Suchergebnisse

The texts focuses on constitutionalisation of democracy in the European Union and the phenomenon of democratic deficit through the failed Constitution for Europe and, thereafter, the Lisbon Treaty, which takes over the definition of democracy as the foundation of the European Union. In this context, the author also looks into the contribution of political scientist Zvonko Posavec, who was one of the first in Croatia to advocate the need for constitutionalisation of the European Union as a project of finalising the process of European integration. While writing about the need for constitutional foundation of the European Union, Posavec simultaneously reflects on representative democracy as the form of democracy on which the European Union is predominantly founded. Beside a valorisation of Posavec's works on democracy in the European Union, this paper deals with the problem of the democratic deficit in the European Union which is manifest in the lack of democratic legitimacy of EU institutions, with the sole exception of the European Parliament. The author finds, however, that the main deficit of the European Union is not the democratic process, but political alienation. He perceives the latter as alienation of citizens from the EU as a derivative community, non-transparent and distanced from the basic interests of the citizens and the media interest in politics. Although the European Union declaratively relies on basic democratic values, in practice democracy is experienced primarily through a democratic deficit contrasted by a more obvious bureaucratic surfeit of the European political construction. The author asserts that the Lisbon Treaty was a step towards founding the EU on democratic principles inasmuch as it introduced elements of participative democracy, although it did not accept proposals for introduction of direct democracy in the EU. Finally, the author puts forward some ideas which might reduce the degree of political alienation of citizens in relation to the European Union; this requires giving greater authority to the European Parliament, abolishing the monopoly of the legislative initiative of the European Commission, incorporating the Council of the European Union into the European Parliament as the second House, i.e. the European Senate, and consequently implementing the mechanism of consulting the citizens regarding the legislative initiatives of the EU. The author concludes that the democratic deficit and political alienation cannot be overcome in the European Union without overcoming the democratic deficits and concrete forms of political alienation in the member states which the European Union consists. Adapted from the source document.

The collapse of the traditional social ties, the advance of the mass media & the advent of political marketing have altered the structure & the direction of electoral campaigns. Present-day media-mediated electoral campaigns are hotly debated. On one side are those who claim that campaigns simplify political reality, manipulate voters, encourage voting apathy & in the long run contribute to democratic deficit. On the other side are those who claim that campaigns had to adapt to the new communication environment, that only the attractive, media-honed campaigns can attract voters' attention & that the majority of campaigns on the whole are a positive influence on electoral participation & voters' familiarity with political processes. This paper is an attempt to present the arguments of both sides & to answer how & to what extent electoral campaigns affect the democratic process. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author argues that democracy is not appropriate for the resolution of the relationship between law & the democratically conditioned state authority in the multinational Europe. The so-called democratic deficit should be understood not only as the empirical fact of a multinational Europe, but also as a paradoxical structural attribute of modern political thought from Kant until today. The author claims that the people should not rule as they might violate all the laws they enacted themselves. Thus the question of the equality of citizens cannot be a democratic one but legal & constitutional. Democracy cannot lay claim to be the sole provider of the legal equality of citizens just as law cannot be the only arbiter in making democratic distinctions among them. Since democracy should be understood as an independent autopoietic & autoimmune medium relatively independent of political power & legal constraints as its setting, the author concludes that the existing forms of immediate & representative democracy, as well as of the traditional form of democratic decision/making represent a risk of regressive progress in Europe in the direction of democracy limited by nation, religion or by class. Adapted from the source document.

Institutions of the European Union have been reforming since the very first moment of the EU's existence. They have been adapting to the needs of time and under the challenge of new political circumstances. Systematic reform has been further encouraged by recent criticism of democratic deficit, the concept that is often linked with the EU. This paper argues that by using the experience and institutional structure of the upper houses of some national parliaments this deficit could be lowered. The case-study in focus is the Council (of the European Union). The author argues that the nearest possible sources for reforms of the Council may be found in the practice of the US Senate and German Bundesrat. In both American and German cases we are faced with the parliaments with strong tradition of bicameralism. In both of them, the upper house represents strong territorial units. In addition, the Senate and Bundesrat are important actors in policy-making. Thus, they can serve as a good source of ideas and institutional solutions that may be applicable to the Council too. Keywords'. Strong Bicameralism, Upper House of Parliament, US Senate, Bundesrat, Council of the European Union. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the origin & the evolution of the notion of civil society & outlines the contemporary debates on its meaning & democratic potential, as well as its democratic deficits. The concept of civil society (originally devised by Aristotle & used for centuries in political philosophy), was revived in the 1980s, first in the East-European movements against the Stalinist state socialism, & later in the new social movements in the West & in social sciences in general. Today's understanding of this term is the result of the branching out of the classical term: while originally it denoted an association of citizens as a political community, Montesquieu & Hegel came up with the difference between the civil society & the state as a political community. Later, a series of modern authors, in line with Gramsci, additionally differentiated between the civil & the market societies. The case in point is Jurgen Habermas who defines civil society as a system of spontaneously generated non-state & nonprofit associations connected via the venues of public communication & whose goal is not to win the firsthand political power. Another understanding of civil society has resulted from a long cooperation of the UN & its specialized institutions with the nongovernmental organizations that came to the fore at the major thematic UN-sponsored conferences in the l990s. The author criticizes the idealized picture of civil society as a form of the organization & the democracy-promoting communication of citizens. A developed civil society is undoubtedly important for democracy, but this also requires the appropriate checking mechanisms. The potential deficits of the civil society are reform blockade, the risk of the loss of civilness in populist movements & the social asymmetry of civil activism. Finally, the author looks into a variety of proposals that see in the European civil society the means of the democratization of the European Union. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.

