The subject matter of research in this paper is theoretical controversy related to the definition of right-wing extremism. Given the fact that extremism is a variable, amorphous and insufficiently researched phenomenon, largely conditioned by time, space, political and cultural differences, there is a great confusion in the field of political science when defining right-wing extremism. The problem of researching right-wing extremism is additionally complicated by various terms that are being used in the contemporary literature as its synonyms, such as right-wing radicalism, neo-Fascism, ultra-radicalism, etc. In order to provide the most valid theoretical determination of right-wing extremism, the author provides a detailed analysis of all the components constituting this phenomenon and examines their causality. In the political praxis, the term extremism is extensively abused, which additionally complicates its determination. Videlicet, politicians often use term 'extremist' in order to discredit their political opponents. While during the French revolution aristocracy saw the bourgeoisie as extremists, the members of the working class later stated that the bourgeoisie were extremists. The problem lies in the fact that, in politics, extremists are not only the ones who use violence as modus operandi; indeed, it is also used by political opponents who do not belong to the extreme political option. Another aggravating factor in defining right-wing extremism is that many administrative and academic definitions do not make a clear distinction between extremism and related phenomena, such as terrorism, radicalism and populism. Extremism is most often equaled with terrorism, which gives rise to another problem in defining this phenomenon. The relation between extremism and terrorism is the relation of general and specific. Namely, every act of terrorism is concurrently considered to be an act of extremism, but not vice versa, given the fact that every act of extremism does not lead towards a higher level of political violence (i.e. towards terrorism). Even in the terms of legal sanctioning, it is much easier to incriminate terrorism in comparison to extremism. The Serbian criminal legislation envisages relevant punishment for committing an act of terrorism, without even mentioning extremism, which implies that there is no penalty prescribed for committing an act of extremism. Despite numerous academic and administrative definitions on the concept of extremism, there is still a lack of a balanced approach to defining right-wing extremism, which is also largely conditioned by political definitions. The most prominent problem in addressing the social phenomena such as right-wing extremism lies in the fact that these social phenomena are dynamic and, in order to be analysed in a scientifically objective manner, they must be examined in the specific temporal, spatial and socio-political context.
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.
Dоktоrskа disеrtаciја prаti rаzvој kоncеpаtа pоlitičkе lеvicе, pоlitičkе dеsnicе i pоlitičkоg cеntrа, оd njihоvоg nаstаnkа svе dо dаnаšnjih dаnа. Krоz gеnеrаlnо rаzmаtrаnjе оvih kоncеpаtа dоktоrskа disеrtаciја nudi i niz mini-biоgrаfskih pоrtrеtа znаčајnih tеоrеtičаrа i držаvnikа, kојi su оbеlеžili pоmеnutе pојmоvе u еvrоpskој pоlitičkој i intеlеktuаlnој istоriјi. Аutоr disеrtаciје, pоrеd disciplinоvаnоg iznоšеnjа nаučnih činjеnicа, nа litеrаlаn nаčin prеzеntuје intеrеsаntnu gеnеrаlnu fаbulu u kојој sе kао glаvni аktеri pојаvlјuјu vоdеćе ličnоsti mоdеrnе еvrоpskе istоriје. Disеrtаciја prikаzuје kаkо ćе, nеkаdа јеdinstvеni pоlitički prоstоri lеvicе i dеsnicе, u pоstmоdеrnоm vrеmеnu biti pоdеlјеni grаđаnskim i аntigrаđаnskim shvаtаnjеm pоlitikе, dоk ćе pоdеlа nа lеvicu i dеsnicu u njihоvim klаsičnim оblicimа biti јоš sаmо sеkundаrnа. Dоktоrskа disеrtаciја pоkаzuје dа nаs tо dоvоdi u јеdnu nоvu tеоriјsku i prаktičnu situаciјu, tе аutоr disеrtаciје u zаklјučnim nаpоmеnаmа rаdа zаklјučuје dа ćе zа stаbilnоst, dеlоtvоrnоst i lеgitimnоst pоlitičkih instituciја nа pоčеtku 21. vеkа biti pоtrеbnа јеdnа nоvа pоstidеоlоškа pоlitikа i pоstidеоlоškа pоlitičkа sоciоlоgiја. ; Doctoral dissertation follows the development of the concepts of the Political Left, the Political Right and the Political Center from the time of their creation to the present day. Through a general discussion of these concepts dissertation offers a series of mini - biographical portraits of important scholars and statesmen, who epitomized these concepts in European political and intellectual history. Author of dissertation, together with disciplined presentation of scientific facts, offers the interesting general story in which as the main actors appear leading figures of modern European history. The dissertation shows how, in the past a unique political space of the Left and the Right, in the postmodern period will be divided by civil and anti-civic understanding of politics, while the division between the Left and the Right in their classical forms remains only secondary. Doctoral dissertation finally demonstrates that previous happenings brings us into a new theoretical and practical situation, and the author of the thesis in the concluding remarks of work concludes that for stability, effectiveness and legitimacy of political institutions at the beginning of the 21st century we need a new post-ideological politics and post-ideological political sociology.
