The topic of the article is the problem of the dualism of positive & negative liberty, presented in Isaiah Berlin's doctrine of agonical liberalism. This problem is analyzed in the context of liberal discussion basing on "agonical deconstruction" as an interpretative strategy that allows discovering definite conceptual limits (for example, "basic liberty"). The article attempts to answer the question whether (and if yes, to what extent) pluralism referring to particularism of objectives & values is capable of harmonizing (collocating) with liberalism, which presupposes, one way or another, universalism of values. Adapted from the source document.
In most cases Lithuanian farmers` leaders appeal to Lithuanian government institutions. To European Union institutions Lithuanian farmers appeal through mediators. Those mediators are Lithuanian state officials or European agricultural organisations. Lithuanian farmers rarely appeal to European Union institutions directly. In cases of direct address of EU institutionsLithuanian farmers ask for assistance of the European Parliament members from the Baltic States. Lithuanian farmers lack lobbying abilities. Only 10 percent of Lithuanian farmers participate in activities of agricultural organisations. Lithuanian farmers` lobbying methods sometimes are not suitable, for example, Lithuanian farmers insufficiently value influence of press campaigns to European Union institutions decisions. Also Lithuanian farmers hold a faulty opinion that Lithuanian state officials have more influence in Common Agriculture Policy forming than European Union institutions do. Lithuanian farmers did not achieve their main goal - to equalize direct payments to those of Western European countries. Lithuanian farmers` competitors are agricultural organisations from another European countries, and those organisations are more successful in lobbying activities, mostly because they have long lobbying traditions in their own countries. Lithuanian agricultural organisations could form lobbying coalitions with agricultural organisations from another European states, which have the same interests. If Lithuanian farmers use organic farming, they will have support of environment protection organisations and politicians. It will be difficult for Lithuanian farmers to defend their position in European Union institutions without those allies, because Lithuanian agricultural organisations are not widely known in the key institutions. Also Lithuanian agricultural organisations unite a small number of members and small resources.
In most cases Lithuanian farmers` leaders appeal to Lithuanian government institutions. To European Union institutions Lithuanian farmers appeal through mediators. Those mediators are Lithuanian state officials or European agricultural organisations. Lithuanian farmers rarely appeal to European Union institutions directly. In cases of direct address of EU institutionsLithuanian farmers ask for assistance of the European Parliament members from the Baltic States. Lithuanian farmers lack lobbying abilities. Only 10 percent of Lithuanian farmers participate in activities of agricultural organisations. Lithuanian farmers` lobbying methods sometimes are not suitable, for example, Lithuanian farmers insufficiently value influence of press campaigns to European Union institutions decisions. Also Lithuanian farmers hold a faulty opinion that Lithuanian state officials have more influence in Common Agriculture Policy forming than European Union institutions do. Lithuanian farmers did not achieve their main goal - to equalize direct payments to those of Western European countries. Lithuanian farmers` competitors are agricultural organisations from another European countries, and those organisations are more successful in lobbying activities, mostly because they have long lobbying traditions in their own countries. Lithuanian agricultural organisations could form lobbying coalitions with agricultural organisations from another European states, which have the same interests. If Lithuanian farmers use organic farming, they will have support of environment protection organisations and politicians. It will be difficult for Lithuanian farmers to defend their position in European Union institutions without those allies, because Lithuanian agricultural organisations are not widely known in the key institutions. Also Lithuanian agricultural organisations unite a small number of members and small resources.
The society decentration analysed in the article is related to society democratisation, which started in the West in the 20th century. One of the main features of democratisation is criticism of hegemonic discourses and emphasis on possibility of pluralistic thinking. The potential of coexistence of different world-views arises from perception that all the great narratives of reality cognition that had existed historically and pretended to be a truth, as J. F. Lyotard noticed, were just the symbolic structures supported by power, which were subjectively made objective. Hence, the democratic society, unlike societies controlled by autocratic, authoritarian or totalitarian power, is always concerned with decentralisation of governmental power by giving a right of speaking not only to representatives of government, but also to members of society. It shows that individual members of society or their groups have a right to assess governmental decisions taken or being taken in a critical perspective and suggest variants of world perception different from those of the government. Structurally, the article is divided into two parts: a) we discuss the preconditions for formation of society democratisation, b) we analyse course-books on the fundamentals of public-spirit education, which are intended for Lithuanian comprehensive schools in pursuance of ascertainment of how the content of the course-books is actually oriented towards development of a free, critically thinking person accepting a variety of views, which is typical of a democratic society.
