Suchergebnisse

The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate and useful in understanding and maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important and more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis has shown how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depend on the elements of the very political structure (party systems and coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc.). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently its role greatly depends on the relations among political actors and the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture and structure are extremely sophisticated and that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" and gradual development. (SOI : PM: S. 131) + The purpose of this essay is to prove the connection among political culture, political structure and democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analysed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture and structure i.e. within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims - primarily in line with the functional theory of culture - that there is a functional concordance between culture and structure, that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture, i.e. that "culture is a structure's way of life", that culture determines the structure) and the contemporary interactional approach (in which - primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" - complex relations among various cultural variables and structural variables are analysed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or the end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture and structure

The essay describes the evolution of the concept of political culture, from th concepts such as Comte's 'consensus', Durkheim's 'collective awareness', Weber's 'significance of individual actions', to Parson's 'action frame of reference', and Mead's 'national character'. The development began with Comte's search for differentia specifica of social sciences in relation to oth positive sciences and finished in 1963 with the introduction of the concept of political culture into political science by G. Mmond and S. Verba. Our analysis has shown that many definitions of political culture point out that i essence lies in people's beliefs since political culture is a set of beliefs regarding politics. As much as it may seem a paradox, it cannot be reduced to mere individual beliefs, but represents a system of inter-subjective opinions on various political objects. This explains the possible discrepancies between the political events and the political beliefs of the people, between their behaviour and political culture, and so on. Contrary to the belief of some authors, it has been shown how political culture may and should be taken as a common denominator for a variety of opinions on politics. Political attitudes, values, norms, public opinion and political ideologies are nothing but different manifestations of political culture. Thus, the concept of political culture includes diverse facets of the subjective attitude of people towards politics. This is the asset and not the downside of this concept, as some authors would have it. It is pointed out that the manifold manifestations of political culture do not carry the same 'weight' in explaining the political activism of people and the functioning of political systems. The relationship between these manifestations is extremely complex and a challenge for research. It is this very relationship that could explain the stable and less stable (i.e. stable and vacillating) reactions of people in their political activity. (SOI : PM: S. 128)

The poll on political tolerance was conducted on a 772 -subject sample. Because of the long-lasting totalitarian system and the short period of democracy, a rather low level of political tolerance was expected. However, the results of the poll have not confirmed these expectations but showed a high Ievel of political tolerance instead. Similar findings have been obtained by an American survey conducted in several European countries, including Croatia. This means that the political tolerance in Croatia has not been shaped by the totalitarian system but by the pluralist traits of the Croatian culture, ensuing from numerous contacts with a plethora of different cultures. In order for the pluralist democracy in Croatia to function democratically, appropriate legal prerequisites and institutions do not suffice; the people who is in line with the principles of pluralist democracy are central to this as well. Pluralist democracy legalizes various political options and enables the citizens to organize themselves and act in accordance with the embraced option. All this, however, is a dead letter if people are not willing to accept the existence and the activism of different political options. That is why the concept of political tolerance always goes hand in hand with the concept of pluralist democracy. The Latin word "tolerantia" means 'indulgence', 'patience'. That is why political tolerance is usually understood as a readiness to bear or put up with political options and their operationalizations which are obnoxious and even repugnant to us ... . The essence of political life is not tolerance and patience but non-restriction of political freedoms and political pluralism. Those who accept political pluralism find it easier to bear the existence of various political options, even those they do not approve of. There are more a less intensive feelings of intolerance and bigotry. So, tolerance means accepting and not only forbearing different political options. (SOI : PM: S. 148)

The author describes Buchanan's theory of political constitution and his individualist understanding of political science. On the basis of homo economicus, Buchanan deduced the normative elements of political science, i.e. the proposals for the choice of political institutions. In his opinion, the choice of political institutions always contains the ethical dimension. The positive elements of political science are illustrated by means of the analyses of the behaviour of political actors within the designated framework. The author shows how this type of radical individualism does not satisfy the standards of political science since it de facto does away with the political sphere. (SOI : PM: S. 195)

The Ministry of Science of the Republic of Croatia decided on a new "Rule book of definition of scientific areas". By the "Book", politology is a scientific field in the area of social sciences. The field is divided in three branches: 1. politology, 2. theory and history of politics, 3. political philosophy. The author of this article shows by documents how the "political science" is quite differently structured by IPSA and APSA, and describes 120 years of dominantly American development of "political science" and of professions of political scientists which brought out a recent new world standard with around 100 subdisciplines and areas of expertise which are structured in 8 fundamental disciplines: 1. political institutions, 2. political behaviour, 3. comparative politics, 4. internationa relations, 5. political theory, 6. public policy and public administration/management, 7. political economy, 8. political methodology. The author points out that a voluntaristic intervention in the definition of scientific areas could mean an attack on development of science, research organisation, renewal of teaching staff on University, and on academic education of political scientists, as well as on internationally comparable competence of Croatian experts, and Croatian democratic political thought and political culture in general. (SOI : PM: S. 240)

Häberle claims constitutional law is a comparative experiential science closely linked with political science with which it shares the research subject. The constitutional state has been going through a permanent process of changes; the central question is who is the prime mover of constitutional changes: constitutional/legal institutions, constitutional/lega science and political science or public opinion and political culture of citizens? By analysing the recent history of the changes of the German constitutions he suggests that all these factors contribute to constitutional changes. Nevertheless, as an expert for law and political science, who considers himself as belonging to the wider European scientific community, Häberle thinks that the decisive influences in constitutional changes stem from legal and political sciences and concludes: Sine qua (scientia) mortalium vita non regitur liberaliter. (Without science, mortals do not command their life freely). (SOI : PM: S. 186)

Democratic consolidation of post-authoritarian and post-totalitarian societies is looked into at the levels of (1) basic political institutions; (2) chief proponents of representative democracy (political parties and interest associations); (3) behaviour of powerful informal political actors (army, church, entrepreneurs, etc); and (4) civic culture. Democracy is stable only after it has been consolidated on all four levels. This "maximalist concept" of democratic consolidation excludes the explanation of a breakdown of democratic systems by voluntaristic and non-conceptualized descriptions of "deconsolidation". (SOI : PM: S. 150)

The author poses the question about the fate of neoconservatism, in the 1980s the official political orientation in the USA. Twenty years later, one can see how anti-communism and anti-modernism, neoconservatism's fundamental ideological premises, have changed the political practice and awareness, both (and equally) in American foreign and national policy. Though conceptually incoherent, neoconservatism has proved to possess exceptional clout. This has led the author to conclude that neoconservatism, despite the claims by neoconservatives themselves that it is dead, still has much leeway, since voters' awareness has been changed: they have got used to the new political context, they vote for well-balanced "mixtures" of rightist and leftist ideologies. (SOI : PM: S. 164)