Suchergebnisse

After years of political crises and negotiations, the deep-rooted conflict between Dutch- and French-speaking parties recently led to the 2011 agreement concerning a further reform of the Belgian state. This reform mainly furthers decentralises the – already federal – state structure, including the allocation of additional competences and fiscal powers to sub-national entities (Regions and Communities). But this new state reform also brings about a radical reform of the upper house: the Belgian Senate. Since 1995, the Senate was composed of three different types of members: Senators directly elected by two linguistically separated electorate (the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking electorates), Senators indirectly elected by the Community parliaments and Senators coopted by the two other types. The French- and German-speaking linguistic minorities had a fixed amount of seats in this assembly. The reform of the state radically changed the legislative competences of the Senate and its composition as its members will now be designated by Regional and Community parliaments (plus 10 coopted senators). Broadly speaking, the appointment of the majority of the Senators moved from a system of direct and language-based election to a system of indirect and mixed regional and language-based designation. This change is not without consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. In May 2014, regional, community and federal elections will be organised in Belgium, testing for the first time this new system of designation of Senators by regional and community parliaments. This paper intends to present the 2013 reform of the Senate in Belgium and its consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. The situations before and after the reform of the Senate will be compared, not only in terms of the way Senators are appointed but in terms of its consequence on the linguistic aspects of the regional and community elections campaign and of the profile of the appointed Senators.

Javne su politike, kao višedimenzionalan i izrazito kompleksan fenomen, nužno multidisciplinaran predmet istraživanja. Cilj je rada istražiti što je specifično politološko znanje o javnim politikama, odnosno koji je jedinstveni doprinos politologa izučavanju i upravljanju javnim politikama u svrhe profiliranja te mlade politološke discipline u Jugoistočnoj Europi. Rad je nastao kao rezultat pregleda temeljnih udžbenika javnih politika u svijetu i regiji, te literature o metodologiji i pristupima istraživanju u društvenim znanostima i politologiji. Kreće se od određivanja što su javne politike i što je politički aspekt javnih politika. Propituju se pristupi istraživanju javnih politika (policy studije). Zatim se identificiraju vrste profesionalne uporabe tih istraživanja (policy analize). Ključna je pretpostavka kako je politologija prvenstveno kompetentna za analizu aktera stvaranja politika. Osnovni je nalaz da temelj profesionalnog profiliranja politologa u javnim politikama, s obzirom da jedini rabe istraživačku perspektivu usmjerenu na aktere, reprezentativnost i legitimnost stvaranja politika, može biti jedan oblik participatorne policy analize. ; Public policies, as a multi-dimensional and highly complex phenomenon, necessarily make a multidisciplinary research subject. The aim of this paper is to examine what is specific political science knowledge about public policy, and what is the unique contribution of political scientists to policy research and governance to enhance consolidating this young discipline in Southeastern Europe. This paper is a result of a review of policy textbooks in Southeastern Europe and worldwide, and literature on approaches and methodologies in social sciences and political science. It starts with determining public polices and their political aspect. Then it explores approaches of policy studies. Finally, it identifies types of professional policy research or policy analysis. The key assumption is that political science is primarily competent to analyze policy actors. The main finding of the paper is that the basis of political scientist professionalization in policy research, given that they are best in actor-centered research, and issues of representativeness and legitimacy of policy-making, can be a form of participatory policy analysis.

Kako primjereno politologijski istražiti, prikazati i vrednovati povijest i sadašnje stanje politologije u Hrvatskoj? Tekst se fokusira na pomno razmatranje predmeta znanosti o politici – što je politika? – kao pretpostavke znanstveno primjerenog odgovora na dvojbu o stručnoj profilaciji studija i polaznika studija-politologa. A u tom sklopu, na smisao određenja politologije kao "znanosti o općenitosti" i politologa kao "stručnjaka za općenitost". Objašnjava se smisao, teorijski i kontekstualni, tih određenja (Prpić, 1969), vrednuju njegove pretpostavke, domašaji i ograničenja. Dramatična, teorijska i praktična, dvojba s kojom nas je Prpić suočio neprevladiva je u povijesnom kontekstu demokratske države, s obzirom na svojstvenu joj epohalnu ambivalenciju. Pri čemu se pokazuje nesuvislost dileme između množine i jednine: politička znanost u singularu sluškinja je političke moći, a političke znanosti tek metaznanstvena humanistička kritika postojećeg svijeta, što znači da znanost o politici ne valja ni u singularu ni u pluralu. Kada je znanstvena i stručna, tada je opasna po političku slobodu, kada je pak humanistička i ne-stručna tada je nemoćna i suvišna. Politolog je pak ili "stručnjak za posebnost", etički i vrijednosno neutralni sluga političke moći, ili pak pretenciozni misionar. Izlaz iz začaranog kruga: znanost o politici, u plodnoj i nezamjenjivoj dvojini metodički osloniti na novo načelo konstitucije zajednice, koje je imanentna kritika i prevladavanje moderne demokratske države i građanskog društva. Time se osnažuje i shvaćanje političke znanosti kao "znanosti o općenitosti". Znanost o općenitosti kao znanost o političkome tvori se u autonomiji (ali i komplementarnosti) spram znanosti o "općosti" (filozofije, etike i prava) i spram znanosti o posebnosti (posebnih sektora političkoga i društvenog bitka). Općenito je zbiljsko samo u odnosu spram općega, kao oposebljenje općega, i u odnosu spram posebnoga, kao poopćavanje posebnoga. Čime se suzbija opasnost od prividne općenitosti, kao bahate pretenzije ...

