Suchergebnisse

Slovenian state assembly can be categorized as one of those new parliaments in Central & Eastern Europe that were not only beneficiaries of democratization but also major actors in the transition from the former socialist into a democratic system. It was in the forefront of the modernization of the entire legislature in the second stage of Europeization & played a major role in the process of EU accession. The state assembly as a new parliament has undoubtedly reached a satisfactory level of institutional & organizational competence. The problem is, however, its genuine subjective or "cultural capacity." The lack of such capacities among the delegates in the process of EU accession was occasionally manifested in a huge disparity between the lip service to the EU membership & its values & the real understanding of the functioning of its institutions & goals. On numerous occasions there was a marked contrast between the idealized perceptions about how after the EU accession everything was going to be simpler & the pessimistic predictions about "drowning" in the EU. The Slovenian parliamentary elite has not yet fully grasped the reality that the so called "internal" issues have largely become the European issues or that the European issues have already become "national" issues. On the other hand, too little attention is paid to the question of how demanding the participation of the Slovenian parliament in the circumstances of the full membership really is. The representatives will be exposed to a much more intensive flow of information from the EU institutions & the reaction time will get shorter. This will mean that the delegates will increasingly respond "reactively" instead of "actively." The conclusion is that the state assembly at the commencement of its fourth mandate & following Slovenia's EU accession is not yet fully qualified to participate via the government in the process of EU decision-making from the perspective of a swift grasp of vital information & taking stands; neither is it in the position to properly monitor the government. Also, the state assembly is not conversant enough in translating the European politics into the Slovenian setting since it lacks the necessary experience, knowledge & routine in operating in the new circumstances of multilevel decision-making. Due to this lack of precedents, the real hard work is only beginning. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

U članku se analizira situacija u tvornici obuće u Borovu u vrijeme demokratskih promjena 1990. Tvornica se krajem osamdesetih godina nalazi u ozbiljnoj krizi, ponajviše zbog strukturnih problema. Osim toga, učestali su štrajkovi i sukobi različitih nivoa vlasti oko nadzora nad tvornicom. Prvi višestranački izbori donose potpuno nove političke okolnosti u okruženju tvornice, dok u samoj tvornici neko vrijeme opstaju upravljačke strukture iz starog sustava. Na primjeru tzv. lipanjskog štrajka radnika 1990. u članku se pokušava prikazati koliko je socijalistička praksa i dalje bila aktualna, odnosno kako se radnicima umjesto suočavanja s problemima pokušava ponuditi novi kolektivistički okvir iluzije. U isto vrijeme prikazuje se kako je teška situacija radnika u kombinatu Borovo bila plodno tlo za širenje nacionalističkih teza. Na navedenim primjerima pokušava se analizirati teza o koaliciji socijalističke elite i radništva kroz kupovinu socijalnog mira, zatim teza o nacionalizmu kao novom "kolektivnom plaštu" koji je zamijenio socijalizam te, konačno, pokušava se propitati koliko su demokratske promjene u slučaju Borova bile zaista proces demokratizacije, a koliko nastojanja novih aktera da zauzmu mjesto u društvu koje je do tada imao Savez komunista. ; The article analyzes the situation in the footwear factory Borovo in the times of democratic changes in 1990. At the end of the 1980s the factory found itself in a serious crisis, mostly due to structural problems. Furthermore, strikes and conflicts of different levels of authority for custody over the factory were very frequent. First multiparty elections brought completely new political circumstances in the factory environment. However, in the factory there was still the same management as in the old system. In the article we examine, based on the example of the so-called June-strike of workers in 1990, to what extent the same socialist practice was still actual, that is, how the workers were offered a new framework of collective illusion, instead of making them face real problems. At the same time, the hard position of workers in Borovo was a "fertile ground" for nationalistic ideas. Based on the mentioned examples, we analyze the thesis about coalitio n of socialist elites and the working class by means of buying social peace. Furthermore, we analyze the thesis about nationalism as a new "collective mantle" which substitutes socialism. Finally, we examine to what extent democratic changes were truly a process of democratization rather than efforts of new actors to take over the position in society that was held by the Communist Party in the previous period.

