Suchergebnisse

In this study, the author analyzes the relationship between general culture & its particularistic segments within the integral political community & concludes that as long as there are citizens, there will be a conflict between the general & the singular; also, the mediation between these two categories is never final; instead, one should repeatedly define what is appropriate, right, & compulsory. This is the strength of the type of reasoning to which the schematic landmarks such as universalism & particularism are necessary only as reminders of what is missing in order to fill in the gaps. Adapted from the source document.

The context of the development of the Croatian society after the decay of the socialist structures is burdened not only with the processes specific for all postsocialist countries, such as the loss of traditional securities or the renaissance of "disintegrating capitalism" (Beck, 1994, 479), but also with specific postwar processes. Since this has resulted in complex mediation between individual & collective behaviors, the youth of the 1990s in Croatia have found themselves in an ambivalent situation; with the gap between the wish for security & the possibilities for development, they can hardly develop self-functioning ways of achieving material, cultural, & biographical resources. Skeptical about their own future, they tend primarily to provide for their everyday basic needs & declare themselves as nonpolitical, interested only in themselves, their private space, & free time. 66 References. Adapted from the source document.

The context of the development of the Croatian society after the decay of the socialist structures is burdened not only with the processes specific for all postsocialist countries, such as the loss of traditional securities or the renaissance of "disintegrating capitalism" (Beck, 1994, 479), but also with specific postwar processes. Since this has resulted in complex mediation between individual & collective behaviors, the youth of the 1990s in Croatia have found themselves in an ambivalent situation; with the gap between the wish for security & the possibilities for development, they can hardly develop self-functioning ways of achieving material, cultural, & biographical resources. Skeptical about their own future, they tend primarily to provide for their everyday basic needs & declare themselves as nonpolitical, interested only in themselves, their private space, & free time. 66 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author summarizes several years of debate between liberal & communitarian philosophers. The wrangle between those two major lines of political philosophy in the 1980s concentrated on two issues: the foundation & the justification of a political community & the preservation of a system of political community & the motivation of its members to support it actively. Regarding the first issue, liberalism has defended successfully its universalistic attitude towards human rights. Partly it took into consideration communitarian critique, admitting that the universal validity of human rights need not be justified by abstract & rational contractual structure but by the fact that liberal values have become an unavoidable element of the tradition of modern political communities. Regarding the second issue, liberalism had to accept the communitarian attitude towards the importance of republican virtues for the preservation of a political community. The proposals for such mediation of liberalism & communitarianism are included in the concepts of constitutional patriotism & communitarian participative democracy. Adapted from the source document.

The author claims that in Hegel's Philosophy of Law there are two convergent, overlapping, & concurrent tendencies. The first asserts that the state is such a condition of society in which the universal will of citizens is paramount. It is the sole source of positive law, since only the state warrants the laws that do not do injustice to its subjects. In this theory, the state is considered an ideal universal entity, adjusted to the speculative shifts of auto-reflection. The second claims that as the rational state, the state is a union of different interests, providing good life for its citizens. The principle of their union is a particular benefit; not self-determination as the absolute principle but mutual compromise, mutual achievement & relatively equal contribution that creates interdependence. These two tendencies have entirely defined the understanding of the state in the German cultural space: at one time it is an ideal association among reflective individuals, & at other an apparatus of power. These two abstract solutions may only be overcome via a forceful democratic mediation of the civil society. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the crux of the Christian social creed & its relevance for the issue of the organization of a modern society. Christian tenets are universal & thus above party politics. The starting point of the Christian vision of society & the precepts of natural order & natural right are the cornerstones of the demand for the inviolability of individuals. Human rights imply ethical consideration: an interdiction against exploitation & hypocrisy & recognition of the quality of people. Unlike an individual, a society is a fortuity having no substantial reality: it is but a set of relationships among individuals. A society is nevertheless recognized as autonomous & pluralistic. It develops its own dynamics & contradictions, which call for studied efforts to maintain social balance. That is why the mediation of state in a society is requisite. The state is defined by the contemporary Christian canon (in line with Thomas Aquinas) as an institution fundamental in establishing a consummate human community. The scope of a state's activities is restricted: state intervention must take into consideration individual & collective rights & be in the service of achieving the common good. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the crux of the Christian social creed & its relevance for the issue of the organization of a modern society. Christian tenets are universal & thus above party politics. The starting point of the Christian vision of society & the precepts of natural order & natural right are the cornerstones of the demand for the inviolability of individuals. Human rights imply ethical consideration: an interdiction against exploitation & hypocrisy & recognition of the quality of people. Unlike an individual, a society is a fortuity having no substantial reality: it is but a set of relationships among individuals. A society is nevertheless recognized as autonomous & pluralistic. It develops its own dynamics & contradictions, which call for studied efforts to maintain social balance. That is why the mediation of state in a society is requisite. The state is defined by the contemporary Christian canon (in line with Thomas Aquinas) as an institution fundamental in establishing a consummate human community. The scope of a state's activities is restricted: state intervention must take into consideration individual & collective rights & be in the service of achieving the common good. Adapted from the source document.