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.
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.
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.
Nowadays, there are divided opinions in Bosnia and Herzegovina when it comes to further mandate of the OHR and the institution of the High Representative. However, the e nd of the mandate of the High Representative is realistically expected in the near future. The need to abolish the office of the OHR and the institution of the High Representative has been mentioned increasingly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially in the Republic of Srpska. The reasons for the abolition of the function of the High Representative are different between the entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as among its constitutive peoples. The authority of the High Representative has been increasingly questioned.It is on that basis that questions arise more frequently whether his (High Representative) legal acts will be valid, in particular individual decisions, such as deprivation of certain rights to citizens, the right to work, political action and passive right to vote. Representatives of the international community are worried that the interested domestic political circles could set a thesis (and be successful at it) that all acts of the High Representative will cease to apply at the moment when Annex X of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina is ended.A number of imposed laws not yet adopted by the local legislator himself, in the event of cancellation, would actually return BiH to the original competences under the Constitution BiH, as the legal consequence. The institution of the High Representative was set up by Annex X (Agreement on Civilian Implementation of the Peaceful Solution) of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Simultaneously, bearing in mind these facts, legally speaking, Bosnia and Herzegovina can not be classified into any known form of international dependence, however, the objective situation is such that Bosnia and Herzegovina with the powers vested in the High Representative and the actions that he is taking, can be considered a state with a specific form of international dependence and a special form of guardianship.
The notions of "right" and "left" are a fundamental semantic pattern within which voters construct their political perceptions and attitudes. Their universal meaning lies in a simple spatial approach to politics as conflict; functionally, "right" and "left" are "shortcuts" for political communication. In the empirically oriented political science, the left- right scale has become a standard variable in public opinion polls. After the initial pessimistic interpretations, in the last twenty years or so, this scale has increasingly demonstrated its validity and reliability. The sources of the right-left identification may be manifold, and not solely ideological. Also, the right-left scheme has demonstrated a remarkable potential to - in time - encompass new political contents and thus create a need for new cross-national and longitudinal studies. Voters - and not scientists - are those who define what is left and what is right. (SOI : PM: S. 168)
Predmet istraživanja u ovoj disertaciji je plaćena komunikacija na televiziji u parlamentarnim izbornim kampanjama u Srbiji posle 2000. godine. Disertacija pronalazi svoje ishodište u teoriji okvira i socijalnom konstruktivizmu što je inherentno utemeljenje ove teorije. Koristili smo tri metodološka pristupa: (1) kvalitativnu analizu sadržaja u političkom izbornom oglašavanju, (2) analizu okvira i (3) dubinske intervjue sa političkim konsultantima i članovima izbornih štabova. U disertaciji su korišćeni brojni izvori sekundarnih podataka. Period istraživanja je obuhvatio period posle 2000. godine, sve parlamentarne izbore na uzorku onih subjekata koji su prešli cenzus. Nalazi istraživanja pokazuju da posle 2000. dolazi do krupnih promena u političkoj komunikaciji. Političko oglašavanje dobija važnu ulogu u kampanjama, produkcija je ogromna a ulaganja izbornih učesnika drastično uvećana u odnosu na period pre 2000. godine. Političko oglašavanje je gotovo po pravilu služilo za ubeđivanje a malo ili nimalo za informisanje. U disertaciji je autor jasno potvrdio da izloženost političkom oglašavanju i okvirima u njima osnažuje uticaj na biračeve preferencije odnosno na njihovu izbornu odluku. Autor je ukazao i potvrdio sužavanje saznajne odnosno edukativne komponente u kampanjama koja je limitirala kvalitetno informisanu izbornu odluku za većinu birača. Disertacija nije potvrdila da je oglašavanje preuzelo primat nad informativom, već da je kombinacija ogromne produkcije (posebno između 2007 i 2012) i zavisnosti redakcija od "stranačkih kamera", ugrozila pravo birača na kvalitetno informisanu izbornu