Prednosti komunikacije te lakšu dostupnost ciljnih javnost preko društvenih mreža prepoznale su i političke elite te su, osim tradicionalnih oblika komunikacije, političku komunikaciju obogatile društvenim medijima. Dominantna društvena mreža u Hrvatskoj je Facebook, iako nemali broj osoba iz javnoga života koristi i Twitter kao sredstvo komunikacije. Premda se raspravlja jesu li društveni mediji unaprijedili demokraciju ili je ugrozili, činjenica je da je ta platforma omogućila transparentniju i dostupniju komunikaciju koja zasigurno utječe na izgradnju imidža pojedinaca i institucija iz političke arene, kojima je takav oblik komunikacije omogućio i izgradnju vlastite virtualne zajednice. Struktura rada sastoji se od nekoliko većih cjelina i pripadajućih podcjelina. Razlike koje su uočene istraživanjem upućuju na to da su institucije, dakle ministarstva, u Sloveniji u daleko većoj mjeri prisutna u viralnome prostoru nego li je to slučaj u Hrvatskoj. Gledaju li se sami nositelji javne vlasti, ministri, oni su u Hrvatskoj, za razliku od Slovenije, prisutniji sa svojim službenim Facebook stranicama. Takvi rezultati, iako znakoviti, ne upućuju na to da se u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji komunikacija na digitalnim platformama koristi u svrhu političkoga diskursa ili u cilju informiranja ključnih aktera te posljedično kreiranja javnoga mišljenja o nekome političkom pitanju ; With the development of the Internet, as the fastest growing media, social networks have evolved, as well as everyday communication on these platforms. Benefits communication and easier access to the target public and has been recognized by the political elites and are, in addition to traditional forms of communication, political communication enriched communication on social media. The dominant social network in Croatia is Facebook, although not a small number of public life uses Twitter as a means of communication. Despite the numerous controversy over whether or not the social media have upgraded or threatened democracy, the fact is that this platform has enabled a more transparent and accessible communication that certainly has an impact on building the image of individuals and institutions from the political arena, which has made this form of communication possible to build a virtual community . The structure of the work consists of several larger entities and corresponding subdivisions. The first part of the work is based on theoretical insights. Minorizing the transition theory and democratization of post-communist societies, the theoretical part of the work also deals with civic participation and culture. All these transversal processes for three decades have also influenced the modification of communication, from top to bottom, therefore, towards citizens, from citizens to the public authorities. Therefore, political communication on social networks as well as social networks as a tool for creating a positive image in public relations will be treated theoretically. The second part of the deconstruction process is the presence of Croatian and Slovenian ministries, as a public authority institution and ministers on Facebook's social network. Compilation and descriptor methods, theoretical perspectives are dissected using relevant sources, while in the second part, the descriptive statistics method deconstructs the results obtained by research. Using the illustrations and the comparison method, the results are compared. At the end of the paper, the conclusion is based on theoretical strengths and results obtained.

