Politinė Stasio Šalkauskio kultūros filosofijos prasmė

The philosophy of culture put forward by Šalkauskis is a version of political philosophy. By using a typology of the relationship between philosophy and democracy we attempt to prove that his philosophy of culture encompasses not one but few different understandings of the relationship between democracy and philosophy. By comparing the ideas of Šalkauskis with the issues of contemporary political philosophy we can see that democracy today is developing by distancing itself from the principles that Šalkauskis presented in his philosophy of culture. The philosophy of culture as developed by Šalkauskis has two distinctive features. First of all, Christianity is interpreted through the matrix of culture and this is why it becomes compatible with democracy. Secondly, philosophy of culture is consciously transformed into ideology and this transformation is what allowed it to become an important factor in political discussions.Šalkauskio kultūros filosofija yra politinės filosofijos variantas. Remiantis filosofijos ir demokratijos santykių aiškinimo tipologija, siekiama įrodyti, kad Šalkauskio kultūros filosofija apima ne vieną, o kelias skirtingas filosofijos ir demokratijos santykio aiškinimo perspektyvas. Šio autoriaus darbai analizuojami klasikinės ir moderniosios politinės filosofijos idėjų tipologijos kontekste. Tai leidžia parodyti Šalkauskio kultūros filosofijos aktualumą dabartinėms diskusijoms apie demokratiją ir naujai pažvelgti į jos politinę prasmę. Didžiausia įtampa yra tarp Šalkauskio kultūros filosofijos ir politinio liberalizmo koncepcijos. Šalkauskio kultūros filosofijos ir nūdienės politinės filosofijos raidos sugretinimas rodo, kad demokratija vystosi atsiribojimo nuo jo kultūros filosofijos kryptimi

Roberto Mangabeiros Ungerio įgalintos demokratijos teorija: ar liberalios demokratijos antinomijos gali būti išspręstos?

The purpose of this article is to analyze Roberto Mangabeira Unger’s theory of empowered democracy and to evaluate it with regard to antinomies of liberal thought as formulated by the author himself. This article discusses the main presumptions of Unger’s political philosophy and his conceptualization of politics. The theory of empowered democracy is analyzed as an attempt to overcome the antinomy of the universal and the particular, which permeates the liberal worldview. Unger criticizes liberal thought and its central components – liberal psychology and ethics. This critique of liberalism serves as a basis for the philosopher’s vision of politics, at the centre of which is an emancipated and autonomous individual. “Negative capability”, which is the power of individuals to review and rebuild their social contexts, helps them create a political order, which aims to create a “bigger life for all”. To empower individuals, Unger offers a wide-ranging set of changes – starting with more plasticity in political institutions and ending with political protection of the individual ensured by “immunity rights” and prevention of “false necessities”. This article aims to show that Unger’s theory ultimately fails in this goal due to contradictions between the theory of empowered democracy and the author’s own conception of politics as well as due to questionable sustainability of such solution.Šiame straipsnyje siekiama apžvelgti Roberto Mangabeiros Ungerio įgalintos demokratijos (angl. empowered democracy) koncepciją ir įvertinti jos galimybes peržengti paties filosofo suformuojamas liberalios pasaulėžiūros antinomijas. Straipsnyje aptariamos pagrindinės R. Ungerio filosofijos prielaidos, politikos samprata. Iš jų išvesta įgalintos demokratijos teorija parodoma kaip bandymas išspręsti liberalios demokratijos vidines įtampas ir pasiūlyti būdą peržengti liberalią pasaulėžiūrą apibrėžiančią universalumo ir partikuliarumo antinomiją. Ungeris kritikuoja liberalią pasaulėžiūrą ir jos sudedamąsias dalis – liberalią psichologiją ir etiką. Liberalizmo kritika tampa pagrindu plačiai brazilų filosofo politikos vizijai. Jos centre yra autonomiškas ir emancipuotas individas, kurio kūrybinių gebėjimų pagrindu kuriama politinė santvarka, turinti aiškų tikslą – užtikrinti geresnį gyvenimą visiems. Siekiant įgalinti individus veikti kūrybiškai, Ungeris siūlo plataus masto pokyčius, kurie apima tiek politinių institucijų peržiūrą, suteikiant joms plastiškumo, tiek politinę individo apsaugą, išlaisvinant juos nuo netikrų būtinumų. Straipsnyje mėginama parodyti, kad Ungeriui nepavyksta įgyvendinti šio tikslo dėl prieštaringo įgalintos demokratijos santykio su paties autoriaus politikos samprata ir neužtikrinamo jo pateikiamo vidinių liberalios demokratijos įtampų sprendinio tvarumo

