Suchergebnisse

Russia's reunification with the Crimea, counter-sanction policy, practices of the Russian state and civil society, as well as scientific and technological and social and economic breakthrough actively attempted in the country are the key events and drivers determining the social and political environment and the nearest future of the Russian society. Russian civil society and the rule of law continue its steady growth despite adverse global social and economic and social and political environment. The key result of such growth is the pivot of the crisis trend as well as a dynamic balance of social and political relations between the Russian state and society. In general, the civil society offers a fairly sufficient level of trust to the government institutions. The trust level is to be enhanced and consolidated in the nearest future. The success of Russian politics shall depend on minimizing external threats and challenges and on meeting internal fundamental interests and urgent needs of citizens with respect to security and improvement of life quality.

This Thing Called Trust provides a detailed theoretical analysis of the research about trust, civic society and society capital. Stoneman uniquely provides a complementary empirical analysis which connects discussions of the individual psychology of trust with understandings of its cultural and institutional roots at more aggregate level

The article offers an attempt to reconstruct the concept of civic society and, with the help of new instrumentation, to analyze the dilemmas of the appearance and development of the civic society in Lithuania. In the concept of the civic society, the emphasis on its non-political and self-building character predominates. The basic motive of the attempt to reconstruct the civic society, as presented in the article, accentuates the necessity of the appearance of the political component in the civic society. The political connections of the civic society have been labeled as sub-politics or non-state politics. Not only the potential of the political connections of the civic society, but also their limits have been analyzed: the civic society is able not only to take over some of the state functions that are managed inefficiently, but, by doing it in a resolute way, to stimulate the society's fragmentation. It has also been emphasized that the concept of the civic society implies two not identical, but simultaneous actions: the civic society is not built by the state "from above", however, it is not the result of a mere self-building process, either. The dilemmas of political - non-political, system - anti-system, consolidated- fragmentary, local – global characteristics are typical of the appearance and development of the civic society in Lithuania. Beside the universal content of the dilemmas in question, the unique character of their development in Lithuania is quite obvious. Lithuania has not yet managed to escape from the "non-synchronic circle" of the (self)-building of the state and the civic society. The statement that the civic society in Lithuania is arising anew each time after the formation of the national state would be too categorical. However, Lithuania does not have any substantial experience of the non-interrupted co-existence of the civic society and the state, its development has been discrete. The civic society in Lithuania fails to get rid of the anti-system approach with respect to their own country, although anti- system values usually form with regard to foreign states. The lack of synchronism is not favorable to any newly – developing system, and the more effort is made to consolidate the non-political character of the civic society, the less favorable it becomes. The motive of the building of the politicized civic society, of the realization of its political component remains unattractive in Lithuania, as it is identified with the striving of the state to control the society. In fact, one might expect the alienation of the civic society from the state, but not its total de-politicizing. Unless the civic society is politicized, i.e. unless attempts are made to solve certain common problems of the society without the state's interference or with its minimum interference more and more frequently, the interventionist strivings of the state will never in any way yield to restriction. Thus, the gap between the civic society and the state in Lithuania leaves no serious chance for their interrelation, and simultaneously for their modernization. The present situation results from the contradiction of nationalism and an anti-system approach, which historically is no longer promising. The anti-system approach determines the absence of widely-spread civic movements that would aim to introduce changes in the life of the society, but not merely seek for state power, in Lithuania. The inertia of the anti-system approach caused unjustifiable strivings to de-politicize the civic society and not to collaborate with the state. The anti-system approach is a serious obstacle to the appearance of self-activating, i.e. irretrievably strong, civic society. The rudiments of the civic society in Lithuania experience not so much the necessary support from the state, but rather intensive interventionism. The duty of political democracy with regard to the civic society - to open the possibility for a free individual to set their own goals independently and together with their compatriots to establish one or another type of social order - remains unfulfilled. In its turn, the civic society retains a strict anti-system approach. All that witnesses the weakness of both levels - the state and the civic - of the organization of our society. In such a situation, not only the internal consolidation potential of the Lithuanian civic society, but also its openness for global processes remains problematic. However, with Lithuania becoming integral part of the fast-progressing world, it cannot avoid the new factors that influence the development of the civic society: post-materialism and information, and that can become a weighty argument for the appearance of a "loyal division" between the civic society and the state. ; Šiame straipsnyje dėstomas pilietinės visuomenės sąvokos rekonstrukcijos atvejis ir, pasitelkus naują teorinį instrumentarijų, analizuojamos pilietinės visuomenės tapsmo ir raidos dilemos Lietuvoje. Lietuvos plėtotės modeliuose nesunku įžvelgti pilietinės visuomenės perspektyvos konstravimo pastangas, tačiau pilietinę visuomenę "paskelbus" neišvengiamybe, stokojama lygiaverčio jos esmės supratimo. Masinis formulės "pilietinė visuomenė" vartojimas nusako net jos devalvaciją. Pilietinės visuomenės sampratoje vyrauja nepolitinio pobūdžio akcentai. Straipsnyje, kitaip negu nepolitinės pilietinės visuomenės analitinės dimensijos atveju, siekiama aktualizuoti pilietinės visuomenės ir politines sąsajas, šių sąsajų potencialą, o taip pat ir ribas. Pilietinė visuomenė – tai nesuskaičiuojama daugybe mažų, laikinų susivienijimų, nuolat besiformuojančių, žlungančių ir vėl susidarančių pačių keisčiausių judėjimų, pereinančių net prie dramatiškų akcijų ir vėl atlėgstančių, ir tik šitaip - natūraliai - socialiai koordinuojami. Pilietinė visuomenė čia suvokiama ne tik kaip visuomenės gebėjimas keistis ar būti stabilia "iš apačios", bet ir kaip potencialus visuomenės fragmentacijos šaltinis. Todėl prasminga nagrinėti pilietinės visuomenės aktualijas pasitelkus ne tik jos ir valstybės takoskyros, bet ir jų sąveikos (greta kitų jos formų - ir politinės) kategorijas.