The society decentration analysed in the article is related to society democratisation, which started in the West in the 20th century. One of the main features of democratisation is criticism of hegemonic discourses and emphasis on possibility of pluralistic thinking. The potential of coexistence of different world-views arises from perception that all the great narratives of reality cognition that had existed historically and pretended to be a truth, as J. F. Lyotard noticed, were just the symbolic structures supported by power, which were subjectively made objective. Hence, the democratic society, unlike societies controlled by autocratic, authoritarian or totalitarian power, is always concerned with decentralisation of governmental power by giving a right of speaking not only to representatives of government, but also to members of society. It shows that individual members of society or their groups have a right to assess governmental decisions taken or being taken in a critical perspective and suggest variants of world perception different from those of the government. Structurally, the article is divided into two parts: a) we discuss the preconditions for formation of society democratisation, b) we analyse course-books on the fundamentals of public-spirit education, which are intended for Lithuanian comprehensive schools in pursuance of ascertainment of how the content of the course-books is actually oriented towards development of a free, critically thinking person accepting a variety of views, which is typical of a democratic society.
The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.
The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.
The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.
The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.
The key purpose and mission of mass media is to be the channel of information serving the society, and it presupposes the most important principles and values of media. The law of mass media, ethic code of journalists and publishers, theorists and critics of journalism claim that the primary values of media are freedom of speech, creativity, and conscience, pluralism, independence, objectivity, accuracy, information comprehensiveness and correctness, honesty, respect for an individual and society, personal responsibility, self-regulation, tolerance, and variety of opinions. Such an idealistic view to mass media should be given credit and become the reason of the very existence of media. Media market is a business field needed of particular regulation because mass media not only exists in the economic level but performs a certain mission within the society as well. General legal acts regulating the competition do not cover all the aspects of media. Some legal acts being only of recommendatory base cannot ensure neither the independence and pluralism of media nor successful existence of public media. In a democratic country mass media providing public information must reveal to the public certain data about the owners of public information providers and spreaders, their commercial interests, political orientation, and etc. These provisions requiring publicity and transparency are necessary in order to ensure pluralism of opinions and prevent monopolism and manipulations in the field of public information. Information about the owners of mass media has to be known as it guarantees transparency of the market while the lack of such documents brings into one and the same the mission of media and interests of the owners, misleads the society, and decreases confidence in media. However, provisions of media transparency in legal acts are not effective and inefficient control mechanism is partly to be blamed. The theorists of journalism, critics, and public figures constantly emphasize the significance and necessity of media's mission and the role of public media in the existence of a democratic society. Legal acts are used to ensure the pluralism of media, its fair and competitive market. Unfortunately, despite the mission of media and regulation of the market media gives priority to business over publicity and realization of the mission in the society. Media of entertainment, "infotainment," and "new news" media which springs up in such context gains the highest ratings and editions at the same time superseding public media from the means of mass media. The spread of information which has been the main reason of media existence since the very first newspapers is losing to the interests of media ownership in uneven battle.
The key purpose and mission of mass media is to be the channel of information serving the society, and it presupposes the most important principles and values of media. The law of mass media, ethic code of journalists and publishers, theorists and critics of journalism claim that the primary values of media are freedom of speech, creativity, and conscience, pluralism, independence, objectivity, accuracy, information comprehensiveness and correctness, honesty, respect for an individual and society, personal responsibility, self-regulation, tolerance, and variety of opinions. Such an idealistic view to mass media should be given credit and become the reason of the very existence of media. Media market is a business field needed of particular regulation because mass media not only exists in the economic level but performs a certain mission within the society as well. General legal acts regulating the competition do not cover all the aspects of media. Some legal acts being only of recommendatory base cannot ensure neither the independence and pluralism of media nor successful existence of public media. In a democratic country mass media providing public information must reveal to the public certain data about the owners of public information providers and spreaders, their commercial interests, political orientation, and etc. These provisions requiring publicity and transparency are necessary in order to ensure pluralism of opinions and prevent monopolism and manipulations in the field of public information. Information about the owners of mass media has to be known as it guarantees transparency of the market while the lack of such documents brings into one and the same the mission of media and interests of the owners, misleads the society, and decreases confidence in media. However, provisions of media transparency in legal acts are not effective and inefficient control mechanism is partly to be blamed. The theorists of journalism, critics, and public figures constantly emphasize the significance and necessity of media's mission and the role of public media in the existence of a democratic society. Legal acts are used to ensure the pluralism of media, its fair and competitive market. Unfortunately, despite the mission of media and regulation of the market media gives priority to business over publicity and realization of the mission in the society. Media of entertainment, "infotainment," and "new news" media which springs up in such context gains the highest ratings and editions at the same time superseding public media from the means of mass media. The spread of information which has been the main reason of media existence since the very first newspapers is losing to the interests of media ownership in uneven battle.