The author discusses the relationship between Hegel & Hobbes with regard to the tradition of natural law. Both thinkers start by considering the state of nature as a construct of reason. Yet while Hobbes describes the state of nature as the original state of the human race, Hegel in describing it rejects any social context. They both present natural law as an absolute fact of the individual's freedom, starting from which the whole political community has to be erected. The essential difference between Hobbes & Hegel begins with the demonstration of the ways in which radical individualism is being transcended. Hobbes believes that natural law has only been suppressed by the predominance of a legal & political order, while according to Hegel, the state of nature is a fiction & natural law achieves its realization only in a custom-ruled community. In Hegel the system of mediation is so powerful that a return to the state of nature appears to be impossible. In Hobbes, the natural state of war of all against all (Behemoth) is latent in the political community (Leviathan). The political community (Leviathan) exists only as long as it is able to suppress chaos (Behemoth). Adapted from the source document.

In classical political & politicoeconomic theory, the opposition of the traditional & the modern is set in the very conception of political & social bodies in motion, & in their change power -- vs the antique & medieval conception. In contemporary science, as it is surveyed in this study, the political "duration" & "change" are the key mediation point of all development & change. They are often treated as a modernization rather than a transformation of a genuine polity. This is a significant difficulty in political action & its complex strategy. Strategy of change & development of a polity must include "choice" in evaluations of its proper state & the state of its referring environment, of their predictable internal & external changes, of various options, & of their alternative potential development scenarios in crossing. It is a combination of a prospective history of the complex societal change & development, & of an implementation of its own meaning of action. This combination must be founded in focused specialist analysis of comparative politicoeconomic processes whose foundation is in theories of national & world systems, & in general political & politicoeconomic theory. In a Schumpeterian equilibrium & disequilibrium relation of development of the politicoeconomic system, a permanent unexpected penetration of 'practical action' intensifies the 'Hume's fork' of analytical models without a general theory, especially the theory of the state. Almond & Pye's theory of political development dissociated itself from the development & analysis of an individual political system. Inside political system boundaries it isolated itself from major sources of real political change & development -- instead developing a politological approach to problems of the polity. Convergent general & special theories in social sciences, with a differentiation in disciplinary scientific approaches -- are the necessity of the new political economy as much as theory of complex development & change. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the direction that the European Union has taken after the Nice conference. In order to create an appropriate & transparent competency system for the European Union, the priority on today's agenda are the models borrowed from the constitutions of different federal states. The first model is the so-called dual federalism that evolved in the US. This model aspires to strictly separate the European competency & the member countries' competency. The second option has been provided by the German Fundamental Law (Constitution). According to this model, the European Union would be accorded competences in line with the systematics of the exclusive, competitive & comprehensive legislation. The author is of the opinion that this would lead to a sort of formal transparency but would not completely prevent the overlapping of the competences of the Union, its member countries & other territorial units. A special focus is given to the transparency & efficacy of the reform process. Also, it is emphasized that a coherent coordination of the horizontal & vertical reform of the competency system is called for. Regarding democracy, the author thinks there is no need for a new model of democracy, but a systematic revision of the existing system of decision making in the European Union. Besides, a genuine democratization would not set its sights solely on reforming institutional regulation, but also on strengthening the mediation bodies. This would improve the relations between the public & the parliaments of the nation-states & the federal units concerning European issues. This would go hand in hand with an expansion of European party organizations & a more efficient "Europeanization" of central associations & institutions for interest-promotion. And finally, the author looks into the traditional boundaries between the private & the public. The public sector would take over from private economy some established procedures or would completely hand over certain tasks. This would require well-defined criteria. Also, an efficient control by parliaments & government bodies is necessary as a guarantee of innovation & cost-effectiveness & as a protection against abuse. This might help to turn Europe into a place of unity & cooperative behavior. Adapted from the source document.

