Suchergebnisse

In the Times of struggle between neoliberal capitalism and global civil movement Questions regarding global governance and the possibility of global democracy are of specific concern. Currently, many social movements are organized around human rights under a variety of platforms (i.e., labor, indigenous rights). It is my contention that the need for transnational multi-issue movements is evident in the struggle for global democracy. The Internet is an important resource for the mobilization of mass global movements because it allows for quick and broad dissemination of information. Network society as a society in which a combination of social and media networks shapes its prime mode of organization and most important structures at all levels (individual, organizational and societal). It is necessary to understand nature of network society and its dynamics to further look at its influence on emerging social movements. Power is the condition and limit of politics, culture and authority. Power seeps through and around all forms of subjectivity, at times bringing opposites into conflict in a way that reinforces the fundamental flow of power. Power concerns not immediately obvious forms of politics, culture and authority but the structures that condition and limit these three. Grassroots activism exists in constant flows of power. Democracy is invented and reinvented between the demands of those without power and the limitations those with power try to impose. How are these two almost obsessively analysed figures of politics "the grassroots and democracy" transformed by being digitised and sent into cyberspace. Here arises global civil movement against neoliberal globalisation. This movement is not opposed to globalisation per se but instead is developing a new internationalism in the course of challenging the neoliberal nature of contemporary globalisation. This challenge is producing a universalising dynamic which is moving the movement beyond being a series of isolated militant particularist struggles. It consists of many different internet social movements united by using information and communication technologies and one goal counter the neoliberal power dominance

In the Times of struggle between neoliberal capitalism and global civil movement Questions regarding global governance and the possibility of global democracy are of specific concern. Currently, many social movements are organized around human rights under a variety of platforms (i.e., labor, indigenous rights). It is my contention that the need for transnational multi-issue movements is evident in the struggle for global democracy. The Internet is an important resource for the mobilization of mass global movements because it allows for quick and broad dissemination of information. Network society as a society in which a combination of social and media networks shapes its prime mode of organization and most important structures at all levels (individual, organizational and societal). It is necessary to understand nature of network society and its dynamics to further look at its influence on emerging social movements. Power is the condition and limit of politics, culture and authority. Power seeps through and around all forms of subjectivity, at times bringing opposites into conflict in a way that reinforces the fundamental flow of power. Power concerns not immediately obvious forms of politics, culture and authority but the structures that condition and limit these three. Grassroots activism exists in constant flows of power. Democracy is invented and reinvented between the demands of those without power and the limitations those with power try to impose. How are these two almost obsessively analysed figures of politics "the grassroots and democracy" transformed by being digitised and sent into cyberspace. Here arises global civil movement against neoliberal globalisation. This movement is not opposed to globalisation per se but instead is developing a new internationalism in the course of challenging the neoliberal nature of contemporary globalisation. This challenge is producing a universalising dynamic which is moving the movement beyond being a series of isolated militant particularist struggles. It consists of many different internet social movements united by using information and communication technologies and one goal counter the neoliberal power dominance

The Zapatista movement is one of the most influential social movements in Latin America, which among other things raised the issue of the indigenous rights. The aim of the research is to analyse the impact of the Zapatista movement in the area of securing the rights of indigenous people within the Mexican political process. The dissertation takes the case study approach. Also comparative method, scientific literature analysis, document analysis, quantitative and qualitative media content analysis, and secondary data analysis is used in the research. The research shows that the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico was largely influenced by the demands of the Zapatista movement. Indigenous peoples appeared in the discourse of political elite, they were included into Mexico's national development plans and political party manifestos. It can be argued that since early 1990s the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico has had five dimensions: political recognition, policy agenda, policy response, implementation and institutionalization. Nevertheless, not every demand put forward by the Zapatista movement has been realized. The right to self-determination as well as the right to land and its resources still remain unresolved. It can be therefore stated that the Zapatista movement was very influential with regard to raising the issue of the rights of indigenous peoples, however not all of movement's demands were met.

