Suchergebnisse

Abstract In the field of political behavior, tolerance is a crucial element to keep harmonious relationship. Studies should be able to measure a valid construct of tolerance in an effort to understand it further. Ferrar (1979) conducted a research focusing on the concept of political tolerance and theorized political tolerance to have three dimensions, namely flexible, approval, and allowance. This study aims to construct a political tolerance scale based on Ferrar's concept and dimensions. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is employed to test the construct validity and dimensionality of the Political Tolerance Scale. Participants were 300 Indonesian-Muslims. The results support the Political Tolerance Scale as a unidimensional scale consists of flexible, approval, and allowance dimensions. However, the limitation of the samples' characteristic suggests future studies to conduct further researches on samples with different characteristics.AbstractDalam ilmu perilaku politik, toleransi adalah merupakan elemen penting untuk menjaga keharmonisan hubungan. Kajian saintifik harus mampu mengukur konstruk toleransi yang valid dalam upaya memahaminya lebih jauh. Ferrar (1979) melakukan penelitian yang berfokus pada konsep toleransi politik dimana toleransi politik diteorikan memiliki tiga dimensi, yaitu fleksibel, persetujuan, dan pengakomodiran. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkonstruksi alat ukur toleransi politik. Analisis faktor konfirmatori (CFA) digunakan untuk menguji validitas konstruk dan dimensi Skala Toleransi. Pesertanya adalah 300 orang Muslim Indonesia. Hasil yang didapat mendukung Skala Toleransi Politik sebagai skala unidimensional yang terdiri dari dimensi fleksibel, persetujuan, dan pengakomodiran. Namun, keterbatasan karakteristik sampel mendorong studi selanjutnya untuk melakukan penelitian lebih lanjut pada karakteristik sampel yang berbeda.

ABSTRACT Introduction: This article propose to connect two research agendas on political behavior: studies on political tolerance and research on partisanship. Search, by connecting these two agendas, to assess the extent to which parties have become targets of political intolerance and thereby to assess the intensity of negative attitudes towards this central institution of democracy. Studies on partisanship conflicts in Brazil have focused on the antagonism opposing petismo and antipetismo. However, the 2018 elections have shown that Brazilians also adopt other forms of antipartisanship. Changes in patterns of political and electoral behavior in recent years can only be properly understood if we consider variation over time in the intensity and scope of antipartisan sentiment. We propose a typology where antipartisanship may be moderate or radical and may have a narrower or broader target. This theme is significant not only for interpreting Brazil's current political context, but also for deepening understanding of theoretical and analytical questions. Our understanding is that these different types of antipartisanship are distinct phenomena with different effects. Materials and Methods: The data we use to construct the proposed typology and analyze the range and intensity of antipartisanship are derived from an unprecedented Latin America Public Opinion Project initiative to measure political tolerance in Brazil, in its 2017 edition. Our methodology combine variables of disaffection and political intolerance to construct different voter profiles, based on respondent's attitudes towards unpopular groups, including political parties. After constructing the typology, we propose regression models to estimate the effects of each type on several attitudes, like support to democracy and institutional trust. Results: Our findings show a relationship between the most extreme types of antipartisanship and attitudes towards democracy. Compared with non-antipartisan voters, intolerant antipartisan are less supportive of democracy and democratic institutions and less favorable to freedom of expression and the granting of political rights to minorities. The intensity of antipartisanship matters more than its scope, since the models show that, there is little difference in the degree of commitment to democracy and democratic principles between the two types of intolerant antipartisans, regardless of the scope of the target of their disapproval. This means that attitudes toward democracy, democratic institutions, and democratic principles depend less on the scope antipartisanship, than on political intolerance towards these groups. Discussion: The data and results presented here indicate that antipartisanship is not a one-dimensional phenomenon. The individual is not merely antipartisan or non-antipartisan. We show that antipartisanship contains at least two dimensions: its scope and intensity. Previous studies have already shown the existence of different expressions of antipartisanship, but this diversity has not yet been systematically explored using a well-defined typology. Our work points to this research agenda.

