Suchergebnisse

Among the many factors that determine the development of a political democracy, political culture should be stressed. Research by Almond and Verba, and later similar research in Yugoslavia, show that there exists a rather strong connection between political culture and the stability of a democratic political system. As large and ever larger groups of people have access to television, this mass medium plays more and more prominent role in shaping political culture. When the population attains (as in many societies now) a certain basic level of education, the majority of programmes can be understood by everybody. With this, there is lessening of the discrimination as to the political information, at least in principle. Television is an especially potent medium for introducing people into subject areas for which they have shown little or no interest previously. In spite of selective processes, a good measure of such material reaches the viewer and causes changes in his mind. People, in short, become conscious of political processes, which means enhancing of political culture. After the advent of TV, the political process has been transformed into real life, that can be seen, heard and almost touched. With this, the politician and politics itself loses their mystique and moves into the area of the secular things. The politician's image on the TV screen in not only physically diminished, but also psychologically deflated: now everybody can measure and criticize him by use of common yardsticks. In that way ordinary citizens gain certain strength, of the psychological nature, that becomes a part of their new political culture. Furthermore, television acts as an integrator and affirmer of small, isolated opposition groups. This is especially important for political systems in which political life has been integrated around two or three great political parties, and everything outside, remains unnoticed and ineffective. When such a small political group gets a portion of TV time (as it must, because it il »news« by definition), it immediately draws the support of all similar element in society and by that the chance to influence the broader political process. Naturally, television does not have only positive effects on political culture and political process. We not forget that television, with rare exceptions, is under direct and strong monopolistic control of varied political and other elites. The television viewer is to a large extent a victim of manipulation. Furthermore, there are some authors that consider television detrimental for political action, because it purportedly passivizes the public. But our conclusion is still on the positive side. The suppression of news and information in general, cannot go too far except in countries that are cut off the rest of the world in a seal-tight fashion. If people get information and that during long periods, (throughout years and decades), they cannot but form their attitudes, and become readier for political action, »spectoritis« or not. The whole problem of television influence on viewer should be always discussed in a broad time perspective, and not, as in some of the current research, in an artificially isolated moment. And so, to conclude, television does build the basic psycho-cultural prerequisites for better political participation, and by that, for a more democratic world.

Članak propituje doprinos hrvatske politologije razvoju demokracije u Hrvatskoj. Fokus analize je pojam kulture o kojem autor govori u pet koraka. U prvom koraku je određena u modernom ključu, u drugom kao različita od prirode, a u trećemu kao različita od društva. U četvrtom se unutar politike razlikuje politička kultura od političke ekonomije i političkih ustanova, no u petom se pokazuje da je kultura nosivi dio politike i kao politics i kao policy i kao polity. Na temelju tih odredaba pokazuje se da je matica hrvatske politologije zaokupljena pretežito i u sve većoj mjeri izučavanjem upravo predmeta koji na prvi pogled pripadaju politici kao kulturi, i to u užem smislu političke kulture, te da se ona sama reproducira kao politička kultura. ; The article discusses the contribution of Croatian political science to the development of democracy in Croatia. The focus of the analysis is the concept of culture which author talks about in five steps. In the first step it is understood in the modern key, in the second step as different for nature and in the third as different from society. In the fourth step author differentiates political culture from political economy and political institutions, but in the fifth part there is an attempt to show culture as a fundamental part of politics, policy and polity. On the basis of these insights author shows that the matrix of Croatian political science is more and more devoted to scientific investigation of politics as culture as both study of political culture and as a source of development as politics as culture.

The purpose of this essay is to prove the connection among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure, ie, within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims -- primarily in line with the functional theory of culture -- that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure, that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture, ie, that "culture is a structure's way of life," that culture determines the structure) & the contemporary interactional approach (in which -- primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" -- complex relations among various cultural variables & structural variables are analyzed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or the end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate & useful in understanding & maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important & more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis has shown how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depend on the elements of the very political structure (party systems & coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc.). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently its role greatly depends on the relations among political actors & the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

(See Part I in Politika Misao, 1999, 36, 1, 113-139.) Part II seeks to prove the connection among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure: the notion that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure; & the contemporary interactional approach, which considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis demonstrates how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that, in the future, they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also in attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the long-, medium-, & short-term prospects of liberalism in Croatia. The long-term prospects are determined by the global future of liberalism; however, agreement among liberal theoreticians as to what that future might look like has not yet been reached. It might be said that the clout of liberals in relation to the other two major political groups -- conservatives & social democrats -- depends on the type of mixture of the value of freedom, equality, & solidarity in Croatian political culture. The medium-term prospects are determined on the basis of the analysis of the social structure of Croatian society, which displays a powerlessness of educated & economically independent social strata as the traditional addressees of liberal politics. The author thinks that major short-term changes in the Croatian political scenery are unrealistic. 2 Figures, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

This note introduces contributions delivered at the international conference "Ustav kao simbol i instrument" (The Constitution as a Symbol and Instrument), held in Zagreb, 7-8 Dec 2001. The symbolic & regulating functions of the constitution are noted as very much distinct objectives. Excerpts from the preambles of the American & French constitutions are quoted to illustrate that this document not only spells out the fundamental laws by which a nation is to be governed but also states the people's basic values, views on self-determination, equality, tolerance, or liberty, & ethical principles that it holds dear. The constitution is an instrument regulating a political process while at the same time functioning as a symbol of political culture. The people do not only state in it their sovereignty but also a conception of the republic's order. Z. Dubiel