NAORUŽANA DEMOKRATIJA I KONTROLA DRŽANJA ORUŽJA U SAD

The author comments on US Supreme Court’s decision in the case MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL, relying on the press agencies’ news, text of the Court’s ruling, as well as on the notorious facts from America’s social and ideological history. In the first part of this work he suggested that considered ruling is only an episode, a relatively insignificant one, in drawn out contest between liberals ad conservatives in US political and intelectual establisment, struggle that neither begins nor ends with this decision. In spite of efforts the supporters of „rifgt to arms“ are making to stress the landsliding importance of the Supreme Court’s dicision for legal informing, establishing and consolidating the right to bear personal fiearms, the author views it in a wider perspective of continuing tensions between Obama administration and conservative Republicans-led opposition. The said ruling may be understood as a reminder to President that there is yet a strong conservative majority in Supreme Court playing a role of counterweight to his liberal policies. The second part of this text deals with the wording and justification of ruling itself. It has more to do with American federalism embodied in respective powers of federal, state and local governments than with the constitutionality of measures providing for posession of arms control. It is becouse Supreme Court had already determined the true meaning of Second Amendment to US Constitution in its decision in case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554, interpreting it in a sense that its provisions confirm the individual right to posess the personal firearms as a constitutionally guaranteed right. By this example the author endeavors to illustrate different legal techniques of Anglo-Saxon and Continental law in making the consututonality and legality a real and efficient social force. The final part of this contribution traces the social and ideological background of present Supreme Court’s decision. It postulates the deeply-rooted traditions of „armed democracy“ – condition in which the majority of adult male population have posessed personal firearms as necessary prrequisit of self.maintenance in chaotic social environment of Wild West – in American historical consciousness, outlining its emergence in the colonail past, its role in shaping American democratic institutions in a pre-urban and preindustrial civilization, its transformation into a conservaive ideological complex in the postCivil War era and its place in social landscape od contemporary America. In conclusion, author proves that the opponents of the stircter firearms’ control fail to show that mass posession of personal firearms favors anti-criminal policies.Autor komentariše presudu Vrhovnog suda SAD u slučaju MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL, oslanjajući se na agencijske vesti, tekst presude Vrhovnog suda i opštepoznate činjenice iz socijalne i ideološke istorije Amerike. U prvom delu svog rada on ukazuje da je razmatrana presuda samo jedna epizoda, i to relativno beznačajna, u produženom odmeravanju snaga između liberala i konzervativaca u vodećim krugovima američkog političkog i intelektualnog života, borbi koja niti počinje niti se završava ovom presudom. Uprkos nastojanjima pristalica „prava na oružje“ da naglase prekretnički značaj presude Vrhovnog suda za ustanovljenje, učvršćivanje i pravno uobličenje prava na držanje ličnog oružja, autor ovu presudu sagledava u široj perspektivi trajne napetosti između Obamine administracije i konzervativne republikanske opozicije. Rečena presuda može se shvatiti kao upozorenje Predsedniku da u Vrhovnom sudu još postoji snažna konzervativna većina spremna da igra ulogu protivteže njegovoj liberalnoj politici. Drugi deo teksta bavi se formulacijom i obrazloženjem same presude. Ona ima više veze sa američkim fedrativnim uređenjem i načinom na koji se ono ispoljava kroz ovlašćenja saveznih, državnih i lokalnih vlasti nego sa ustavnošću mera koje predviđaju kontrolu posedovanja oružja. To je posledica činjenice da je Vrhovni sud već utvrdio pravo značenje Drugog amandmana na Ustav SAD svojom presudom u slučaju District of Columbia v. Heller, 554; sud je ovaj amandman tumačio u smislu da njegove odredbe potvrđuju pravo građana na posedovanje ličnog vatrenog oružja kao Ustavom garantovano pravo. Ovim primerom autor nastoji da ilustruje različite pravne tehnike kojima se služi anglosaksonsko i kontinentalno pravo u pokušaju da od ustavnosti i zakonitosti načine stvarnu i delotvornu društvenu snagu. Poslednji deo ovog priloga traga za društvenom i ideološkom pozadinom predmetne presude Vrhovnog suda. On pretpostavlja postojanje duboko ukorenjenih tradicija „naoružane demokratije“ – stanja u kojem većina odraslog muškog stanovništva poseduje lično vatreno oružje kao nužan preduslov samoodržanja u haotičnoj društvenoj sredini Divljeg Zapada – u američkoj istorijskoj svesti, ocrtavši njen nastanak u kolonijalnoj prošlosti, njenu ulogu u oblikovanju američkih demokratskih ustanova u okviru jedne predurbane i preindustrijske civilizacije, njen preobražaj u konzervativni ideološki kompleks nakon završetka Američkog građanskog rata i njeno mesto u društvenom pejzažu savremene Amerike. Zaključujući izlaganje, autor dokazuje kako protivnici strože kontrole vatrenog oružja ne uspevaju pokazati da masovno posedovanje ličnog vatrenog oružja pogoduje borbi protiv kriminala

PRAVNO-POLITIČKI DOMETI ZABRANE POLITIČKIH STRANAKA U NEMAČKOJ

FR Germany was the first state in Europe that constituted political parties by the article 21 of its Constitution in such way that they could be banned in case the Federal Constitution Court finds them unconstitutional. Even during the first years of the FR Germany’s existence, the Court banned two political parties belonging to the extreme left and right of the German political scene on the Government initiative. However, soon after their ban other very similar parties were established. Aside from slightly changed names, those parties inherited most members and the ideology from the old, banned ones. The explanation of the judgment in question expressed the fear for liberal democratic system, which, according to the viewpoint of the Court, was jeopardized by the very existence of those parties, but the fact that the parties promoting totalitarian ideologies soon afterwards continued their operation deems sincerity of such statements questionable. In addition, the issue of banning of political parties in Germany is still relevant. The far-right NPD party was not banned at the beginning of this century due to the process difficulties created by the undercover agents (‘state officials’), who due to the underdeveloped party structure reached high positions in its hierarchy. A new motion for banning of NPD is eagerly expected, particularly because of the ECHR’s attitude that political parties considered to be a threat to democracy need to have at least a small chance (political power) to enforce their intention by political means. NPD is today a minor political party, without any influence in the society.SR Nemačka je prva država Evrope koja je članom 21. Ustava konstituisala političke partije tako da Savezni ustavni sud može da ih zabrani, ukoliko nađe da su neustavene. Već u prvim godinama postojanja SR Nemačke, Sud je na inicijativu vlasti, zabranio dve poltičke partije, koje pripadaju krajnjoj levici i desnici nemačke političke scene. Međutim, ubrzo nakon zabrane tih partija dolazi do novog formiranja veoma sličnih političkih partija, kojima je pored delimično izmenjenog naziva, članstvo i ideologija u velikoj meri nasleđeneno, upravo od strane zabranjenih političkih partija. U obrazloženju predmetnih presuda izražena je strepnja za liberalni demokratski sistem, koji je, prema stanovištu Suda, ugrožen samim postojanjem takvih partija, te činjenica da su političke partije koje promovišu totalitarnu ideologiju, ubrzo nastavile sa radom, dovodi u pitanje iskrenost takvih stanovišta. Takođe, pitanje zabrane političkih partija u Nemačkoj je i danas aktuelno. Desničarska partija NPD nije zabranjena početkom ovog veka zbog procesnih neprilika koje su stvorili ubačeni agenti (“državni službenici”) koji su, usled minornosti strukture te partije uspeli čak da se probiju na visoka mesta u toj partiji. Novi predlog za zabranu NPD sa nestrpljenjem se očekuje i to zbog stave ESLjP da političke partije koje prete demokratiji moraju imati makar kakvu šansu (političku snagu) da sprovedu svoju nameru političkim putem. NPD je danas minorna politička stranka, bez ikakvog uticaja u društvu

Populistinės nuostatos ir balsavimas: ar populistines nuostatas turintys rinkėjai balsuoja už naująsias partijas? (2016 metų Seimo rinkimų atvejis)

Concerming the success of new/renewed political parties in Lithuania, quite often they are labelled as populist ones .This article seeks to answer the question – do populist attitudes of individuals could be variables that explains voting for new political parties? Firstly, we analyze the structure of populist attitudes in Lithunia. The analysis using attitudes measures suggested by CSES revealed that these attitudes fits theorectical expectations quite well. Two dimensions of populist attitudes can be distinguished – anti-elitism and the one concerning peoples role in politics. Futher analysis of electoral behavior, that populist attitudes does not explain voting for the new political party, other variables such as political support/trust does explain it better. However the analysis is limited to one elections and one political party, so the conclusions should be considered with caution and further analysis is needed.Concerning the success of new/renewed political parties in Lithuania, quite often they are labelled as populist ones. This article seeks to answer the question – do populist attitudes of individuals could be variable that explains voting for new political parties? Firstly, we analyse the structure of populist attitudes in Lithuania. The analysis using attitudes measures suggested by CSES revealed that these attitudes fit theoretical expectations quite well. Two dimensions of populist attitudes can be distinguished – anti-elitism and the one concerning people’s role in politics. Further analysis of electoral behaviour, that populist attitudes does not explain voting for the new political party, other variables such as political support/trust does explain it better. However the analysis is limited to one elections and one political party, so the conclusions should be considered with caution and further analysis is needed