The Zapatista movement is one of the most influential social movements in Latin America, which among other things raised the issue of the indigenous rights. The aim of the research is to analyse the impact of the Zapatista movement in the area of securing the rights of indigenous people within the Mexican political process. The dissertation takes the case study approach. Also comparative method, scientific literature analysis, document analysis, quantitative and qualitative media content analysis, and secondary data analysis is used in the research. The research shows that the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico was largely influenced by the demands of the Zapatista movement. Indigenous peoples appeared in the discourse of political elite, they were included into Mexico's national development plans and political party manifestos. It can be argued that since early 1990s the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico has had five dimensions: political recognition, policy agenda, policy response, implementation and institutionalization. Nevertheless, not every demand put forward by the Zapatista movement has been realized. The right to self-determination as well as the right to land and its resources still remain unresolved. It can be therefore stated that the Zapatista movement was very influential with regard to raising the issue of the rights of indigenous peoples, however not all of movement's demands were met.

The Zapatista movement is one of the most influential social movements in Latin America, which among other things raised the issue of the indigenous rights. The aim of the research is to analyse the impact of the Zapatista movement in the area of securing the rights of indigenous people within the Mexican political process. The dissertation takes the case study approach. Also comparative method, scientific literature analysis, document analysis, quantitative and qualitative media content analysis, and secondary data analysis is used in the research. The research shows that the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico was largely influenced by the demands of the Zapatista movement. Indigenous peoples appeared in the discourse of political elite, they were included into Mexico's national development plans and political party manifestos. It can be argued that since early 1990s the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico has had five dimensions: political recognition, policy agenda, policy response, implementation and institutionalization. Nevertheless, not every demand put forward by the Zapatista movement has been realized. The right to self-determination as well as the right to land and its resources still remain unresolved. It can be therefore stated that the Zapatista movement was very influential with regard to raising the issue of the rights of indigenous peoples, however not all of movement's demands were met.

The object of this master thesis is the rise of indigenous peoples in Latin America, particularly in the Andean region. The main question is which factors determine the rise of indigenous peoples and their becoming important social and political protagonists in this region. The goal of this thesis thus is to analyze the factors, which have determined both the rise of indigenous movements in Ecuador and Bolivia and the weakness of comparable movements in Peru. The dominant theoretical model in the analysis of indigenous movements in Latin America is the model of political opportunity structure. According to this model the rise of a social movement is determined by two types of variables, namely structural and organizational ones. The favorable international context and changes in the political regime (structural variables) determine a more open political space where social movements can appear. For this purpose the existence of an organizational network and practice are necessary. According to this model, the (re)democratization at the end of the 20th century created a more open political system and shifted it to a neoliberal economical model, which worsened the economical situation and lead to the dissatisfaction of the region's marginal groups. The previous existence of networks of the church, the political left and other organizations in the rural zones helped to form the strong movements of indigenous people to express the discontent with the unfinished neoliberal reforms. Though this model answers the question when indigenous movements appear, it cannot answer the question why they arise. The model lacks both the historical perspective and the state variable. The argument of this master thesis is that the state's formation process, which does not include the Indian communities and its cultural practices, increases the likelihood of the appearance of indigenous movements. In this work the state's formation process is understood as the complex variable of the state's geographical, institutional and cultural–ideological penetration. On the way of finding the solution to the main problem additional questions arise: what type of relation exists between the state and indigenous and what place do these communities take within the national community? In answering these questions the historical comparative analysis of Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru is conducted. The main findings of the analysis show that until the middle of the 20th century the weak geographical and institutional penetration of the Andean states not only created state clientelism but also favorable conditions for maintaining cultural traditions and communal practices of indigenous communities. Even though this feature is important in the analysis of the rise of indigenous movements it is not sufficient for explaining why we can see the politicization of ethnical identity in Ecuador and Bolivia while there is silence in Peru. The analysis of the position of indigenous people in the national community shows that the decisive variable is the cultural dimension and the relation between Indian and national mestizo cultures. In Ecuador and Bolivia the contraposition between white people and Indian ones is maintained, while in the case of Peru the national political elite used the symbols of Indian culture which have become a part of the national symbols. Thus the distance between indigenous communities and the state is smaller in Peru. Here the indigenous communities feel like a part of the nation. The variable of the state formation process is understood as a complex variable of geographical, institutional and cultural penetration. It has a bigger explanatory power in answering to the question why the indigenous people rise in some countries while in others they do not. It emphasizes not on the variable of the more open political system, but on the importance of the state variable and the historical perspective of Latin American development.

