Suchergebnisse

The essay discusses the orientations for preventing the slide toward apartheid States. Beginning with the phenomenology of present mass displacements, it asks: are non-citizens people, and what are the limits of popular sovereignty? Is freedom possible if a good part of denizens is a partly free group? Five concatenated axioms are posed: that 1. the right to hospitality (eventually, citizenship) is a central human right); 2. each State -- or analogous community -- should give all its denizens the maximum possible of citizen rights; 3. our value focus ought to be on immigrant policy and on integration; 4. the status of "unfree labourers" refuses the principle of "one person, one vote"; 5. "no taxation without representation." The long-run alternative is wars and terrorism or civil cohabitation. This would include a foreign economical policy of "co-development", and no participation in wars (except in a present aggression against Europe). If capitalism today condemns a growing majority of humans to psycho-physical misery and premature death, then we may be facing apartheid and global civil wars. Adapted from the source document.

The text problematizes Hobbes's relation towards republicanism. This is carried out in three stages. The first stage shows the form in which republican ideas were present in English political thought in the first half of the 17th century. It turns out that, prior to the publication of Leviathan in 1651, there was no coherent anti-monarchic republican theory in England. Still, English political thought was familiar with its individual elements and those elements had a major influence on the course of the constitutional crisis and the civil war itself. The second stage provides an analysis of Hobbes's criticism of two republican ideas which he deems particularly fatal to the survival of the state. The first idea is the ideal of mixed government, which Hobbes rejects as incompatible with the fundamental condition of state preservation, namely indivisible sovereign power. Thereafter, relying on Skinner's analysis, the author outlines Hobbes's criticism of the republican conception of liberty, which is at the core of the attack on monarchy as a form of state incompatible with the liberty of citizens. In contrast to such a perception, Hobbes constructs a completely novel definition of liberty, which enables him to show that the liberty of citizens is equal in democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. Finally, the third stage inquires into the implications of Hobbes's criticism of republicanism with regard to the conceptual field of his mature theory of the state. Emphasis is put on the assertion that this criticism does not also imply a rejection of democracy as a form of state. Indeed, the analysis shows that, within the framework of Hobbes's theory of the state, criticism of republicanism, perceived as vindication of the state, is prerequisite to the existence of democracy itself. Adapted from the source document.

This note introduces contributions delivered at the international conference "Ustav kao simbol i instrument" (The Constitution as a Symbol and Instrument), held in Zagreb, 7-8 Dec 2001. The symbolic & regulating functions of the constitution are noted as very much distinct objectives. Excerpts from the preambles of the American & French constitutions are quoted to illustrate that this document not only spells out the fundamental laws by which a nation is to be governed but also states the people's basic values, views on self-determination, equality, tolerance, or liberty, & ethical principles that it holds dear. The constitution is an instrument regulating a political process while at the same time functioning as a symbol of political culture. The people do not only state in it their sovereignty but also a conception of the republic's order. Z. Dubiel

The author looks into the life & work of Alexander von Humboldt, viewing him as a protagonist of a scientific globalization concept that linked the promotion of science with the trinity of liberty, equality, & fraternity. Humboldt saw fraternite as realized in the form of a worldwide dialogue of scientists. The author observes that Humboldt was a pragmatic & organizational genius of networking, ie, the strategy of public relations that included contacts with scientists & the popularization of scientific achievements. Humboldt's Eurocentrism, which comes to the fore in his work about his travels, is nevertheless as ambivalent as the history of the reception of that work. Truth to tell, this work lay the foundation for European colonization & exploitation of Latin America, but was also essential for its self-understanding & political emancipation. The author claims that Humboldt's private & political ambivalence, essentially productive, is the result of his magnificent incompleteness & imperfections. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the life & work of Alexander von Humboldt, viewing him as a protagonist of a scientific globalization concept that linked the promotion of science with the trinity of liberty, equality, & fraternity. Humboldt saw fraternite as realized in the form of a worldwide dialogue of scientists. The author observes that Humboldt was a pragmatic & organizational genius of networking, ie, the strategy of public relations that included contacts with scientists & the popularization of scientific achievements. Humboldt's Eurocentrism, which comes to the fore in his work about his travels, is nevertheless as ambivalent as the history of the reception of that work. Truth to tell, this work lay the foundation for European colonization & exploitation of Latin America, but was also essential for its self-understanding & political emancipation. The author claims that Humboldt's private & political ambivalence, essentially productive, is the result of his magnificent incompleteness & imperfections. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the possibility of the emergence of a structure that would have a suitable regulative capacity to control the process of globalization. First he gives an account of the state & its possibilities. His starting assumption is that the state is a social structure supposed to stabilize interactive communication in a relatively big space. In the last 200 years, the developed states have been characterized by a democratic consensus (whose potentials have not been fully exploited) & by the proliferation of the state apparatus. However, this condition has been challenged by the colossal technological advances of the late 20th century. The sovereignty of states at the political & economic level is no longer viable. The author wonders whether the evolution of the modern state could be repeated in the course of establishing a global order. The first step would be the establishment of the global monopoly of force. This is not impossible, but the problem is that it may not be stable. The second step is the social consensus that would encompass the whole world. The author's starting assumption is that each legitimization consensus contains the elements of the former consensus. The global expansion of democratic consensus is unlikely, as are democratic joint decision making, liberty, legal equality, & a minimum of social welfare. The third step is the establishment of a global management system. It has been shown that such a system can emerge, although the global monopoly of force has not been stabilized, & there is no global social consensus. The author concludes that today's states are becoming parts of planetary regulating mechanisms & the hub of the global organizational networks. 21 References. Adapted from the source document.

