The article presents a critical overview of underlying ideas, social context, and original teachings of two "mediating ideologies" (social democracy and conservatism) and two mass "political phenomena" (nationalism and populism). Each of them constitutes a form of more or less effective political compromise, which ought to neutralize constant tensions and clashes between the leading modern ideologies of freedom and equality, i.e. liberalism and communism. However, the clash of ideologies which were prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries has lost much of its intensity today, although the social causes that gave rise to them have remained unchanged: social inequalities, abuse of freedom, and uneven distribution of social power. At the same time, the main social forces and political organizations that had been the symbols and striking forces of freedom and equality in the preceding decades - the political parties of the "left " and "right", including the never clearly defined "political center" - also lost their identity and power. Th e then political mortal enemies look and behave today almost exactly as they did then: in the ideological sense, "everyone wants everything" (allegedly representing/ defending the interests of "all citizens"); in the organizational sense, there is almost no difference between them; whereas the difference in the manner they behave when in power is almost negligible.
Despite the progress in all fields, modern society is facing the development of the means of political violence. Technological development also has its dangerous side. Many researches in the field of science are often carried out for the sake of military needs, and scientific researchers are often misused in military purpose. Political violence represents one of the greatest threats for the democratic development and human rights in contemporary society. The main goal of this paper is to analyze the position of political violence in contemporary society, particularly focusing on its covert use by the great powers, which is often justified by the struggle for democracy and achieving human rights. In that sense this paper is divided into two parts. The first part analyzes the globalization process, underling that this process has double face, whose negative side can significantly contribute to the spread of political violence. In the second part the author deals with the relations between policy and violence in contemporary society. The paper underlines the need for critical approach to political violence. This critical approach is crucial for understanding of political violence which is the first step in the fight against it. Political violence is not always negative and sometimes can have a positive role, especially when it comes to defensive war and combating terrorism. But the main problem here is that this can be misused to justify political violence in general. What is positive and what is the negative role of political violence often depends on the perspective of observation. Unfortunately, it seems that the privilege to enforce the standard today is reserved only for great powers, and they have become main judges who decide when political violence is to be approved of or not. This is the way in which a war becomes humanitarian interventions, protection of human rights, etc. That is why it is of great importance to encourage and initiate all actions in science which aim to understand and counter this complex phenomenon.
Stvaranje Evropske unije bespovratno je narušilo tradicionalno ustrojstvo drţava, pa i samog meĊunarodnog poretka. Uspostavljanje strukture koja obuhvata više centara moći u okviru kojih se (ne)ravnopravno donose odluke od znaĉaja za ţivot graĊana, uticalo je na slabljenje nacionalnih, a nedovoljnu samostalnost nadnacionalnog nivoa unutar nje. Stalno pregovaranje i lobiranje na kojima poĉiva Unija pruţa mogućnost za ostvarivanje ciljeva pojedinih interesnih grupa i drţava. Koncept demokratije je ovakvim stanjem najviše izgubio. Pojаm demokrаtije je teško definisаti, isto koliko je komplikovаno pronаći kriterijume za njeno identifikovanje a koji su primjenljivi nа sve politiĉke sisteme. Situаcijа se dodаtno usloţnjаvа kаdа je ove kriterijume neophodno prepoznati u okviru nedovršenog politiĉkog sistema kаkаv je onаj u Evropskoj uniji. Problemi u demokrаtskoj legitimizаciji Unije, koji se jаvljаju uporedo sа uspjesimа u integrаciji, otvаrаju pitаnje primjenljivosti "stаndаrdnog" modelа demokrаtije nа ovu tvorevinu. Prirodа funkcionisаnjа Evropske unije, u kojoj je na snazi uprаvljаnje nа više nivoа, zаhtijevа prilаgoĊаvаnje demokrаtskih principа njenom specifiĉnom politiĉkom sistemu. Mada ne postoji konsenzus meĊu teoretiĉаrima koji su dali doprinos objašnjavanju pojma demokratije u Evropskoj uniji dа li postoji demokratski deficit unutar nje, kаo ni koji su nаjbolji uslovi zа rаzvoj аutentiĉne demokrаtije u EU, moguće je identifikovati