Suchergebnisse

Poljska javnost bila je zainteresirana za zbivanja među Južnim Slavenima. Nastanak Kraljevstva Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca poljski tisak tretirao je kao prirodno pravo malih naroda na samoodređenje. Sa simpatijama su promatrana nastojanja Slovenaca, Hrvata i Srba. Nije to, naravno, bila tema prvih stranica novina budući da se u tom trenutku obnavljala i sama Poljska. No poljska je javnost bila upoznata s djelatnošću glavnih slovenskih, hrvatskih i srpskih političara, bili su joj poznati problemi njihove borbe s Talijanima oko granica, a izražavane su i bojazni o jedinstvu države katolika, pravoslavaca i muslimana. Nije favorizirana nijedna strana. Često su se koristili pojmovi Jugoslavija i Jugoslaveni, i to još i prije negoli je došlo do ujedinjenja Slovenaca, Hrvata i Srba.

Greek political leadership in the 2nd half of the 20th century: context and character
Over the centuries, difficult living conditions in Greece contributed to the development of the client‑patron system as a way of providing subsistence for the generally poor population. Following the establishment of the independent Greek state in 1830, clientelism was absorbed into the nation's political life. Greek political leadership in the 2nd half of the 20th century remained under the pressure of this time‑honored heritage. The state's social role was regarded as a priority for the Greeks by both the right of Konstantinos Karamanlis and the left of Andreas Papandreou. The leaders did not break away from clientelism even in the context of the stabilization of democracy after 1950. Quite the contrary, they developed it by transforming former clientelist relations into the system of sociopolitical control over the state, with the political parties and their administrative apparatus becoming the principal instrument for exercising this control. As a result, partisan clientelism emerged with electorates as its beneficiaries. Their attention focused on the perfecting of the system to which the state and national economy would eventually fall victim. In the later 1990s, with the deaths of K. Karamanlis and A. Papandreou, the time of charismatic leadership in Greek politics came to an end but the system they created has continued.

Poljska javnost bila je zainteresirana za zbivanja među Južnim Slavenima. Nastanak Kraljevstva Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca poljski tisak tretirao je kao prirodno pravo malih naroda na samoodređenje. Sa simpatijama su promatrana nastojanja Slovenaca, Hrvata i Srba. Nije to, naravno, bila tema prvih stranica novina budući da se u tom trenutku obnavljala i sama Poljska. No poljska je javnost bila upoznata s djelatnošću glavnih slovenskih, hrvatskih i srpskih političara, bili su joj poznati problemi njihove borbe s Talijanima oko granica, a izražavane su i bojazni o jedinstvu države katolika, pravoslavaca i muslimana. Nije favorizirana nijedna strana. Često su se koristili pojmovi Jugoslavija i Jugoslaveni, i to još i prije negoli je došlo do ujedinjenja Slovenaca, Hrvata i Srba. ; Public opinion in Poland was much interested in the developments concerning the South Slavs in the final phase of World War I. Poland was still partitioned at that time, so there was no Polish national press. However, Polish newspapers and periodicals published under Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian administration, as well as those published in already independent Poland, welcomed the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as the realisation of the natural law of small nations to independence and thus cheered the efforts of the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs to build their own state. There were more absorbing issues at the time, with Poland herself in the dramatic process of reclaiming independent statehood, and there was no involvement with the South Slavs, so the topic did not make it to the front pages. Nevertheless, public opinion in Poland was well versed in the activity of leading Slovenian, Serbian, and Croatian politicians and the Italian challenge to the negotiation of the borders of the newly-established state. It was also aware of the state's religious heterogeneity—Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims—as a potential threat to national unity. No particular side was favoured. Even before the unification of the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs in a common state, the nations of Southeastern Europe were often referred to as Yugoslavia and the people as Yugoslavs. Occasionally, news concerning the South Slavs were printed in bold to emphasise the topic's importance to Polish editors and readers.

This article examines the impact of the Ottoman tradition in the Balkan states in the 19th and 20th c. The character of the political leadership and the centralized regimes established in the Balkan states was despotic, autocratic and authoritarian, as a result of the absence of democratic tradition and an underdeveloped political awareness and culture. A characteristic feature of the Turkish system was the position of the relatively free peasants, very different from the position of peasants in Europe. The features characteristic of the Ottoman tradition which survived in the Balkans the longest, until the end of the 20th century, were violence, corruption, nepotism as an intrinsic component of political life and power often changing hands, because of violence, assassinations, murders, etc.

The article analyzes the archetype of Serbian political leadership and compares it with the present-day model, on the basis of traditions and expectations of the Serbian society of their leader. ; Analiza archetypu serbskiego przywództwa politycznego i porównanie go z modelem współczesnym, na bazie tradycji i oczekiwań serbskiego społeczeństwa wobec lidera.

The article is concerned with analyzing the character of the model of Serbian political leadership with respect to its endurance over an extended period. The author traces the analogies between the leadership models of Serbian leaders active in different periods and historical contexts: Prince Miloš Obrenović (1780–1860), Prime Minister Nikola Pašić (1845–1926) and President Slobodan Milošević (1941–2006). Over this extended period, the type of leadership remained relatively constant in response to a certain set of expectations that reflected the values regarded as fundamental by Serbian society, and in particular: stability of social relations, egalitarianism, collectivism, and conservatism. As this set of values changed little over the examined period, the archetype of Serbian leader as an advocate of egalitarianism, a warrior and a tribune of the people, that had emerged in response to Ottoman domination, remained relevant.

