Suchergebnisse

Politički je sustav Bosne i Hercegovine kompleksan. Parlamentarna skupština Bosne i Hercegovine, kao nominalno najviše zakonodavno-predstavničko tijelo u državi, oslikava tu složenost, ne samo kroz svoj sastav, način funkcioniranja, ovlasti i aktivnosti, nego i kroz ime. Koristeći komparativnu metodu najsličnijih slučajeva i analizu sadržaja, ovaj rad pokazuje da se ambivalentnost koja proizlazi iz imena Parlamentarne skupštine Bosne i Hercegovine oslikava i na odnos političkih elita prema građanima, što slabi, odnosno onemogućuje uspješan razvitak društva te dovodi do deficita u demokratskoj praksi političkoga sustava. Uspoređujući bikameralna tijela 37 država, a potom i nekolicinu parlamentarnih skupština koje su uspostavljene u svijetu, rad potvrđuje da su parlamentarne skupštine sastavni dio institucionalnoga okvira međunarodnih organizacija, odnosno da su sastavne jedinice međunarodnoga sustava, unutar kojega djeluju države kao nositelji suverenosti. U nacionalnim državama, gdje suverena volja proizlazi iz pojedinca-građanina, parlamentarne skupštine ne mogu optimalno funkcionirati jer je izvor iz kojega one crpe svoju legitimnost drugačiji. ; The political system of Bosnia and Herzegovina is complex. The Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as nominally the highest legislative-representative body in the state, reflects that complexity, not only through its composition, means of functioning, jurisdictions and activities, but also through its name. By using a comparative method of most similar cases and contents analysis, this paper shows that the ambivalence deriving from the name of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina is reflected on the relationship between the political elites and citizens which undermines, i.e. makes impossible, a successful development of society and brings about a deficit in the democratic practises of the political system. Comparing the bicameral bodies of 37 states, and then a few parliamentary assemblies created around the world, the paper confirms that parliamentary assemblies are an integral part of the institutional framework of international organizations, i.e. that they are integral units of the international system within which states act as holders of sovereignty. In national states, where sovereign will comes from the individual citizen, parliamentary assemblies cannot function optimally since the source of their legitimacy is different.

The European Union (EU) is a complex political system whose institutional framework encompasses representatives of European citizens, member states, »eurobureaucracy « (Commission and agencies), national parliamentarians and members of public administrations. Such a complex framework is a by-product of reforms the EU has gone through in order to include stakeholders in its decision- making process, with the goal of delivering democratically adopted rules that have legitimacy. The democratic deficit is a sign that the EU lacks full legitimacy. The paper aims to show that comitology system is a source of democratic deficit. It shows the reasons why national public administrations got involved in the decision-making process, and the role they have in overseeing the implementation of adopted measures. The paper also gives the reasons why comitology is a threat to democratic accountability, pointing to the Council as the main source of that threat. Finally, it also suggests ways of reducing the democratic deficit by empowering the representatives of national public administrations to work transparently. ; Europska unija je složen politički sustav čiji institucionalni okvir obuhvaća predstavnike građana Unije i država članica, »eurobirokraciju« putem Europske komisije i raznih agencija, članove nacionalnih parlamenata, kao i službenike javnih uprava država članica. Ovako složeno institucionalno uređenje nusproizvod je stalnih reformi koje Unija provodi kako bi u proces odlučivanja uključila što veći broj dionika, s ciljem da se propisi donose na demokratski način i imaju legitimitet u očima njezinih građana. Demokratski deficit EU znak je da joj nedostaje puni legitimitet koji joj bi trebali dati vlastiti građani. Analizira se netransparentnost pojedinih dijelova procesa odlučivanja, tzv. sustava komitologije, koja je jedan od uzroka demokratskog deficita. Pokazuje se zašto su se javne uprave država članica umiješale u proces odlučivanja na razini EU te uloga koju one imaju pri izradi nacrta propisa i primjeni donesenih mjera, kao i pri nadzoru ispravnog provođenja usvojenih propisa u državama članicama. Objašnjava se razloge radi kojih je komitologija, u svojem današnjem obliku, prijetnja demokratskoj odgovornosti Unije, pokazujući da je trenutačni način rada Europskog vijeća glavni izvor te prijetnje. Navode se mogući načini smanjivanja demokratskog deficita, ne tako da se javne uprave država članica EU isključe iz odlučivanja, već tako da se njihovim predstavnicima omogući transparentan rad.

