Suchergebnisse

This paper introduces the concept of social capital as a valuable social resourcewhich is accumulated and developed via activities of civil society organizations: through reciprocal relationships as well as through relations with the domain of political power. Civil society, as the institutional actor of political participation, is in a relationship with social capital, which, to a great extent, improves the political, economic and cultural aspects of societies – those with consolidated democracy and institutions, as well as post communist societies with nonconsolidated democracy. Strengthening and development of civil society has a positive impact on the strengthening and development of social capital and vice versa. On the other hand, social capital lays a solid foundation and a base for the growth and strengthening of civil society, thus raising citizens' awareness about political participation which is an indispensable ingredient of the development of democracy. By depicting norms, networking and trust, as well as by distinguishing bonding from bridging social capital, this paper is going to portray the subject matter of social capital which is "utilized" by the citizens' and stakeholders' effi cient collaboration, thus contributing to democratic development. The stability of developed social capital facilitates the development of political participation and enhances democratic development.

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.

In addition to national and international armies - armed forces of states and alliances, paramilitary armed formations (the so-called paramilitary) play aprominent role in contemporary international and non-international armed conflicts. They are made up of so-called voluntary fighters (patriots, contracts), i.e. mercenaries or "looters" (so-called war dogs) within armed formations that are not officially part of, and most often not under the command, of regular armed forces. As a rule, they are formed, armed, equipped, trained, paid and controlled by certain political centers of power - foreign governments and intelligence, hostile political emigration, political parties, criminal and other extremist (pseudo-patriotic, nationalist and para-religious) organizations (the so-called warlords) for whose account the paramilitary formations occupied part of the territory of the sovereign state in which the armed conflict took place and established power on it. They are often associated with numerous war crimes, terrorist attacks and robberies. Since the terms 'warlords', 'paramilitary', 'mercenaries', and 'war dog' are oftenincorrectly usedin everyday communication of media, public and even scholars, this paper attempts to conceptualize and make a clear distinction between these phenomena. ; Осим националних и међународних војски – оружаних снага држава и савеза држава, у савременим међународним и немеђународним оружаним сукобима све значајнију улогу узимају паравојне оружане формације (тзв. паравојске). Њих чине тзв. добровољни борци (патриоте, уговорци), односно плаћеници или "пљачкаши" (тзв. пси рата) који су део наоружаних формација које званично нису у саставу, а најчешће ни под командом регуларних оружаних снага. Паравојске по правилу формирају, наоружавају, опремају, обучавају, плаћају и контролишу извесни политички центри моћи – иностране владе и обавештајне службе, непријатељска политичка емиграција, политичке партије, криминалне и друге екстремистичке (псеудопатриотске, националистичке и параверске) организације (тзв. господари рата) за чији рачун су паравојне формације и заузеле део територије суверене државе у којој се одвија оружани конфликт и на њој "успоставиле власт". За њих се неретко везују бројни ратни злочини, терористички напади и пљачке. Како се у животу, а неретко и у теорији безбедности не разликују и погрешно употребљавају термини "господари рата", "паравојске", плаћеници и "пси рата", у раду је учињен покушај појмовног одређења и дистанцирања ових појава.