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. .
Measuring the quality of political regimes is a field that occupies a traditional place in statistical studies that have the subject of studying the characteristics of the political system as an important segment of the explanation of the behavior of states in international relations. In a desire for a comprehensive and complete spatial and temporal interaction, researchers seek to classify data categories through an extremely complex set that represents the starting point for further research. The aim of this article is a comparative overview of the most used quantitative instruments of the level of the political regime. In addition, the author points to the advantages or limitations of certain databases. The subject of the comparative presentation are the following databases: Polity IV, Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy-LIED, Authoritarian Regime Dataset, Varieties of Democracy, and other data sets relevant to statistical testing. In addition, the author presents the problems that researchers in security studies meet in "measuring" the level of the political regime, that is, quantifying the relationship between democracy and autocracy. The method of descriptive statistics will be used in order to present the most important statistical cross-sections of the instruments used in modern research.
The Paper observes the foundation and development of OSCE as the most important contemporary security organization from the perspective of historical and political dynamics and the interests of international subjects. Originally founded as Forum for the reduction of tensions between ideologically confronted East and West, OSCE (than: CSCE) has evolved into permanent security organization with diversified activities and jurisdictions. However, that evolution failed to be up to the new challenges, so the needs for further reforms of OSCE reemerged. Second part of the Paper follows the propositions of OSCE system reforms, made by its member states, by Panel (formed on Council of Ministers in Sofia, in December 2004) and by Russia that has even proposed 'Agreement of European security' as the basis for completely new remaking of European security out of the existing OSCE system. In the final part of the Paper, influences of contemporary political crises in OSCE member states on the possible reform of this security organization are being analyzed.
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.
In this paper, populism is regarded as a kind of ideological map that facilitates to the citizens their coping in the political space, as well as a "thin-centered ideology" which has at his center the idea that politics should be a reflection of the will of the people, the idea that a clean and moral nation confronts a corrupt elite and "out groups", "out groups" which actions endanger or impair the rights and values of the nation. The paper focuses on some fundamental theoretical considerations on populism and empirical determination of the elements of populism in the public opinion in Serbia. Based on opinion polls in Serbia it has been shown what is the relationship of citizens to the people, political elites, democracy and its institutions, as well as the attitude towards "out groups". Empirical research conducted in Serbia in 2017 confirms the hypothesis that the gap between citizens and their elected representatives is deep, and it marks also that conventional politics increasingly faces the difficulties to reach citizens, and that lack of trust in political parties is generated in all spheres of representative democracy. In the political life, "out groups" are instrumentally ranked by political actors according to the necessities of the moment, and the empirical research of attitudes shows that they are in the same way as "out groups experienced by the citizens.
This paper analyses the connection of interests and corruption, especially corruption and political interests. It first considers the notion of interest, i.e. its meanings and significance, both for an individual and for a society. It presents the classification if interests by Albion Woodbury Small. A special emphasis is given to the encounter of different interests as the beginning of clash between humans. The paper analyses individual, special and general interests, as well as their relations. The paper also analyses two levels of conflict of interest: the conflict between public and private interest and the conflict between interests within the public offices. The relation of interests in society and politics is solved in the best way by adopting laws, i.e. by introducing the rule of law into political order. Without that the interest orientation of politicians can easily end up in abuse and illegality. In turn, abuses and illegalities open the possibilities for various kinds of corruptive acts.
