The term charisma was first used in theological writings. In the Old Testament literature, the term occurs only twice. However, in the New Testament it occurs seventeen times. It is used by St. Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians, in the Letter to the Romans, in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. In the political context, the word charisma has been lavishly used in the analyses of national-socialist & Stalinist regimes. Charismatic legitimation is, primarily, a feature of various types of dictatorships & not of democratic, constitutional states. This is probably why charismatic aspects are so notorious in most contemporary social theory. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.
The formulation of the new political parties' programs & statutes in Croatia is considered to be a less important normative aspect of political activity. Yet a comparative analysis of the content of the statutes articulated by the political parties in Croatia at the time when they were formed reveals the prevailing tendencies of political practice in that period as well as the level concomitant of experience in political organizing. Some of the findings point to significant differences among the emerging political parties in matters such as the treatment of members' rights & duties, attitudes toward internal party discipline, the procedure related to affiliation, the authority pertaining to the parties' presidents, the inclusion of youth in making party policy, models of decision making, & attitudes toward earlier parties in Croatian political history. The author stresses that his analysis does not refer to the time of writing but to the situation at the very beginning of the institutionalization of party pluralism. He believes that his results may offer important insights for some future classification of the Croatian party system. Adapted from the source document.
Hegel submits the Constitution of the German Empire at the turn of the 18th century to a thorough critical analysis, pointing out at the beginning of the text that Germany is no longer a state. The German Constitution cannot be the foundation for German state unity because it is a conglomerate of private rights, a sanctioned separation of parts (estates) from the whole that they had secured for themselves during the preceding centuries. Such a situation was conditioned by the deficient constitutional development of Germany. Unlike most European nations, the Germans had not built a state, i.e., were neither capable of nor ready to sacrifice their particularities to the whole & discover freedom in the common free subjection to a single supreme political authority. For the most part, the text analyses particular aspects of the German Constitution -- the armed forces, finance, legislation, position of the estates -- and provides a comparison of the emergence & rise of the state in Germany & the rest of Europe that confirms Hegel's initial judgment that Germany cannot be considered a state. It is in these analyses that his idea of the state from the writings on the Constitution crystallizes. Inspired by Machiavelli -- the genuinely political mind of "the highest & noblest sentiments" -- to whom he dedicates almost an entire chapter -- Hegel above all wants to see the foundation of a single body political as opposed to all existing systems of particular rights & privileges. The state is thus above all power through which a multitude actually (and not just in intention & words) defends the totality of its property. But this is only its first determination. The wider meaning of the state includes governance through general laws -- which only makes a country a state -- then at least minimal central financial authority, the separation of church & state, but also the participation of the people in the legislative procedure through political representation. In addition to that, a well-organized state is one that limits itself to the essential functions, leaving the citizens their living freedom in everything else, for this freedom is inherently sacred. Finally, since "the concept of necessity & insight into its nature are much too weak to have an effect on action itself," they must be justified by force; therefore, at the end of the text Hegel calls upon the conqueror, the modern Theseus, to unite the scattered mass of nations & mutually isolated estates into a state. Adapted from the source document.
