Suchergebnisse

The Round Table (February – April 1989) has been a thorny issue for many years, igniting debates among historians and politicians of the Third Polish Republic, and opinions about it – favourable or unfavourable – corresponded with the opinions of general achievements of the transformation of the Polish political system. Already during the negotiations, the Round Table talks caused controversies and deepened personal and ideological divisions within Solidarność and the opposition. The end of 1988 brought about the emergence of a tendency to contest the line of action of Wałęsa and his circle, and especially rejected the need of Round Table talks with the communist government. The tendency was shared by political groups originating from Solidarność and newly formed political parties, numerous but weak, existing on the margin. The article presents the most important arguments of political opponents of the Round Table talks – the radicals of the crucial time of changes in 1988 and 1989. The author answers the question whether it is right to use the term "radicalism" and attempts to determine the scope of a social base of radicals; he points out that many arguments put forward by the opponents of the negotiations were also presented by journalists and oppositionists supporting Lech Wałęsa. He thus advances a thesis that it was not political concepts that distinguished radicals from the rest of the opposition, but their specific psychological attitude; this, however, requires further study. ; Przygotowania do Okrągłego Stołu i negocjacje między stroną społeczną (Solidarnością) a rządową (PZPR) w 1989 r. wywoływały różne krytyczne oceny w kręgach opozycji demokratycznej. Okrągły Stół przez wiele lat był punktem spornym debat historycznych i politycznych. Artykuł prezentuje sposoby argumentacji politycznych przeciwników Okrągłego Stołu – radykałów, którzy w latach 1988–1989 kontestowali linię działania Lecha Wałęsy i jego otoczenia.

Przygotowania do Okrągłego Stołu i negocjacje między stroną społeczną (Solidarnością) a rządową (PZPR) w 1989 r. wywoływały różne krytyczne oceny w kręgach opozycji demokratycznej. Okrągły Stół przez wiele lat był punktem spornym debat historycznych i politycznych. Artykuł prezentuje sposoby argumentacji politycznych przeciwników Okrągłego Stołu – radykałów, którzy w latach 1988–1989 kontestowali linię działania Lecha Wałęsy i jego otoczenia. ; The Round Table (February – April 1989) has been a thorny issue for many years, igniting debates among historians and politicians of the Third Polish Republic, and opinions about it – favourable or unfavourable – corresponded with the opinions of general achievements of the transformation of the Polish political system. Already during the negotiations, the Round Table talks caused controversies and deepened personal and ideological divisions within Solidarność and the opposition. The end of 1988 brought about the emergence of a tendency to contest the line of action of Wałęsa and his circle, and especially rejected the need of Round Table talks with the communist government. The tendency was shared by political groups originating from Solidarność and newly formed political parties, numerous but weak, existing on the margin. The article presents the most important arguments of political opponents of the Round Table talks – the radicals of the crucial time of changes in 1988 and 1989. The author answers the question whether it is right to use the term "radicalism" and attempts to determine the scope of a social base of radicals; he points out that many arguments put forward by the opponents of the negotiations were also presented by journalists and oppositionists supporting Lech Wałęsa. He thus advances a thesis that it was not political concepts that distinguished radicals from the rest of the opposition, but their specific psychological attitude; this, however, requires further study.

Dagelijks worden we overspoeld met nieuws over fundamentalistische bewegingen die aanslagen plegen. We zijn geprogrammeerd om te denken dat de islam weer toeslaat. Ook als er geen aanslagen zijn, voelen we ons bedreigd: door vrouwen die hoofddoeken dragen en door mannen met baarden die moskeeën bezoeken. Wat is er met onze samenleving aan de hand dat we een grote behoefte aan een vijandbeeld hebben? Zijn de problemen in onze samenleving opgelost als er geen mensen met een andere cultuur meer wonen? In alle religieuze en seculiere bewegingen komen groepen met fundamentalistische opvattingen voor. Eenzijdig wijzen naar de islam als grote boosdoener leidt niet tot inzicht in maatschappelijke processen. In een brede historische analyse worden de wortels en verschijningsvormen van het fundamentalisme ontdekt. Fundamentalisme wordt hier opgevat als een gesloten denksysteem met absolute waarheidsopvattingen die, desnoods met geweld, aan andersdenkenden wordt opgelegd.-- page four of cover

