The article is dedicated to the discussion about the notions of the 'political system' and 'political regime' in the fields of its meanings as autonomous analytical constructions. The main arguments are that the 'political system' describes a stable and normal political process and determinate interrelations between power structures and civil society institutions as a complex sociopolitical unity. On the other hand, concept of 'political regime' stresses dynamic aspects of the government activity as a realization of the basic political functions. Pointing to the fact that a political system explains events and relations in the modern democratic context and a regime -- its peculiarities in the process of decision-making, the authors share attention to specific negative aspects of the separate interpretation and recognition of the various forms in the national politics spheres. All these conditions may sharp influence over the quality of the authority decisions, feedback among political institutions as a civic interests representatives etc. And otherwise, this implies that the political systems and political regimes realize an isomorphic similarity for taking evasive action between them. Adapted from the source document.
Straipsnyje nagrinejama, koki gyvenimo prasmes supratima isskleidzia moderni politikos samprata. Klasikineje graiku ir krikscioniu filosofijoje politine tvarka atspindejo zmoniu gyvenimo tikslus. Ikimoderni Vakaru civilizacija remesi finalistiniu kosmoso modeliu, nurodziusiu kiekvieno daikto bei zmogaus vieta ir paskirti. Todel politiniai sprendimai bent konceptualiai atspindejo zmogisku protu suvokiamus metafizikos ar dieviskojo istatymo postulatus. Nuo Renesanso ir Naujuju amziu finalistine mokslo samprata keicia kauzalistine, o gyvenimo prasmes problema dingsta is politines teorijos nagrinejamu klausimu saraso. Darbe teigiama, kad, nepaisant isorines modernybes sekuliarizacijos, kiekvienos politines teorijos branduoli sudaro teologiniu problemu sprendimas, todel gyvenimo prasmes klausimas niekada negali buti eliminuojamas is politines minties darbotvarkes. Modernybeje ivykusi slinktis nuo finalistinio prie kauzalistinio pasaulio supratimo zmonijai suteike iki tol neturetu priemoniu perdirbti bet kuria gamtine ir socialine tvarka. O Dievo mirtis prasmingo gyvenimo zenklu verte ieskoti siapus. Siu dvieju modernios minties elementu sujungimas igalino gyvenimo prasmes deficita pasalinti igyvendinant eschatono imanentizacija, t. y. perkeliant galutinius zmonijos tikslus i si pasauli. Straipsnyje konstatuojama, kad tokiu tikslu realizacija yra neatsiejama nuo politinio totalitarizmo. Del atviros modernybes laiko sampratos neimanoma nustatyti, kada galutiniu zmonijos tikslu realizavimas bus pasiektas. Sio sprendimo prerogatyva atiteko suverenui The study examines the place of meaning of life in the modern concept of politics. This can be done only by proving that political thought reflects the purpose of human life which actually is meaning of life. If a political body or political philosophy cannot prove this, it will always be possible to reject their arguments by stating that they are meaningless to humans. This created conditions for the idea that society should be permanently improved and the ultimate goal of such improvement is the salvation of every individual in this world. Although supporters of liberalism and socialism have a different understanding of this final stage of human development, both of them aim not at preparing individual for the salvation in another reality but they think that ideas of the heaven should be established in this world. Adapted from the source document.
The aim of the article is to reveal the origins and the meaning of statesman. Beside historical and philosophical aspects of subject, the enhanced attention is given to the tradition of Lithuanian political thought. The following questions are pursued to answer: on what the grounds did the concept of statesman become the part of Lithuanian political discourse? What are functional and valuable meanings of the concept? Political science debate is often the continuation of the political debate. Though the article does not aim to extend the latter. It is consciously desired the debate on statesmen raise to the theoretical level. The authors want to present what is the statesman and to highlight the distinction between statesman and politician. Adapted from the source document.
In this article phenomenon of the "color revolution" as a new step in the revolutionary theory is discussed. The main purpose was to define its relation to the classical revolutionary studies & its specific features. As a result author constructed definition of the "color revolution" & its process model is proposed in the article. As a practical case the "tulip revolution" in Kyrgyzstan was taken in order to find out how much it fits newly appeared "color revolution" type. The main conclusion of the article is that "color revolution" in some way differs from early proposed revolution & its process definitions & its crucial new feature is the use of the political technologies seeking to affect people mind ("moment society" creation for power attainment). Adapted from the source document.
