Suchergebnisse

The diplomacy of socialist Yugoslavia paid a lot of attention to the international reputation of the country in the sphere of culture, and thus literature. At the same time, Yugoslav writers in the Writer's Union of Yugoslavia, faithfully supported Yugoslav foreign policy, both individually and institutionally. The most impressive example of collaboration between literature and diplomacy was awarding Ivo Andrić a Nobel Prize. The Writers' Union of Yugoslavia nominated the writer in 1958, and Yugoslav diplomacy lobbied in favor of Andrić for several years. The efforts were successfully crowned in 1961. In socialist Yugoslavia, the existence of a special Macedonian nation and its culture and language was insisted on, so in that sense, the greatest challenge was denying the Macedonian identity that came from Bulgaria. The Yugoslav Writers' Union, consistently pursuing state policy, suspended official co-operation with the Bulgarian Writers' Union in the second half of the 1960s due to Bulgaria's refusal to recognize the Macedonian language. Yugoslav writers also adapted to the state policy of non-alignment. They did not reach the level of cooperation with those countries that existed in the field of politics, economics or science, but they maintained ties with writers from those parts of the world in various ways. Among other things, the twentieth anniversary of the Belgrade Conference of the Non-Aligned Nations in October 1981 was a meeting of writers of non-aligned countries in Belgrade.

In the present paper the author continues his critical evaluation of both historiographic and journalistic works published between the second half of 1978 and the end of February 1997 about the history of Freemasonry in Croatian terrritories. In the beginning of this period journalistic contributions were more numerous, but in recent years, with a few exceptions, the papers belonging to historiography are predominant. The authors of the latter papers are Josip Kolanovic, Ljubo Antic, Ante Duplancic and Ivo Pederin. (SOI : CSP: S. 286)

Са политичким преокретом 2000. године у Србији отпочео је истовемено и процес идеолошког преобликовања јавних простора. Међу најпроминентнијим видовима оваквог деловања је именовање или преименовање урбаног простора, првенствено улица и тргова, те бављење постојећим споменицима и меморијалима, као и градња и планирање нових. Овакви су случајеви посебно били уочљиви у Београду. Њима су се у неколико наврата супротставиле одређене политичке партије, те неполитичке групе које су организовале уличне акције 'против-именовања' београдских улица, те кампање против новопланираних јавних споменика. Односи моћи и идентитетске политике у овим случајевима биће коментарисани у овом раду. Пропратиће се праксе неколико уметничких и политичких скупина које су спровеле акције и перформансе незваничног преименовања улица, или су пак дискутовале и противиле се подизању новопредложених споменика. (Пре)именовањем одређених градских простора, хегемонске политичке коалиције покушавају да конституишу сигнификантна симболичка места, док, са друге стране, опозиционе противакције покушавају да преузму та иста места и да их реинтерпретирају. У овом ће се раду покушати да прикажу и анализирају поједине идеолошке политике и званични дискурси сећања, те поједине уметничке и политичке контраполитике и опозиционе праксе алтернативне комеморације ; With the onset of political overturn in Serbia in 2000, the process of the ideological reconfiguration of public places was simultaneously being put in motion. One of the most promi- nent means of this endeavor was naming and renaming of urban space, primarily of streets and squares, but also treatment of existing memorial sites and monuments and commissioning and erection of new ones. These undertakings were especially prominent in Serbia's capital Belgrade. Such processes were opposed several times by certain political parties and groups which organized street-actions of counter-naming of Belgrade's thoroughfares and campaigns against newly designated public monuments, and power-play and identity politics of such proceedings will be commented on here. This paper will discuss practices of several artistic and political groups which carried out unofficial street-renaming actions and performances, or discussed and opposed proposed new memorials. By (re)naming certain urban spaces, hegemonic political coalitions are trying to construct significant symbolic places, while oppositional counter-actions are seeking to overtake those same places and reinterpret them. This paper will attempt to sum up and inquire into the ideological politics of official memory discourses and artistic and political counter-politics and actions of opposition or alternative commemoration.

Icelandic politics are analysed from the perspectives of three normative models of democracy: the liberal, republican and deliberative democratic theories. While the Icelandic constitution is rooted in classical liberal ideas, Icelandic politics can be harshly criticized from a liberal perspective, primarily because of the unclear separation of powers of government and for the extensive involvement of politics in other social sectors. Despite strong nationalist discourse which reflects republican characteristics, rooted in the struggle for independence from Denmark, republicanism has been marginal in Icelandic politics. In the years before the financial collapse, Icelandic society underwent a process of liberalization in which power shifted to the financial sector without disentangling the close ties that had prevailed between business and politics. The special commission set up by the Icelandic Parliament to investigate the causes of the financial collapse criticized Icelandic politics and governance for its flawed working practices and lack of professionalism. The appropriate lessons to draw from this criticism are to strengthen democratic practices and institutions. In the spirit of republicanism, however, the dominant discourse about Icelandic democracy after the financial collapse has been on increasing direct, vote-centric participation in opposition to the system of formal politics. While this development is understandable in light of the loss of trust in political institutions in the wake of the financial collapse, it has not contributed to trustworthy practices. In order to improve Icelandic politics, the analysis in this paper shows, it is important to work more in the spirit of deliberative democratic theory ; Peer Reviewed