Suchergebnisse

The authors analyze the essence of the problem of financialization of economy in the national and global perspectives, at the same time pointing out that this process also refers to the sphere of politics. The example of the 2007+ financial and banking crisis indicates the negative features of this process in reference to economy but also to the financial security of the states and their citizens. In the sphere of politics financialization in the external aspect is reflected in transferring public funds to private economic entities, mainly financial corporations, by virtue of political decisions. In the internal aspects financialization means an increasing role of financial instruments and resources in establishing public authorities, including parliaments and presidential offices. This tendency is considered by the authors to be an immanent feature of contemporary capitalism and a threat to democracy.

The article tries to bring to the light the role of symbolism in the organized human life, in general, and the contemporary societies with the accelerating changes almost in all social structures, in particular. The rational of symbolism in changing socio-political and legal environment creates complexity of the issue, which has been studied in the article, taking into account the methodology of complex system theory. The interconnectivity and interdependency of law, morality and politics create the picture of synergy of different social norms with each other in changing environment. Their positive synergy is able to create a perception of the 'ethical state' – the focal point of equilibrium expressed in the attractor of future admired development. In the legal perspective, the symbol of that attractor appears to be the constitution as the society's and the nation's symbol of coexistence based on the values of mutual past, necessary present and admired future. It is substantiated that the Constitution is the phenomenon, representing a concrete constitutional idea and constitutional identity, and should be the one to be considered as such in a lot of people's minds if we intend to have a proper constitutional system and values. Hence, the Constitution is not just a document with a highest legal force, but also a symbol of a concrete constitutional system, and from this viewpoint the Basic Law has a symbolic significance. The authors substantiate that the mentioned significance of the Constitution makes it clear that constitutional policy in any state should be established and implemented in a manner, obviously demonstrating an attitude towards the Constitution, in the frames of which it is considered as a symbol of a concrete constitutional system. The most important circumstance in this context is to never transform the Constitution (directly or indirectly) from a symbol to an instrument in the hands of both the people and the state power and the whole constitutional policy of the state should be based on the discussed essential idea. Moreover, according to the authors the Constitution should not be subject to amendment parallel to every change of political situation of the state or formation of a new political majority merely conditioned by the mentioned changes. The Constitution has a fundamental role from the aspect of regulating social relations, has symbolic significance and can't be used just as a tool for solving ongoing political problems.

The Treaty of Trianon (hereinafter Trianon), the enormous losses of territory and co-ethnics, and the shaking of Hungary's status as a dominant power in the Carpathian Basin imputed a tragic understanding of contemporary Hungarian history on the Hungarian society, invoking the idea of a trauma lasting even today. Trianon's understanding became a divisive issue for political parties after 1989, highlighting the ever-deeper divisions between right and left-liberals, since 2010. Its "overcoming" is a flagship project of the government's politics of identity, with modest success so far. Thus, the 100th anniversary was a crucial moment as a test case for a self-professed nationalist, traditionalist, conservative political force for manifesting a comprehensive politics of memory. In the light of the newly built monument at the heart of Budapest, with the Hungarian names of all localities on the territory of pre-1918 Hungary inscribed on its wall, a cautious shifting back to territorial revisionism was expected. In this article, I will argue that even with such tendencies being, obviously, present, the official commemorations were crafted with a surprising message, that attempts to turn the canonical understanding of Trianon upside down and reframe it into a common catastrophe of Central Europe. Doing so places the consequences in the context of the decolonization of history, the present decline of empires, and the emergence of nation-states while combining it with important tropes of the traditional, anti-liberal and revisionist Trianon discourse. Nevertheless, the result is a transparently political message that is not only driven by easily visible actual political goals (V4 and Central European), but one that detaches the politics of memory from historical references and legacies and creates a set of shallow symbols for utter instrumentalization, to recombine at will, in a vulgarised sense of post-modernism.

In the paper I present an analysis of the critical approach to the phenomenon of modern bureaucracy by Hannah Arendt within the theoretical framework of cultural evolution. Bureaucracy, understood as the thoughtless rationalization of human behavior, is a process leading to the minimization of the public sphere, understood as the domain of freely performed politics, and consequently to the creation of impersonal tyranny. Contemporary concepts of cultural evolution allow to search for a new model of explanation of this phenomenon, which transforms the understanding of politics and man himself in the contemporary world.

The analysis of the Russian-Ukrainian relations case study shows two different models of determining contemporary historical memory. The first (Russian) consists of continuing the imperial traditions in historiography and politics of memory, focused on maintaining the superpower myths of the tsarist and Soviet empires. The second (Ukrainian) points to an attempt by researchers and the political class to escape from the influence of Russian historiography as well as to shape their own national historical narrative and policy of memory, connected with in the European tradition. Geopolitical and historical determinism are the basis of Vladimir Putin's imperial policy, trying to imitate the founders of the tsarist (Peter I) and Soviet (Stalin) empires. The conflict of the Russian imperial historical memory with the Ukrainian one was a significant reason for the aggression of the Russian Federation towards Ukraine. The Russian Federation has chosen an aggressive model of memory policy, treating history as a tool of influence against the so-called near and far abroad.

The article presents the analysis of the relation between two concepts, namely cosmopolitan democracy and agonistic multipolar order, whose author is Chantal Mouffe, in the context of the dispute about the preferred shape of global democracy. Both approaches are presented in the literature as opposing. The main thesis of the present article is the possibility of connecting them, but according to dialectical principles. The point is not about a smooth consensus but about the fact that the contradictions between those views can be treated as a condition of their interweaving. To this aim, I use two theoretical concepts: of antagonistic cosmopolitanism by Tamara Caraus and of antagonistic global constitutionalism by Christof Royer. On this basis I claim that Mouffe's rejection of cosmopolitanism is not thoroughly coherent with her own assumptions. I acknowledge her argumentation that cosmopolitan democracy might lead to pluralism without antagonism but at the same time I suggest that Mouffe's postulate of the multipolar order can lead to pluralist antagonism without agonism. It is only the establishment of cosmopolitan institutions and rules that will allow for really agonistic and radically pluralized global politics, thanks to which it will be possible to solve the contemporary world problems effectively. For these reasons agonistic cosmopolitanism can be regarded as the most optimal variant of global democracy.

Digital diplomacy, also referred to as e-Diplomacy or Diplomacy 2.0, is a form of public diplomacy that entails the pursuance of foreign policy objectives using the Internet and social media. It is one of the ways that actors in contemporary global politics can exert soft power, thereby shaping a host country's perceptions, agendas, and policies. The increasing use of digital diplomacy exemplifies a shift in diplomatic from purely government-to-government (G2G) relations, to one in which communication is directed towards publics (G2P), and can even encourage citizens to interact with one another (P2P). One actor that has become increasingly active in this area is the European Union (EU). However, unlike a country, the regional bloc is a coalition of twenty-eight member states. Consequently, the challenge for EU digital diplomacy specialists is to represent a group of countries to local audiences. There is minimal literature on this subject, and this paper hopes to contribute to it by presenting a case study of the EU's digital diplomacy initiatives towards Philippines, which are communicated through the popular social networking website, Facebook. This paper argues that the EU exercises its soft power through its social media transmissions it creates. The individuals featured in its online content, the way that the European Union represents itself, and the issues it highlights in its posts are all geared towards shaping the perceptions of Philippine audiences.