Suchergebnisse

In Serbia, in the aftermath of 5 October 2000, the process of desecularization, including the revitalization of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), overlapped with the democratization of its political institutions, as well as with the political and social pluralism. The desecularization of the Serbian society had already started in the socialist Yugoslavia, but the process itself intensified in the early period of political pluralism and establishment of the democratic political institutions. Is Orthodoxy compatible with democracy, viewed not only as the will of the majority or an election procedure, but also as a political culture of pluralism and rule of law? Is Orthodoxy possible as a "civic" church, in line with the European political tradition of democracy and pluralism? The author contends that the contemporary Orthodoxy, including the SOC, accepts globalization in its technical, technological and economic sense, with a parallel tendency towards cultural fragmentation. Thus one needs a consensus between the SOC, state and society in Serbia concerning the basic values, such as: democracy, civil society, pluralistic discourse, secular tolerance and individual human rights. ; In Serbia, in the aftermath of 5 October 2000, the process of desecularization, including the revitalization of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), overlapped with the democratization of its political institutions, as well as with the political and social pluralism. The desecularization of the Serbian society had already started in the socialist Yugoslavia, but the process itself intensified in the early period of political pluralism and establishment of the democratic political institutions. Is Orthodoxy compatible with democracy, viewed not only as the will of the majority or an election procedure, but also as a political culture of pluralism and rule of law? Is Orthodoxy possible as a "civic" church, in line with the European political tradition of democracy and pluralism? The author contends that the contemporary Orthodoxy, including the SOC, accepts globalization in its technical, technological and economic sense, with a parallel tendency towards cultural fragmentation. Thus one needs a consensus between the SOC, state and society in Serbia concerning the basic values, such as: democracy, civil society, pluralistic discourse, secular tolerance and individual human rights.

This article presents results of the research in contemporary trends of international economic inequality. The author argues that international economic inequality is a bidirectional and complex concept. The bidirectionality and complexity of the concept is reflected in the fact that there are countries that concurrently converge to or diverge from the most developed countries in terms of their economic development. The key finding presented here is the rise of economic inequality between countries, especially between the poorest and the richest countries. The exceptions are some countries that have made significant progress in the period from 2000 to 2014 in reducing the economic inequality in comparison to the richest countries. The most important factors that have contributed to their progress are distinctive economic institutions and development policies of those countries, as well as the effects of the financial crisis since 2007-2008, which caused a decade-long stagnation in the most developed parts of the world. ; Rad je posvećen istraživanju savremenih trendova međunarodne ekonomske nejednakosti. Namera autora u ovom radu jeste da ukaže da je međunarodna ekonomska nejednakost dvosmeran i složen koncept. Dvosmernost i složenost tog koncepta se ogleda u činjenici da istovremeno postoje zemlje koje se u pogledu razvoja udaljavaju ili približavaju najrazvijenijim državama. Ključni zaključak rada jeste da ekonomska nejednakost između država raste, posebno između najsiromašnijih i najbogatijih država. Izuzetak su pojedine zemlje koje su u periodu od 2000. do 2014. godine učinile značajan iskorak u smanjenju ekonomske nejednakosti u usporedbi sa najbogatijim državama. Najvažnije faktore koji su doprineli tom napretku čine osobene ekonomske institucije i razvojne politike tih država, kao i finansijske krize i višedecenijska stagnacija u najrazvijenijim delovima sveta.

The subject matter of research in this paper is theoretical controversy related to the definition of right-wing extremism. Given the fact that extremism is a variable, amorphous and insufficiently researched phenomenon, largely conditioned by time, space, political and cultural differences, there is a great confusion in the field of political science when defining right-wing extremism. The problem of researching right-wing extremism is additionally complicated by various terms that are being used in the contemporary literature as its synonyms, such as right-wing radicalism, neo-Fascism, ultra-radicalism, etc. In order to provide the most valid theoretical determination of right-wing extremism, the author provides a detailed analysis of all the components constituting this phenomenon and examines their causality. In the political praxis, the term extremism is extensively abused, which additionally complicates its determination. Videlicet, politicians often use term 'extremist' in order to discredit their political opponents. While during the French revolution aristocracy saw the bourgeoisie as extremists, the members of the working class later stated that the bourgeoisie were extremists. The problem lies in the fact that, in politics, extremists are not only the ones who use violence as modus operandi; indeed, it is also used by political opponents who do not belong to the extreme political option. Another aggravating factor in defining right-wing extremism is that many administrative and academic definitions do not make a clear distinction between extremism and related phenomena, such as terrorism, radicalism and populism. Extremism is most often equaled with terrorism, which gives rise to another problem in defining this phenomenon. The relation between extremism and terrorism is the relation of general and specific. Namely, every act of terrorism is concurrently considered to be an act of extremism, but not vice versa, given the fact that every act of extremism does not lead towards a higher level of political violence (i.e. towards terrorism). Even in the terms of legal sanctioning, it is much easier to incriminate terrorism in comparison to extremism. The Serbian criminal legislation envisages relevant punishment for committing an act of terrorism, without even mentioning extremism, which implies that there is no penalty prescribed for committing an act of extremism. Despite numerous academic and administrative definitions on the concept of extremism, there is still a lack of a balanced approach to defining right-wing extremism, which is also largely conditioned by political definitions. The most prominent problem in addressing the social phenomena such as right-wing extremism lies in the fact that these social phenomena are dynamic and, in order to be analysed in a scientifically objective manner, they must be examined in the specific temporal, spatial and socio-political context.