Ever since the 1990's, deliberative theory has been heralded as the most promising new theory on political legitimacy. Democratic deliberation, conceived as the rational exchange of arguments, is claimed to improve the quality of democratic decision making because it instigates a more considered judgment; it allows citizens to hear other perspectives to a problem and to question their own opinions. However, deliberation's beneficial effects do not come about easily. If deliberative mini-publics want to contribute to the legitimacy of political decision making, they have to reflect the principles of legitimacy in their own functioning. It is therefore crucial to assess the internal legitimacy of deliberative mini-publics before making claims about their contribution to the legitimacy of the political system as a whole. In this paper, we set out to assess the input, throughput and output legitimacy of four deliberative events, namely the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly, the Irish "We, The Citizens"-project, the Belgian G1000, and the Dutch Burgerforum. Based on a most-similar comparison of these cases, we argue that their internal legitimacy differs a great deal, and that this is due to factors relating to their process design, such as funding, recruitment and moderation.

Članak propituje doprinos hrvatske politologije razvoju demokracije u Hrvatskoj. Fokus analize je pojam kulture o kojem autor govori u pet koraka. U prvom koraku je određena u modernom ključu, u drugom kao različita od prirode, a u trećemu kao različita od društva. U četvrtom se unutar politike razlikuje politička kultura od političke ekonomije i političkih ustanova, no u petom se pokazuje da je kultura nosivi dio politike i kao politics i kao policy i kao polity. Na temelju tih odredaba pokazuje se da je matica hrvatske politologije zaokupljena pretežito i u sve većoj mjeri izučavanjem upravo predmeta koji na prvi pogled pripadaju politici kao kulturi, i to u užem smislu političke kulture, te da se ona sama reproducira kao politička kultura. ; The article discusses the contribution of Croatian political science to the development of democracy in Croatia. The focus of the analysis is the concept of culture which author talks about in five steps. In the first step it is understood in the modern key, in the second step as different for nature and in the third as different from society. In the fourth step author differentiates political culture from political economy and political institutions, but in the fifth part there is an attempt to show culture as a fundamental part of politics, policy and polity. On the basis of these insights author shows that the matrix of Croatian political science is more and more devoted to scientific investigation of politics as culture as both study of political culture and as a source of development as politics as culture.

Vrijeme kada nisu postojali odnosi između politike i sporta, bilo da se radi o svakodnevnoj praksi ili znanstvenoistraživačkim pristupima povezanosti tih dvaju pojmova, ako ga je ikada i bilo, svakako je odavno iza nas. Usprkos tome danas se čini da se, osobito u znanstvenoistraživačkom radu na području nekadašnjih sportskih socijalističkih velesila, tim odnosima ne posvećuje odgovarajuća pozornost i da se oni često a priori negiraju i smatraju nevažnima. Zbog toga je glavni cilj ovoga članka potaknuti raspravu o važnosti i smislu istraživanja odnosa između politike i sporta gledano iz dvije perspektive – s obzirom na iskustva znanstvenika iz cijeloga svijeta te s obzirom na dosad provedena istraživanja znanstvenika iz bivše Jugoslavije. Stoga smo u ovome članku najprije teoretski odredili kontekst odnosa politike i sporta, a zatim smo analizom postojeće svjetske literature i radova znanstvenika s prostora bivše Jugoslavije analizirali međusobnu povezanost sporta i politike. Na temelju dobivenih rezultata, koji potvrđuju stalnu i čvrstu povezanost, ali ujedno i suviše apstraktno i paušalno razumijevanje odnosa sporta i politike, nudimo politološki relevantnu tipologiju odnosa između politike i sporta. Smatramo da razlike između odnosa politike kao borbe za vlast, institucionalne strukture te koncepta javnointeresnog djelovanja i sporta presudno utječu na buduća obilježja odnosa sporta i politike. ; Times when relations between politics and sports did not exist – be it in everyday practices or within scientific research – is definitely long gone, if they ever even existed. Nevertheless, it seems today that, especially within scientific research, these relations do not receive appropriate attention in the territories of former socialist sports superpowers, being a priori denied and considered as unimportant. That is why the key motive of this article is to initiate a discussion about the relevance of knowledge and research of the relations between politics and sport from two perspectives – the existing world-wide political science research experiences gained so far and already conducted researches in the territory of former Yugoslavia. In doing so, we first theoretically define the context of sports and politics, and then with the use of the literature review method analyse their mutual connectivity in the world and, more narrowly, within the work of the scientific community in the region of former Yugoslavia. Based on the gained conclusions which confirm a tight and constant, but also often abstract and flat-rate understood interplay between both analysed phenomena, a special typology for their in-depth and political-science-focused study is delivered. It is believed that distinctions between political, polity and policy approaches to sport decisively influence the mode of their future interplay.