Na temelju Sabranih djela I–III (1997) Bonifaca Badrova (Livno, 1896. – Sarajevo, 1974), franjevca i profesora filozofije na Franjevačkoj teologiji u Sarajevu, u radu se obrađuje njegov pristup renesansnoj filozofiji i hrvatskim renesansnim misliocima. Badrov je u trećem dijelu svoje Povijesti filozofije (Sarajevo, 1959), koju je namijenio studentima za internu uporabu, uključio i neveliko poglavlje o renesansnoj filozofiji (1450–1600). On nalazi da su specifična filozofska i društvena strujanja na početku Novog vijeka iznjedrila nove, međusobno sasvim disparatne, renesansne filozofske sustave sa samo jednim zajedničkim obilježjem: odbacivanje tomističke filozofije. Prema Badrovu renesansna filozofija ima četiri glavne sastavnice: 1. obnova starih sustava: neoplatonizam, neostoicizam i hedonizam, 2. filozofija prirode, 3. politička filozofija i 4. skepticizam. Badrov hrvatske renesansne mislioce ubraja isključivo u prvu skupinu, dakle među pojedince koji su nastojali obnoviti stare filozofske sustave, i opet – isključivo među one mislioce koji se oslanjanju na Platonovu filozofiju. On smatra da je renesansni platonizam u svojoj bîti zapravo »eklektički neoplatonizam«. Na tragu spoznaje da je antički novoplatonizam eklektički zato što iz Platonovih, ali i drugih teorija probire, prihvaća i primjenjuje ono što mu se čini najprikladnije, gornju Badrovljevu tvrdnju treba razumjeti u smislu da se renesansni platonizam eklektički odnosi prema Platonovim djelima, ali i misaonim dostignućima antičkog novoplatonizma. Ipak, čini se da Badrov ne propituje detaljno izvore i izvornost renesansnog platonizma. Badrov se pojedinačno bavi trima hrvatskim filozofima: Jurjem Dragišićem, Benediktom Benkovićem i Franom Petrićem. Dodatno, o Dragišiću ističe da se bavio logičkim problemima, a da se Benković u pristupu Škotovim djelima koristio Aristotelovim logičkim aparatom. Pišući o Petriću Badrov citira Filipovića koji, pozivajući se na Überwegov Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, tvrdi da je Petrić preteča i učitelj Giordana Bruna te da je utjecao na Bernardina Telesija. U kasnijim izdanjima Überwega naprotiv nalazimo da Brunov odnos prema suvremenicima nije dovoljno jasan i da se Petrić naslanja na Telesija u nekim svojim stavovima. Nadalje, Badrov o Petriću tvrdi da pobija Aristotelovu filozofiju i drži platonizam bližim kršćanskoj misli te u osnovnim potezima iznosi Petrićev nauk o svjetlu: ono je nematerijalna supstancija, samoegzistentno i sveprisutno, prvotni uzrok i princip svih stvari. Dalje, zbog stava o prostoru kao onom koji je postojao prije svijeta, neovisno o stvarima, Badrov Petrića smješta među mislioce koji imaju ultrarealističko mišljenje o prostoru. Načelno, takvi mislioci prostor poimaju kao neku apsolutnu i beskonačnu realnost, različitu od svih drugih tjelesnih realnosti, a za Petrića on je čak počelo, prvo od njegovih četiriju počela tvarnoga svijeta. Pri izradi svojih najopsežnijih skripata Povijest filozofije Badrov se, kako dokumentira njegov popis literature, oslonio na 17 djela iz povijesti filozofije tiskanih u 20. stoljeću, a u prikazu o hrvatskim renesansnim misliocima u mnogome na Filipovićevu Filozofiju Renesanse (1956). S obzirom na kratko izvješće o Petriću, nije utvrđen utjecaj Bazaline Povijesti filozofije, a Šanc u drugom dijelu svoje Povijesti filozofije hrvatske renesansne filozofe ionako ne spominje. ; Based on Sabrana djela [Collected Works] I–III (1997) of Franciscan Bonifac Badrov (Livno, 1896 – Sarajevo, 1974), professor of philosophy at Franciscan Theology in Sarajevo, the paper examines his approach to Renaissance philosophy and Croatian thinkers of this period. In the third part of Badrov's Povijest filozofije [History of Philosophy] (1959), which he wrote for the students' internal use, he also included a small chapter on Renaissance philosophy (1450–1600). He finds that specific philosophical and social mainstreams of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries gave way to new, mutually disparate Renaissance philosophical systems sharing a single common feature: rejection of Thomistic philosophy. According to Badrov, Renaissance philosophy has four main components: 1. revival of old systems: Neoplatonism, Neostoicism and hedonism; 2. natural philosophy; 3. political philosophy; 4. Renaissance scepticism. Croatian thinkers of the Renaissance, Badrov holds, fall exclusively within the first group, that is, among those who worked on the revival of old philosophical systems, or more precisely, among the philosophers who leaned on Plato's philosophy only. In its essence, he views Renaissance Platonism as eclectic Neoplatonism. Grounded on the understanding that Neoplatonism of the Antiquity was eclectic because from the theories of Plato and others it selected, accepted and applied what it considered to be most appropriate, Badrov's statement should be understood in the sense that Renaissance Platonism had an eclectic approach to Plato's works, but also to philosophical achievements of the classical Neoplatonism. However, it seems that Badrov's analysis of the sources and originality of the Renaissance Platonism lacks depth. The philosophers that Badrov treats individually are Juraj Dragišić, Benedikt Benković and Frane Petrić. In addition, he emphasizes that Dragišić devoted himself to logical problems, and that Benković in his approach to Duns Scotus' works used Aristotle's logical apparatus. While writing on Petrić, Badrov paraphrases Filipović's Filozofija Renesanse [Renaissance Philosophy] (1956): »Überweg considers Petrić to be the forerunner and teacher of Giordano Bruno. He also influenced another Renaissance philosopher, Bernardino Telesio.