Based on the experience of former rightist & communist dictatorships in Europe regarding different forms of opposition -- both open & hidden within these regimes' structures -- the author analyzes the role of the opposition in the process of the sweeping democratic change that has taken the "new democracies" of Central & Eastern Europe in the direction of the state of law & civil society. His conclusion is that in today's Central European countries, political multiparty pluralism, which includes viable parliamentary opposition, was given a smooth start & has since taken root. However, in the countries with only superficial democracy & an obvious "democratic deficit" -- eg, Croatia (& Slovakia) -- parliamentary opposition plays second fiddle. The prime movers of the change -- & of the democratization as well -- are still the ruling parties (not unlike during the communist single-party regimes). Changes occur only when the ruling party or its majority opt for them, considering them the lesser of two evils, either because they are no longer satisfied with the distribution of power & goods in the status quo, or because they are aware that it cannot be maintained in its present form. This happened in the Soviet Union, first under Nikita Khruschev & then again under Mihail Gorbachev. Changes, however, when imposed from above, get out of hand & backfire against those who have set them off (as in the case of Gorbachev); what emerges is usually a compromise between the old & the emerging regime. Adapted from the source document.

The paper gives a comparative overview of the politics of history that were characteristic for the HDZ's government in Croatia & HZDS's government in Slovakia (during the 1990s). Those politics worked to overcome the democratic deficit of the two regimes. Firstly an overview of the discipline is given, with subsequent emphasis on the importance of the comparative perspective, especially with respect to the role of the politics of history in legitimizing the political regimes of Central & Southeast European. The comparison of the Croatian & Slovakian cases is in the focus since both countries share similar history, & hence a similar structure of the national collective memory. The discourse analyses show that both regimes used very similar self-legitimating historical discourse: the myth of the thousand-year uninterrupted statehood finally accomplished in the 1990s, & the twentieth century nations' victimization by Serb/Czech hegemony, contested by the partial rehabilitation of the Croat & Slovak World War II states. Moreover, the analyses show differences originating from the different historical experience during the period of the common Hungarian rule, as well as the different experience of the Yugoslav & the Czechoslovak federation, with final differences of the role of the political actors in the two countries. The author points to a gap in the relevant research of the nexus between historical narratives & political power. Adapted from the source document.

This paper discusses the dilemmas regarding the nature of the European Union in contemporary political science and in the field of European Studies as a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary field. The first part focuses on the evolution of the European Union from the original European Coal and Steel Community, via the European Economic Community, to its growth into a political union. The Maastricht Treaty, which lay the foundations of the European Union as a political union of its member states, instigated a debate on the actual nature of this supranational union as political construct. Consequently, the author analyses the various characteristics of the European Union, which is manifest in various forms, and asserts that it has some "state-like features" and some "organisation-like features", which are characteristic of international organizations. In the approach to the European Union as a supra-state community, some essential traits of both federation and confederation are simultaneously manifest, corresponding to two tendencies in the development of the European Union as a super-state. Moreover, there is the conception of the European Union as an empire. Finally, this paper specifies the tasks of present-day political science and the need to find a new heuristic instrument, which, according to the author, can be found in the conception of the political system that was introduced in political science (comparative politics) by Gabriel Almond and David Easton. Such an approach, which is nowadays further developed by Jean-Pierre Quermonne, Wolfgang Wessels and Simon Hix, is additionally strengthened by the fact that various models of democratic practice are being incorporated in the European Union in opposition to the basic, legitimacy-related democratic deficit, models which confirm the possible conclusion regarding a European Union as a complex community with many faces. Adapted from the source document.