The article discusses the problem of political trust and its importance for the functioning of democracy, as well as the differences in the origin and structure of political trust between the old and the new democracies. Political trust is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of democratic regimes. In the new democracies, the commitment to democracy does not automatically create political trust. The problem of democratic functioning of institutions in the circumstances of widespread distrust, that is, the problem of creating trust in the circumstances of institutional inefficiency, revives the determinism of the socio-cultural matrix in transitional societies. The origin and the structure of political trust are discussed within the framework of the cultural and institutional approach. The cultural approach considers trust to be exogenous and determined by socio-cultural characteristics, while in the institutional approach trust is considered to be endogenous, and resulting from functioning institutions. The author points out the limits of the institutional approach since it neglects the fact that existing socio-cultural factors are not compatible to the new political structure caused by the developmental and political discontinuity of the transitional societies. The author also points out the importance of trust in the system's institutions. Trust is an important socio-cultural feature which enables the consolidation of democracy. The institutions may gain political trust exclusively by being reliable and working in bringing about democratic relations. Workable institutions demand responsibility of political actors, and by respecting democratic norms and procedures they secure the liberty and equality of citizens and enable active political participation. Only in this way can institutions generate trust that would underlie the legitimacy of democratic regimes. Therefore building institutions that would be autonomous to demand efficiency and responsibility from political actors, and would be responsive towards the citizens is the biggest problem and a most important task of the democratic consolidation. Adapted from the source document.

The article discusses the problem of political trust and its importance for the functioning of democracy, as well as the differences in the origin and structure of political trust between the old and the new democracies. Political trust is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of democratic regimes. In the new democracies, the commitment to democracy does not automatically create political trust. The problem of democratic functioning of institutions in the circumstances of widespread distrust, that is, the problem of creating trust in the circumstances of institutional inefficiency, revives the determinism of the socio-cultural matrix in transitional societies. The origin and the structure of political trust are discussed within the framework of the cultural and institutional approach. The cultural approach considers trust to be exogenous and determined by socio-cultural characteristics, while in the institutional approach trust is considered to be endogenous, and resulting from functioning institutions. The author points out the limits of the institutional approach since it neglects the fact that existing socio-cultural factors are not compatible to the new political structure caused by the developmental and political discontinuity of the transitional societies. The author also points out the importance of trust in the system's institutions. Trust is an important socio-cultural feature which enables the consolidation of democracy. The institutions may gain political trust exclusively by being reliable and working in bringing about democratic relations. Workable institutions demand responsibility of political actors, and by respecting democratic norms and procedures they secure the liberty and equality of citizens and enable active political participation. Only in this way can institutions generate trust that would underlie the legitimacy of democratic regimes. Therefore building institutions that would be autonomous to demand efficiency and responsibility from political actors, and would be responsive towards the citizens is the biggest problem and a most important task of the democratic consolidation. Adapted from the source document.

The first part of the article gives a summary account of the basic concepts of general or meta/structural theory of modern society: metastructure, structure, system. In a critical confrontation with Marx & Habermas, the author starts by explaining his main theoretical innovation -- the concept of metastructure, as the most general supposition & a trait of the modern epoch in which the official watchword of liberty-equality-rationality vaguely & gradually comes to the fore: it is the watchword of public sociability which is, in the final instance, determined by the norms of the common word, in which all participate as equals. This discursive immediacy necessarily becomes manifest through a double mediation: of economic understanding (market/organization) & of legal-political reason (interindividual & central contractuality). In that sense, metastructure is the set supposition for the modern class structure; it is not its basis, but its referential fiction. However, it inevitably turns into its opposite -- into exploitation, domination, alienation -- in the society which calls itself 'capitalist.' The structure of such a society reveals a double bipolarity, a division into a ruling class & a ruled class, but also a division within the ruling class itself into the market pole as the first class factor (proprietors) & the pole of organization as the second class factor (managers & ones who are competent). The subordinated class is no mere multitude of passive "ruled ones." It is the "fundamental class" as a positive political actor. As opposed to class structure, which necessarily exists in a state-nation, it is characteristic of the world-system that it constantly impairs the metastructural supposition, distorting the modernness of the state-nation: the barbarism of centers in relation to peripheries is imminent to the centers themselves. The inevitable result of this historical tendency is the world-state. It abolishes neither the state-nations nor the world-system, & it is already appearing on the horizon as the final geopolitical realization of this social logic of modernity. In the second part of the article, the author briefly shows how the metastructural hypothesis is developed in his more recent & concrete research into the areas of history (the emergence of the modern form of society starting from the 13th-century Cities-states in Italy), sociology & politics (relation between social classes & political parties), & culture (general theory of ideologies). These analyses show that structure is key to the world-system, & not vice versa, in the sense where the whole would explain the part: the system (state-nation) can be adequately understood only from the starting point of (class) structure. Since the capitalist totality cannot be metastructurally organized in one go, it could not emerge as a space which is brought together, like an empire, by one institutionally unified will, but only as a plural whole, a systemic plurality of state-nations. Adapted from the source document.