Autori u radu istražuju fenomen političkoga vodstva kao jednoga od segmenata šireg koncepta društvenog vodstva. Ukazuju na više definicija potvrđujući činjenicu da se vodstvo danas u suvremenoj literaturi različito definira. Za dublje razumijevanje teme ukazuje se na osnovne elemente i aktivnosti (posao) vodstva. Razumijevanje političkoga vodstva znači i razumijevanje utjecaja političke kulture. Ukazano je na ključnu razliku između vodstva i upravljanja kao i specifičnosti predsjedničkoga vodstva. Političko vodstvo u užemu kontekstu uvijek se razmatra preko izvora autoriteta i moći, te etike vodstva. Ovaj rad time daje osnove teorijskoga pristupa proučavanja političkog liderstva. ; The authors research the phenomenon of political leadership as one of the segments of the broader concept of social leadership. It is pointed to several definitions, confirming the fact that leadership is defined differently in contemporary literature today. For a deeper understanding of the topic, the basic elements and activities (work) of leadership are outlined. Understanding political leadership also means understanding the impact of political culture. The key difference between leadership and management, as well as the specifics of presidential leadership, is pointed out. In a narrow context, political leadership is always analysed through sources of authority and power, and ethics of leadership. This paper provides the basis for a theoretical approach to the study of political leadership.

The purpose of this essay is to prove the connections among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure ie, within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims -- primarily in line with the functional theory of culture -- that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure, & that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture ie, that "culture is a structure's way of life," that culture determines the structure) & the contemporary interactional approach (in which -- primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" -- complex relations among various cultural variables & structural variables are analyzed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition," but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate & useful in understanding & maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important & more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis shows how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depends on the elements of the political structure (party systems & coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently, its role depends on the relations among political actors & the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

The essay describes the evolution of the concept of political culture, from the concepts such as Comte's 'consensus,' Durkheim's 'collective awareness,' Weber's 'significance of individual actions,' to Parson's 'action frame of reference,' & Mead's 'national character.' The development began with Comte's search for differentia specifica of social sciences in relation to other positive sciences & finished in 1963 with the introduction of the concept of political culture into political science by G. Almond & S. Verba. Our analysis has shown that many definitions of political culture point out that its essence lies in people's beliefs since political culture is a set of beliefs regarding politics. As much as it may seem a paradox, it cannot be reduced to mere individual beliefs, but represents a system of inter-subjective opinions on various political objects. This explains the possible discrepancies between the political events & the political beliefs of the people, between their behavior & political culture, & so on. Contrary to the belief of some authors, it has been shown how political culture may & should be taken as a common denominator for a variety of opinions on politics. Political attitudes, values, norms, public opinion, & political ideologies are nothing but different manifestations of political culture. Thus, the concept of political culture includes diverse facets of the subjective attitude of people towards politics. This is the asset & not the downside of this concept, as some authors would have it. It is pointed out that the manifold manifestations of political culture do not carry the same 'weight' in explaining the political activism of people & the functioning of political systems. The relationship between these manifestations is extremely complex & a challenge for research. It is this very relationship that could explain the stable & less stable (ie, stable & vacillating) reactions of people in their political activity. Adapted from the source document.

Defining the dimensions of political culture is a precondition in the elaboration of the theory of this phenomenon & for its systematic empirical study. It has been demonstrated that Almond-Verba's concept of the dimensions of political culture, in the form of a matrix of the three orientations (cognitive, affective, & evaluative) times four political objects ("system," "input-objects," "output-objects," & "I" as an object) is not plausible. If political culture is defined as a set of beliefs about politics (which it indeed is), then it is clear that each belief at the same time contains an intricate mix of knowledge, emotions, & evaluations. This makes it difficult to determine the dimensions according to the mentioned orientations. It seems this was sensed by Almond himself in one of his later works. Using his more recent concept, we define the dimensions of political culture according to the "objects" of politics & not vice versa, according to the orientations in relation to these "objects." Thus, we have elaborated on the three fundamental dimensions according to the three fundamental objects of politics: the "system" as a universal object, the "process" as a dynamic object of politics, & the "conduct" as a manner of decision making & the outcome of governing. It has been found that each of these basic dimensions of political culture has a series of subdimensions (a total of about 25). Surely, this matrix may be added to or perhaps amended, but basically it is unassailable, since it represents a sort of map of political culture. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

The author defines the state of law as a typical product of German political culture that corresponds to, but also differs from, both the experience of the English rule of law & that of the French l'Etat-Nation. The author pays particular attention to the issue of the legitimacy of the sate of law. He focuses on two different approaches to this issue in the works of Volker Gerhardt & Ernst Wolfgang Bockenford. Following a critical analysis of their fundamental assumptions the author goes on to divulge the thesis on the necessity of a balance between rights & power in the functioning of modern political systems. 5 References. Adapted from the source document.

In a response to Vladimir Vujcic's earlier review of the author's (2003) book, Politicka i medijska kultura u Hrvatskoj (Political and Media Culture in Croatia), which charged that the author had trod on research that Vujcic himself was preparing in his own recently published Politicka tolerancija (Political Tolerance), & also failed fully to account for a conclusion that intolerance of fascists, Yugoslavists, communists, & Ustashe in contemporary Croatia is not indicative of a culture of political intolerance. In response, the author points out that much of his research was carried out in 1992-1993, & that the author himself acknowledged the difficulty of adequately defining "tolerance." In conclusion Vujcic is accused of sophistry. A. Siegel