Al discutir sobre el Holocausto usualmente se utilizan términos tales como "fábricas de la muerte", "asesinos de escritorio" y "eficiencia burocrática" que transmiten una impresión equivocada de lo que realmente ocurrió. En este artículo se argumenta que lejos de ser un proceso impersonal y puramente sistemático, el Holocausto fue a menudo una tarea caótica. ¿Acaso los horrores que perpetró fueron en algún sentido "modernos"? ¿El Holocausto fue una expresión o derivación de los poderes terribles implícitos en la modernidad? Nuevos hallazgos empíricos están alejando nuestra atención de aquello que hizo que el Tercer Reich fuera emblemático de los esquemas teóricos generalizantes de la sociedad moderna y nos revelan aquello por lo cual ese régimen fue profundamente aberrante y atávico. Si bien este vaivén del péndulo interpretativo difícilmente podría tomarse como la última palabra, merece un análisis cuidadoso que ponga en evidencia que el primitivismo del proyecto nazi supera por mucho sus atributos modernos.
For years I have asked my Intro to Comparative Politics class: what would it take for your generation to abandon its passivity and lack of interest in politics and become mobilized as students all over the world did in the 1960s? From the évènements de mai in Paris to the sit-ins against Vietnam and police brutality in American universities, to the strikes against oligarchic democracies in South America, those were the times when the terms "young" and "mobilized" were almost synonyms.In response to this question, my students would just laugh softly, shuffle in their seats and avoid a direct answer. A couple of times someone would say: "well, if the government took away our rights, we would certainly do something about that…"After twenty years of teaching, I think I have the answer─ for the American youth to become mobilized, it takes fear and loss of national self-confidence, usually due to ineffective presidents who, through their misconceived and reckless policies, escalate the level and intensity of an earlier conflict. Lately, the manic reaction of George W. Bush to September 11, his mediocre and short-sighted populist presidency and his failure in the fake war against terrorism in Iraq, have had that effect.Finally, after eight years of failed foreign policy that certainly has not made the country safer, indeed, many would say it has made it even more vulnerable and hated in the world, students all around the United States are mobilizing around Barack Obama, whose charisma and message have struck such a deep chord in many Americans, that he is being called a "phenomenon" against which it will be very difficult to run a successful traditional campaign.Every twenty years or so, after a bad war and some wound-licking and soul-searching, Americans coalesce around a leader that reminds them of their national identity, proposes a new way and makes them feel better about themselves and the country's destiny.This happened with John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s, then with Reagan after the shameful decade of the 1970s and now it has happened again.This American tendency of losing its self-esteem follows a clear pattern: after a big fear has engulfed the nation, the government, instead of assuaging those feelings, builds on them to justify its foreign policy adventures. During the late 1950s it was the growing concern with the Soviet threat, the arms race and the competition over the imminent conquest of Space. Kennedy appeared on the scene. Young, passionately articulate, strong and handsome, he reassured the nation about its own strengths and powers. He embodied the hope they yearned for, the hope that could assuage their fear.The foreign policy establishment watched him suspiciously. Wasn't he a big liberal that would be soft on Khrushchev? If elected, he would be the first Catholic President─ wouldn't that mean his first allegiance would be to the Pope and not to the nation?The younger generation was energized, as were others, by this promising young figure and they managed to put him in the White House by a narrow margin.In the short time he was given a chance to govern, before he was abated by a lone gunman on October 16, 1962, he proved himself as a world leader, well-liked by most, yet respected by "the enemy." He restored pride and self-confidence to all Americans, even if behind the scenes he had a much darker side, including increasing the involvement of US in Vietnam and even condoning the CIA killings of certain dictators.Then came the 1970s, the lost war, Nixon and Watergate, and American morale plummeted. This, followed by the Iranian Revolution and Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rescue the American hostages in Teheran, made the mood even more somber. To the rescue came Reagan, in his entire Hollywood cowboy splendor, with his wonderfully reassuring smile that said: "Vote for me and I will restore your pride!" America became once more the "shining light on the hill", a beacon of freedom and prosperity. He was blessed not only with a great personality but also by destiny: his challenge to Gorbachev ("Mr. Gorbachev, bring down that Wall!") could not have been more perfectly timed. America was back on top. Again, in FDR's uplifting