Suchergebnisse

The category of the system of government in Poland requires reference to 'the governance style' of the right, and to the tendency that has appeared in international politics in recent years to call it populist nationalism. The objective of this paper is to show that in the case of Poland after 2015, the thesis of the retreat of democracy has no factual grounds, and it can be countered through the use of evidence. The system of government in Poland after the Law and Justice party came to power cannot be described as a contradiction to democracy. Citizens are not being manipulated and deceived. They are aware of the content of decisions made by the executive branch. The opposition is able to act freely, and it is supported by independent private media. There are many veto points in the political system. The government can count on public support that is stronger than that of the governments from the period before 2015.

artykuł w: Wschód Europy : studia humanistyczno-społeczne Vol. 6, Nr 1 (2020), s. 91-111 ; streszcz. ang., pol., ros. ; artykuł w: Wschód Europy : studia humanistyczno-społeczne Vol. 6, Nr 1 (2020), s. 91-111 ; streszcz. ang., pol., ros.

The object of this article is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the Acting President of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas (2004). Conflict communication has become a research object of modern conflictology, which mainly focuses on interpersonal conflict and effective methods of managing conflict solutions. Political conflict communication, which is generally analysed on the basis of parliamentary debates, does not have a precise definition. Conflict communication can be defined as verbalizing conflict situations, which are conditioned by variances with set objectives or their means of implementation and by discrepancies between the interests and wishes of the sides involved in the conflict. In political communication, it is possible to talk about the fact that an initial situation of verbal and non-verbal actions can become a source of conflict, while disapproval of such a situation is verbalized in political communication. Any individual who wants to influence political events becomes the subject of such communication.

The object of this article is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the Acting President of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas (2004). Conflict communication has become a research object of modern conflictology, which mainly focuses on interpersonal conflict and effective methods of managing conflict solutions. Political conflict communication, which is generally analysed on the basis of parliamentary debates, does not have a precise definition. Conflict communication can be defined as verbalizing conflict situations, which are conditioned by variances with set objectives or their means of implementation and by discrepancies between the interests and wishes of the sides involved in the conflict. In political communication, it is possible to talk about the fact that an initial situation of verbal and non-verbal actions can become a source of conflict, while disapproval of such a situation is verbalized in political communication. Any individual who wants to influence political events becomes the subject of such communication.

The object of this article is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the Acting President of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas (2004). Conflict communication has become a research object of modern conflictology, which mainly focuses on interpersonal conflict and effective methods of managing conflict solutions. Political conflict communication, which is generally analysed on the basis of parliamentary debates, does not have a precise definition. Conflict communication can be defined as verbalizing conflict situations, which are conditioned by variances with set objectives or their means of implementation and by discrepancies between the interests and wishes of the sides involved in the conflict. In political communication, it is possible to talk about the fact that an initial situation of verbal and non-verbal actions can become a source of conflict, while disapproval of such a situation is verbalized in political communication. Any individual who wants to influence political events becomes the subject of such communication.

The object of this article is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the Acting President of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas (2004). Conflict communication has become a research object of modern conflictology, which mainly focuses on interpersonal conflict and effective methods of managing conflict solutions. Political conflict communication, which is generally analysed on the basis of parliamentary debates, does not have a precise definition. Conflict communication can be defined as verbalizing conflict situations, which are conditioned by variances with set objectives or their means of implementation and by discrepancies between the interests and wishes of the sides involved in the conflict. In political communication, it is possible to talk about the fact that an initial situation of verbal and non-verbal actions can become a source of conflict, while disapproval of such a situation is verbalized in political communication. Any individual who wants to influence political events becomes the subject of such communication.

The main objective of this article is to assess the martial law situation repressive measures against the opposition of Catholic organizations, implemented by the authoritarian regime in Lithuania from 1930 to 1932. It also seeks to reveal how this repressive policy has been publicly criticized by the Catholic clergy. This study is based on the documents kept at the Lithuanian Central State Archive and published sources. Imposition of the martial law in the Republic of Lithuania (1919) changed the permanent internal legal regime, set in the Constitution, to exclusive, stricter, and setting greater limits on citizens' rights and liberties regime. At the very same time the practice of administration of justice changed. In 1920–1926 the decisions, concerning the martial law, were entered by democratically elected parliament members, following the procedures, laid down in the Constitution. Every such political step spurred hot debates between the parliamentary majority of Christian democrats, standing for greater limitation of civil rights and liberties, and their persistent though not effective opponents from the left wing, first of all social democrats. During the period of parliamentary democracy in Lithuania the Christian democrats (with their party ideology mostly based on the authority of the Catholic Church) remained the most influential political power in the country. The issue of the martial law had become the value dilemma for Lithuanian political elite, the situation where a compromise could hardly be found. The martial law limited Lithuanian citizens' possibilities to express their views in the press or public events. The permissions from the war superintendents, regional superiors were necessary for press and other printings, their making, organization of demonstrations, meetings, establishment of associations, parties. [.]