Članak razmatra tri relevantna principa demokracije, inherentna suvremenom društvu: modernost, politika priznanja i sekularizam. Glavno pitanje kojim se bavi je održivost ovih principa kao temelja za zasnivanje kozmopolitske demokracije i utjecaja na daljnju demokratizaciju ljudskog svijeta. Članak (i) istražuje vezu između modernizacije i demokracije kroz perspektivu višestruke moderne kao mogućnosti za proširenje demokracije na nedemokratsko područje svijeta, (ii) analizira politiku priznanja kao temelj za kulturnu koegzistenciju i politički pluralizam, (iii) razmatra problem a) kako ideja sekularizma ugrožava (prijeti) ideju religioznosti i obratno te čine li to uopće; b) koliko je sekularizam sekularan te je li uopće (problem privatne i javne sfere); c) može li sekularizam ostati temeljni princip (kozmopolitske) demokracije. ; This paper reflects on three relevant principles of democracy which are inherent to the contemporary society. These principles are modernity, the politics of recognition, and secularism. The main question is concerned with the sustainability of these principles as the grounds for the foundation of cosmopolitan democracy, and further influence on the democratization of the human world. This paper (i) examines a relationship between modernization and democracy through the perspective of multiple modernities as a possibility for the extension of democracy over the non-democratic parts of the world; (ii) analyzes politics of recognition as a grounds for cultural coexistence and political pluralism and (iii) reflects on the issue of a) how the idea of secularism if/how the idea of secularism treats the idea of religiousness and vice versa, b) how much is secularism secular (the issue of public versus private sphere), and c) can secularism remain to be the basic principle of (cosmopolitan) democracy. ; Cet article examine trois principes pertinents de la démocratie, inhérents à la société actuelle : modernité, politique de reconnaissance et sécularisme. La principale question qu'il pose est celle du maintien de ces principes en tant que fondements pour l'établissement d'une société démocratique et de leur influence sur la démocratisation du monde humain. Cet article (i) étudie la relation entre la modernisation et la démocratie à partir de la perspective des multiples modernités comme possibilité d'étendre la démocratie dans les parties non-démocratiques du monde, (ii) analyse les politiques de reconnaissance comme fondement pour la coexistence culturelle et le pluralisme politique et (iii) réfléchit sur la question de savoir : a) si/comment l'idée du sécularisme traite de l'idée de la religiosité et inversement ; b) dans quelle mesure le sécularisme est séculaire (problème de la sphère publique vs. la sphère privée) ; c) si le sécularisme peut encore rester le principe de base de la démocratie (cosmopolite). ; Dieser Artikel reflektiert über drei relevante Demokratieprinzipien, inhärent der Gesellschaft von heutzutage: modernität, Politik der Anerkennung und Säkularismus. Die Hauptfrage, mit der es sich befasst, ist die Nachhaltigkeit dieser Prinzipien als Grundlage für die Gründung der kosmopolitischen Demokratie und für den Einfluss der weiteren Demokratisierung der menschenwelt. Aus der Perspektive der multiplen modernitäten untersucht der Artikel (i) die Beziehung zwischen der modernisierung und Demokratie als eine möglichkeit für die Ausbreitung der Demokratie auf die nicht demokratischen Gebiete der Welt, (ii) analysiert die Politik der Anerkennung als Fundament für die kulturelle Koexistenz und politischen Pluralismus, (iii) erwägt die Frage a) ob/wie die Idee des Säkularismus die Idee der Religiosität behandelt und umgekehrt; b) ob/inwieweit der Säkularismus säkular ist (das Thema der öffentlichen Sphäre vs. Privatsphäre); c) ob der Säkularismus als Grundprinzip der (kosmopolitischen) Demokratie verbleiben kann.

Cilj rada je razjasniti pojam transcendentalno-aktivističke kreativnosti kao i razmotriti mogućnosti i preduvjete njezine realizacije u odgojno-obrazovnom procesu. Rad započinje opisom 'slike' prirode učenika koja se smatra potrebnom za praktičnu realizaciju ovog oblika kreativnosti. Pritom se naglašava činjenica ljudske nesvršenost i mogućnost kontinuiranoga razvoja. Kao metoda ostvarenja transcendentalno-aktivističke kreativnosti preuzima se dijalog shvaćen kao otvoreno iskazivanje i dijeljenja vlastitih misli, ideja i težnji s drugim ljudima bez skrivanja i straha od mogućih neuspjeha ili neugodnih iskustava. Budući da se institucionalizirani odgojno-obrazovni proces odvija u učionicama, opisuje se učionica kao zajednički prostor nade koji omogućava demokratsko angažiranje i borbu za promjene situiran u kontekstu širih zajedničkih prostora demokratskoga i aktivističkoga djelovanja. Demokratizacija učionica omogućava postavljanje socijalnih pitanja, prelaženje granica te kritičko propitivanje dominantnoga neoliberalnog diskursa te je stoga neophodan element aktivistički shvaćene kreativnosti. Dijalog kao sredstvo, i dijaloški pristup kao metoda kreativnog djelovanja, usmjereni su poništavanju efekata prevladavajućega elitističkog shvaćanja koje kreativnost prikazuje izoliranu od društva i