On purpose to analyse a certain part of social world it is useful to apply a concept of field introduced in the field theory of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Field is a structure of relations between the objective positions occupied by its agents. Lithuanian political science field was chosen as the object of the research. The main problem analysed in the article is the "origin" of different perceptions of political science If only individual experience affects these perceptions, how could we explain the fact that some beliefs are more typical to certain groups of scientists and are not inherent to other groups? The investigation using semi-structuralized survey method was executed. Eighty-eight Lithuanian political scientists took part in the research. Received data was analysed by multiple correspondence analysis technique and other methods of statistical analysis. It was identified that those political scientists who own the highest academic and scientific capital tend to support a vision of political science not oriented towards practical politics. These results might be interpreted as demonstrating the above mentioned interests to impose such perceptions of political science which could be the most useful to the scientists and as confirming the hypothesis of the research. Adapted from the source document.
Galios savoka yra viena is pagrindiniu, taciau taip pat ir viena is labiausiai gincijamu savoku politikos moksle bei gimininguose socialiniuose moksluose. Straipsnyje apzvelgiami teoriniai debatai del galios savokos reiksmes tarp sociologu ir politologu, prasideje XX amziaus septintajame desimtmetyje - vadinamieji 'galios veidu debatai' - bei galios santykis su giminingomis autoriteto (teisetos valdzios) ir prievartos savokomis. Straipsnio tikslas yra sudaryti 'tarpparadigmine' savokos taksonomija ir isskirti konceptualias 'galios' ribas. 'Galios' savokos ribozenkliais pasirenkamos butent 'autoriteto' ir 'prievartos' savokos, pirmaja is ju tapatinant su galios maksimumu, o antraja - su visisku galios eliminavimu, kai ja pakeicia fizine kontrole. Tai nera vienintele politologiniame diskurse aptinkama galios samprata, nes kai kurie politikos mokslu atstovai, ypac tarptautiniu santykiu tyrinetojai, galia tapatina butent su fizine jega. Vis delto dauguma sociologu ir politikos teoretiku palaiko pozicija (jai atstovaujama ir straipsnyje), jog galia baigiasi ten, kur prasideda prievarta Power is one of the basic, but at the same time one of the most disputed concepts in political science, as well as other social sciences contiguous to it. The article starts by reviewing an ongoing debate between political scientists and sociologists which started around 1960s - the so-called 'faces of power debate' - and moves on to evaluate the conceptual relation between power, on the one hand, and authority and coercion on the other. The somewhat modest goal of this endeavour is to design a taxonomy of, as well as to mark the limits of the concept in question. 'Authority' and 'coercion' (meaning 'physical force') are thus chosen as conceptual markers, the former corresponding to the maximum power with minimum opposition and the latter denoting the complete loss of power in exchange for sheer physical control over outcomes. This is not the only perception of power typical to the political science discourse; some political scientists, namely scholars of international relations, identify the exercise of power precisely with physical coercion by which certain object of value is secured. However, most of the more sophisticated accounts of power in social and political theory favour the conceptual limits proposed in this article. Adapted from the source document.
The article introduces three historical and linguistic approaches to political thought: Anglophonic history of ideas, German conceptual history and French history of political. It is claimed, that these schools could offer new tools for Lithuanian political sciences and help for better understanding of Lithuanian political thought and tradition. The article identifies main similarities and differences between all three approaches, and also shows what kind of questions could be raised and answers given while using different approaches in studies of political. The last part of article presents context of current studies of political thought in Lithuania and indicates possible trends for future studies while using more historical approaches to political. Adapted from the source document.
Theoretical concepts of "structure" & "structural intersection" are analyzed in this article. The use of these concepts in political science & their critical interpretation is presented by analyzing positivist, ideational & post-modernist approaches. Sociological understanding of structure, which encompasses both material & ideational elements is created. Under the suggested definition, structure is seen as comprised of identity, institutions & material base. The interaction of these structural elements forms scientifically useful concept, which can be applied in the analysis of the socio-political processes in post-soviet transformations. Opportunities & limitations of "structural intersection" analysis, which include both international relations & internal policy perspectives are also presented. Adapted from the source document.