The main objective of this article is to assess the martial law situation repressive measures against the opposition of Catholic organizations, implemented by the authoritarian regime in Lithuania from 1930 to 1932. It also seeks to reveal how this repressive policy has been publicly criticized by the Catholic clergy. This study is based on the documents kept at the Lithuanian Central State Archive and published sources. Imposition of the martial law in the Republic of Lithuania (1919) changed the permanent internal legal regime, set in the Constitution, to exclusive, stricter, and setting greater limits on citizens' rights and liberties regime. At the very same time the practice of administration of justice changed. In 1920–1926 the decisions, concerning the martial law, were entered by democratically elected parliament members, following the procedures, laid down in the Constitution. Every such political step spurred hot debates between the parliamentary majority of Christian democrats, standing for greater limitation of civil rights and liberties, and their persistent though not effective opponents from the left wing, first of all social democrats. During the period of parliamentary democracy in Lithuania the Christian democrats (with their party ideology mostly based on the authority of the Catholic Church) remained the most influential political power in the country. The issue of the martial law had become the value dilemma for Lithuanian political elite, the situation where a compromise could hardly be found. The martial law limited Lithuanian citizens' possibilities to express their views in the press or public events. The permissions from the war superintendents, regional superiors were necessary for press and other printings, their making, organization of demonstrations, meetings, establishment of associations, parties. [.]

The main objective of this article is to assess the martial law situation repressive measures against the opposition of Catholic organizations, implemented by the authoritarian regime in Lithuania from 1930 to 1932. It also seeks to reveal how this repressive policy has been publicly criticized by the Catholic clergy. This study is based on the documents kept at the Lithuanian Central State Archive and published sources. Imposition of the martial law in the Republic of Lithuania (1919) changed the permanent internal legal regime, set in the Constitution, to exclusive, stricter, and setting greater limits on citizens' rights and liberties regime. At the very same time the practice of administration of justice changed. In 1920–1926 the decisions, concerning the martial law, were entered by democratically elected parliament members, following the procedures, laid down in the Constitution. Every such political step spurred hot debates between the parliamentary majority of Christian democrats, standing for greater limitation of civil rights and liberties, and their persistent though not effective opponents from the left wing, first of all social democrats. During the period of parliamentary democracy in Lithuania the Christian democrats (with their party ideology mostly based on the authority of the Catholic Church) remained the most influential political power in the country. The issue of the martial law had become the value dilemma for Lithuanian political elite, the situation where a compromise could hardly be found. The martial law limited Lithuanian citizens' possibilities to express their views in the press or public events. The permissions from the war superintendents, regional superiors were necessary for press and other printings, their making, organization of demonstrations, meetings, establishment of associations, parties. [.]

This article is based on the analysis of a brief but very important period (from 19 June 1920 till 2 February 1922) of Lithuanian political history from the perspective of political science and history. The article provides the insights on the governmental dynamics of independent Lithuania during the first parliamentary and the fourth governmental coalition of the christian democrats party and peasant populists led by Kazys Grinius. Those two parliamentary parties were united by the common idea of independent state of Lithuania, besides they had similar social and economic programmes. On the other hand, those two political powers collided over different worldviews, understanding of democracy, human rights and civic liberty. From the beginning there were indications that coalition will not be long-lasting, nevertheless it worked more than 19 months it was employable and effective. Despite that, quantitative imbalance of the party members within the parliament, differences of political weight within the government, and deep contradictions on the place of church and religion within the state, produced the permanent clashes among the members of coalition. The aim of this article is to analyse the formation of peasant populists tactics and the process of its implementation. The analysis of primary sources revealed, that members of peasant populist from the very beginning of their work within the fourth government, till the autumn of 1921, fluctuated among two perspectives: remaining the member of coalition or withdrawing to the opposition. Long-term discussions within the peasant populists on political tactics while working in the parliament divided this political power into 2 competing radical and temperate sides. The permanent fluctuations among the coalition and opposition there reflected neither in seimas nor in the media.[.].