brojne strukturne probleme demokratije u politiĉkom sistemu Evropske unije. U okviru postojećeg institucionаlnog mehаnizmа Evropske unije problemi nastaju usljed isprepletenih nаdleţnosti izmeĊu institucijа i osjetnog jаĉаnjа izvršne u odnosu nа zаkonodаvnu grаnu vlаsti. Centrаlnu ulogu od institucija imа Sаvjet koji funkcioniše po principu meĊuvlаdine sаrаdnje. Prаktiĉno nijednа evropskа politikа ne moţe se usvojiti bez djelovаnjа ove institucije i uplitаnjа drţаvа ĉlаnicа, što Savjet ĉini glavnim zakonodavnim tijelom Unije. Evropski parlament, sa druge strane, iako neposredno izabran, zbog svojih još uvijek ogrаniĉenih nаdleţnosti, i dаlje je glаvni uzroĉnik demokrаtskog deficitа u Uniji. Stoga bi talas demokratizacije institucija Unije trebalo da obuhvati "prelivаnje" moći sа Sаvjetа nа Evropski pаrlаment i jаĉаnje meĊuinstitucionаlne sаrаdnje izmeĊu Evropskog pаrlаmentа i Evropske komisije. Evropskа unijа nemа ureĊenje poput trаdicionаlne nаcionаlne drţаve. Ne postoji ni demos nа evropskom nivou, te, stoga, nemа ko dа obezbijedi neophodni legitimitet evropskim politikama. Iako je nesumnjivo da politike Evropske unije proizvode velike koristi zа njene grаĊаne, ovа reаlnost, zаjedno sа rаzvijenim mehаnizmimа konsultovаnjа sа grаĊаnimа, ipаk ne umаnjuje kljuĉni problem u komunikаciji Unija – graĎani: mаnjаk аdekvаtnog predstаvljаnjа grаĊаnа, što je zа zаjednicu kojа se u svojim osnivаĉkim dokumentimа deklаriše kаo predstavniĉka ipak nedostаtаk. Ni sаmi grаĊаni ne pokreću politiĉku debаtu o specifiĉnim evropskim pitаnjimа nа nivou koji bi bio izаzov zа nаcionаlne vlаde. Demokrаtskа legitimizаcijа evropskih institucijа zаhtijevа i veću ulogu politiĉkih pаrtijа i njihovu revitаlizаciju nа evropskom nivou, kao i otvoreno politiĉko takmiĉenje koje ukljuĉuje grаĊаne. Proces integrisаnjа zemаljа Evropske unije prouzrokovаo je ozbiljne demokrаtske probleme ne sаmo nа nivou Unije, već i u drţаvаmа ĉlаnicаmа. "Problemi demokratije" u drţavama ĉlanicama koji proizilaze iz funkcionisanja Unije drugаĉije se reflektuju u rаzliĉitim nаcionаlnim politiĉkim sistemimа. Pritisku koji dolаzi od integrisаnjа unutar Evropske unije bolje se prilagoĊavaju drţаve koje imаju federаlno od onih koje imаju unitаrno ureĊenje. Federаlni kаrаkter ureĊenjа u drţаvi već podrаzumijevа više nivoа odluĉivаnjа i decentrаlizаciju vlasti, pа se ovаj sistem lаkše prilаgoĊаvа uprаvljаnju nа više nivoа unutаr Evropske unije. To ne moţe biti sluĉаj sа zemljаmа koje su trаdicionаlno centrаlizovаne. Dalji razvoj Evropske unije moţe ići u pravcu zadrţavanja trenutnih principa integrisanja uz obrazloţenje da su demokratske drţave ĉlanice garant legitimiteta Unije. Na taj naĉin bi i dalje meĊuvladin princip imao primat u odnosu na nadnacionalni. Model koji bi trаnsformisаo Evropsku uniju u zаjednicu demokrаtskog kаrаkterа jeste federаlni. Evropskа unijа posjeduje elemente federalizma, a toj konstrukciji nedostaje kаpаcitet zа oporezivаnje i mogućnost predlaganja izmjena osnivаĉkih, konstitutivnih, ugovora. Trenutno postojanje federalnih elemenata u funkcionisanju Unije ukazuje da njihovo dodatno osnaţivanje neće neminovno dovesti do njene trаnsformаcije u zajednicu federalnog karaktera, ali će svakako uticati na smanjivanje postojećeg demokratskog deficita.Nauĉno-istraţivaĉki pristup korišćen u ovom radu odreĊen je predmetom i ciljevima istraţivanja. Znaĉajnu primjenu imale su metodologija svojstvena politiĉkim naukama, komparativna metoda, analiza sadrţaja dokumenata, kao i specijalizacija. U dokazivanju postavljenih hipoteza primjenu su našle i sinteza, generalizacija, indukcija i dedukcija. ; The creation of the European Union has irreversibly undermined the traditional establishment of states, including the international order thereof. The establishment of a structure encompassing multiple power centers entailing (un)equal decision making relevant to the lives of citizens, has triggered the downturn in national, subsequently weakening the supranational level of autonomy within it. Constant negotiations and lobbying representing the cornerstones of the Union, provides for an opportunity for achieving the objectives of individual groups and states. In the light of the above, the democracy concept has suffered the most. The democracy concept is difficult to define, being leveraged by the complication in finding criteria for its identification which are applicable to all political systems. The situation is further complicated in case of a need to identify these criteria within an unfinished political system like the one in the European Union. The problems behind democratic legitimization of the Union, arising along with the integration success, are opening up the question of the applicability of "standard" democracy model to this creation. The nature of the European Union functioning governed by the multiple levels management, requires adjustment of the democratic principles to its specific political