An article based on the contribution or three authors. Former political secretary of the Flemish ecological party Green! Geysels remembers the main strategies at the start of the sanitary cordon in Belgium in 1989. After summing up the effects and impact of these statements, he defends the cordon as an instrument which helps to protect the bases of democracy. De Lange, in the second contribution, Right-populist political parties and sketches the academic outlines of the discussion. She warns against unilateral, unfounded and unwise propositions in the debate, certainly when it concerns translating the Belgian experience to the current Dutch situation. Professor Fennema, the third author, studied the forming of extreme Right parties in Europe and is president of the Center of Radicalism and Extremism Studies CRES. He writes of the Dutch experience with the sanitary cordon and its consequences on contemporary political debate in the Netherlands, which has changed into a debate in terms of fear and hate. All three authors emphasize that a comparison between the Flemish and Dutch experience falls: in Flanders, where the cordon functions since 20 years, no party was ever forbidden. In the Netherlands, where discussion on the sanitary cordon has been bled, that happened. O. van Zijl

Kan een proces van de-radicalisering worden gestimuleerd of ondersteund? Geïnspireerd op buitenlandse ervaringen is in de gemeentes Winschoten en Eindhoven gedurende twee jaar geëxperimenteerd met een de-radicaliseringsaanpak voor rechts-radicale jongeren. Deze rapportage is de weerslag van een studie die door de Universiteit Leiden en de Anne Frank Stichting werd verricht naar de aanpak in beide gemeentes. Er is onderzocht in hoeverre lokale instellingen een actieve rol kunnen spelen bij het tegengaan en terugdraaien van radicaliseringprocessen

The author introduces the article by describing why the term Jihad-terrorism shouldn't be used (it's not an ideology, but a method; the term hammers on an intrinsic link between Islam and violence). The Belgian international attitude stresses that a wrong perception within European policy will actually lead to an anti-Western radicalization, and that terminology is part of that. The article continues with four EU anti-terror strategies: proactive: prevention and protection; reactive: prosecution and response. Regarding suppression of radicalization and recruitment, three factors are mentioned: facilitating factors within a globalized world (travel and communication, money operations, internet availability); an anti-western enemy perception; structural environmental factors, the so-called root causes (social circumstances, democratic imperfection, modernization badly directed, economic and political perspectives, unsolved conflicts, lack of education). Two additional principles for Belgium: 1) fundamental rights and freedoms; 2) suppression of Jihad-terrorism in cooperation with Muslim countries. References. O. van Zijl

Głównym zagadnieniem artykułu jest radykalna myśl polityczna, analizowana w kontekście bezpieczeństwa współczesnych demokracji europejskich. W artykule problem ten jest analizowany na przykładzie programów partii i innych organizacji, które uzasadniają swoją myśl polityczną nacjonalizmem, np. Narodowodemokratyczna Partia Niemiec, Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski, Złoty Świt z Grecji, Nowa Siła z Włoch, Brytyjska Partia Narodowa, Prawy Sektor i Swoboda z Ukrainy oraz innych. Radykalne partie nacjonalistyczne podważają zasady współczesnych demokracji. Dążą do zmiany ładu międzynarodowego i granic państw w Europie, które istnieją od końca II wojny światowej. Zdaniem autora, jedynym skutecznym lekarstwem na radykalizm polityczny jest rozwój wiedzy o demokracji, rozwój społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, eliminowanie materialnych różnic między grupami społecznymi i rozwój klasy średniej w Europie. ; The main issue of this article is the radical political thought and the security of contemporary European democracies. In this article, this problem is analyzed on the example of programs of nationalist parties and other organizations, e.g. National Democratic Party of Germany, National Revival of Poland, Golden Dawn from Greece, New Force from Italy, British National Party, Right Sector and Svoboda from Ukraine and others. Radical nationalist parties undermine of the principles of modern democracies. They attempt to change the international order and change the borders of countries in Europe that exist since the end of World War II. According to the author, only the reduction of defects of democracy and the development of knowledge about democracy, the development of civil society, the elimination of material disparities between social groups and the development of the middle class in Europe, can be an effective remedy for political radicalism.