The object of this master thesis is the rise of indigenous peoples in Latin America, particularly in the Andean region. The main question is which factors determine the rise of indigenous peoples and their becoming important social and political protagonists in this region. The goal of this thesis thus is to analyze the factors, which have determined both the rise of indigenous movements in Ecuador and Bolivia and the weakness of comparable movements in Peru. The dominant theoretical model in the analysis of indigenous movements in Latin America is the model of political opportunity structure. According to this model the rise of a social movement is determined by two types of variables, namely structural and organizational ones. The favorable international context and changes in the political regime (structural variables) determine a more open political space where social movements can appear. For this purpose the existence of an organizational network and practice are necessary. According to this model, the (re)democratization at the end of the 20th century created a more open political system and shifted it to a neoliberal economical model, which worsened the economical situation and lead to the dissatisfaction of the region's marginal groups. The previous existence of networks of the church, the political left and other organizations in the rural zones helped to form the strong movements of indigenous people to express the discontent with the unfinished neoliberal reforms. Though this model answers the question when indigenous movements appear, it cannot answer the question why they arise. The model lacks both the historical perspective and the state variable. The argument of this master thesis is that the state's formation process, which does not include the Indian communities and its cultural practices, increases the likelihood of the appearance of indigenous movements. In this work the state's formation process is understood as the complex variable of the state's geographical, institutional and cultural–ideological penetration. On the way of finding the solution to the main problem additional questions arise: what type of relation exists between the state and indigenous and what place do these communities take within the national community? In answering these questions the historical comparative analysis of Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru is conducted. The main findings of the analysis show that until the middle of the 20th century the weak geographical and institutional penetration of the Andean states not only created state clientelism but also favorable conditions for maintaining cultural traditions and communal practices of indigenous communities. Even though this feature is important in the analysis of the rise of indigenous movements it is not sufficient for explaining why we can see the politicization of ethnical identity in Ecuador and Bolivia while there is silence in Peru. The analysis of the position of indigenous people in the national community shows that the decisive variable is the cultural dimension and the relation between Indian and national mestizo cultures. In Ecuador and Bolivia the contraposition between white people and Indian ones is maintained, while in the case of Peru the national political elite used the symbols of Indian culture which have become a part of the national symbols. Thus the distance between indigenous communities and the state is smaller in Peru. Here the indigenous communities feel like a part of the nation. The variable of the state formation process is understood as a complex variable of geographical, institutional and cultural penetration. It has a bigger explanatory power in answering to the question why the indigenous people rise in some countries while in others they do not. It emphasizes not on the variable of the more open political system, but on the importance of the state variable and the historical perspective of Latin American development.

The article explores how solidarity and political emancipation progressed and impacted resistance against colonial imperialism movements in Bolivia. All throughout five hundred years of colonialism in South America local people sought to defend their communal way of life. Recent history of Bolivia, when Evo Morales, the leader of indigenous peoples, took the power is a result of long history of social struggle. Why is it important to analyze the history of social movements in Bolivia, what can it say about the development of democracy to democratic theory? Solidarity as one of the main elements of democracy was the only way for the indigenous Bolivians to achieve freedom and equality. While during the neoliberal political-economic reforms in Europe and the USA workers' solidarity has been marginalised, in Bolivia the resistance against neoliberal model played a vital role to build new forms of political solidarity. Thus the analysis of the history of how colonial and later system of liberal republicanism divided the strong indigenous communities and weakened their ability to resist them leading to political and economic alienation is important for theoretical reflections on a new forms of democracy. The history of indigenous in Bolivia shows that the main source of communal protection for these people was the communal ownership of land. The article demonstrates how first Spanish colonialists, then liberal republicans and later oligarchs together with transnational corporations pushed indigenous people from their lands thus threatening not just their livelihood but also their entire way of life. Since Inca Empire times indigenous people lived in very close communities, where they shared land and decision making. Communal assemblies were and remain today the most respected way of decision making. [.]