system. Although there is no consensus among theorists who have contributed to clarifying the democracy concept in the European Union on neither whether there is a democratic deficit within it, nor what are the best conditions for the development of a genuine democracy in the EU, nevertheless it is possible to identify a number of structural problems of democracy in the political system of the European Union. In the framework of existing institutional mechanism of the European Union, the problems arise because of overlapping responsibilities between the institutions and the appreciable strengthening of the executive over the legislative branch of government. The Council plays the central role, operating on the principle of intergovernmental cooperation. Practically not a single European policy may be adopted without the operation of this institution and the interference of the member states, making the Council the leading legislative authority of the Union. The European Parliament, on the other hand, although directly elected, due to its still limited competences, being the main trigger of the democratic deficit in the Union. Thus, the wave of democratization of the EU institutions should include the "spillover" of power from the Council to the European Parliament and strengthening the inter-institutional cooperation between the European Parliament and European Commission. The European Union has not been grounded as the traditional national state. Demos don"t exist at the European level and, therefore, there is no one to provide the necessary legitimacy of the European policies. Although undoubtedly, the European Union policies are generating great benefits for its citizens, this reality, along with developed mechanisms of consultation with citizens, however, does not reduce the key problem in communication between the Union - citizens: lack of adequate representation of citizens, representing a deficiency having in mind that its founding documents are declaring it as a representative Community. Even the citizens themselves are failing to launch political debate on specific issues at the European level that would be a challenge for the national governments. Democratic legitimization of European institutions requires a greater role of political parties and their revitalization at the European level, as well as open political competition involving the citizens The integration process of the European Union counties has caused serious democratic problems not only at the level of the Union, but also in the member states. "Democracy problems" in the member states deriving from the functioning of the Union are reflected differently in different national political systems. Unlike unitary governments, federal ones are better adapting to the pressure deriving form the integration within the European Union. Federal feature of organization in the state already implies the multiple levels of decision making and decentralization of powers, thus the system is easily adapting to the multiple levels of management within the European Union. This is not the case with countries that are traditionally centralized. The further EU development may be directed in retaining the current integration principles with the rationale that the democratic member states represent legitimacy guarantor of the Union. In the light of the above, the intergovernmental principle should supersede the supranational. However, a model that would transform the EU into a democratic community is federal. The European Union has elements of federalism and this structure lacks the capacity for taxation and possibility of proposing amendments to founding, constitutional contracts. Currently the existence of federal elements in the functioning of the Union is pinpointing that its further strengthening will not inevitably lead to the transformation of the Union into the community with federal character, but will most likely impact on reducing the existing democratic deficit However, the model that would transform the European Union into the Community with democratic feature is the federal one. The European Union has the federalism features, and this structure suffers the lack of taxation capacity and the option of proposing amendments to the founding and constitutional treaties. The current existence of federal elements within the functioning of the Union is implying that its additional strengthening will not inevitably generate the transformation of the Union into the Community of federal feature, yet it will affect the decline in the current democratic deficit. Scientific methods used in this thesis are based on specific topic and research objective. Therefore, the methodology inherent in political science, comparative method, content analysis of documents, as well as specialization are used to a large extent. In proving the hypotheses a great usage has found the synthesis, generalization, induction and deduction.