ABSTRACT Introduction: This article propose to connect two research agendas on political behavior: studies on political tolerance and research on partisanship. Search, by connecting these two agendas, to assess the extent to which parties have become targets of political intolerance and thereby to assess the intensity of negative attitudes towards this central institution of democracy. Studies on partisanship conflicts in Brazil have focused on the antagonism opposing petismo and antipetismo. However, the 2018 elections have shown that Brazilians also adopt other forms of antipartisanship. Changes in patterns of political and electoral behavior in recent years can only be properly understood if we consider variation over time in the intensity and scope of antipartisan sentiment. We propose a typology where antipartisanship may be moderate or radical and may have a narrower or broader target. This theme is significant not only for interpreting Brazil's current political context, but also for deepening understanding of theoretical and analytical questions. Our understanding is that these different types of antipartisanship are distinct phenomena with different effects. Materials and Methods: The data we use to construct the proposed typology and analyze the range and intensity of antipartisanship are derived from an unprecedented Latin America Public Opinion Project initiative to measure political tolerance in Brazil, in its 2017 edition. Our methodology combine variables of disaffection and political intolerance to construct different voter profiles, based on respondent's attitudes towards unpopular groups, including political parties. After constructing the typology, we propose regression models to estimate the effects of each type on several attitudes, like support to democracy and institutional trust. Results: Our findings show a relationship between the most extreme types of antipartisanship and attitudes towards democracy. Compared with non-antipartisan voters, intolerant antipartisan are less supportive of democracy and democratic institutions and less favorable to freedom of expression and the granting of political rights to minorities. The intensity of antipartisanship matters more than its scope, since the models show that, there is little difference in the degree of commitment to democracy and democratic principles between the two types of intolerant antipartisans, regardless of the scope of the target of their disapproval. This means that attitudes toward democracy, democratic institutions, and democratic principles depend less on the scope antipartisanship, than on political intolerance towards these groups. Discussion: The data and results presented here indicate that antipartisanship is not a one-dimensional phenomenon. The individual is not merely antipartisan or non-antipartisan. We show that antipartisanship contains at least two dimensions: its scope and intensity. Previous studies have already shown the existence of different expressions of antipartisanship, but this diversity has not yet been systematically explored using a well-defined typology. Our work points to this research agenda.KEYWORDS: antipartisanship; political tolerance; political attitudes; political parties; democracy.

Work Package 5: New Knowledge on Tolerance and Cultural Diversity in Europe ; The ACCEPT PLURALISM project (2010-2013) is funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme, Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities. (Call FP7-SSH-2009-A, Grant Agreement no: 243837). Coordinator: Prof. Anna Triandafyllidou, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.

Political tolerance, which is the willingness to extend civil liberties, is a core principle in a democracy. In the study of tolerance, scholars use some variation of the tolerance scale, which gives us individual and aggregated willingness to extend civil liberties, such as free speech to disliked groups. There are potential issues with the way tolerance is measured, particularly with regard to different social groups. Through a series of experimental studies using student and internet samples, I examine whether political tolerance is susceptible to social concerns. Given that the measure of tolerance may be susceptible to social concerns, estimates of political tolerance may not fully capture actual tolerance.

This article is an attempt to bridge both the concept of ethnic and political tolerance into one account. It also is an attempt to make a connection between both ethnic and political tolerance with the studies of voting behaviour. Using qualitative methodology with content analysis approach and reviewing past literature, this article proposed a development of democratic-rational learning framework, a hybrid perspective from democratic learning and rational choice theories. As to date, the non-existence of any single model that explains both areas may pave to a new avenue in understand tolerance ethnically and politically and its importance in the study of voting behaviour. The proposed framework is perhaps contributed to the current body of knowledge of both theories. It is significance where ethnic and politics perceived as most important matter, and tolerance become increasingly worldwide agenda in managing multi-diversity society. Evidences are discussed further. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s1p365

Once a fully free country according to Freedom House, Indonesia has declined to partly free in the last seven years, indicating that the largest Muslim democracy in the world is deconsolidating. The decrease of freedom in Indonesia is believed to be associated with intolerance toward religious minorities, specifically by Muslims toward non-Muslims. Previous studies found that Indonesians are in general intolerant. However, those studies ignore factors which have the potential to strengthen religio-polititical tolerance. My contribution is to fill this empty space by explaining the intolerance. The potential explanatory factors are political, economic, and security conditions, institutional engagement, political engagement, and democratic values. Based on a nationwide public opinion survey, this study reveals new findings about which factors are more crucial to strengthening religio-political tolerance. Muslim religiosity affects significantly and negatively religio-political tolerance. However, economic, political, and security conditions, institutional engagement, political engagement, democratic values, and Javanese ethnicity more significantly explain the tolerance. If these factors prevail over religion and religiosity, tolerance will improve.