The article explores how solidarity and political emancipation progressed and impacted resistance against colonial imperialism movements in Bolivia. All throughout five hundred years of colonialism in South America local people sought to defend their communal way of life. Recent history of Bolivia, when Evo Morales, the leader of indigenous peoples, took the power is a result of long history of social struggle. Why is it important to analyze the history of social movements in Bolivia, what can it say about the development of democracy to democratic theory? Solidarity as one of the main elements of democracy was the only way for the indigenous Bolivians to achieve freedom and equality. While during the neoliberal political-economic reforms in Europe and the USA workers' solidarity has been marginalised, in Bolivia the resistance against neoliberal model played a vital role to build new forms of political solidarity. Thus the analysis of the history of how colonial and later system of liberal republicanism divided the strong indigenous communities and weakened their ability to resist them leading to political and economic alienation is important for theoretical reflections on a new forms of democracy. The history of indigenous in Bolivia shows that the main source of communal protection for these people was the communal ownership of land. The article demonstrates how first Spanish colonialists, then liberal republicans and later oligarchs together with transnational corporations pushed indigenous people from their lands thus threatening not just their livelihood but also their entire way of life. Since Inca Empire times indigenous people lived in very close communities, where they shared land and decision making. Communal assemblies were and remain today the most respected way of decision making. [.]

The article explores how solidarity and political emancipation progressed and impacted resistance against colonial imperialism movements in Bolivia. All throughout five hundred years of colonialism in South America local people sought to defend their communal way of life. Recent history of Bolivia, when Evo Morales, the leader of indigenous peoples, took the power is a result of long history of social struggle. Why is it important to analyze the history of social movements in Bolivia, what can it say about the development of democracy to democratic theory? Solidarity as one of the main elements of democracy was the only way for the indigenous Bolivians to achieve freedom and equality. While during the neoliberal political-economic reforms in Europe and the USA workers' solidarity has been marginalised, in Bolivia the resistance against neoliberal model played a vital role to build new forms of political solidarity. Thus the analysis of the history of how colonial and later system of liberal republicanism divided the strong indigenous communities and weakened their ability to resist them leading to political and economic alienation is important for theoretical reflections on a new forms of democracy. The history of indigenous in Bolivia shows that the main source of communal protection for these people was the communal ownership of land. The article demonstrates how first Spanish colonialists, then liberal republicans and later oligarchs together with transnational corporations pushed indigenous people from their lands thus threatening not just their livelihood but also their entire way of life. Since Inca Empire times indigenous people lived in very close communities, where they shared land and decision making. Communal assemblies were and remain today the most respected way of decision making. [.]

The article explores how solidarity and political emancipation progressed and impacted resistance against colonial imperialism movements in Bolivia. All throughout five hundred years of colonialism in South America local people sought to defend their communal way of life. Recent history of Bolivia, when Evo Morales, the leader of indigenous peoples, took the power is a result of long history of social struggle. Why is it important to analyze the history of social movements in Bolivia, what can it say about the development of democracy to democratic theory? Solidarity as one of the main elements of democracy was the only way for the indigenous Bolivians to achieve freedom and equality. While during the neoliberal political-economic reforms in Europe and the USA workers' solidarity has been marginalised, in Bolivia the resistance against neoliberal model played a vital role to build new forms of political solidarity. Thus the analysis of the history of how colonial and later system of liberal republicanism divided the strong indigenous communities and weakened their ability to resist them leading to political and economic alienation is important for theoretical reflections on a new forms of democracy. The history of indigenous in Bolivia shows that the main source of communal protection for these people was the communal ownership of land. The article demonstrates how first Spanish colonialists, then liberal republicans and later oligarchs together with transnational corporations pushed indigenous people from their lands thus threatening not just their livelihood but also their entire way of life. Since Inca Empire times indigenous people lived in very close communities, where they shared land and decision making. Communal assemblies were and remain today the most respected way of decision making. [.]