The key purpose and mission of mass media is to be the channel of information serving the society, and it presupposes the most important principles and values of media. The law of mass media, ethic code of journalists and publishers, theorists and critics of journalism claim that the primary values of media are freedom of speech, creativity, and conscience, pluralism, independence, objectivity, accuracy, information comprehensiveness and correctness, honesty, respect for an individual and society, personal responsibility, self-regulation, tolerance, and variety of opinions. Such an idealistic view to mass media should be given credit and become the reason of the very existence of media. Media market is a business field needed of particular regulation because mass media not only exists in the economic level but performs a certain mission within the society as well. General legal acts regulating the competition do not cover all the aspects of media. Some legal acts being only of recommendatory base cannot ensure neither the independence and pluralism of media nor successful existence of public media. In a democratic country mass media providing public information must reveal to the public certain data about the owners of public information providers and spreaders, their commercial interests, political orientation, and etc. These provisions requiring publicity and transparency are necessary in order to ensure pluralism of opinions and prevent monopolism and manipulations in the field of public information. Information about the owners of mass media has to be known as it guarantees transparency of the market while the lack of such documents brings into one and the same the mission of media and interests of the owners, misleads the society, and decreases confidence in media. However, provisions of media transparency in legal acts are not effective and inefficient control mechanism is partly to be blamed. The theorists of journalism, critics, and public figures constantly emphasize the significance and necessity of media's mission and the role of public media in the existence of a democratic society. Legal acts are used to ensure the pluralism of media, its fair and competitive market. Unfortunately, despite the mission of media and regulation of the market media gives priority to business over publicity and realization of the mission in the society. Media of entertainment, "infotainment," and "new news" media which springs up in such context gains the highest ratings and editions at the same time superseding public media from the means of mass media. The spread of information which has been the main reason of media existence since the very first newspapers is losing to the interests of media ownership in uneven battle.
The key purpose and mission of mass media is to be the channel of information serving the society, and it presupposes the most important principles and values of media. The law of mass media, ethic code of journalists and publishers, theorists and critics of journalism claim that the primary values of media are freedom of speech, creativity, and conscience, pluralism, independence, objectivity, accuracy, information comprehensiveness and correctness, honesty, respect for an individual and society, personal responsibility, self-regulation, tolerance, and variety of opinions. Such an idealistic view to mass media should be given credit and become the reason of the very existence of media. Media market is a business field needed of particular regulation because mass media not only exists in the economic level but performs a certain mission within the society as well. General legal acts regulating the competition do not cover all the aspects of media. Some legal acts being only of recommendatory base cannot ensure neither the independence and pluralism of media nor successful existence of public media. In a democratic country mass media providing public information must reveal to the public certain data about the owners of public information providers and spreaders, their commercial interests, political orientation, and etc. These provisions requiring publicity and transparency are necessary in order to ensure pluralism of opinions and prevent monopolism and manipulations in the field of public information. Information about the owners of mass media has to be known as it guarantees transparency of the market while the lack of such documents brings into one and the same the mission of media and interests of the owners, misleads the society, and decreases confidence in media. However, provisions of media transparency in legal acts are not effective and inefficient control mechanism is partly to be blamed. The theorists of journalism, critics, and public figures constantly emphasize the significance and necessity of media's mission and the role of public media in the existence of a democratic society. Legal acts are used to ensure the pluralism of media, its fair and competitive market. Unfortunately, despite the mission of media and regulation of the market media gives priority to business over publicity and realization of the mission in the society. Media of entertainment, "infotainment," and "new news" media which springs up in such context gains the highest ratings and editions at the same time superseding public media from the means of mass media. The spread of information which has been the main reason of media existence since the very first newspapers is losing to the interests of media ownership in uneven battle.
Public space is realized as social & communicative arena, civic forum. The whole of individuals becomes a market of information consumers where arguments are presented & public opinion is formed. Conception of public space is related to alternation of state organization & communication models. While a modern state is being created, press forms a bourgeois public space. Radio & television invoked public discussions in the last century. Conception of public radio & television formed in Europe prolonged the tradition of public service. Community delegates to the state certain regulation functions which secure the right of a citizen to receive information & to participate in formation of public opinion. The monopoly of radio & television broadcast granted to democratic state has to guarantee pluralism & word freedom. Goals of public broadcaster are to expand civic society, stimulate activities of non-commercial & non-political groups, nourish national values. Main principles of an audiovisual public service are accessibility, pluralism, universality, independence. Citizens control (public services) & finance (subscription fee) public broadcasters. An antimonopolic wave formed in the eighth decade of previous century forced to liberalize the sector of European audiovisual communication. A new political consensus was achieved: only competition can secure pluralism. Traditional conception of public space varies. Market of audiovisual mass communication growing rapidly formed public space being regulated & activated in a special way. Efforts of generated communication (public relations) & competitive media invoke an opposite effect -- decreasing interest in public life. According to the opinion of radical democratic theory conception of public space formed by liberal democracy fell into desuetude, because community was split to heterogenous groups which don't have the vision of the common goal. Information community evolves in the direction of demassification & diversification; it will be supplied with products of media according to individual demand. The model of vertical communication dominating in public space is replaced by horizontal interactive communication. In such a way models of popular & qualitative communication become equally important. However the idea of public audiovisual service becomes more & more popular. It is believed that only it can guarantee functioning of democracy not allowing forming community of two speeds where not all of them will have an access to information resources. Adapted from the source document.
By associating public interest and the quality of media with the right to know, this article aims to show that these two factors are no less important to the functioning of a democratic society than pluralism and diversity, which are directly linked to the freedom of information. The search for the balance between the right to know and the freedom of information is one of the most important issues concerning the functionality of the media, especially in Central and Eastern Europe.