U radu se prikazuje razvoj bikameralnih zakonodavnih tijela, razlikujući pritom britanski i američki model bikameralizma. Također se nastoji prikazati snaga drugih domova utemeljena na razlici između unitarne i federalne države, iznoseći tipologiju bikameralnih tijela Arenda Lijpharta. Pokušava se, uz to, ukratko ocrtati bikameralno-unikameralna dihotomija na području Srednje i Istočne Europe te pokazati problematična legitimnost drugih domova u unitarnim državama. Na primjeru Senata u Poljskoj i Rumunjskoj nastoji se istaknuti njihov različit povijesno-institucionalni razvitak, razlike u ovlastima i funkcioniranju te njihov odnos prema prvim domovima. Uz to se oba Senata nastoje tipološki smjestiti u jedan od četiri Lijphartova bikameralna tipa, služeći se sa šest relevantnih varijabli i ističući pritom glavnu razliku zbog koje je Senat Poljske podređen, a Senat Rumunjske ravnopravan prvome domu. ; The paper outlines the development of bicameral legislatures, distinguishing between the British and American model of bicameralism. It also seeks to demonstrate the power of second chambers based on the difference between the unitary and federal states, presenting Arend Lijphart's tipology of bicameral legislatures. Moreover, it tries to give a brief outline of the bicameral-unicameral dichotomy in Central and Eastern Europe, and show the questionable legitimacy of second chambers in unitary countries. Using the Senates in Poland and Romania as illustrations, it seeks to highlight their dissimilar historical-institutional development, the differences in their powers and operation and their relationship with first chambers. It also seeks to assign both Senates typologically to one of Lijphart's four bicameral types, using six relevant variables and highlighting the main difference because of which the Polish Senate is subordinated and the Romanian Senate is equal to the first chamber.