« In the later editions of Überweg's Geschichte der Philosophy, by contrast, we find that Bruno's relationship to Petrić lacks clarity and that Petrić leans on Telesio in some of his views. Badrov states that Petrić refutes Aristotle's philosophy and holds Platonism to be closer to Christian thought. The Sarajevo professor outlines Petrić's doctrine on light. Further, on account of Petrić's view of space as that which exists before the world, regardless of all things, Badrov places the philosopher of Cres among the thinkers who share an ultrarealistic view of space. Mainly, these philosophers understand space as some kind of an absolute and infinite reality, different from all other bodily realities, while for Petrić it is even a principle, the first of his four principles of the material world. While preparing his most extensive manual Povijest filozofije, Badrov, as documented in his bibliography, drew from 17 works of the history of philosophy: three Zagreb editions (Albert Bazala, Franjo Šanc and Vladimir Dvorniković), five Belgrade editions (Borislav Lorenc, Branislav Petronijević, Dragan Jeremić and Bertrand Russell), six German and three French. All these books were published in the course of the twentieth century. Being too short and general, Badrov's outline of Petrić offers sparse information for the establishment of any connection with Bazala's statements on Petrić published in the second volume of Bazala's Povjest filozofije [History of Philosophy] (1909). Šanc, however, in the second part of his Povijest filozofije [History of Philosophy] makes no reference to Croatian philosophers of the Renaissance.
U legitimiranju komunističke vlasti u Hrvatskoj/Jugoslaviji nakon Drugog svjetskog rata važnu ulogu imale su i tradicionalne institucije zakonodavne, izvršne i sudbene vlasti. Njihovo oblikovanje u Federalnoj Državi/Narodnoj Republici Hrvatskoj započelo je 1943. te je nastavljeno do donošenja Ustava NRH 18. siječnja 1947., kojim dobivaju ustavnu potvrdu. U odnosu na njihove ustavne pozicije, u dosadašnjim istraživanjima poslijeratnog političkog sustava u Hrvatskoj zaključeno je da su stvarnu vlast i monopol odlučivanja imala najviša tijela KPJ, tj. KPH. Pri tome stvarni položaj i uloga središnjih državnih tijela u funkcioniranju političkog sustava vlasti u Hrvatskoj nakon 1945. do sada nisu sustavno istraženi te se ovim radom daje doprinos na tom području. Prezentiraju se rezultati istraživanja organizacije i djelovanja Sabora NRH u sustavu vlasti u Hrvatskoj u razdoblju formalnog federalizma i stvarnog centralizma (1945. – 1953.). Postavljeno je više istraživačkih ciljeva: odnos između njegova formalnog ustavnog (de iure) i stvarnog (de facto) položaja u sustavu vlasti, ustroj, sastav, zakonodavna djelatnost i druge funkcije, odnosi s KPH/SKH i republičkim institucijama vlasti, te utjecaj njegova djelovanja na svakodnevni život stanovništva. Njegova organizacija i djelovanje uspoređeni su s organizacijom i djelovanjem Narodne skupštine FNRJ, institucija zakonodavne vlasti drugih jugoslavenskih republika, te drugih država u kojima je bila uspostavljena komunistička vlast, ponajprije Ruske Sovjetske Federativne Socijalističke Republike (RSFSR) i Saveza Sovjetskih Socijalističkih Republika (SSSR). Postavljeno je nekoliko hipoteza koje su istraživanjem i potvrđene: ustavni položaj vrhovnog tijela državne vlasti u Hrvatskoj Sabor NRH nije ostvarivao u praksi; bio je organiziran po uzoru na Narodnu skupštinu FNRJ; njegova zakonodavna djelatnost nije uključivala stvarnu raspravu, već samo formalno normiranje prethodno definiranih političkih ciljeva i ideja KPH/SKH; u Saboru NRH nije bilo pluralizma političkoga mišljenja; građani su se obraćali Saboru NRH prvenstveno s ciljem ostvarivanja osobnih prava, ponajprije socijalnih. Osnovne metode korištene u istraživanju su kritička analiza izvora i komparativna metoda. Rezultati su prezentirani kombinacijom tematskog i kronološkog pristupa, a u pojedinim poglavljima sistematizirani su u obliku grafičkih i tabličnih prikaza. Doktorskim radom daje se doprinos boljem poznavanju institucija i političkog sustava vlasti FD/NRH u razdoblju 1945. – 1953. Istraživanje može biti poticaj sličnim istraživanjima i u drugim bivšim jugoslavenskim republikama. Omogućuje se usporedba s političkim sustavima vlasti u drugim europskim državama u kojima je bila uspostavljena komunistička vlast. ; The important role in legitimising the communist system of government in Croatia/Yugoslavia after the Second World War was played by the traditional institutions of legislative, executive and judicial government. Their organization in Federal State / People's Republic of Croatia began in 1943, and continued until the Constitution of the People's Republic of Croatia adoption on 18th January 1947, which gave them constitutional confirmation. As the supreme state governing institutions were declared People's Republic of Croatia's Parliament and its Presidium; Government of the People's Republic of Croatia was declared as the supreme executive and administrative governing institution, and Supreme Court of the People's Republic of Croatia was declared as the supreme judicial institution. In relation to their constitutional position, in previous researches of post-war political system in Croatia, was concluded that the real authority and decision-making monopoly had the highest body of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, ie. Communist