Suchergebnisse

The basic feature and specificity of Yugoslav pluralism are the institutional interest groups. These groups are the elements of the structure of the political system itself, and therefore directly included — institutionally and legislatively in the consideration is here primarily given to the enterprise. As the enterprise is given a special status in the constitutional political system of Yugoslavia in which it is legally recognized as a political category par excellence, the consideration is here primarily given to the enterprise. Analyzing the results of the interviews with the presidents of Communal Assemblies in Socialist Republic of Croatia and directors of some bigger enterprises in the same republic, the author investigates whether and to what extent the enterprise uses its power and influence in the political process — in what degree it is a policy making factor. The research results show considerable differences between the formal authority and factual power of the enterprises. Although all the enterprises have the same status constitutionally, the real differences are so great, that some enterprises make the policy of communes and even larger regions, and the influence of others is meager. The factor is the economic power. Besides the differences between the enterprises in power and influence, the research results give the evidence to the author's thesis that the enterprises significantly influence the process of political decision making. The actual possibility of the enterprise to act as an interest group is determined by many conditions — some of political and legislative, some of factual nature, primarily: a) by political and legal status in the total system, b) unstable normative structure which is subject to many influences and constant change, c) lack of the more stable criteria that would provide an evaluation of organizations and individuals according to their results, and last but not least; d) democratization of the system itself which is becoming more open to the expression of different interests and actions of interest groups. Finally, author examines some relevant theoretical and political aspects of the strike as a mean of the political pressure in the self-management system in Yugoslavia.

Among the many factors that determine the development of a political democracy, political culture should be stressed. Research by Almond and Verba, and later similar research in Yugoslavia, show that there exists a rather strong connection between political culture and the stability of a democratic political system. As large and ever larger groups of people have access to television, this mass medium plays more and more prominent role in shaping political culture. When the population attains (as in many societies now) a certain basic level of education, the majority of programmes can be understood by everybody. With this, there is lessening of the discrimination as to the political information, at least in principle. Television is an especially potent medium for introducing people into subject areas for which they have shown little or no interest previously. In spite of selective processes, a good measure of such material reaches the viewer and causes changes in his mind. People, in short, become conscious of political processes, which means enhancing of political culture. After the advent of TV, the political process has been transformed into real life, that can be seen, heard and almost touched. With this, the politician and politics itself loses their mystique and moves into the area of the secular things. The politician's image on the TV screen in not only physically diminished, but also psychologically deflated: now everybody can measure and criticize him by use of common yardsticks. In that way ordinary citizens gain certain strength, of the psychological nature, that becomes a part of their new political culture. Furthermore, television acts as an integrator and affirmer of small, isolated opposition groups. This is especially important for political systems in which political life has been integrated around two or three great political parties, and everything outside, remains unnoticed and ineffective. When such a small political group gets a portion of TV time (as it must, because it il »news« by definition), it immediately draws the support of all similar element in society and by that the chance to influence the broader political process. Naturally, television does not have only positive effects on political culture and political process. We not forget that television, with rare exceptions, is under direct and strong monopolistic control of varied political and other elites. The television viewer is to a large extent a victim of manipulation. Furthermore, there are some authors that consider television detrimental for political action, because it purportedly passivizes the public. But our conclusion is still on the positive side. The suppression of news and information in general, cannot go too far except in countries that are cut off the rest of the world in a seal-tight fashion. If people get information and that during long periods, (throughout years and decades), they cannot but form their attitudes, and become readier for political action, »spectoritis« or not. The whole problem of television influence on viewer should be always discussed in a broad time perspective, and not, as in some of the current research, in an artificially isolated moment. And so, to conclude, television does build the basic psycho-cultural prerequisites for better political participation, and by that, for a more democratic world.