Analiza archetypu serbskiego przywództwa politycznego i porównanie go z modelem współczesnym, na bazie tradycji i oczekiwań serbskiego społeczeństwa wobec lidera. ; The article analyzes the archetype of Serbian political leadership and compares it with the present-day model, on the basis of traditions and expectations of the Serbian society of their leader.

In the early 20th century Macedonia became the focus of the political activity of the Balkan states, interested in partitioning this Turkish territory. From the Serbian perspective, Bulgaria emerged as the main rival of Serbia, its aspirations to the Macedonian territory rooted in Bulgarian national mythology. Hence the Bulgarian government's actions and activities were closely watched by Serbian diplomats. They viewed Bulgarian politics as a complex, ambiguous game. The Bulgarians simultaneously made preparations for a war with Turkey and tried to keep the appearances of friendly relations with Turkey and Bulgaria's neighbors: Serbia and Greece. Initially, Bulgaria intended to incorporate the whole of Macedonia but soon realized its own weakness and the determination of its neighbors. Thus, the Bulgarian prime minister made an offer to Serbia, proposing an alliance and participation in the partition of Macedonia of whose territory Bulgaria would get a bigger share. Serbia did not want to accept this offer but at the same time it was afraid of the hostile reaction of Austro‑Hungary to its own aspirations, involving even Austro‑Hungary entering into some secret alliance with Bulgaria. Consequently, Serbian politicians decided to seek a compromise. An analysis of Serbian diplomatic documents has shown that from 1911 a slow process continued of Bulgaria and Serbia coming to the conclusion that a consent concerning the future of Macedonia had to be reached but there was no agreement as how to divide up the Macedonian territory between the two sides. Arguments continued on how to define the Serbian and Bulgarian zones, the demarcation line, etc. Each side formulated its boundary conditions and there was little progress in negotiations. In the end, the prospective Serbian and Bulgarian zones were defined and also the so‑called "disputed territory" whose status would be decided through arbitration by the Tsar of Russia. However, Bulgaria and Serbia remained deeply distrustful of one another and the course of the first Balkan War in 1912 would soon demonstrate that Bulgaria, Serbia, and also Greece had each an intention to incorporate the largest possible part of Macedonian territory with no regard for any earlier treaties.

The article analyzes the archetype of Serbian political leadership and compares it with the present-day model, on the basis of traditions and expectations of the Serbian society of their leader. ; p. 145-168 ; Sum. pol, rus. ; Artykuł prezentuje analizę charakteru modelu władzy politycznej w Serbii na przestrzeni długiego okresu czasu. Autor prześledził analogie pomiędzy modelami władzy przywódców serbskich w różnych okresach i kontekstach historycznych: księcia Miłosza Obrenowicia (1780‒1860), premiera Nikoli Pašicia (1845‒1926) i prezydenta Slobodana Miloševicia (1941‒2006). Przez cały ten długi czas model sprawowania przywództwa pozostał niemal niezmieniony w odpowiedzi na określone oczekiwania, odzwierciedlające wartości uznawane przez serbskie społeczeństwo za fundamentalne, w szczególności zaś: stabilność relacji społecznych, egalitaryzm, kolektywizm i konserwatyzm. Ponieważ wartości te niemal nie ulegały zmianie w analizowanym okresie, aktualny pozostał archetyp serbskiego przewódcy jako rzecznika egalitaryzmu, wojownika i trybuna ludowego, jaki zrodził się w reakcji na dominację osmańską. ; s. 145-168 ; Streszcz. pol, ros.

The article presents an analysis of the character of model Serbian political leadership with respect to its endurance over an extended period. The author traces the analogies between the leadership models of Serbian leaders active in diff erent periods and historical contexts: Prince Miloš Obrenović (1780–1860), Prime Minister Nikola Pašić (1845–1926) and President Slobodan Milošević (1941–2006). Over this extended period, the type of leadership remained relatively constant in response to a certain set of expectations that reflected the values regarded as fundamental by Serbian society, and in particular: stability of social relations, egalitarianism, collectivism, and conservatism. As this set of values changed little over the examined period, the archetype of Serbian leader as an advocate of egalitarianism, a warrior and a tribune of the people, that had emerged in response to Ottoman domination, remained relevant. ; Summary in English. ; p. 143-165 ; Text eng. ; The article presents an analysis of the character of model Serbian political leadership with respect to its endurance over an extended period. The author traces the analogies between the leadership models of Serbian leaders active in diff erent periods and historical contexts: Prince Miloš Obrenović (1780–1860), Prime Minister Nikola Pašić (1845–1926) and President Slobodan Milošević (1941–2006). Over this extended period, the type of leadership remained relatively constant in response to a certain set of expectations that reflected the values regarded as fundamental by Serbian society, and in particular: stability of social relations, egalitarianism, collectivism, and conservatism. As this set of values changed little over the examined period, the archetype of Serbian leader as an advocate of egalitarianism, a warrior and a tribune of the people, that had emerged in response to Ottoman domination, remained relevant. ; s. 143-165 ; Tekst ang. ; Streszcz. ang.