words, we had nothing to fear but fear itself.The 1990s were the times of peace dividends, low mortgage prices, balanced budgets and prosperity for all Americans. The future extended before us, without a cloud in sight. It was the End of History, the end of ideological conflict, and American style democracy and capitalism reigned supreme, unchallenged.Then came September 11, and with it, bunker mentality, the rallying around the opportunist president who could not wait too long before he used the spectacularly terrible attack to gather his posse and plan the completion of the war against Saddam. Americans were scared, and we sacrificed young people's lives and our own personal freedoms in order to be "safe again". It took a while to realize that complete security is an absurd concept, and that good police and intelligence work, together with cooperation with the rest of the world, was the only rational response.Now, five years into an unwinnable war, after a terrible toll of young deaths and injured veterans, many with severe mental problems, the light shines again on a new leader. Out of the shadows comes Barack Obama. He is the poster child of the post-modern candidate: dark, tall, with a winning smile, from a mixed racial and religious background, and a JD degree from Harvard, he dismisses the "silliness" of Washington-style politics and scare tactics, of building walls to keep immigrants out, of eavesdropping on citizens to track down terrorists, of arousing the worst emotions on people for political gains. Instead, he wants to change the face of America, talk to the "enemies", to leave ideology behind and use good ideas pragmatically, even if they happen to be "Republican" ideas. He appeals to a broad base of college educated young white men and women (under 50), African Americans, and even Hispanics.Never mind that his middle name is Hussein, as some insist on bringing up, and that he for a while followed the Muslim faith (he professes to be a Christian now): young people are so tired of the barrage of propaganda against anything and anybody foreign, that they don't even listen. False nationalism based on violence and war does not sway them anymore. Serenely cool, this gifted orator voices the youth's angst, promises change, a new beginning, a fresh approach, and non-partisan solutions to problems. He shares their fatigue with the lies, the corruption, and the meaningless sacrifice of the young in Iraq.He leads, in Max Weber's terms, by a "gift of grace" (charisma), the strongest source of legitimacy at times when the other two, namely tradition and statute, are deeply discredited. His oratory hits the right tones, he inspires devotion, he embodies the confidence the country is thirsty for. Let's move on, he says, and show the world the real face of America. He is more than "a narrow and vain upstart of the moment".He is the post-modern candidate.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
The independence of the Eastern Band and the complex process of structuration of the República Oriental del Uruguay (Eastern Republic of Uruguay) occurred between the years 1811 to 1830. In this interval there are two crucial moments, 1825, with the Declaration of Independence, and 1830, with the Constitution. Although they have similar symbolic values, the celebration of the centenary of 1830 was more important for our actual subject. However, this double commemoration expanded the festivities of the 'centennial' for a long period of time, and contributes, in fact, to understand it more like an era than a precise moment. At the beginning of the XX century, Uruguay was immersed in a process of economical and demographical growth, political and social changes and urban transformations. In such surround the aspiration was to create an 'ideal country', inspired by the Modern Project, privileging the laws, democratic coexistence, growth of industrialization, technological modernization, development of education and redistribution of wealth, in what is known as the 'batllista state'. In this process, modernity, evolution, culture and integration, where glorified within a society that grew fast as a result of the massive European immigration. In this expansion process, the government developed a policy of permanent public construction. Consequently, the buildings of the civic institutions became urban landmarks for the citizens, and within time, assumed the character of 'primary elements' of the city. This was the way in which the country visualized itself, seeking the transformation of the society without antagonism. The celebration of the Centenary, particularly in 1930, was understood more like a trigger than a final destination. Therefore the examples of the architecture and the urban development made for the celebration of the Centenary, reference us into the construction of a new society and of the spaces of the democracy. ; La independencia de la Banda Oriental y el proceso de formaciónde la República Oriental del Uruguay se desarrollaronen el lapso entre 1811 y 1830, del que nos interesa destacardos momentos cruciales: la Declaratoria de la Independenciaen 1825 y la Jura de la Constitución en 1830. Dentro de susemejante valor simbólico, la celebración del Centenario de1830 fue