The author claims that Haberle's theory of the constitution is a science of culture, opposed to formalism, decisionism, positivism, & statism. It is based on the continuity & the relationship among culture-building, law, & state. The subjects of the constitution-formative authority are mutually culturally linked citizens who decide on the objectively given subject-matter & procedures. The theory of the constitution as a science of culture is based on the assumption that serious conflicts among the open societies of Western Europe are highly unlikely. This represents a significant departure from the positivist theory of the state grounded in the conflict of interests & opinions as well as the strong regulatory role of the state. The author challenges Haberle's disregard for the crisis potential of modern societies & proposes that these two opposed theories should complement each other. The author goes on to describe Haberle's research method, which includes an analysis of both the cultural context & the normative/constitutional solutions. He applies this research method to the constitutional laws of Germany, Switzerland, & Austria, & also when comparing large & small states, or developed & underdeveloped ones. Haberle espoused Taylor's definition of culture: culture & civilization are equated so that the systems of culture are on the one hand products of activity, & on the other the conditioning element of future activity. According to Haberle, the culture of a community starts from the traditional, innovative & pluralist aspects that are the orientation points for constitutional science as a science of culture. Regarding tradition, culture is mediation of things past. The innovative aspect is based on the idea that culture is a further development of things past. Since culture is not uniform, its pluralist aspect should not be forgotten. Thus the citizens of a democratic constitutional state make up the cultural/anthropological premise, while the state is only one aspect of the constituted res publica. The constitutional state today goes beyond the scope of the national state since the regional European constitutional state has been evolving together with the outlines of "the world community of constitutional states.". 9 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy in the context of the present-day debates on the theory of morals & politics. The starting point of Habermas' theory is his idea of discourse ethics. This is cognitivist ethics in the tradition of Kant, Rawis, Tugendhat & Apel that is built around the concept of normative correctness analogous to the descriptive notion of truth. This idea is best expressed by Kant's categorical imperative, according to which the validity of norms depends on their generalizability. Habermas, in line with Kant, is aware of the impossibility to rationally found universalist ethics. Instead of the final (deductive) foundations he offers the reflexion about the assumptions of a meaningful discourse i.e. the argumentation rules that must be respected if language communication is to be meaningful. Habermas' outline of the theory of law in his book Between Facts and Norms (Faktizirat und Geltung) builds on this moral-theoretical position. In modern society the function of law is to facilitate social communication: law is the legitimate framework of social communication on which the actors can rely. Habermas considers the specific link between human rights & popular sovereignty as the source of legitimacy. Human rights & popular sovereignty mutually condition each other & at the same time there is tension between them. The absolutization of individual rights makes democracy impossible since decision-making is obstructed; absolutization of popular sovereignty leads to the tyranny of the majority & the loss of rights. Habermas thinks that law can be legitimized by communicational mediation between the individual rights & popular sovereignty, in line with the principle that the claim to validity can only be laid by those norms that are approved of by all potentially affected individuals as rational discourse participants. Popular sovereignty is consistently procedurally interpreted. On the one hand, it is practised by means of public discourses & on the other through decision-making processes within democratically structured political institutions. The two dimensions of legitimizing law are different yet complementary: public discourses take place in civil society, political decisions are made in democratic institutions of the state. This is also an outline of the specific position of Habermas' political theory of deliberative democracy. It is equally distant from the model of liberal democracy which emphasizes possessive individualism & the protection of citizens' private interests, & from the republican democratic model that emphasizes political participation of active citizens. The theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of civil society: It is a sort of a practical verification of discourse ethics. Civil society is a sphere of autonomous public communication that is complementary to state administration but cannot substitute it. Communication power is exercised in the "siege mode" i.e. multiple discourses of civil society should contribute to the rationality & legitimacy of the decisions made by the political system, but do not have to replace them nor expose them to populist pressures. 