The aim of the paper is to explore regionalism and the representation of sub-regional identities in a regional institutional-setting. The main research question is how large political regions should be and how various sub-regional identities should be represented in the institutional structure of these regions, mainly in representative bodies as the main democratic institutions of representative democracy. Do larger regions allow the preservation of particular sub-regional identities or are these identities completely absorbed by a wider regional identity? How have sub-regional identities been represented in the institutional structure of wider regions? This is especially important for Croatia as it struggles and repeatedly fails to introduce a territorial restructuring of the meso-level of its local government (counties) and to increase the size of its counties by transforming them into regions, in parallel with a stronger push towards decentralisation. The academic community and the general public have been advocating the transformation of 20 counties into a smaller number (mostly five) of larger and stronger regions, but opposition has come from interest groups connected with the current county system, including local political elites. The paper focuses on ways to overcome some of the stronger disagreements over the potential "bundling", or amalgamation, of areas with differing and idiosyncratic cultural, political, historic, and socio-economic heritages into a greater region. Therefore, a comparative analysis of sub-regional representations in selected European countries is used to show a way to resolve the impasse. The analysis covers parliaments and sub-regional representation in Scotland, Wales, England, and Poland. The paper is divided into five parts. The introduction is followed by an analysis of the interconnectedness of the political ideology of regionalism and regionalisation as an effort to introduce regions into the institutional architecture of a particular country. Part three deals with sub-regional representation and identity formation as a particularly important issue of regionalisation, and creating bigger political regions comprised of several local communities, which often have a stronger sub-regional political and social identity. Part four deals with the need in Croatian society, advocated by various actors (e.g. the academic community, the media, the general public, and some smaller political parties), to reform the current county structure, which is perceived as too fragmented and not suitable for the performance of tasks connected with the regional government tier. The concluding part combines the previously elaborated arguments and sketches the main points that could lead to the potential reorganisation of the Croatian county structure. The paper shows that by employing innovative institutional changes and focusing sub-regional differences in a regional representative body, there can be a move towards the regional spaces definition of regionalisation, where sub-regions, such as Istria or Rijeka might see commonalities with one another and with neighbouring sub-regions. This would then make logical the idea of the amalgamation of sub-regions into a larger and more successful meso-region. ; U radu se istražuje pojam regionalizma i zastupanje podregionalnih identiteta u regional institutional-setting. Glavno je istraživačko pitanje usmjereno na otkrivanje idealne veličine političkih regija te kako bi unutar institucionalnog ustroja pojedinih regija valjalo zastupati različite podregionalne identitete. To se uglavnom odnosi na zastupnička tijela kao glavne demokratske institucije zastupničke demokracije. Je li moguće očuvati zaseban podregionalni identitet unutar veće regije ili će se on u potpunosti uklopiti u širi regionalni identitet? Na koji su način podregionalni identiteti dosad bili zastupljeni u institucionalnom ustroju širih regija? Za Hrvatsku su ova pitanja od posebne važnosti s obzirom na opetovane i neuspjele pokušaje provođenja teritorijalnoga preustroja mezo razine lokalne samouprave (županija), te pokušaja okrupnjivanja županija njihovim preustrojem u regije i popraćenih većim stupnjem decentralizacije. Znanstvena zajednica i šira javnost zalažu se za preustroj 20 županija u manji broj (uglavnom pet) većih i snažnijih regija, no tome se protive interesne skupine povezane s postojećim županijskim ustrojem, uključujući lokalnu političku elitu. U radu se nastoji objasniti kako odgovoriti na neka snažnija protivljenja potencijalnom spajanju, tj. amalgamaciji područja različitih i diosinkrastičkih kulturnih, političkih, povijesnih i društveno-ekonomskih baština u jednu veću regiju. Usporedno se analizira zastupanje podregija u odabranim europskim zemljama kako bi se predložilo moguće rješenje, a analiziraju se parlamenti i zastupanje podregija u Škotskoj, Walesu, Engleskoj i Poljskoj. Rad se sastoji od pet cjelina. Uvod slijedi analiza međusobne povezanosti regionalizma kao političke ideologije i regionalizacije kao pokušaja uvođenja regija u institucionalni ustroj države. Treći se dio bavi zastupanjem podregija i stvaranjem identiteta kao važnim aspektom regionalizacije, te stvaranjem krupnijih političkih regija koje sadrže veći broj lokalnih zajednica s često izraženijim podregionalnim političkim i društvenim identitetom. U četvrtome se dijelu opisuje nastojanje hrvatskoga društva uz potporu brojnih društvenih aktera (npr. znanstvene zajednice, medija, šire javnosti i pojedinih manjih političkih stranaka) da se provede preustroj sadašnjeg sustava županija jer ga se drži previše fragmentiranim i neprikladnim za obavljanje zadataka na razini regionalne samouprave. Završni dio povezuje argumente razrađene u prethodnim dijelovima te opisuje glavne korake koji bi mogli dovesti do preustroja županija u Hrvatskoj. Opisuje se kako inovativne promjene u institucijama i usmjeravanje razlika među podregijama u regionalno zastupničko tijelo mogu dovesti do pomaka prema definiciji regionalizacije kao regionalnih prostora. Prema toj definiciji podregije poput Istre ili Rijeke spoznati će međusobne sličnosti kao i sličnosti sa susjednim regijama. Time bi ideja amalgamacije podregija u veću i uspješniju mezo regiju postala logičnom.