This article is based on the analysis of a brief but very important period (from 19 June 1920 till 2 February 1922) of Lithuanian political history from the perspective of political science and history. The article provides the insights on the governmental dynamics of independent Lithuania during the first parliamentary and the fourth governmental coalition of the christian democrats party and peasant populists led by Kazys Grinius. Those two parliamentary parties were united by the common idea of independent state of Lithuania, besides they had similar social and economic programmes. On the other hand, those two political powers collided over different worldviews, understanding of democracy, human rights and civic liberty. From the beginning there were indications that coalition will not be long-lasting, nevertheless it worked more than 19 months it was employable and effective. Despite that, quantitative imbalance of the party members within the parliament, differences of political weight within the government, and deep contradictions on the place of church and religion within the state, produced the permanent clashes among the members of coalition. The aim of this article is to analyse the formation of peasant populists tactics and the process of its implementation. The analysis of primary sources revealed, that members of peasant populist from the very beginning of their work within the fourth government, till the autumn of 1921, fluctuated among two perspectives: remaining the member of coalition or withdrawing to the opposition. Long-term discussions within the peasant populists on political tactics while working in the parliament divided this political power into 2 competing radical and temperate sides. The permanent fluctuations among the coalition and opposition there reflected neither in seimas nor in the media.[.].

This article is based on the analysis of a brief but very important period (from 19 June 1920 till 2 February 1922) of Lithuanian political history from the perspective of political science and history. The article provides the insights on the governmental dynamics of independent Lithuania during the first parliamentary and the fourth governmental coalition of the christian democrats party and peasant populists led by Kazys Grinius. Those two parliamentary parties were united by the common idea of independent state of Lithuania, besides they had similar social and economic programmes. On the other hand, those two political powers collided over different worldviews, understanding of democracy, human rights and civic liberty. From the beginning there were indications that coalition will not be long-lasting, nevertheless it worked more than 19 months it was employable and effective. Despite that, quantitative imbalance of the party members within the parliament, differences of political weight within the government, and deep contradictions on the place of church and religion within the state, produced the permanent clashes among the members of coalition. The aim of this article is to analyse the formation of peasant populists tactics and the process of its implementation. The analysis of primary sources revealed, that members of peasant populist from the very beginning of their work within the fourth government, till the autumn of 1921, fluctuated among two perspectives: remaining the member of coalition or withdrawing to the opposition. Long-term discussions within the peasant populists on political tactics while working in the parliament divided this political power into 2 competing radical and temperate sides. The permanent fluctuations among the coalition and opposition there reflected neither in seimas nor in the media.[.].

The object of this article is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the former President of the Republic of Lithuania, Rolandas Paksas (2003–2004). In modern democratic societies, political life is founded upon the actions of political parties, their duly elected leaders, and various political ideologies. In this context, political discourse, which records a variety of opinions and, frequently, their conflict, becomes an inseparable element of political culture. Conflict communication in political discourse may be perceived as the main research object of political linguistics, because the attack and winning of governmental positions occur in the context of the conflict of various political forces. That conflict is expressed through discourse. The aim of this study is to analyze how conflict communication was manifested in Lithuania during the period from 2003 to 2004. In political communication, an initial situation of verbal and non-verbal actions can become a source of conflict, while disapproval of such a situation is verbalized in political communication. Any individual who wants to influence political events becomes the subject of such communication. Moreover, this article discloses the fact that linguistic means are closely related to the ideology of the speaker and linguistic practices are conditioned by culture.

The object of this article is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the former President of the Republic of Lithuania, Rolandas Paksas (2003–2004). In modern democratic societies, political life is founded upon the actions of political parties, their duly elected leaders, and various political ideologies. In this context, political discourse, which records a variety of opinions and, frequently, their conflict, becomes an inseparable element of political culture. Conflict communication in political discourse may be perceived as the main research object of political linguistics, because the attack and winning of governmental positions occur in the context of the conflict of various political forces. That conflict is expressed through discourse. The aim of this study is to analyze how conflict communication was manifested in Lithuania during the period from 2003 to 2004. In political communication, an initial situation of verbal and non-verbal actions can become a source of conflict, while disapproval of such a situation is verbalized in political communication. Any individual who wants to influence political events becomes the subject of such communication. Moreover, this article discloses the fact that linguistic means are closely related to the ideology of the speaker and linguistic practices are conditioned by culture.