The article explores how solidarity and political emancipation progressed and impacted resistance against colonial imperialism movements in Bolivia. All throughout five hundred years of colonialism in South America local people sought to defend their communal way of life. Recent history of Bolivia, when Evo Morales, the leader of indigenous peoples, took the power is a result of long history of social struggle. Why is it important to analyze the history of social movements in Bolivia, what can it say about the development of democracy to democratic theory? Solidarity as one of the main elements of democracy was the only way for the indigenous Bolivians to achieve freedom and equality. While during the neoliberal political-economic reforms in Europe and the USA workers' solidarity has been marginalised, in Bolivia the resistance against neoliberal model played a vital role to build new forms of political solidarity. Thus the analysis of the history of how colonial and later system of liberal republicanism divided the strong indigenous communities and weakened their ability to resist them leading to political and economic alienation is important for theoretical reflections on a new forms of democracy. The history of indigenous in Bolivia shows that the main source of communal protection for these people was the communal ownership of land. The article demonstrates how first Spanish colonialists, then liberal republicans and later oligarchs together with transnational corporations pushed indigenous people from their lands thus threatening not just their livelihood but also their entire way of life. Since Inca Empire times indigenous people lived in very close communities, where they shared land and decision making. Communal assemblies were and remain today the most respected way of decision making. [.]

This article aims to present the case for a distinctive Sąjūdis identity (Sąjūdis is the Reform Movement of Lithuania) as the basis for consolidating a social movement capable of integrating otherwise diverse networks and social groups in Lithuania during the Perestroika era. Following M. Castells, it explores the self-definition, adversaries and societal goals of the movement as presented by Sąjūdis officials in the first months of its activity, when Sąjūdis actually became 'the movement of all Lithuania'. The article's basic claim is that the popularity of Sąjūdis can be explained by its self-representation as a neo-Soviet and multi-issue social movement. In the first case, Sąjūdis was developing a critique of the 'stagnating Soviet regime' by using arguments already approved by reformist wing of the Communist party, and thus representing a specific Soviet reflexive modernity. At the same time, as a multi-issue social movement, Sąjūdis took in diverse problems (mainly ecological, social, economical, educational and last and least political), and did not focus on questions of national or state independence as is usually claimed.

This article aims to present the case for a distinctive Sąjūdis identity (Sąjūdis is the Reform Movement of Lithuania) as the basis for consolidating a social movement capable of integrating otherwise diverse networks and social groups in Lithuania during the Perestroika era. Following M. Castells, it explores the self-definition, adversaries and societal goals of the movement as presented by Sąjūdis officials in the first months of its activity, when Sąjūdis actually became 'the movement of all Lithuania'. The article's basic claim is that the popularity of Sąjūdis can be explained by its self-representation as a neo-Soviet and multi-issue social movement. In the first case, Sąjūdis was developing a critique of the 'stagnating Soviet regime' by using arguments already approved by reformist wing of the Communist party, and thus representing a specific Soviet reflexive modernity. At the same time, as a multi-issue social movement, Sąjūdis took in diverse problems (mainly ecological, social, economical, educational and last and least political), and did not focus on questions of national or state independence as is usually claimed.

This article aims to present the case for a distinctive Sąjūdis identity (Sąjūdis is the Reform Movement of Lithuania) as the basis for consolidating a social movement capable of integrating otherwise diverse networks and social groups in Lithuania during the Perestroika era. Following M. Castells, it explores the self-definition, adversaries and societal goals of the movement as presented by Sąjūdis officials in the first months of its activity, when Sąjūdis actually became 'the movement of all Lithuania'. The article's basic claim is that the popularity of Sąjūdis can be explained by its self-representation as a neo-Soviet and multi-issue social movement. In the first case, Sąjūdis was developing a critique of the 'stagnating Soviet regime' by using arguments already approved by reformist wing of the Communist party, and thus representing a specific Soviet reflexive modernity. At the same time, as a multi-issue social movement, Sąjūdis took in diverse problems (mainly ecological, social, economical, educational and last and least political), and did not focus on questions of national or state independence as is usually claimed.