The term "liberal democracy" hides the conflict of two different philosophies. Liberal metaphysics is based on the idea of thing, while democracy is based on the idea of action & process. Democratic process does not have any core of ideas, which is typical of liberalism. The goal of liberal political philosophy is to circumscribe political power. The aim of democracy is the creation of self-government of the citizens. Liberals do not see many things that are important to democrats: common good, community, nation, history & cultural identity. It is possible to speak about fundamental conflict between liberal individualism & general will of democracy. In discussions about democracy there is always at least some confusion about the role of liberalism & democracy. Contemporary theoreticians of democracy do not want to admit that the drawbacks of liberal political philosophy necessarily become the weaknesses of democracy. This is the price we have to pay for the fusion of liberalism & democracy. The drawing of demarcation lines between the spheres of influence of democracy & liberalism today is the main goal of the theory of democracy. Adapted from the source document.
Influence the television enjoys over the political processes, creating a community opinion, should be interconnected with its distribution, attainability & communicational suggestion. Audiovisual media took back the intonations of spoken language to the mass communication. Radio created a new talk, the so-called stylistic dualism, when a huge audience is addressed in a personal & intimate way. Radio has created the new forms of dialogue, audience being affected to an anonymous voice, created new relationship between the politicians & the community. Regular appeals of politics leaders through the radio to the nation became a usual phenomenon of political life. Simplicity & honesty of speech became important components of a successful political communication. Television set forth the tune of intimacy, chamberness formulated by radio. The context of view, text & sound let transmit information through all channels of public communication. Anonymous radio voice became the face of a show, which performs a ritualistic teller's role in television. History of the television development can be divided into two phases -- paleo- & neo-television. Clear gradation of genres is characteristic to the first phases, performance is distinguished from documentary, television & audience are tied by vertical hierarchic connections. Fragmentarity, convergence of genres, vanishing barriers between documentary & performance are characteristic to the conception of neo-television. Interests of the audience are taken into account much more, political, civil & private spheres come closer. Representatives of each of them perform specific roles in television: politicians make decisions (engaged word), citizens force to make decisions (expert word), & the ordinary people observe (vox populi). The approach of political & civil sphere prove the growing role of "a man from the street," naivety & familiarity is demonstrated by politicians. Openness, unforced refusal of privacy, become an important part of political life. Deflection from classical debates (word direction) to talk shows (performance of conflict) & reality shows (performance of trueness) show the alternation of dialogue genres of television. Television creates a new democracy of performance, where facts are replaced by emotions, reflection -- by action, ideas -- by personalities. Television offers its own rules of democratic discourse, politicians & citizens are motivated to become participants of this communication performance. Adapted from the source document.
The aim of the article was to explore the Agreement on the Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 1999 (hereinafter referred to as an A-CFE) & its positive/negative implications for the NATO-Russian relations. The A-CFE, considered to be a cornerstone of the European security paving the way to a greater conventional stability on the continent, has not entered into force for political & geo-strategic reasons. Moreover, A-CFE aims at establishing a stable & balanced overall level of conventional armed forces between NATO & Russia in Europe, thus solving NATO enlargement & security dilemmas, the bone of contention between NATO & Russia. The main question the article dealt with was whether the A-CFE could stabilize NATO-Russian relations in the anarchical international system facing the dynamics of balance of power. The article focused on analyzing conventional arms control influence on NATO-Russian interaction; a heavy emphasis was placed on A-CFE functionality to solve security dilemma problems in light of NATO enlargement, hypothetical NATO-Russian conflict, & NATO-Russian level of conventional armed forces in Europe. What's more, a concrete case -- the Baltic States possible membership in A-CFE & its influence on NATO-Russian relations has been analyzed in the context of military power disparities & geo-strategic position of the Eastern Baltic sub-region. Having analyzed it accordingly, the following conclusion has been made: A-CFE Treaty of actual text would not properly stabilize NATO-Russian relations due to the reaction of national units to the on-going redistribution of military power & the dynamic of military balance. If not revised, A-CFE will amount to a "sunset Treaty" while remaining an instrument of political process. This assumption emerges from the following factors: 1. A-CFE has asymmetrically imposed the ceilings of conventional arms in favor of Russia, reducing U.S. Army quota in Europe & setting strict limits on keeping foreign military forces on a permanent basis; new NATO members are obliged not to increase the ceilings whereas Russia's limits rise to the Flanks. 2. Asymmetrical distribution of power imposed by A-CFE has decreased NATO operational capabilities to respond to Russian offensive/defensive attacks. NATO forces have been reduced in NATO-Russian border sub-regions, which might become a conflict zone. 3. The first wave of NATO enlargement was set in a frame of arms control thus solving the security dilemma of Russia, whereas the second wave diverted the distribution of power & required a new response from arms control. With the second wave including the Baltic States, NATO has significantly improved its geo-strategic positions as a result of the possibility of establishing an offensive front against Russia from the Baltic States in which conventional arms control does not apply. 4. The Baltic States' membership in the A-CFE has had implications for its own national security could be evaluated from perspectives of defensive & offensive realism. In the world of the offensive realism, the Baltic States should avoid entering the A-CFE with low ceilings, as Russia proposed, which would diminish Baltic States' national security. On the other hand, the Baltic States are supposed to evaluate a negative effect of the security dilemma, according to defensive realists. Large & flexible ceilings the Baltics may negatively affect Russian security & it could start increasing the weapons. The Baltic States would lose the arms race with Russia due to the lack of economic recourses. 5. The research suggests two ways to revise the A-CFE to solve the security dilemma of both Russia & the Baltic States: (1) to set ceilings for the whole Eastern Baltic sub-region (at the present time, Russia's commitments in Kaliningrad & Pskov are the political ones); (2) to add the whole Eastern Baltic sub-region to Central European stability zone using the formula national ceilings = territorial ceiling. 5 Lenteles. Adapted from the source document.