posiblemente más trascendente en el tema que nosocupa. Noobstante, esa doble celebración dilató en eltiempo losefectos del acontecimiento "centenario" y contribuye de hechoa entenderlo como un período.A inicios del siglo xx, Uruguay era un país inmerso en unproceso de crecimiento económico y demográfico, de cambiospolíticos y sociales yde transformaciones urbanas. Enese marcose elabora la idea de crear un "país modelo", una construccióninspirada en el Proyecto Moderno, en lo que se conoce como el"estado batllista".En su proceso de expansión, el Estado desarrolló una políticade construcción permanente y para variados destinos.Consecuentemente, las sedes de las instituciones públicas seconstituyeron para la ciudadanía en hitos urbanos, lo que en elcorrer del tiempo les asignó el carácter de "elementos primarios"de la ciudad.Asíse visualizó aquel país, ambicionando la transformaciónde la sociedad sin antagonismo. Lacelebración del Centenario,particularmente la de 1930, se entendió como un disparadormás que como un punto de llegada. Deese modo.las referenciasal acontecimiento nos sitúan en la materialización de empresasque redundan en la construcción de una nueva sociedad y laconstrucción de los espacios de la democracia.
The modern state of legal relations is characterized by the growing influence of globalization factors. These lead to global transformations of the international legal system, in which the methodology of understanding the principles of law is of significant importance. The aim of the article was to explore the methodological framework for identifying the key approaches to understanding the principles of law in modern globalization transformations. The methodological basis consists of methods such as: systematic analysis, generalization, systematization, graphical analysis and cluster tabulator. The results of the studies have established that global transformations have a destructive impact on the principles of law. They deepen the processes of unclear distinction at the international and national levels. It has been found that in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe approaches to the understanding of the principles of law differ from each other. It has been found that Germany and Slovenia set higher standards for the application of the principles of law and are more globalized than Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia. It has been suggested that special measures should be designed in which the principles of law act as an instrument of globalization.
Modern political transformations involve free choice of ideology, ability to communicate with society and maintenance of their political preferences. Political struggle often leads to radical action and political extremism. The aim of this study involved an analysis of political extremism that occurs in modern democracies, and identification of the main factors underlying the development of political extremism. The determinants of the political stability/extremism are analysed based on the algorithm of hierarchical clustering. It is proved that 26 European countries studied in the work can be grouped into four clusters, which are characterised by the number of parties of extremist ideology in the national parliaments of European countries; Elite Quality Index (EQx); the Freedom in the World Index; Political Stability and Absence of Violence Index, which is part of The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). It is revealed that today ideological trends of authoritarian populism, conservatism and extremism are spreading in European countries. Cluster analysis has shown that the political extremism is influenced by the level of quality of national elites, the development of fundamental rights and freedoms, the political stability, and the absence of violence. Further research should focus on econometric simulation of factors shaping political extremism through economic development indicators.
The purpose of the research was to consider appropriate forms of interpretation of legal norms in modern jurisprudence. In the main content it has been established that the interpretation results in a general conclusion or a sum of conclusions reached by the subject of interpretation in the process of clarification of the rule of law (legal norms), using the whole set of methods of interpretation, which is appropriate to the legal reality. The methodological basis of the research was presented as comparative-legal and systematic analysis, formal-legal method, as well as hermeneutic method, method of analysis and synthesis. It has been concluded that the procedure for achieving the purpose of interpretation should be as follows: grammatical interpretation - teleological interpretation - clarification of the conformity of the essence of the content of the legal norm with the principles of law - systematic interpretation - special legal interpretation - logical interpretation - functional interpretation - historical interpretation - repeated application of the interpretation procedure upon receipt of new data. If this procedure is properly followed, it is possible to achieve the conditions for the achievement of an adequate legal hermeneutics, which places the texts in their context of meaning.