2 Figures, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy in the context of the present-day debates on the theory of morals & politics. The starting point of Habermas' theory is his idea of discourse ethics. This is cognitivist ethics in the tradition of Kant, Rawis, Tugendhat & Apel that is built around the concept of normative correctness analogous to the descriptive notion of truth. This idea is best expressed by Kant's categorical imperative, according to which the validity of norms depends on their generalizability. Habermas, in line with Kant, is aware of the impossibility to rationally found universalist ethics. Instead of the final (deductive) foundations he offers the reflexion about the assumptions of a meaningful discourse i.e. the argumentation rules that must be respected if language communication is to be meaningful. Habermas' outline of the theory of law in his book Between Facts and Norms (Faktizirat und Geltung) builds on this moral-theoretical position. In modern society the function of law is to facilitate social communication: law is the legitimate framework of social communication on which the actors can rely. Habermas considers the specific link between human rights & popular sovereignty as the source of legitimacy. Human rights & popular sovereignty mutually condition each other & at the same time there is tension between them. The absolutization of individual rights makes democracy impossible since decision-making is obstructed; absolutization of popular sovereignty leads to the tyranny of the majority & the loss of rights. Habermas thinks that law can be legitimized by communicational mediation between the individual rights & popular sovereignty, in line with the principle that the claim to validity can only be laid by those norms that are approved of by all potentially affected individuals as rational discourse participants. Popular sovereignty is consistently procedurally interpreted. On the one hand, it is practised by means of public discourses & on the other through decision-making processes within democratically structured political institutions. The two dimensions of legitimizing law are different yet complementary: public discourses take place in civil society, political decisions are made in democratic institutions of the state. This is also an outline of the specific position of Habermas' political theory of deliberative democracy. It is equally distant from the model of liberal democracy which emphasizes possessive individualism & the protection of citizens' private interests, & from the republican democratic model that emphasizes political participation of active citizens. The theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of civil society: It is a sort of a practical verification of discourse ethics. Civil society is a sphere of autonomous public communication that is complementary to state administration but cannot substitute it. Communication power is exercised in the "siege mode" i.e. multiple discourses of civil society should contribute to the rationality & legitimacy of the decisions made by the political system, but do not have to replace them nor expose them to populist pressures. 2 Figures, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes recent Habermas' writings on the process of European integration & the new international political order. Having for a long time ignored the issues of foreign policy, in his recent works & speeches Habermas has increasingly turned to these topics. The supranational level is becoming important both due to the more severe limitations to state sovereignty in the process of globalization, & because of the development of new mechanisms of international cooperation & the new regional economic-political integrations. In his theory of democracy at the national level, he emphasizes its deliberative character & shows public communication as the central sphere of mediation between the informal (private) opinions & the institutions of the formation of political will. However, today it is necessary to go beyond the boundaries of the nation-state & establish the parallel mechanisms of political deliberation & decision-making at the international level. The most important step in that direction are regional integrations (in Europe, naturally, it is the European Union). The regional integrations must supplement the UN institutions to compensate for the loss of the ability to govern at the national level & to create a counterbalance to global capitalism. In this context it is important to get the answers to a certain crisis of the EU identity. The European Union today is often seen as a mechanism of bureaucratic management & restrictive regulation, instead of as a guarantor of good life. Habermas thinks that Europe should focus on the guarantees of fundamental rights & values such as the right to education, social justice, autonomy & participation. For that purpose, the European Union should develop into a federal state. To the Euro-skeptical objection that Europe lacks a state-building nation i.e a unified nation as the foundation of political community, Habermas responds that the European civil sodety, European public & the common political culture -- if, indeed, they can be built -- are sufficient for Europe's political unity. The process of designing & adopting the European Constitution has strengthened all three components. The Constitution also helps to explain the objectives of the European integration (boundaries of EU's expansion, interrelationship among levels of goverment) & to enhance legitimacy by creating a fundamental legal act, its the design of which European citizens are involved. For Habermas, the crisis of European unity caused by the disunity of the member-countries' governments over the American war in Iraq is an opportunity. The mobilization of the European civil society against that war (as demonstrated by the pan-European peace demonstrations of 15 February 2003) & the creation of the model of the procedurally well-ordered international politics & cooperation which boosts economic development & social security serve as the counterbalance to the American unilateralism & the aspiration for domination. Habermas supports the model of "multispeed Europe" & thinks that it will not cause a rift in the EU, but can as a matter of fact dynamize the process of European integration. The author concludes that Habermas' political views of the European integration & international politics contain a remarkable dose of utopism. However, the attempt to see beyond the limitations of the existing political reality is a must if these limitations are to be overcome. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.