Suchergebnisse

If, from a certain point of view, an ideology is necessary for action in all regimes before they can be considered legitimate by those who live under them, it is worthwhile to note tha an ideology can present certain dangers esp in matters of foreign policy. Human beings need to have the impression that theirs is a good society, but do not have to believe that they have the key to the future. Only the absence of a monolithic ideology in the West makes possible communication between the 2 worlds; a relativistic ideology in the East would improve the conditions for the establishments of peace. Tr by J, A. Broussard from IPSA.

The personalization of power-or leadership-is a recent phenomenon in present-day democratic societies. While it has been traditional in the US & in GB, leadership has now become influential in the continental democracies (Italy, West Germany, France). The substitution of this personalization for the institutionalization of power has upset the classical interpretation of democratic systems. This evolution has come about because of the natural tendency of individuals to see power incarnate in an individual, & also by a crisis in these democratic structures & by the establishment of new regimes following the end of WWII. However, all democratic leaderships do not look the same: Institutional leadership functions on a permanent basis in the US (presidential leadership) & in GB (party leadership); leadership personnel are of many kinds, without having yet succeeded in becoming integrated with existing institutions, even under the form of a national leadership which has been tried in France of the 5th Republic. A theory of democratic leadership is still lacking. Such a leadership is legitimatized by democratic prestige & a responsibility which is more moral than constitutional. The exercise of leadership cannot be derived from constitutional rules; its effectiveness depends essentially on the democratic conscience of the leader & the civic conscience of the citizens. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

Ur life is rapidly imposing itself upon the vast majority of the world's pop. This push toward the cities & their suburbs is characteristic of our era in industrialized societies. To attempt to turn this flow away from the large cities is to oppose the econ & soc history of the cent. Future urbanization will be entirely diff from urbanization in the past. The role of the city will be carried out by gov'al bur's, laboratories, leisure time activities, & to a much lesser extent by industry. There will then be cooperation rather than conflict between city & country. There will eventually be cities with a much more diffused pop as opposed to the present dense concentrations of people. The role of the Ur dweller in the society will be extensively revised, esp in its pol'al aspects. There is at present a conflict between admin'ive or pol'al forces on one side & the need for the integration of the real interests of the community on the other. 2 problems are in particular need of resolution: that of labor legislation, which must take into account white-collar workers, & that of city budgets. This is esp apparent in countries with regions devoted entirely to agri. The conflict between regions can have serious pol'al consequences: the persistence of traditional structures contains grave dangers & pol'al intervention in this crisis would, rather than harm, facilitate the development of modern urbanism. (Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA).