Suchergebnisse

The author outlines the modern universalistic theories which assume the natural and historical unity of humankind and, using this as a starting point, predict a cosmopolitan and Eurocentric outcome of world history. Contrary to these universalistic theories, the contemporary globalist theories, the author claims, are pluralistic and multicultural and thus paradigmatically different from the panoptical theories of classic modernism. (SOI : PM: S. 100)

The article deals with Mill's theory of liberal democracy as a synthesis of the elements of two different political traditions and doctrines: liberalism and democracy, integration of liberal concepts of freedom, limitations of power, political representation and elite leadership and democratic ideas of equality, social homogeneity, national sovereignty and citizens" participation. The author concludes that the contradictions found in Mill's theory do not stem from the inconsistency of the logic of his argumentation, but from the contradictory demands he tried to reconcile. (SOI : PM: S. 162)

The author distinguishes between the antiquity's and Middle Ages' teachings on natural law and justice as a virtue and the modern-age Hobbes' theory of the prerequisites of the legal system. Hobbes' theory identifies the prerequisites of the legal system and describes the institution of legal constraint which guarantees the rule of law. The author points to the central historical difference between these paradigms. Finally, the author traces the evolution of Hobbes' paradigm in Kant's philosophy of right. (SOI : PM: S. 276)

First, the author analyses Plessner's interpretation of Husserl's phenomenology. He goes on to outline the cognitive limits of the phenomenological-hermeneutical method, successful in text-analysis, but inadequate in illuminating pertinent historical processes. In his conclusion, the author points to Plessner's uncritical mixing of scientistic and phenomenological interpretations of fascism. (SOI : PM: S. 44)

Plessner's study "The Belated Nation" is very topical for Croatian readers since it (via comparing the constitution of the French and the German national community) shows how different types of polities within which national communities are formed (the state and the Reich) are central for the constitution of national awareness. German history proves how international community, primarily of Europe, immediately upon its constitution as a system of national states, forced the "belated" nations to give up on the concept of empire and constitute themselves as national states. Plessner's book is also topical in the post-communist regimes because it superbly proves the significance of both the process of modernisation and bourgeoisie as the social class in building national states. (SOI : PM: S. 20)

Defining the dimensions of political culture is a precondition in the elaboration of the theory of this phenomenon and for its systematic empirical study. It has been demonstrated that Almond-Verba's concept of the dimensions of political culture, in the form of a matrix of the three orientations (cognitive, affective, and evaluative) times four political objects ("system", "input-objects", "output-objects" and "I" as an object) is not plausible. If political culture is defined as a set of beliefs about polit (which it indeed is), then it is clear that each belief at the same time contains an intricate mix of knowledge, emotions, and evaluations. This makes it difficult to determine the dimensions according to the mentioned orientations. It seems this was sensed by Almond himself in one of his later works. Using his more recent concept, we define the dimensions of political culture according to the "objects" of politics and not vice versa, according to the orientations in relation to these "objects". Thus we have elaborated on the three fundamental dimensions according to the three fundamental objects of politics: the "system" as a universal object, the "process" as a dynamic object of politics, and the "conduct" as a manner of decision-making and the outcome of governing. It has been found that each of these basic dimensions of political culture has a series of subdimensions (a total of about twenty-five). Surely, this matrix may be added to or perhaps amended, but basically it is unassailable, since it represents a sort of a map of political culture. (SOI : PM: S. 137)

The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate and useful in understanding and maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important and more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis has shown how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depend on the elements of the very political structure (party systems and coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc.). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently its role greatly depends on the relations among political actors and the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture and structure are extremely sophisticated and that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" and gradual development. (SOI : PM: S. 131) + The purpose of this essay is to prove the connection among political culture, political structure and democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analysed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture and structure i.e. within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims - primarily in line with the functional theory of culture - that there is a functional concordance between culture and structure, that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture, i.e. that "culture is a structure's way of life", that culture determines the structure) and the contemporary interactional approach (in which - primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" - complex relations among various cultural variables and structural variables are analysed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or the end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture and structure

The author analyzes the interpretations by Jean-Marie Guehenno and Helmut Willke of the end of the national state within the context of contemporary debates on globalisation. The author thinks that in their analyses both authors have come up th similar insights, particularly those regarding the assessment of the functional role which may be analytically attributed to the national state in the present and the future. Although their observations coincide with the debates on globalisation going on in political economy and political science, their conclusions are not in line with the special structure of political activity. Unlike their state/theoretic "hegelianism" (Guehenno) and system theory, functional definition of government activity (Willke), the author looks into the contemporary operation of the state from the legal/philosophical perspective. (SOI : PM: S. 37)

Using the contemporary system theories, the author primarily points to the asymmetry of the constitutional law and the political processes it so rarely regulates. Then he goes on to analyse the historical process of separating the custom law, oral law and written law, of the court and the courtroom, the law and the constitution, the constitution and its interpretation, the constitution's interpretation and the constitutional theory, and concludes his study with a description of the difference between constitution and democracy in the postmodern categorial optics. (SOI : PM: S. 45)