Suchergebnisse

In Serbia, in the aftermath of 5 October 2000, the process of desecularization, including the revitalization of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), overlapped with the democratization of its political institutions, as well as with the political and social pluralism. The desecularization of the Serbian society had already started in the socialist Yugoslavia, but the process itself intensified in the early period of political pluralism and establishment of the democratic political institutions. Is Orthodoxy compatible with democracy, viewed not only as the will of the majority or an election procedure, but also as a political culture of pluralism and rule of law? Is Orthodoxy possible as a "civic" church, in line with the European political tradition of democracy and pluralism? The author contends that the contemporary Orthodoxy, including the SOC, accepts globalization in its technical, technological and economic sense, with a parallel tendency towards cultural fragmentation. Thus one needs a consensus between the SOC, state and society in Serbia concerning the basic values, such as: democracy, civil society, pluralistic discourse, secular tolerance and individual human rights. ; In Serbia, in the aftermath of 5 October 2000, the process of desecularization, including the revitalization of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), overlapped with the democratization of its political institutions, as well as with the political and social pluralism. The desecularization of the Serbian society had already started in the socialist Yugoslavia, but the process itself intensified in the early period of political pluralism and establishment of the democratic political institutions. Is Orthodoxy compatible with democracy, viewed not only as the will of the majority or an election procedure, but also as a political culture of pluralism and rule of law? Is Orthodoxy possible as a "civic" church, in line with the European political tradition of democracy and pluralism? The author contends that the contemporary Orthodoxy, including the SOC, accepts globalization in its technical, technological and economic sense, with a parallel tendency towards cultural fragmentation. Thus one needs a consensus between the SOC, state and society in Serbia concerning the basic values, such as: democracy, civil society, pluralistic discourse, secular tolerance and individual human rights.

The author analyses the relationship among atomism, pluralism, and democracy from the standpoint of contemporary Rawlsian and Kafkian theory of justice. The author views fairness and justice as forms of substituting democratic decision-making in multicultural communities. (SOI : S. 143)

The poll on political tolerance was conducted on a 772 -subject sample. Because of the long-lasting totalitarian system and the short period of democracy, a rather low level of political tolerance was expected. However, the results of the poll have not confirmed these expectations but showed a high Ievel of political tolerance instead. Similar findings have been obtained by an American survey conducted in several European countries, including Croatia. This means that the political tolerance in Croatia has not been shaped by the totalitarian system but by the pluralist traits of the Croatian culture, ensuing from numerous contacts with a plethora of different cultures. In order for the pluralist democracy in Croatia to function democratically, appropriate legal prerequisites and institutions do not suffice; the people who is in line with the principles of pluralist democracy are central to this as well. Pluralist democracy legalizes various political options and enables the citizens to organize themselves and act in accordance with the embraced option. All this, however, is a dead letter if people are not willing to accept the existence and the activism of different political options. That is why the concept of political tolerance always goes hand in hand with the concept of pluralist democracy. The Latin word "tolerantia" means 'indulgence', 'patience'. That is why political tolerance is usually understood as a readiness to bear or put up with political options and their operationalizations which are obnoxious and even repugnant to us ... . The essence of political life is not tolerance and patience but non-restriction of political freedoms and political pluralism. Those who accept political pluralism find it easier to bear the existence of various political options, even those they do not approve of. There are more a less intensive feelings of intolerance and bigotry. So, tolerance means accepting and not only forbearing different political options. (SOI : PM: S. 148)

The essay first highlights certain basic features of the attitude of the European immigrant countries towards the new (migrant) ethnic minorities in their midst, the attitude that at the same time is indicative of the existence of various forms of ethnicity in the development of the European nation-states. The differences in the individual "national responses" regarding the existence of new ethnic communities reflect these differences in the understanding of the ethnic/national identity of individual countries. The author then goes on to deal more specifically with the presence of the Muslim population in West-European countries, the population that - perhaps more than any other group of "aliens" - is torn between the Westeuropean practice of ethnic and increasingly cultural discrimination, and a belief in liberalism and pluralism. ln connection with this, the role of Islam and the "Muslim" identity in the Muslim communities in West- European countries is analyzed. (SOI : PM: S. 108)