The author endeavors to demonstrate that the realization of tolerance in a contemporary society is impossible without respecting different religious conceptions of the world. In other words, if one of such conceptions becomes politically relevant, that very fact amounts, as a rule, to some degree of restriction of other religions. This is why in the world political centers it has become obvious that only by creating legal prerequisites of ensuring the equality in status and position, it would be possible to realize political tolerance in pluri-confessional society. These prerequisites are created by enacting relevant international documents, such as the General Declaration of Human Rights and the Pact on Civil and Political Rights of Man. In such a way, and in accordance to the scope of implementation of these two documents, one may speak at present of reciprocal existence of religious tolerance in any social and political system. ; Raspravljati o religiji političkoj toleranciji nije moguće bez stavljanja ove dve tekovine ljudskog duha u konkretnu praksu. Sve religije govore o tome da su primer poštovanja slobode i da jedina prava sloboda postoji u njihovom okviru. S druge strane, istorija je bila poprište krvavih ratova u ime različitih koncepata tolerancije za koje su se zalagale pojedine religije. U savremenom svetu se pokazalo da je ostvarivanje slobodnog društva i prave tolerancije uopšte, a samim tim i političke, nemoguće bez odvajanja vere od države. Taj proces koji je dobio planetarne razmere ipak ne ide onako kako bi se to očekivalo i netolerancija izazvana, između ostalog, i religijskom isključivošću još uvek vlada u velikim delovima planete.

The paper draws attention to the diverse nature of the positions involved in the ongoing debate about gender. While some positions are scientific, others have a metaphysical, ethical or political character. From a liberal egalitarian paradigm, this distinction is crucial. Public institutions treat all citizens as free and equal when they are metaphysically and ethically neutral. Neutrality involves two requirements. On the one hand, public institucions must be justified on political or scientific considerations and, on the other they must not promote or endorse any ethical or metaphysical conception. ; El presente artículo llama la atención sobre la diversa naturaleza de las posiciones presentes en el debate acerca del género. Mientras algunas posiciones son de índole científica, otras son metafísicas, éticas o políticas. Desde el punto de vista del paradigma liberal igualitario, tal distinción es fundamental. Las instituciones públicas tratan a todos los ciudadanos como libres e iguales cuando son neutrales tanto a nivel metafísico como ético. La neutralidad involucra dos exigencias. Por un lado, las instituciones públicas deben justificarse sólo en base a consideraciones de índole política o científica y, por el otro, no deben promover o suscribir a ninguna concepción ética o metafísica.

El presente artículo llama la atención sobre la diversa natu- raleza de las posiciones presentes en el debate acerca del género. Mien- tras algunas posiciones son de índole científica, otras son metafísicas, éticas o políticas. Desde el punto de vista del paradigma liberal iguali- tario, tal distinción es fundamental. Las instituciones públicas tratan a todos los ciudadanos como libres e iguales cuando son neutrales tanto a nivel metafísico como ético. La neutralidad involucra dos exigencias. Por un lado, las instituciones públicas deben justificarse sólo en base a consideraciones de índole política o científica y, por el otro, no deben promover o suscribir a ninguna concepción ética o metafísica. ; The paper draws attention to the diverse nature of the positions involved in the ongoing debate about gender. While some po- sitions are scientific, others have a metaphysical, ethical or political character. From a liberal egalitarian paradigm, this distinction is cru- cial. Public institutions treat all citizens as free and equal when they are metaphysically and ethically neutral. Neutrality involves two re- quirements. On the one hand, public institucions must be justified on political or scientific considerations and, on the other they must not promote or endorse any ethical or metaphysical conception. ; Fil: Seleme, Hugo Omar. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina

The aim of this study was to explain political tolerance for Muslims from an intergroup perspective. Explanatory mechanisms were derived from integrated threat theory, social identity theory, and the contact and multiculturalism hypotheses. Our results, based on survey data among Dutch youth and by using structural equation modeling, revealed that endorsement of multiculturalism and perceived symbolic and safety threat were the main determinants of political tolerance. Furthermore, we compared the explanatory model for prejudiced and nonprejudiced participants. Perceived safety threat was not associated with tolerance judgments among the nonprejudiced participants. All other relationships were similar for the two groups of participants.