Party of Croatia. In doing so, the actual position and the role of republic governmental institutions in the communist system of government in Croatia after 1945 haven't been systematically researched, and this doctoral thesis makes a contribution in this scope. The doctoral thesis presents the results of researching the organisation and activity of People's Republic of Croatia's Parliament during the period of formal federalism and actual centralism (1945 – 1953). The aim is to explain the realation between the constitutional and actual position of the Parliament in the communist system of government, its structure, composition, legislative activity, relations with the Communist Party of Croatia/League of Communists of Croatia and republic governmental institutions, as well as the influence of its activities on everyday lives of the population. Parliament's organisation and activity is also compared to the organisation and activity of the National Assembly of Yugoslavia, as well as with legislative institutions of the former Yugoslavian republics and other European states with established communist rule, primarily Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). A number of hypotheses are confirmed by research: the constitutional position of the supreme state governing institution, Parliament of the People's Republic of Croatia didn't achieve in practice; it was organized on the model of the National Assembly of Yugoslavia; its legislative activity didn't include the actual debate, but only a formal adoption and promulgation of pre-defined political goals and ideas of the Communist Party of Croatia/League of Communist of Croatia; in People's Republic of Croatia'a Parliament, there wasn't pluralism of political opinion; citizens addressed the Parliament, primarily with the aim of solving personal problems, especially social. Main methods used in research were critical analysis of resources (notably original, unpublished archival documents) and comparative method. The research results are presented by a combination of thematic and chronological approach. In certain chapters, they are systematized in the form of graphical and tabular overviews. Doctoral thesis is structured as follows. In the first, introductory chapter are explained the research topic, main goals, hypotheses and scientific contribution, methodology, as well as literature and resources used in the research. The chapter gives an overview of the previous researches relevant to the topic, and the classification of legislatures in such researches. The second chapter gives an overview of the Yugoslav/Croatian communist system of government and the position of legislatures in this system in theory. There are explained the main characteristics of the then revolutionary ideology of the ruling Communist Party, as well as formal constitutional provision. They are compared with the main characteristics of the Soviet communist system of government. It also gives an overview of the classical Marxist theory about the state, government and legislatures, and demonstrates how it was used in the writings and speeches of Yugoslav theoreticians and politicians. The third and fourth chapter give an overview of the People's Republic of Croatia's Parliament organization and activity in practice, divided into two chronological periods: until the adoption of the People's Republic of Croatia's Constitution in January 1947, and thereafter up in 1953. The fifth, concluding chapter, summarizes the main research results. Chapter six contains several appendixes: the results of parliamentary elections in Croatia 1946, 1947 and 1950; a list of councilors, ie. representatives in State Anti-fascist Council for the National Liberation of Croatia and in People's Republic of Croatia's Parliament 1943 – 1953; a list of members of the Presidium of the Parliament of the People's Republic of Croatia 1945 – 1953; a list of representatives from Croatia in Constituent Assembly of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia / National Assembly of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 1945 – 1953; a list of laws adopted by the National Assembly of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 1946 – 1953; a list of tables and figures used in doctoral thesis). Seventh chapter contains a list of sources and literature used in the research. Doctoral thesis contributes to better understanding of institutions and the political system of government in Croatia in the period 1945 – 1953. Comparative approach in the presentation of research results, gives a contribution to knowledge of the political system of government and central governing institutions in the former Yugoslavia, as well in the other former Yugoslavian republics. At the same time, it can be a impulse for similar researces in those states. It also enables comparation with the political systems of government and legislatures in other European states with established communist rule. Through the analysis of the influence of its activities on everyday lives of the population, it gives contribution to the history of everyday life in communist Croatia and Yugoslavia.