odluku. Autor je delimično potvrdio da teme koje se pokreću u plaćenom oglašavanju nisu programski usmerene i da se više koriste u cilju ojačavanja imidža kandidata/lidera, a ne promocije javnih politika. ; This thesis examines paid political communication broadcast on television in Serbian parliamentary election campaigns after the year 2000. The thesis is rooted in framing theory and social constructivism, the broader underpinning of this concept. Three methodological approaches were employed: (1) qualitative analysis of the content of political election advertising since 2000; (2) frame analysis; and (3) in-depth interviews with political consultants and campaign managers. The thesis has also relied on numerous secondary sources. For all parliamentary elections after 2000, the paper looks at advertising by political subjects that won sufficient votes to cross the five percent threshold required to enter parliament. The findings show that the year 2000 was a watershed for political communication, with political advertising assuming an important role in election campaigns; political entities dramatically increased their investment, which made the volume of adverts produced grow by an order of magnitude. A major finding of the thesis is that political advertising has nearly always been deployed to persuade, with little or no thought being given to its informative function. The author clearly confirms that exposure to political advertising and the frames contained in it has had a substantial impact on voters' preferences and affected their voting decisions. The author also identifies and confirms how the narrowing of the knowledge or educational component in campaign messaging has restricted the ability of most voters to make informed voting choices. The thesis has not shown that advertising has supplanted news, but rather that the combination of the flood of advertising (especially from 2007 to 2012) and the dependence of television channels on content fed to them by political parties has jeopardised the right of voters to make informed choices. The author has partially confirmed that topics raised in paid advertising are not issue-oriented, but image-oriented, aiming to enhance the public perception of a particular candidate or leader rather than promote policies put forward in political manifestos.
У овом раду дискутује се o позиционирању кључних друштвено-политичких актера у савременој Србији у контексту прихватања скупа симбола јавног наратива дефинисаног као "европске вредности". На примеру одржавања тзв. "Параде поноса", разматра се однос медија и елита према једном догађају који се перципира као суштински услов за "европске интеграције", али према коме истовремено постоји амбивалентан однос, проистекао из етаблираног традиционалистичког политичког дискурса, који подразумева отпор према прихватању сексуалних различитости. Циљ овог рада је да укаже на комплексну природу идентификовања основних симболичких вредности друштва у савременој Србији, која се испољава, пре свега, у виду хегемонијских борби које се воде на линији промоције конзервативних вредности, насупрот ономе што се доживљава као "опасни" уплив либералних "европских" идеја, попут промоције права сексуалних мањина. У раду се анализирају медијски наративи везани за одржавање "Параде поноса" 2010. и 2014. године, са циљем утврђивања промене наратива у склопу декларисаног "европског пута" Србије, и то, пре свега, кроз деловање и позиционирање кључних актера, од политичких елита до припадника екстремно десних организација и навијачких група. ; This paper discusses the position of the key social and political actors in contemporary Serbia, referring to the broadly accepted concept defined as "European values". The article focuses on the so-called "Belgrade Pride Parade", a highly contested event in the Serbian public, which is at the same time considered as the essential part of the EU accession process. Through the analysis of the media discourses related to the "Pride" events in 2010 and 2014, the paper shows the complex relation between the officially proclaimed politics of "European integration" and still very strong nationalist discourses, inherited from the 1990s. The aim of the article is to analyse the present hegemonic struggles between the political forces defending "traditional", conservative values and the political agents that promote "dangerous", liberal "European" ideas, such as protecting the rights of sexual minorities. The comparative analysis of the media representation of two events in 2010 and 2014 shows the changes in the public narrative. I argue that the violent clashes that occurred in 2010 Belgrade Pride Parade between the police and the members of right wing organisations were mostly the result of the lack of the political will among the Serbian elites, followed by ambivalent media representations, promoting