John Rawls's famous "A Theory of Justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details & aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice & its conceptual independence of rationality. This belief is an essential part of the "Theory" no less than the attempts to ground it on reason. But to ground justice on reason means exactly to destroy its conceptual autonomy & unconditionality. That is the problem the article concentrates on. It shows that, firstly, Rawls makes not clear enough which ideal -- this of justice or that of rationality -- he takes as self-grounding & of the ultimate importance when compared with each other. On the one hand, the willingness to use the model of the original position stems from purely moral, that is, unreducible to utility maximizing calculations, state of consciousness, without which the persons cannot be persuaded to take part in the mental experiment & to perceive it as just. On the other hand, Rawls declares the need to ground the principles of justice & to prove that unjust behavior is also irrational, which means he questions the very belief in the binding power of Kantian morality together with his own quest for justice (If justice is nothing other than rationality, so why should we worry about it? Let's speak instead about rationality & utility alone). Secondly, we demonstrate that although a famous veil of ignorance needs because the persons under it are homini economici, that is, rational egoists without any moral sentiments, yet this veil is possible & useful only if the homini are supplied with a sense of justice, which means that the initial definition of the persons is destroyed. Moreover, in this case the veil is superfluous because the supposed sense of justice takes on the function of it. Thirdly, a contradiction in terms between two fundamental presuppositions of Rawls's theory -- Cartesian universal reason of solitary thinker on the one hand & contractarian conception of justice on the other -- is exposed: what becomes of the idea that justice is the result of a rational agreement, if each person finds the principles of justice individually & needs no communication? Fourthly, communitarian critique of Rawlsian claim to universality & impartiality is briefly presented & discussed in order to show that to be rational is not the same as to be neutral, fair & impartial. Moreover, no matter what we think about the possibility to be fair, at least the state of being both rational & fair (or just in Rawlsian sense) is unattainable. Adapted from the source document.
The aim of the article is to identify & critically assess the key concepts, ideas & the epistemological principles of Thomas Hobbes, as a theorist of modern state who conceptually grasped the nature of the political. In light of the methodological concerns, the article attempts to provide an understanding of various conceptual connections in Hobbes' work Leviathan between the human passions, liberty, social contract, obligation, morality, & power. The paper also touches on the problem of the radical nominalism. Given the emphasis on the individual, Hobbes faces the dilemma between methodological individualism & methodological holism. Some of the corollaries of his political theory, including the organicistic metaphor of "society as mortal God," are inconsistent with the main body of Hobbes' theoretical thought. The article concludes by arguing that the controversial concepts of Hobbes' social theory force us to assess them in light of the different interpretative possibilities. Adapted from the source document.
In the sphere of construing regional identity, political science can accomplish less than philosophy. Common regional identity can never be derived from scientific cultural studies conducted in certain countries. A new cultural & philosophical meaning can never be devised on the basis of political science. It can only be the end result of philosophical imagination. Scientists can present facts which bear proof of merely cultural & political affinity. However, so far they have failed to propose any more significant concepts or images for the future of Central Europe. Mere knowledge of empirical facts cannot be treated as a philosophical discovery. Both politicians & scientists can be aware of & handle an abundance of facts, & yet a philosophical idea is needed to bind all these facts into one coherent whole. In construing the identity of Central Europe, there is no need whatever to get involved in discussions about certain given objective facts, similar to objects studied by natural sciences. There are no natural characteristics, which could predetermine the perception of regional identity, irrespective of a moral awareness of its citizens. Morality is an independent motive of human conduct, which can exert influence on the perception of regional identity. Nevertheless, today it is one of the most unpopular subjects of geopolitical discussions. Geopoliticians claim that cultural & political identity of a region must be objectively predetermined, be it by geography, economy or military power. Political philosophers seem to be the only ones who can take a stand against such a naturalist perception of regional identity. Adapted from the source document.
Contemporary political science has long been focused less on the policy content than on "polity" & "politics," in particular. In the middle of the last century, many political scientists decided that such a self-restraint poses certain difficulties, deciding to launch discussions on how the social scientists can & should examine policy. Harold Lasswell's 1951 essay "The Policy Orientation" has launched the discussions. Here, Lasswell claimed that policy research should be separated from a traditional research, ie., focusing on theory, the subject & descriptive in terms of the style it pursues. An essay may, beyond doubt, be described as one of the political science's classics. Not because Lasswell in the space he had, managed to think with subtlety & in depth from a theoretical point of view, but for the reason that he clarified the parameters that later became decisive in analyzing the content of what politics is: analysis must focus on problems; it must be multi-subject & clearly normative. Thus, these three parameters become the part of the fundamental criteria the European Association of Public Administration Accreditation, founded in 1999, uses in accrediting European public education systems. In spite of the fact that many had agreed on the requirements Lasswell posed with regard to public policy as the focus of the social sciences, there was still a lack of common understanding on how these requirements should be implement. To the contrary, they have become the object of unresolved vigorous discussions. Some might interpret this as a weakness of policy analysis, yet some would see this as a proof of healthiness, ie., that the public policy analysts develop the subject of their expertise. Adapted from the source document.
The so-called political values are only representations of values from other areas. We got used to the idea that if there is politics, there also have to be unique values belonging to this realm. However, the biggest paradox is that politics does not have its own values. There is no pure political judgment. When we make judgments about political matters we enter into discussions about values which are clearly not political. The roots of political judgments always can be traced to matters that are not political. All political values can be reduced to issues which exist beyond politics. They represent moral, religious, economic & cultural convictions of citizens. The meaning of politics always remains outside its reach. Behind so-called "political values" we always find reference to other values. Adapted from the source document.
