Suchergebnisse

The present work, elaborated from a theoretical, bibliographical and documentary character, has for objective to develop some theoretical boardings regarding the concept of tolerance of a philosophical point of view, during a historical context that if initiates in the thought of John Locke, in the Modern Age, the scope of the religious wars, when such concept acquires a more rigorous and critical character, going until the contemporaneidade, period where the tolerance starts to acquire a paper of prominence for the understanding of the systems politicians and the societies marked for one raised degree of complexity and pluralism. Authors as Stuart Mill, Bobbio, Adorno and Habermas, among others, present significant contributions from its reflections and questionings for the studies of this thematic one as well as for the confrontation of the patologias that afflict the contemporaneidade. More recently, the fact of the tolerance to have if transformed into consensus and normative landmark, through the elaboration and approval of the World-wide Declaration of the Principles of the Tolerance, in the year of 1995, for the ONU, reflects the importance and the central paper that the tolerance exerts today in the search of the peace and the construction of a world more just and human being.

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.

Este artigo explora a contínua relevância de Freire para a educação e a ação cultural na Índia. Aborda as especificidades das contribuições de Freire, revendo as obras dos principais pedagogogos indianos, Tagore e Gandhi. Trata, ainda, do pensamento freiriano na conjuntura específica da política indiana, caracterizada pelo hipernacionalismo. A partir das experiências do autor com a práxis do teatro popular, o artigo discute os desafios da educação crítica na Índia contemporânea, no contexto de uma pandemia que escancarou a falta de acesso à educação e a exclusão digital. O artigo reforça a necessidade de compreensão do contexto e de uma abordagem esclarecida para uma educação que promova a tolerância como contraponto ao hipernacionalismo. ; This article explores Freire's continuing relevance to education and cultural action in India. It engages with the specificities of Freire's contributions reviewing the work of two key Indian pedagogists, Tagore and Gandhi. It deals with Freirean thought in the specific context of Indian politics characterised by hypernationalism. Drawing from the author's experiences with the praxis of popular theatre, the article deals with challenges posed by critical education in contemporary India, during a pandemic that has highlighted the lack of access to education and the digital divide. It reinforces the need of understanding context and of an enlightened approach to an education that fosters tolerance as a counter to hypernationalism.

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 author presents the thesis about the difference between the cultural/historical and the political identity by distinguishing the cultural/historical majorities and minorities from the political winners and losers. He points to the democratic paradox according to which states are not ruled by the losers' political majorities but by the winners' political minorities. According to the author, in multi-ethnic societies it is necessary to equally develop the popular and the political culture - that is the culture and political tolerance. (SOI : PM: S. 56)