Based on the experience of former rightist and communist dictatorships in Europe regarding different forms of opposition - both open and hidden within these regimes' structures - the author analyzes the role of the opposition in the process of the sweeping democratic change that has taken place the "new democracies" of Central and Eastern Europe in the direction of the state of law and civil society. His conclusion is, that in today's Central European countries political multi-party pluralism which includes viable parliamentary opposition was given a smooth start and has since taken root. However in the countries with only superficial democracy and an obvious "democratic deficit" - for example Croatia (and Slovakia) - parliamentary opposition plays the second fiddle. The prime movers of the change - and of the democratization as well - are still the ruling parties (not unlike during the communist single-party regimes). Changes occur only when the ruling party or its major fraction opt for them considering them the lesser of two evils, either because they are no longer satisfied with the distribution of power and goods within the existing status quo or because they are aware that it cannot be maintained in its present form. This happened in the Soviet Union , first under Nikita Khruschev and then again under Mihail Gorbachev. Changes, however, when imposed from above get out of hand and backfire against those who have set them off (remember Gorbachev); what emerges is usually a compromise between tbe vestige of the old and the emerging regime. (SOI : PM: S. 92)

Freedom of expression enjoys a particular protection in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. According to the Court, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Moreover, it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population, since these are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no 'democratic society'. This high valuing of freedom of expression is particularly striking when it comes to the political speech, the free political debate being a distinctive feature of a democratic society. Nevertheless, the European Court considers that whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes 'duties and responsibilities', and that the freedom of political debate is undoubtedly not absolute in nature. More concretely, when the hate speech is at issue the Court underlines that the tolerance and respect of equal dignity of all human beings constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic and pluralist society, and that in a democratic society, in principle, it may be considered necessary to punish and even to prevent all forms of expression which propagate, incite, promote, or justify the hate based on intolerance. Taking into account the notion of prohibition of hate speech in the constitutional system of the Republic of Serbia, and the place of the European Convention on Human Rights in its hierarchy of legal sources, this paper follows the evolution of the European Court's case-law as to the understanding and definition of conditions under which it may be considered necessary in a democratic society to restrict freedom of expression because of hate speech. This legal standard - necessary in a democratic society, is then compared to the clear and present danger test, which has been developed for almost a century in the case-law of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and which application is sometimes recommended in Europe.

Izbori i izborni sistemi su veoma važan faktor funkcionisanja političkih sistema i njihove demokratizacije. Kraj prošlog veka doneo je temeljite promene bivšim socijalstičkim društvima širom starog kontinenta. Politički pluralizam, demokratija i tržišna ekonomija postale su široko prihvaćene vrednosti za bivša komunistička društva. Ovo je, sa druge strane, povećalo značaj izbora u svim ovim zemljama, uključujući Republiku Makedoniju. Veoma je teško tvrditi da li su izbori u Republici Makedoniji, od početka njenog postojanja kao nezavisne države, uvek bili u skladu sa pravilima naprednih demokratija, ali svejedno ostaje činjenica da su omogućili demokratiju u ovoj zemlji. Republika Makedonija prihvatila je parlamentarizam i u kontinuitetu iskazivala sve veće poštovanje za volju građana izraženu na fer i slobodnim izborima, iako je u nekoliko aspekata pokazala nedostatak političke kulture i tendencije koje bi se mogle nazvati demokratskim manipulisanjem demokratijom. Glavni cilj ovog rada je da pruži pregled izbora i razvoja izbornih modela u političkom sistemu Republike Makedonije. Kao što će to u radu biti predstavljeno, Republika Makedonija je u ove dve decenije svoje nezavisnosti primenjivala čist većinski izborni model, kombinovani izborni model i proporcionalni model, koji je trenutno u upotrebi. ; Elections and electoral systems are a factor of great importance for the functioning of political systems and their democratization. The end of the last century brought fundamental changes to ex socialist societies all over the old continent. Political pluralism, democracy and market economy became the largely accepted values for ex communist societies. This on the other hand resulted in an increased importance of elections in all these countries, including the Republic of Macedonia. It is very hard to argue weather election in the Republic of Macedonia from the very beginnings of its functioning as an independent country have always been in accordance with the rules of advanced democracies, but never the less the fact remains that they have made democracy in this country possible. The Republic of Macedonia has accepted parliamentarism and has shown in continuity an increasing respect for the will of citizens expressed in fair and free elections, although in several aspects it has shown a lack of political culture and tendencies for what might be called a democratic manipulation of democracy. The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of elections and the evolution of the electoral models in the political system of the Republic of Macedonia. As will be presented in the paper the Republic of Macedonia in these two decades of functioning as an independent country has implemented the pure majoritarian electoral model, the combined electoral model and the proportional model which is being actually implemented.