at the same time the necessity of accepting "European values" and justification of violence. On the other hand, the absence of violent events in 2014 shows the will of the state apparatus to secure the "Pride". However, the media reports on the event, as well as the public statements made by Serbian officials, still remain ambivalent towards the very nature of the "Pride", justifying it only by the pressure made by the EU and the protection of constitutional rights. Moreover, the presence of new narratives in the media, discussing the high price of organizing such event, shows the shift in the public discourse from common nationalist arguments to the new, neoliberal rhetoric. This change doesn't indicate the radical shift of the social climate in Serbia from conservative to liberal, but, more likely, establishes Serbia as just one of the many states on the European periphery, operating within wider framework of neoliberal agendas. ; Тема броја – Конфликт и помирење на Балкану (ур. Александар Крел) / Topic of the Issue - Conflict and Reconciliation in the Balkans (ed. Aleksandar Krel)
When in 2007, after the rejection of the Constitution for Europe in France and the Netherlands, European politicians defined their mandate to work on the Reform Treaty, they explicitly promised that 'the constitutional concept is . abandoned' and that 'the Treaty of European Union and Treaty on Functioning of the Union will not have a constitutional character.' In its Maastricht and Lisbon decisions, the German Federal Constitutional Court concluded that the European Union did not have a constitution since it did not have demos. The main purpose of this article is to prove the opposite. Accepting Weiler's argumentation that the EU is a political messianic venture par excellence, the author claims that, in addition to pursuing messianic goals, Europe's political elite has for a long time been streaming to root Political Messianism into democracy and position the EU in the global world. The main vehicle to transform the Community/Union from an international to a constitutional legal order has been constitutionalism. Starting from the French revolutionary Declaration, which declared civil rights and in Article 16 proclaimed 'a society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all,' the author has showed that the Union has an antirevolutionary, uncodified and evolutive constitution, whose elements are to be found in the Lisbon Treaty and its related documents, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, and to some extent in the constitutional orders of the Member States. The European constitution does not mirror a national constitution in the sense that it is attributable to the people, nor it is a revolutionary product aimed at limiting the government in the name of individual freedom. It is a rule of law-oriented type of constitution, born in the process of constitutionalization and aimed at submitting public power to law on the Union level. From the perspective of modern constitutionalism, the quality of this constitution is a matter of concern, since it has managed to connect the rule of law with the protection of human rights, but has failed to do the same with regard to democracy. Despite some efforts to entrench the democratic principle in the Lisbon Treaty, the present crisis in the Union is to a great extent the result of this failure. The fact that democratic defects at the Union level appear less visible when pitted against the state of affairs in national constitutional systems cannot mitigate this failure. Yet, assuming that the EU will survive the present crisis and having in mind that the Union is 'work in progress', the issue which still remains open is whether the future efforts to eliminate the defects of the European Constitution should be tied to traditional ways of thinking about democratic accountability within nation states, or one should stop thinking in terms of a Westphalian nation-state, and accept that transnational systems can provide a cure for democratic failings in ways that differ from traditional postulates of democracy.
For many pre-twentieth-century legal and political authors the crucial issue was to find the answers to the questions: Why one cannot support every claim to the right of absolute rule? and, How to curtail power and authority anyway? In this text, the author reviews the contribution of three classics of the modern debate on constitutionalism - C. H. McIlwain, C. J. Friedrich, and F. A. Hayek - whose political/legal theories represent the most glorious pages of the contemporary theory of state and rights and the comparative political systems. (SOI : PM: S. 152)
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. ; 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.
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.
