalities and intersections among those very diverse fields of europenization studies ranging from journalism, communication studies and identity issues, to regional studies, comparative politics and international relations. At the same time, this research perspective seeks to address new questions and includes these into the comparative research agenda. It looks into changes and. [to full text]

The article analyses the documents of the Church on the importance of participation of the Christians in the politics, and presents the analysis of the research into the believer attitude to the relation between faith and politics. The segregation of politics and morality and disregard of the Church authority prevail in the contemporary society. The believers lack knowledge about the teaching of the Church on the issues of politics and society. The teaching of the Church invites the congregation to assume the commitment of participation in the politics as one of the aspects of Christian vocation. Moral theology, Christian social doctrine and political ethics respond to the most important questions raised by people today.