The author shows that the processes of globalization cannot diminish the role of the nation-state -- as the sole recognizable political community -- in the implementation & development of democracy, though they are undoubtedly going to alter its functioning & make it more complex. When exploring democracy & its expansion outside the borders of the nation-state, we should keep in mind that people do not act solely on a rational interest basis, but also on the basis of values; & that identities, not just interests, are the underlying determinants of their political activity. That is why the theory of cosmopolitan democracy must come to grips with the issue of the legitimation of the cosmopolitan political community as well as of the cosmopolitan democratic political system. This paper addresses these issues. The analysis has shown that these are complex & open questions without which a valid discussion about the transnational political organizations & processes of the cosmopolitan or regional integration & democratization is not possible. The question of the legitimation of the political community (unfortunately, rarely discussed) is in a way primordial in relation to the issue of the legitimation of the political system & political authorities. This issue has been neglected because it is thought that pluralism defines democracy; consequently, the imperative of a certain level of social & cultural homogeneity as a condition of its functioning has been overlooked. The concept of global citizenry requires the creation of a new political identity, while cosmopolitanism must prove that this identity can be brought about without a "democratic deficit" or a "bureaucratic-oligarchic surplus." This is not easy, if we keep in mind the fact that the law & legalism by themselves are not conducive to political commitment & loyalty to political decisions. 39 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the issue of how to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the process of accession to the EU. In that process, the national parliaments of the candidate countries can draw on the experience of the EU member countries, The intensification of the EU integration has resulted in the so called democratic deficit. This means that national parliaments have been losing control over an increasing portion of the regulatory issues which are being taken over by the EU executive bodies, primarily the European Commission & the Council of Ministers, whose decisions are not swayed by the political clout & the control mechanisms of the national or the European parliament. That is why the EU member countries have been developing new mechanisms that will strengthen their participatory & controlling competence versus the EU executive bodies. Such mechanisms are most developed in the parliaments of the Scandinavian countries, whose experience serves as a model to other parliaments. Also important are the emergence of some new mechanisms of cooperation with the European parliament as well as the establishment of a permanent inter-parliamentary cooperation. Among the latter, the Conference of Parliamentary Committees specialized for EU affairs stands out; the so-called COSAC (Conferance des Organes specialisees dans les affaires communautaires/Conference of the Community & European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the EU) established in 1989. The author concludes that the candidate countries' parliaments should timely devise certain specialized & cooperative structures that will enable them to be on equal footing with their governments & the EU executive bodies in the process of decision making. 2 Tables, 3 Figures, 64 References. Adapted from the source document.

The studies of the third wave of democratization have shown the necessity for a more precise differentiation of forms of democracy, since the definition of democracy exclusively on the basis of pluralist elections has proved lacking. The author also thinks that the instruments of quantitative evaluation of democracies (e.g. the very popular Freedom House index) are not sufficient, primarily because the quantification is not theoretically sound enough & includes a huge dose of arbitrariness. Contrary to this, the author spells Out his concept of embedded & defective democracy. Starting from the terminological suggestion by Philippe Schmitter & the systemic-theoretical description of Niklas Luhmann's intrasystemic communication, the functionally embedded democracy can be defined as a relationship of interdependence & mutual support of five partial regimes of democracy: electoral regime, political freedoms, civil rights, horizontal accountability & the real governing power. Apart from these five partial regimes, whose stable interrelationship is a prerequisite for the internal embeddedness of democracy, there are some external democracy-fostering conditions: the high level of socio-economic development, the integration into the democratically-oriented international economic & political alliances & the vital civil society. The author puts particular emphasis on the importance of the latter since it is not a part of the democratic political system but a way of organizing a non-state sphere of individual & group activity for the protection of individual rights, safeguarding the rule of law, the political socialization & the institutionalization of the public as the medium of democratic self-reflexion. & finally, the main types of defective democracy are outlined -- the exclusive, the domain, the nonliberal & the delegative -- as well as the key reasons underlying these deficits. 3 Tables, 1 Figure, 60 References. Adapted from the source document.

After the breakup of the USSR, and the several rounds of Post-Cold War enlargements of the Western integrations, once large space of newly independent and geopolitically uncontrolled European post-communist states, located between the EU, NATO and Russia, contracts geopolitically and 'wanders' strategically. The three states, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, located on Russia's western borders share about three thousand kilometers of borders with the EU and NATO, and about two thousand and five hundred kilometers with Russia, which implicates that they are prone to the geopolitical influences from their surroundings. This Interspace of the three states lies inside the strategic triangle comprised of: 1) Russia - geopolitically and militarily powerful state as well as a giant considering its energy reserves, which makes her relatively strong 'hard' power as well as a significant 'soft' power; 2) the EU - economic giant on the global level that is not unified enough; has domestic problems and is partially dependent on Russia when it comes to energy, a civilian power without 'hard' power that in its foreign relations relies on policies based on financial assistance, assurance, and attractiveness; 3) NATO, led by the USA - the most powerful military-political-security 'hard' power that exists today; it does not have the kind of influence on Europe and the Post-Soviet space that it had in the 90-ies. However, as a consequence of subordination of the Interspace that lasted for a couple of centuries, the common characteristics intrinsic to this space occur: ambiguous identities; deficits in the democratic practices; complicated, prolonged and incomplete transition; economic decline, demographic problems - all of which favor a strategic 'adoption' of the Interspace by the Kremlin, a former imperial master. At the same time, a relative marginalization of the Interspace is evident regarding the processes of Euro-Atlantic integration. After the unsuccessful attempts of 'pulling out' Kiev, Kishinev, and the South Caucasian Tbilisi from this Russian sphere of influence, the states positioned in the Interspace, together with Russia, comprise a regional security complex, a stabilized geopolitical 'Russosphere' that is a key part of the Kremlin's attempts for Eurasian reintegration under Russia's leadership. Adapted from the source document.