The last decade saw a rise in the use of direct democracy in Croatia. The proliferation of citizens' initiatives and referendums was meant to activate politically passive citizens and to strengthen their role as controllers of the executive. Our research, based on the qualitative analysis of the legal framework on citizens' initiatives and referendums in Croatia, as well as post-2010 initiatives, showed that this was not the case. Instead, political and social entrepreneurs, both long established, like trade unions, and newly formed, like conservative civil society organizations, used the tools of direct democracy to promote their particular anti-minority, anti-government or anti-establishment agendas. They succeeded in both constraining the power of the elite through the process of getting to the referendum and wresting control over the agenda-setting process post hoc. The added value of this paper lies in showing that citizens' initiatives can succeed in getting their demands met even when they are not successful in organizing referendums, which is due to weaknesses in the legal framework surrounding referendums and initiatives.

The last decade saw a rise in the use of direct democracy in Croatia. The proliferation of citizens' initiatives and referendums was meant to activate politically passive citizens and to strengthen their role as controllers of the executive. Our research, based on the qualitative analysis of the legal framework on citizens' initiatives and referendums in Croatia, as well as post-2010 initiatives, showed that this was not the case. Instead, political and social entrepreneurs, both long established, like trade unions, and newly formed, like conservative civil society organizations, used the tools of direct democracy to promote their particular anti-minority, anti-government or anti-establishment agendas. They succeeded in both constraining the power of the elite through the process of getting to the referendum and wresting control over the agenda-setting process post hoc. The added value of this paper lies in showing that citizens' initiatives can succeed in getting their demands met even when they are not successful in organizing referendums, which is due to weaknesses in the legal framework surrounding referendums and initiatives. ; U posljednjih deset godina učestala je uporaba instituta izravne demo- kracije u Hrvatskoj. Pretpostavlja se kako bi povećanje broja građanskih inicijativa i referenduma trebalo potaknuti značajnije aktiviranje politički pasivnog građanstva i ojačati njegovu ulogu kontrolora izvršne vlasti. Naše istraživanje, utemeljeno na kvalitativnoj analizi pravnog okvira koji uređuje pitanja referenduma i građanskih inicijativa u Hrvatskoj i samih inicijativa nakon 2010, pokazalo je da nije tako. Politički i društveni poduzetnici – bilo da je riječ o etabliranim akterima, poput sindikata, bilo o novim akterima, poput konzervativnih udruga civilnog društva – koristili su mehanizme izravne demokracije kako bi promicali partikularne interese utemeljene na agendama usmjerenima protiv manjina, vlade i političkog establishmenta. Ti su akteri uspjeli zauzdati moć vlade, odnosno političke elite ante ...

There is plenty of research on media framing of marginalized and "othered" groups, including refugees and migrants. A lot has been said about the 2015– 2016 refugee crisis, but much less scholarly interest has been put on the 2018– 2019 re-emergence of refugees and migrants on outer borders of the EU and the ways member states have responded to the problem. This paper is focused on analysing similarities and differences in framing of refugees and migrants in the Croatian media in two distinct time periods: 2015–2016 and 2018. The paper is based on applying content analysis and descriptive statistics to articles from four daily newspapers in order to find out how the people coming to Croatia were presented in the media; what they were called, in which sense (positive, neutral, negative) they were presented to the public, and how the media presentation changed over time. The analysis has shown a certain degree of specific political, economic, and societal contexts mediated to, and in turn mediated by, the media's framing of refugees/migrants. While the predominant frame remained neutral, as per norms of journalistic profession, the change in ideological stance of the government - from social democrats, who put humanitarian elements first, to conservatives, whose focus was security-based - coincided with the relative rise in the number of articles with a negative portrayal of the migrant issue.

This paper explores a connection between religion and politics in Croatia by analyzing the conservative civic initiative "In the Name of the Family" (U ime obitelji). It is a part of a broader religious-political movement, which emerged over the course of the last decade, that is connected to other international conservative organizations and initiatives. They advocate for a decrease of secular influence on the family, oppose sexual and reproductive rights, and insist on the primacy of religious freedoms. The political nature of the movement manifests itself through multiple attempts to scrap the legislation and practices of both state and private institutions that are contradicting the value system of the Christian (Catholic) majority. The religious-political nexus of the movement is confirmed by its continuous involvement in policy-making, here manifested through the use of direct democracy institutes.