namijenjenu posebno imaginativnim pojedincima. U radu se iskazuje stav kako nije vjerojatno da će u skoroj budućnosti doći do promjene dominantnoga shvaćanja kreativnosti u odgojno-obrazovnom procesu koje kreativnost promatra kao transformaciju postojećega. Razloge za ovakvo stanje nalazimo u dominantnom ekonomsko-političkom uređenju društva u cjelini, te odgojno-obrazovnoga sustava kao jednoga od društvenih podsustava. ; The aim of this paper is to clarify the notion of a transcendental-activist creativity as well as to consider the possibilities and preconditions for its realization in the educational process. The paper begins with the description of the 'image' of pupil's nature that is considered necessary for the practical realization of this form of creativity. The experience of human non-completion and the possibility of continuous development is emphasized. Dialogue, as a method of practical realization of transcendental-activist creativity, is understood as an open expression and sharing of one's own thoughts, ideas and aspirations with other people without hiding and fear of possible failures or unpleasant experiences. Since the institutionalized educational process takes place in the classrooms, the classroom is described as a shared space of hope which enables democratic engagement and struggle for changes in the context of the wider shared spaces of democratic and activist action. Democratization of classrooms, which is a necessary element of transcendental-activist creativity, creates a climate that sets the necessary conditions for discussion of social issues, crossing of preconceived boundaries and critical questioning of dominant neoliberal discourse. Dialogue as a medium and a dialogic approach as a method of creative agency is directed to the reversal of the effects of a traditional elitist concept of creativity that is treated isolated from a wider society and addressed exclusively to particularly talented individuals. The author feels that it is unlikely that in the near future a change in the dominant conception of creativity in the educational process will occur and therefor creativity will continue to be predominately defined a transformation of the existing. Reasons for this state of affair are situated in the dominant economic and political mode of organization of the society as a whole, and the educational system as a one of social subsystems.

European families have been undergoing changes in power relations among the family members, including democratization of relations between parents and children. These processes were facilitated by the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), ratified in Croatia in 1991. This study examines perceived fulfillment of the provision, protection and participation rights of the child within contemporary Croatian families. In addition, it explores the links between participation rights fulfillment and children's perception of a democratic climate in their families, as well as some indicators of children's psychosocial adjustment. In 2010, a representative sample of 1074 seventh grade students (thirteen-year-olds) and their parents (983 mothers and 845 fathers) provided the data on measures of the child's rights fulfillment in the family, family governing style, self-esteem, self-control, problem behaviour and resistance efficacy. Participants predominantly report respect of all of the examined rights. However, the provision rights and the protection rights are generally realized more often than the participation rights. Approximately a half of the children reported full respect of their right to freely express their opinions and ideas, and the right to influence decision making that affects them. In 9-12% of families children never or rarely experience fulfillment of their participation rights. Assessments of the 'governing style' in their families reveal that over a quarter of children see their families as dictatorships, anarchies, or post-revolutionary states. Higher participation rights fulfillment was linked with perceiving own family as a democracy, the child's report of higher self-esteem and fewer behavior problems, more frequently resisting peer pressure to use substances (cigarettes, alcohol), as well as with the parent's report of greater child's self-control. Parents, in comparison to their children, tend to overestimate the level of fulfillment of children's rights to protection of physical integrity, dignity, participation in decision-making and to receiving loving care. ; Europske obitelji proživljavaju promjene u pogledu odnosa moći između članova obitelji, uključujući demokratizaciju odnosa između roditelja i djece. Te je procese olakšala primjena Konvencije o pravima djeteta UN-a (1989.) koju je Hrvatska ratificirala 1991. godine. Ova studija analizira percipiranu realizaciju prava djeteta na skrb, zaštitu i participaciju unutar modernih hrvatskih obitelji. Osim toga, istražuje veze između realizacije participatornih prava i dječje percepcije demokratske klime u njihovim obiteljima, kao i neke pokazatelje psihosocijalne prilagodbe djece. U 2010. godini na reprezentativnom uzorku od 1074 učenika sedmog razreda osnovne škole (trinaestogodišnjaka) i