Since the end of the 1980s, the intensifying of the politicization process has been one of the important characteristics of the EU integration process. The politicization in the EU is understood as the way of contesting and decision-making on public issues, the way that is opposite to the elitist and technocratic mode of decision-making, typical for the first decades of EU integration. Thus, the politicization, and also the politicization in the EU, is grasped as complementary to the public character of modern politics, especially with democracy. The European union is conceptualized as an extremely compound and non-centralized political system of a non-state type with the elements of consensus democracy and with a deeply segmented society as its basis, divided by national and many transnational lines. Within that society, as well as within its political institutions, the politicization process has been developing which has been influencing the functioning of the system considerably. We explore the experiences of politicization in other compound, consensus democracies in Europe – Belgium and Switzerland – and by comparing the specific cases of politicization, we are searching for the possible specific characteristics of politicization in the EU that stem from its described nature. Also, we are analyzing the possible impact of such politicization on the future of integration and politics in the EU. Although not always contributing to deepening of integration, the politicization in the EU, under specific circumstances, could have a democratizing effect. It serves as the opportunity for stimulating the debates on important issues and articulating the will of the citizens while the adequate forms of participation in the political process are still missing in the EU. In addition, we discuss the potential impact of the politicization of European issues on the gradual creation of the European public sphere or the Europeanisation of the national public spheres, as well as on the Europeanisation of society and emergence of the European political identity among the EU citizens. ; Jedna od značajnijih karakteristika u razvoju evropske integracije od kraja 1980- ih godina jeste intenziviranje procesa politizacije. Politizacija u Evropskoj uniji se razume kao način raspravljanja i odlučivanja o javnim pitanjima suprotan elitističkom i tehnokratskom načinu donošenja odluka, uobičajenom naročito za prve decenije razvoja evropske integracije. Stoga se politizacija, pa i politizacija u Evropskoj uniji, shvata kao komplementarna sa javnim karakterom moderne politike, posebno sa demokratijom. Evropska unija je konceptualizovana kao izrazito složen i necentralizovan politički sistem nedržavnog tipa sa elementima konsensualne demokratije koji za osnovu ima duboko segmentirano društvo, ispresecano osim nacionalnim i mnogim transnacionalnim podelama. Unutar tog društva, kao i unutar političkih institucija, odvija se proces politizacije koja ima značajnog uticaja na funkcionisanje sistema. Rad nastoji da izuči iskustva politizacije drugih složenih, konsensualnih demokratija u Evropi – Belgije i Švajcarske – te poređenjem pojedinih slučajeva politizacije traga za posebnim karakteristikama politizacije u EU koje proističu iz njene opisane prirode, kao i o mogućem uticaju takve politizacije na budućnost integracije i politike u EU. Iako neće uvek doprineti produbljivanju integracije, politizacija u EU pod određenim uslovima može imati demokratizujući uticaj jer predstavlja način da se oživi rasprava o važnim pitanjima i artikuliše volja građana u nedostatku adekvatnih oblika učešća u političkom procesu EU. Dodatno, razmatra se potencijalni uticaj koji politizacija evropskih pitanja može da ima na postepeno kreiranje evropske javne sfere ili evropeizaciju nacionalnih javnih sfera, kao i na evropeizaciju društva i kreiranje evropskog političkog identiteta među građanima Unije.
The topic of this doctoral dissertation is the problem of constitution of the body politic in democratic theories. In contemporary analytic political theory this problem has been most commonly dealt with as the boundary problem that asks how to delimit the demos democratically, but in continental political theory it is rather considered as an issue of constitution of the demos and as one of the political and democratic paradoxes. This study has embraced the second methodological approach in tackling this issue. I contend that the original constitution of the demos by democratic means is logically impossible so instead of a quest for a permanent solution of this problem, the paradoxes of the stories of founding as well as chronic legitimacy deficit of any bounded bodies politic should be exposed. It is more productive to rethink the ways to remedy or mitigate the initial injustices committed toward the excluded from the demos and to legitimize the recomposition of the body politic (demos) via subsequent democratic reconstitution. It is argued that political body can be democratically reconstituted not just during extraordinary but also during ordinary, everyday political moments, when relations between popular sovereignty and human rights are negotiated and contested. The opportunities for these contestations and negotiations are situations of restoration of membership for the old members and recognition of membership to the new members, usually understood as situations addressing the compositional dimension of demos that responds to the question who is the passive member, and where should the external boundaries of the demos be drawn. But there are also situations when political identity can be redefined, especially when collective action is initiated, opportunities when performative dimension of the demos is activated, and which informs us about struggles concerning the internal boundaries of the demos - who can be an active member and how deep is the gap between the demos and the body politic. Performative account of the demos focus on the ways in which the demos demands recognition as the demos and at the same time enacts itself as an emerging body politic. ; Predmet doktorske disertacije je problem konstituisanja političkog tela u demokratskim teorijama. Ovaj se problem u savremenoj analitičkoj političkoj teoriji uobičajeno razmatra kao problem ograničenja demosa, odnosno pitanje kako je moguće demokratski ograničiti demos, dok se u kontinentalnoj političkoj teoriji pre razmatra kao pitanje konstituisanja demosa odnosno kao jedan od paradoksa politike i demokratije. Metodološki se rad priklanja drugom načinu razmatranja ovog pitanja. Zastupam stanovište da je demokratsko konstituisanje demosa logički nerešiv problem te da, umesto pokušaja da se on trajno reši, treba razotkriti paradokse utemeljivačkih priča i hronični nedostatak legitimnosti na ma koji način ograničenog političkog tela. Produktivnije je misliti o načinima da se početne nepravde prema isključenima isprave ili ublaže i da se sastav političkog tela (demosa) naknadno legitimiše demokratskim rekonstituisanjem. Tvrdi se da se političko telo može demokratski rekonstituisati putem ne samo izvanrednih već i svakodnevnih političkih momenata tokom kojih se pregovaraju i osporavaju veze između narodnog suvereniteta i ljudskih prava. Takve situacije osporavanja i pregovaranja su one kada se obnavlja članstvo starim članovima ili priznaje članstvo novim članovima, o čemu se obično misli kao o kompozicionoj dimenziji demosa koja odgovara na pitanje ko je pasivni član, odnosno gde su spoljašnje granice političkog tela. Postoje takođe i situacije redefinisanja političkog identiteta i pokretanja kolektivne akcije što je način da se razmotri performativna dimenzija demosa odnosno unutrašnje granice političkog tela - ko može biti aktivni član i koliki je jaz između demosa i političkog tela. Performativna dimenzija demosa fokusira se na načine na koje demos zahteva priznanje da je demos i istovremeno proizvodi, otelotvoruje sebe, kao političko telo u nastajanju.