-text"/-This article was initiated to recognize the level of political tolerance in a multiethnic society of Malaysia, with a specific orientation to the district of Kuala Langat, Selangor, Malaysia. It also aimed at identifying factors that stimulus political tolerance in the area involved. In a survey of political tolerance of 200 respondents, this study begs the question of the relationship of political tolerance and youth participation in political activities. It is imperative to study due to the demographic distinctiveness and generality power of expanse for forecasting near future of political and voting tendencies in Selangor. The findings reveal that the youth of Kuala Langat district can be categorized as medium good of political tolerance practitioners, as democratic values and civic participation are more significant than the issue of party politics and ethnicity. It is substantial where moderation has become gradually Malaysia national plan in managing plural society. Results and discussions are further discussed.

This thesis explores the cognitive underpinnings of political tolerance. Past research suggests that political elites are more tolerant than the general population, regardless of political orientation. Survey results suggest that political expertise, interest, and attention to politics foster increased political tolerance, regardless of ideology, party, or the extent to which tolerance is carefully considered by the respondent.

This is a dissertation about lawyers, judges, international NGOs and legal action in an authoritarian state. The state is contemporary China. The type of legal action is civil environmental lawsuits, as when herdsmen from Inner Mongolia sue a local paper factory over poisoned groundwater and dead livestock or a Shandong villager demands compensation from a nearby factory for the noise that allegedly killed 26 foxes on his farm. Empirically, this is a close-to-the-ground account of everyday justice and the factors that shape it. Drawing on fifteen months of field research in China, along with in-depth exploration of four cases, legal documents, government reports, newspaper articles and blog archives, this dissertation unpacks how law as litigation works: how judges make decisions, why lawyers take cases and how international influence matters. Conceptually, civil environmental lawsuits illustrate one pathway between litigation and social change in China and, by implication, possibly other illiberal states. With the exception of the first chapter, each chapter introduces a new actor's perspective on the interaction between state signals and legal professionals' response. The key theme, which cuts across chapters on the state, judges, lawyers and international NGOs, is what I call political ambivalence: conflicting official (or quasi-official) signals regarding the desirability of certain types of citizen action. Simultaneous impulses to promote law but control courts, to protect the environment and yet pursue economic growth, generate a medley of statements, cases and regulations that do not necessarily concord. For legal professionals on the ground, these mixed messages translate into a degree of opportunity. Without official sanction or intent, conflicting signals crack open enough political space to allow limited judicial innovation (chapter 3), legal activism (chapter 4), sustained international encouragement (chapter 5) and policy promotion (chapter 6). Even on tough terrain, political ambivalence over law can provide a limited opportunity to probe new roles and, in so doing, gently push the limitations of political tolerance.

According to Sullivan et al.'s (Sullivan et al. 1979, 53-55, Sullivan et al. 1985) theory, social and psychological factors play different roles in political tolerance. Target-group selection is shaped by socio-demographic characteristics, since in this way people try to adjust themselves to their social environment. On the other side, the degree of tolerance is a function of personality and other psychological factors. The paper examines whether the causal model proposed by Sullivan and his co-workers is able to account for individual differences in the degree of political intolerance in Eastern and Western Europe. The main emphasis is on their hypothesis about different effects of socio-economic and psychological variables. The research is based on World Values Survey data, which include the so called 'least liked' method to operationalize political tolerance. The findings indicate that psychological factors play an important role in the choice of target group, and not only in determining the degree of intolerance, contrary to Sullivan et al., hypothesis. Socio-economic status variables displayed rather complex pattern of influence on political tolerance. In general, the findings suggest that intolerance of different groups is not uniformly related to social and psychological explanatory variables. Not only intolerance is pluralistic, but the mechanisms behind intolerance seem to be pluralistic too.