njihovih roditelja (983 majke i 845 očeva) dobiveni su podatci o mjerama realizaciji prava djece u obitelji, upravljačkom stilu u obitelji, samopoštovanju, samokontroli, problematičnom ponašanju i djelotvornosti otpora. Sudionici uglavnom izvješćuju o poštivanju svih analiziranih prava. Ipak, prava na skrb i zaštitu općenito se realiziraju češće od participatornih prava. Oko polovice djece izvješćuje o potpunom poštivanju njihovog prava da slobodno izraze svoja mišljenja i ideje, kao i pravo da utječu na donošenje odluka koje utječu na njih. U 9-12% obitelji djeca nikada ili rijetko doživljavaju ispunjenje svojih participatornih prava. Procjena 'upravljačkog stila' u njihovim obiteljima pokazuje da više od četvrtine djece doživljavaju svoje obitelji kao diktature, anarhije ili post-revolucionarne države. Veća realizacija participatornih prava povezana je s doživljavanjem vlastite obitelji kao demokracije, višim samopoštovanjem djeteta i manje problematičnih ponašanja, češćem odupiranju vršnjačkom pritisku da konzumiraju supstance (cigarete, alkohol), kao i s roditeljskim opažanjem veće samokontrole djeteta, Roditelji, u usporedbi sa svojom djecom, pokazaju tendenciju precjenjivanja razine ispunjenja dječjih prava na zaštitu fizičkog integriteta, dostojanstva, sudjelovanja u odlučivanju i primanju brižne skrbi.

Konvencija o pristupu informacijama, sudjelovanju javnosti u odlučivanju i pristupu sudstvu o pitanjima okoliša – Aarhuška konvencija – međunarodni je pravni okvir na području zaštite okoliša. Ova konvencija, pokrenuta pod pokroviteljstvom UN-a, najambiciozniji je pothvat kada je riječ o zaštiti okoliša. Njezinim usvajanjem ujedno je učinjen golem korak u razvoju međunarodnoga prava. Prihvaćajući načela i formalno pristupajući Aarhuškoj konvenciji, države naše regije (Jugoistočna Europa) zorno pokazuju da prava na području okoliša nisu luksuz rezerviran samo za bogate. Ovim se dokumentom utvrđuju prava u svezi s okolišem te čine pouzdan temelj za uključivanje najšire javnosti u politike okoliša čime se potvrđuje i naša obveza prema budućim pokoljenjima. To je dokaz kako se održivi razvoj može postići jedino uključivanjem svih sudionika u društvu. Aarhuška konvencija poveznica je između odgovornosti tijela javne vlasti i zaštite okoliša, jer se sudjelovanjem javnosti povećava odgovornost i transparentnost pri donošenju odluka, kao i svijest javnosti o pitanjima okoliša, a osigurava se i podrška za donesene odluke. Učinkovitim sudjelovanjem javnosti promiču se načela suradnje i konzultacija između građana i donositelja odluka, čime se pridonosi općoj demokratizaciji društva. To je omogućeno provedbom Aarhuške konvencije koja uključuje: pristup informacijama, sudjelovanje javnosti pri donošenju odluka i pristup pravosuđu kada je riječ o okolišu. To su ujedno i tri glavna stupa Konvencije. Prije dvanaest godina tadašnji je glavni tajnik UN-a Kofi Annan opisao Konvenciju kao "najambiciozniji pothvat na području 'okolišne demokracije' dosad poduzet pod okriljem Ujedinjenih naroda". Možemo reći kako je taj opis vjerojatno i danas točan, iako je na području okolišne demokracije došlo i do drugih znatnih pomaka. ; Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters – The Aarhus Convention – is an international legal framework in the area of the environment protection. This convention, initiated under the auspices of UN, is the most ambitious venture as far as environment protection is concerned. Its adoption made at the same time a huge step in the international law development. Accepting the principles and formally accessing to the Aarhus Convention, countries from our region (Southeast Europe) show that rights in the environment protection area are not the luxury reserved only for the rich ones. This document defines the rights in the environment area and makes the reliable foundation for involving the general public in the environment policies which confirms our commitment to future generations. That is a proof that sustainable development can be achieved only by involving all participants in the society. The Aarhus Convention is a link between the authorities' responsibilities and environment protection, because participation of the public increases responsibility and transparency in decision making, as well as consciousness of the public about environmental matters. It also provides support for the made decisions. Efficient participation of the public promotes cooperation principles and consultation between citizens and decision makers, which contributes to general society democratization. That is enabled by the Aarhus Convention implementation which includes: access to information, participation of the public in decision making and access to jurisdiction when speaking of environment. These are at the same time three main Convention pillars. Twelve years ago the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described the Convention as "the most ambitious venture in environmental democracy undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations". We can say that the mentioned descriptionis probably correct even today, although there have been many other significant improvements in environmental democracy.