Today's world is shaped by the processes of globalization and economic liberalization, which dominantly determine the social, economic, environmental and political conditions. As part of these processes, there is an increasing rhetoric about the activities of the state to build a legal system 'ideal for attracting' foreign investment, to establish state institutions in charge of 'attracting foreign investment', and to create a business environment conducive to 'attract' foreign investment. Faced with citizen requests and pressure to create conditions for employment, in initial negotiations with foreign investors state, authorities articulate their willingness to meet these requests. The affirmative stance of governments towards the investments of multinational companies easily can be changed. Once the investment begins, the pledges made by one contracting party to the other may prove to be unrealistic and economically unjustified. The tensions generated between the host state and foreign investors jeopardize the foreign investment contract concluded by the contracting parties. Further fulfillment of contractual obligations from foreign investment contracts will be possible if the contracting parties resolve the resulting conflict through mutual negotiations. Through negotiations, the contracting parties can depreciate the impact of the changed circumstances, including a range of economic, political, legislative and environmental conditions. Initiating negotiations at the right time and conducting them in good faith may lead to a solution. Even if an agreement is not reached, the renegotiation may contribute to a better understanding of contractual partners and redefining the positions of the contracting parties.
U okviru rada je detaljno analizirana politička delatnost srpskih pristalica ugarske vlade u užoj Ugarskoj od Austro-ugarske nagodbe 1867. do poraza Slobodoumne stranke na izborima 1905. Nastankom nagodbenog pravnog okvira ugarska politička elita je smatrala da su se stekli uslovi da se odredi da u Ugarskoj postoji samo jedna politička nacija. Predvodnici nemađarskog stanovništva su trebali da odluče da li da pokušaju da izdejstvuju što bolji položaj za svoju naciju unutar vladajuće političke stranke ili da se posvete nacionalnoj i državno-pravnoj opoziciji. Deo srpske inteligencije je smatrao da državno-pravna opozicija može više da šteti srpskim nacionalnim i kulturno-prosvetnim interesima nego da bude od koristi. Oni nisu osnovali zasebnu političku stranku već su pristali uz stranke Ferenca Deaka i Kalmana Tise, koje su se 1875. ujedinile u Slobodoumnu stranku. Pored Ugarskog sabora, oni su delovali i unutar ugarskih municipija, kao i u sklopu srpske crkveno-narodne autonomije. ; In this paper are, in detail, analyzed the political activities of Serbian supporters of the Hungarian government in Hungary proper from the Austro-Hungarian Compromise in 1867 to the defeat of Liberal Party in the 1905 elections. With the setup of the compromise legal framework, Hungarian political elite considered conditions had been met in order to declare that there was only one political nation in Hungary. Leaders of non-Hungarian population were supposed to decide whether to try to force a better position for their nation within the ruling political party or to commit themselves to national and legal-state opposition. However, part of the Serbian intelligence believed that state-legal opposition could no longer be regarded as useful to Serbian national, cultural and educational interests. This is why they have not formed a separate political party but they acted within the parties of Ferenc Deak and Kalman Tisza, which were united into Liberal Party in 1875. Apart from the Hungarian Parliament, they were also acting within the Hungarian municipalities, as well as within the Serbian church-national autonomy.
