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.
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.
This article aims to reveal the role of political power in the construction of collective identity through the collective memory. Three aspects is seeking to "hook" in the theoretical level: the determined trends of globalised current time, the national state as a homogeneous "imagined" community and cultural heritage as a historical reality and factor of joining together communities. According the theoretical analysis of these three elements is trying to deny the assumption that collective memory and collective identity is only a fiction, an ideologically totalitarian construct and that objectively exist only an individual memory, which is socially constructed only in the individual level. Adapted from the source document.
The main strategy of this article is to consider liberalism in contrast with democracy. The article argues that there is a tension between the principles of democratic homogeneity and liberal heterogeneity. Deontological liberalism accents formal and procedural aspects of liberal democracy. In this way the democratic substantial concept of equality is reduced to the indifferent concept of equal individual liberty. Thus the model of liberal democracy gives priority to liberalism, but not democracy. The article also argues that it is possible to draw the conceptual distinction between liberalism and democracy only if the question is considered as a critical framework of different philosophical discourses. Adapted from the source document.
One of the brand new areas of historiography is analyzed. Availing of the research of historical conscience launched in Germany, the author explores the possibility of applying this new practice to the analysis of Lithuanians' historical conscience. The perspectives, theoretical-methodological objectives & tasks are analyzed. Special attention is drawn to the ideological aspect of a historical conscience & to the problem of "left" & "right" in the Lithuanians' mass conscience during the last decade. A relationship between the "left" & "right" identity & a specific version of the past being defended, an attempt by Lithuania's politicians to manipulate the historical perspectives, a tendency toward mythologization as evident in Lithuania's contemporary historical conscience is emphasized. Adapted from the source document.
In this article, a few theoretical aspects of citizens' political sophistication are analyzed: contextual concepts that are used, different conceptions of political sophistication, variables used in the research and factors implementing political sophistication. Most of the academic works on political sophistication come from Western countries, therefore the assumptions used by foreign scholars are applied in the case of Lithuania. Political sophistication is understood as political knowledge held by an individual as well as his/her interest in politics. In the empirical part of this article, the results of the 2008 representative survey data statistical analysis are presented: Lithuanian citizens' political sophistication index and factors that implement the level of political sophistication. One can conclude that the most influential factor that causes the existing level of political sophistication is citizens' age. Relatively more political sophisticated are older, better educated citizens who discuss political issues with others more frequently, use more information sources (radio, Internet, press, TV news) and gain comparatively higher income. 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 article analyzes the concept of national state & the meaning of national independence. Political independence has proven to be a much greater challenge to the nations of Eastern & Central Europe. The population of the region is not merely aware of the fact that political independence is difficult to gain; they believe that it is far more important to handle the tasks related to moral & cultural justification of independence. The said aspects do not vanish from the horizon of philosophical, moral & political reflections of the nations within the region. Links with the Western culture is one of the topical subjects in Eastern & Central Europe. However, from the vantage point of political independence the Western culture tends to undermine the spirit of the nations within the region rather than uplift it. The ailments of the Western culture, when brought to the region, are perceived as the factors destroying the meaning of independence. Adapted from the source document.
The aim of the article is to disclose a possible view held by Kant towards the solution of the KOnigsberg problem after World War II. Philosophers of today usually show little interest in discussing the so-called "Kaliningrad puzzle." This is a certain misunderstanding. As one of the most outstanding representatives of the idealistic paradigm of international relations, Kant can be treated as a full-fledged participant of the discussions on the future of the Kaliningrad region. His political philosophy contributes towards a better understanding of certain important aspects related to the Kaliningrad problem. Kant would strongly criticize the decisions made at the Potsdam conference. The above decisions contradict his understanding of international relations. However, Kant would not demand an urgent solution to the Kaliningrad problem. His flexibility is worthy of the respect shown by the realpolitik supporters. On the other hand, Kant did not have the slightest doubt as to the necessity of amending the injustice of improper political decisions. The European future of the Kaliningrad region is first & foremost related to the ability of the population to enforce the political principles formulated by Kant -- the freedom of the citizens, the rule of law & the equality of every single citizen under the law. This seems to be the most topical message made by Kant to the present day population of his native town. The Kaliningrad region of today has failed to justify the requirements of civil society. It reminds one more of a hostage to the central power. From the perspective of Kant's political philosophy, one could state that the Kaliningrad region has not yet used the opportunity to become an association of free citizens. This is the only trustworthy way for this hostage of international politics of the 20th century to become part of cultural & political life within the unifying Europe. Adapted from the source document.
The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they cannot be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism cannot win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules. Adapted from the source document.
Security studies have survived a lot of transformations. Like any other social theory, security studies have gone through a number of consecutive development stages: the dominance of traditional theories (realism/neorealism), the rise of critical & discourse approaches as well as the attempts to modify the traditional theories & methodological frameworks & to search for the synthetic or universal theoretic models. Author reviews how the security studies developed in the last few decades. Further attention is devoted to the attempts of Barry Buzan to provide for a compromised frameworks for security analysis in his works People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (1991), & Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998). The first work was an attempt to sum up the most valuable inputs for a widening security agenda; it includes the new aspects of security (economic, political, social & ecological), acknowledging that a state can be one of the many other subjects in the security studies. The greatest value of this work is a model of sectorization of security studies -- analytical proposition to classify threats by sectors. The second framework for analysis seeks to preserve the use of the security sectors' concept. However B. Buzan, 0. Waever & J. de Wilde propose to include a discursive theory of securitization into the framework. Authors suggest that security is not an objective condition -- it is about presenting issues as existential threats that require emergency measures. Some critiques (eg. J. Eriksson) argue, theories of securitization & sectonzation are incompatible in methodological meaning. The author of this article gives some suggestions that a model of sectorization of security studies should be supplemented by a new sector -- the communication sector. This expansion of the model could help fill some gaps left in the B. Buzan model -- i.e. the way threats emerge, the reason why one threat is considered differently from the other one as well as why they enjoy a specific influence on the other security sectors. 3 Schemas. Adapted from the source document.