By reporting on some conflicts but not on others, and by representing conflicts they report on in particular ways, the media strongly influence the dynamics and outcomes of democratisation conflicts, and thus also shape the prospects of success of conflict parties. This paper explores the literature on media and conflict by focusing on the ways in which media frame inter-state and civil wars, institutionalised conflicts and social movements in western democracies, and conflicts in nondemocratic and democratising states. Much of the literature discusses the ways in which western media frame foreign conflicts and domestic election campaigns and policy debates, while there is considerably less focus on domestic conflicts in nonwestern settings, such as those that arise during and after transitions from nondemocratic rule. There are only limited attempts to draw parallels between the media coverage of disparate conflicts. In contrast, this study builds upon research findings in these related areas to draw lessons for empirical research of media framing of the contentious dimension of contemporary democratisation. This study concludes that the political context is the main factor that shapes the media framing of various forms of political conflict. Several dimensions of the political context matter in this respect, such as regime type, international (foreign) or domestic perspective, elite consensus or conflict, policy consensus or uncertainty, policy area, more or less institutionalised nature of the political conflict at stake, and the stage of democratisation. Also, the literature suggests that media framing strongly influences political outcomes and thus fosters or undermines democratic institutions in new democracies. .
Tenth elections for the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia since the reestablishment of a multiparty system were held on March 16th, 2014, under a proportional electoral system. Electoral model essentially established in 2000 also included a single electoral district, closed party lists, five percent electoral threshold for non-minority parties and a use of D'Hondt formula for distribution of seats. Most important results of the March elections include: the lowest voter turnout and close to half of the votes won by the Serbian Progressive Party (which, in turn, gave them 63% of parliament members). Moreover, more than 80 percent of the seats was won by lists led by governing parties, i. e. Progressive or Socialist party. Elections were also not just a disaster for Democratic party, but also for Democratic Party of Serbia, Liberal Democratic Party, and United Regions of Serbia, which all lost seats in the National Assembly. Traditional success of the minority parties of most numerous national minorities (i.e. Hungarians, Bosniaks and Albanians) was noted. Also, for the first time, the parliament will convene without so-called sovereignists and opponents of European integration process. Finally, March elections were marked by a large number of squandered votes.
The migrant crisis that Europe has been facing for many years has triggered an avalanche of xenophobia and the dispersion of anti-migrant sentiments that have become the reference matrix for populist discourse. Anti-migrant discourse emerges in parallel as a form of language use and a form of social and political interaction. The antagonistic stereotypical narrative of migrants begins with the thesis that they constitute a retrograde social group that poses an economic and security threat to the natives and which is not capable of culturally assimilating in the countries of transit and destination (dichotomy Us vs. Them). Spreading anti-migrant discourse becomes a strategy for winning the electorate and an important tool for mobilizing political support. The political engineering of European political parties shows that anti-migrant discourse is not the exclusivity of right-wing parties of the political spectrum (although they are the most closely related), but is becoming an increasingly important topic on the political agenda of left-wing populism. Anti-migrant discourse is reflected through a nationalist and hostile approach to immigration, the glorification of national and sovereign narratives, and hostility to neoliberalism. Anti-migrant narratives have found their footing in the political activities of many European parties that are largely sovereignly profiled. Such a political vault of reasoning transforms migrant into a foreigner and attest on the triumph of communitarianism in regards to cosmopolitanism, which makes the EU's slogan "in varietate concordia" (united in diversity) questionable and subject to deconstruction.