The article offers an attempt to reconstruct the concept of civic society and, with the help of new instrumentation, to analyze the dilemmas of the appearance and development of the civic society in Lithuania.
In the concept of the civic society, the emphasis on its non-political and self-building character predominates. The basic motive of the attempt to reconstruct the civic society, as presented in the article, accentuates the necessity of the appearance of the political component in the civic society. The political connections of the civic society have been labeled as sub-politics or non-state politics. Not only the potential of the political connections of the civic society, but also their limits have been analyzed: the civic society is able not only to take over some of the state functions that are managed inefficiently, but, by doing it in a resolute way, to stimulate the society's fragmentation. It has also been emphasized that the concept of the civic society implies two not identical, but simultaneous actions: the civic society is not built by the state "from above", however, it is not the result of a mere self-building process, either.
The dilemmas of political - non-political, system - anti-system, consolidated- fragmentary, local – global characteristics are typical of the appearance and development of the civic society in Lithuania. Beside the universal content of the dilemmas in question, the unique character of their development in Lithuania is quite obvious.
Lithuania has not yet managed to escape from the "non-synchronic circle" of the (self)-building of the state and the civic society. The statement that the civic society in Lithuania is arising anew each time after the formation of the national state would be too categorical. However, Lithuania does not have any substantial experience of the non-interrupted co-existence of the civic society and the state, its development has been discrete. The civic society in Lithuania fails to get rid of the anti-system approach with respect to their own country, although anti- system values usually form with regard to foreign states. The lack of synchronism is not favorable to any newly – developing system, and the more effort is made to consolidate the non-political character of the civic society, the less favorable it becomes.
The motive of the building of the politicized civic society, of the realization of its political component remains unattractive in Lithuania, as it is identified with the striving of the state to control the society. In fact, one might expect the alienation of the civic society from the state, but not its total de-politicizing. Unless the civic society is politicized, i.e. unless attempts are made to solve certain common problems of the society without the state's interference or with its minimum interference more and more frequently, the interventionist strivings of the state will never in any way yield to restriction.
Thus, the gap between the civic society and the state in Lithuania leaves no serious chance for their interrelation, and simultaneously for their modernization. The present situation results from the contradiction of nationalism and an anti-system approach, which historically is no longer promising. The anti-system approach determines the absence of widely-spread civic movements that would aim to introduce changes in the life of the society, but not merely seek for state power, in Lithuania. The inertia of the anti-system approach caused unjustifiable strivings to de-politicize the civic society and not to collaborate with the state. The anti-system approach is a serious obstacle to the appearance of self-activating, i.e. irretrievably strong, civic society.
The rudiments of the civic society in Lithuania experience not so much the necessary support from the state, but rather intensive interventionism. The duty of political democracy with regard to the civic society - to open the possibility for a free individual to set their own goals independently and together with their compatriots to establish one or another type of social order - remains unfulfilled. In its turn, the civic society retains a strict anti-system approach. All that witnesses the weakness of both levels - the state and the civic - of the organization of our society. In such a situation, not only the internal consolidation potential of the Lithuanian civic society, but also its openness for global processes remains problematic. However, with Lithuania becoming integral part of the fast-progressing world, it cannot avoid the new factors that influence the development of the civic society: post-materialism and information, and that can become a weighty argument for the appearance of a "loyal division" between the civic society and the state.

