Suchergebnisse

Adapted from the source document.

Adapted from the source document.

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.

The main strategy of this article is to consider liberalism in contrast with democracy. The article argues that there is a tension between the principles of democratic homogeneity and liberal heterogeneity. Deontological liberalism accents formal and procedural aspects of liberal democracy. In this way the democratic substantial concept of equality is reduced to the indifferent concept of equal individual liberty. Thus the model of liberal democracy gives priority to liberalism, but not democracy. The article also argues that it is possible to draw the conceptual distinction between liberalism and democracy only if the question is considered as a critical framework of different philosophical discourses. Adapted from the source document.

It is a common perception that 20 years after the fall of communism, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CCEE), even though they have joined the EU, belong to the group of post-communist countries. This article analyses whether a clear distinction in the quality of democracy between the CCEE, which are new member states of the EU, and the old member states still could be made. The analysis has been performed by comparison of the democracy indicators of the countries of Southern Europe, Nordic countries and the CCEE. The research has revealed that the scores of democracy indicators of the countries of Southern Europe and the CCEE do not differ significantly, and in some cases, the scores of the group of the CCEE correspond to a better quality of democracy. The scores of democracy indicators of the individual countries of the two groups overlap in most cases. However, the analysis has exhibited a considerable difference of the democracy indicators between the countries of Southern Europe and Nordic countries, although these countries belong to the group of the old member states of the EU. Thus, the difference in the scores of democracy indicators inside the group of the old member states of the EU is bigger than the difference between the CCEE and the countries of Southern Europe. This means that the requirements for the quality of democracy, which are applied to mature Western democracies, have to be applied to the CCEE. Adapted from the source document.

Straipsnio tikslas - irodyti, kad demokratijai kaip politinei santvarkai nereikia religijos, kaip ja papildancio veiksnio. Irodymas grindziamas lyginamaja Alexis'o de Tocqueville'io ir Johno Rawlso paziuru analize. Tocqueville'io nuomone, demokratijai reikia religijos, kaip ja papildan-ciu morales normu saltinio. Rawlsas demokratija suvokia kaip savaran-kiska politinio gyvenimo forma, nepriklausancia nuo religiniu isitikinimu. Tocqueville'io ir Rawlso paziuru lyginamoji analize leidzia paaiskinti itampa tarp demokratijos ir religijos. Net ir siekdamas kuo didesnio nesaliskumo, demokratinis rezimas yra saliskas tam tikroms filosofinems prielaidoms, ku-riu negali pripazinti tikintieji The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The Political Liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. Adapted from the source document.

Straipsnio tikslas yra naujai pazvelgti i politines laisves principo mo-dernioje demokratijoje problema, iskylancia pilieciu konformizmo ir abejin-gumo viesajam gyvenimui pavidalu. Musu siulomas analitinis budas - tai laisves problema suvokti ir nagrineti moderniuju laiku mastytoju adaptuotu klasikines drasos dorybes aspektu. Viesojo gyvenimo nuosmukio demokrati-joje aiskinimai paprastai susitelkia i politiniu instituciju, atstovavimo mecha-nizmu arba pilietines visuomenes ugdymo klausimus, taciau retai reiksminga demesi skiria pilieciu kasdieniu paprociu ir dorybiu veiksniui. Nematant de-mokratijos kaip unikalaus, socialines lygybes idealu gristo paprociu tinklo, sunku deramai ivertinti reiksmingus sios santvarkos priestaravimus politi-nes laisves principui, ir del to isvados apie konformizmo reiskinio priezastis buna negalutines. Drasos dorybe yra patogus analitinis irankis, leidziantis taikliai ir spalvingai pamatyti demokratijai budingu etiniu prielaidu santyki su politines laisves principa palaikanciomis prielaidomis. Musu straipsnyje pasitelktas ziurejimo i laisves problema demokratineje santvarkoje budas lei-dzia tiketis nestandartiniu isvadu apie konformizmo reiskinio priezastis The purpose of this article is to offer a new approach to the issue of conformism and political apathy in modern democratic societies, which indicates an implicit tension between democracy as a political form and the principle of political liberty. What we attempt to do in the article is to bring the issue onto the grounds of classical and modern ethics by introducing the virtue of courage as an analytical concept. The article argues that the virtue of courage and the morals it implicates are the key to understanding how democratic ethics interferes with the ones sustaining an active civic life and liberty, a process which gives rise to the problem of conformism. Such approach allows us to view and interpret the issue of liberty in a democracy not only as a technical issue of governance or representation, but also as a worrying indication of a decline of the political significance of liberty itself. Adapted from the source document.

This article is focused on the relation between the political institutional conditions (regime properties) and collective violence. Relying on works of Charles Tilly, two most important properties of regimes (political institutional conditions) that could affect the occurrence and intensity of collective violence are discerned: regime (governmental) capacity and democracy level. Empirical-graphical analysis finds no relation between the democracy level and degree/occurrence of collective violence. However, statistically significant relationship between the governmental capacity (measured as polity fragmentation index) and degree of collective violence is found. Moreover, higher levels of collective violence are observed in the low capacity- undemocratic regimes, but the most successful in terms of containment of collective violence are high-capacity undemocratic regimes (not high capacity-democratic, as formulated in the hypothesis). Adapted from the source document.

Engl. Zsfassung u.d.T.: The end of party democracy? : Political representation and ideologies