Search results

In the 'political society' (Greven) the policy is a central instance of design and order form in the center. But the policy is able to hold together (post) modern societies and they can intervene in principle in all social subsystems and virtually politicize everything. Despite the central position of the policy of the policy term remains curiously vague. The article attempts to remedy this deficiency by means of a search for clues. He sits at the temporal moment of the politics at the turn of the new concept of modernity and is rewritten and reconstructed this process using the example of four authors, Albert E. F Schaffle, Karl Mannheim, Max Weber and finally Niklas Luhmann; all relate to each other explicitly (or implicitly) and let so create a fabric of a political discourse where appearing a new understanding of politics. So the contours of this new policy term can be reconstructed as a political action in its infancy, which is the importance of politics in the 'political society' appropriate. Adapted from the source document.

Those seeking to explain the belligerent outbreak of ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia start most frequently from the following assumptions: (1) The differences between people & nations are an unquestionable matter of fact & almost ontologically predetermined. (2) The state built in 1918 was a bastard nation-state without any chances of survival. (3) Ethnonationalist violence should thus be interpreted as an unavoidable self-realization of a cultural code of violence of the Balkan people. Against this position, it is argued here that "Yugoslavianism" was no fiction, but rather, a practical model of integration of a multicultural society, whose institutional, economic, & social foundations were destroyed by identifiable actors. The strategies & factors fueling the acceleration of ethnic conflicts & genocide are at the center of this analysis. 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

The majority of Central & Eastern European countries, such as Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, & Serbia, adopted mixed governmental systems, better known as semipresidential, in their transitions to democracy. The author analyzes the attributes of semipresidential systems from the basis of Western European experience, first & foremost those of the German Weimar & the French Fifth Republic. Semipresidential systems are unstable because they allow too many diverging political games, may create a dangerous political climate in situations of cohabitation, tend to increase presidential powers beyond those granted by the constitution, &, in times of political crises, do not allow for compromise of political powers. The author concludes that semipresidential systems are not suitable for consolidating democracy. 1 Table, 51 References. Adapted from the source document.