The idea underlying the politics of the Independent People's Party (Samostalna narodna stranka), emphasized already in the program of 1863, was the principle that Croatia had rights as an independent entity and consonant with this the duty to determine the status of its rights in the Monarchy independently, and not in conjunction with Hungary. In accordance with this principle the Party took as a point of departure its political conceptions of 1848 from which arose the separation of Croatia from Hungary. Although of all parties, the Independent People's Party built least on historical rights, it was prepared to turn to them in order to strengthen the position of Croatia as a state. It differed from the other parties in that the viewpoints of the aristocrats received least expression in its publications, and it favored the democratization of politics, with the involvement of the widest range of social strata in political life. Regarding the central government, the Independent press emphasized that the Croatian Office and the Viennese government did not have the same goals; to verify this assertion they indicated that the programmatic document "Conditionally or Unconditionally?" originated with the sanction of the Office. The demands expressed in this document were certainly not in accord with the centralistic tendencies in the Viennese government. Conditions for entrance into the Emperor's Council were, namely, an independent and autonomous budget, unification with Dalmatia and with a part of Krajina. Besides this it was emphasized that the Croatian Constitution and autonomy could not come into question, nor could the government ministers interfere in the issue of Croatia's autonomy. It was further emphasized that Inasmuch as Hungary obtained a different status as a state, those same rights must also be granted to Croatia. In their writings the Independent politicians sharply differentiated between two freedoms: the political freedom of citizens and the freedom to develop national identity, and they consistently supported the latter. They were convinced that within the Hungarian community of nations, Croatians would not be able to attain conditions conductive to free national development, and hence supported an agreement with Vienna. Aside from this, they hinted that in the event an agreement with Vienna could not be reached, the Croatians still had the opportunity to negotiate with Budapest. On the other hand, inasmuch as the Croatians would first negotiate with Budapest, or rather send their representatives to the Hungarian Assembly, the significance of the Croatian Assembly would be greatly reduced and would become completely dependent on the Hungarian Assembly. In this event there would be no further possibility for Croatia to enter into any other combination of states' rights. They further stressed, quite correctly, that the Hungarians themselves were making agreements with Vienna and that in some transactions they treated the Monarchy as an equal unity. Insofar as negotiations were already under way, the Independents were convinced that it was more advantageous for Croatians to take part in them immediately rather than directly with Hungary. In spite of the fact that the program demanded a lot, the majority of the populists did not support it from distrust that the program was merely a decoy to draw the Croatians into the Emperor's Council. The Independents were convinced that the main reason for this distrust was the widespread conviction that the goals of the Viennese government and the Croatian Office were identical, so they attacked such assertions in their publications. However, despite this, the majority of the populists continued to reject Independent policies and in their resistence joined the Unionists; in this way they strengthened the dualistic trend, which even without this support, became stronger in the political life of the Monarchy.