Discusses the nature & meaning of civil & civic society in communist & postcommunist Poland. Civil society is defined as a technology of governing capable of pressuring the state, while civic society refers to those social institutions embedded in civil society that can countervail the state. Although Western scholars have claimed that the enforced consensus of communist rule could not coexist with civil society, it is argued that many forms of civil society thrived during communist rule. Based on a broad definition of civil society as common-interest groups that are not necessarily overtly political, Polish civil & civic society existed in a variety of forms: (1) state-supported associations & corporations, (2) unofficial interest groups & extended kin/community networks, (3) religious organizations, & (4) unauthorized political organizations. The postcommunist era is characterized by contradictory trends. Although new organizations, parties, & community groups highlight the vitality of civil society, political/social apathy & emerging support for communist parties suggest dissatisfaction with new social & political structures. Civil society in the communist era was based on the common & unifying enemy of the communist state, & it is concluded that postcommunist society must discover new structures of consensus to establish productive civil society. 62 References. T. Sevier

Only countries possess effective tools – instruments of politics – that can counteract impact of terrorism on European Union's civic society. The aim of the study is to develop patterns of thinking and cognition of reality in context of an individual assessment and collective action with violence as a source of change. Analysis indicated in the article show that the ease of radicalization combined with the view of reality forms the basis of the descripted phenomenon, giving it a specific, individual character in each European Union's country. The outcome and as well as the outline of this study can be foundation for future studies on security policy of every individual European Union state, connected with other under the umbrella of European Commission and other common structures. An open question is, In which direction is the phenomenon of international terrorism in European Union's states evolving and what does it encompass while changing the character of social reality? The clearly drawn criteria of change allows to present a selective approach. They show the complexity of problems connected with contemporary terrorism, particularly in fighting the phenomenon. Article concludes that without comprehensive actions to combat terrorism, conducted individually and in common European Union's security policy this phenomenon may intensify and result in consequences that are easy to foresee.

A number of consociational power-sharing initiatives are compared to explore some of the reasons why the elite conflict regulation model has not settled the Northern Ireland conflict. In the period 1972-85, four attempts by the British government to formulate and implement a power-sharing government within Northern Ireland failed as a result of the recalcitrance of one or other of the mainstream political parties. The 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA) ended the Unionist veto and included the Irish government in the political process to find a solution. Since 1985, four efforts by both governments to establish a devolved power-sharing government have included previously marginalized political groups in the political process. In this article, I argue that since the 1985 AIA the bilateral external ethnoguarantors - the British and Irish governments - have contained the conflict by using a coercive consociational approach to elite conflict management. Since 1985, four efforts to promote contact between Unionists and Nationalists at all levels and all points show promise in reframing the conflict from resources and interests to identity needs. Such a transformational approach is necessary to open up thinking about conflict and in constructing a multimodal, multilevel contingency approach to peace-building and conflict settlement in Northern Ireland.

"Modern society was formed in the age of great revolutions which, on one hand gave a birth to a relatively autonomous individual, and on the other hand to whole integral structure of modern social system (Keller 2004). The term of civic society itself may not be analysed via comparison of antinomies or different understandings in the framework of ideological spectrum. Its understanding in the background of its historical and philosophical development is essential because of the complexity of the existing societies. A rediscovery of the term of civic society was helped especially by societal and political conditions arisen from the development of the society in the middle of 20th century. Totalitarian regime cancelled a separation of society from a state, it subjugated civic society to the state and excluded validity of many rights and freedoms existing before the state and originally independent on it. Additionally an absence of the existence of civic society was experienced especially in the societies strongly centralised and in which the only political-economical-ideological hierarchy did not tolerate any competitor, and the only conception defined not only the truth but the individual morality as well. In such situation there arose a need of a new ideal which would be re-established in an idea of civic society, in the ideas of institutional and ideological plurality preventing from an establishment of power and truth monopoly and balancing the working of state institutions willing to gain monopolistic position. What is hidden under the term civic society? ; Tomasz Wiskulski