Srpska pravoslavna crkva, desekularizacija i demokratija

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

Konstitucijų keitimo poveikis demokratijos kokybei Lotynų Amerikoje

The article aims to evaluate whether and how constitutional replacements influence the quality of democracy in Latin American countries. The fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis method is applied while analysing 18 Latin American countries. The objective of the article- nine new constitutions that are assigned to the new constitutionalism period. The results reveal that constitutional replacements are neither sufficient nor necessary condition for quality of democracy. On the contrary, the parsimonious solution shows that quality of democracy can be explained by both high levels of education and inversion of constitutional replacements and inversion of constitutional replacements, institutionalised party system and non-homogeneous society. Inversion of quality of democracy analysis indicated that constitutional replacements, together with other conditions, form sufficient conditions for inversion of quality of democracy.  Straipsnyje siekiama įvertinti, ar Konstitucijų keitimas turi poveikį demokratijos kokybei Lotynų Amerikoje. Atliekant tyrimą taikomas kokybinės lyginamosios neraiškių aibių analizė metodas, o kokybiškos demokratijos priežastys yra analizuojamos 18-oje Lotynų Amerikos valstybių. Tyrimo objektas – devynios naujojo konstitucionalizmo laikotarpio bruožus atitinkančios Konstitucijos. Atlikus kokybinę lyginamąją neraiškių aibių analizę gauti rezultatai atskleidžia, jog Konstitucijų keitimas nėra nei būtina, nei pakankama kokybiškos demokratijos sąlyga. Priešingai, teoriškai paprasčiausia kokybiškos demokratijos formulė susideda iš aukšto visuomenės išsilavinimo lygio ir Konstitucijos nekeitimo sąlygos bei Konstitucijos nekeitimo, partinės sistemos institucionalizacijos ir visuomenės homogeniškumo inversijos sąlygos. Atlikus nekokybiškos demokratijos priežasčių analizę paaiškėjo, jog Konstitucijos keitimo sąlyga yra konjunktūrinė nekokybiškos demokratijos priežastis. Tad prieinama prie išvados, jog šalies institucinės sąrangos perkūrimas kartu su kitomis sąlygomis nėra kokybiškos demokratijos priežastis

Valstybės politinis režimas pagal 1918–1919 m. Lietuvos konstitucinius aktus

The article deals with identifying provisions of the 1918–1919 Lithuanian Constitutional Acts, which entrench the democratic political regime of the state. It discloses and assesses their dynamics, describes the nation’s sovereignty, elements of direct and representative democracy, and parliamentarism.Straipsnyje identifikuojamos demokratinį valstybės politinį režimą įtvirtinančios 1918 m. ir 1919 m. Lietuvos konstitucinės nuostatos, atskleidžiama ir įvertinama jų dinamiką, apibūdinami tautos suverenitetas, tiesioginės ir atstovaujamosios demokratijos elementai, parlamentarizmas

Koks kapitalizmas, tokia ir demokratija

Review: Norkus, Zenonas. 2008. Kokia demokratija, koks kapitalizmas? Pokomunistinė transformacija Lietuvoje lyginamosios istorinės sociologijos požiūriu. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.Recenzija: Norkus, Zenonas. 2008. Kokia demokratija, koks kapitalizmas? Pokomunistinė transformacija Lietuvoje lyginamosios istorinės sociologijos požiūriu. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla

The Self-Destruction of Yugoslavia

The self-destructiveness of the former Yugoslav federal system has not yet received its appropriate place in numerous accounts of the causes of Yugoslavia’s disintegration. This essay explores the self-destructive mechanism of the former Yugoslav socialist federal system. Its main thesis is that it was the institutional composition of the former Yugoslavia that was largely responsible for the cleavages in the 1980s, which caused the mutually exclusive ethnic nationalisms of today. In other words, the crisis, the subsequent ethnonational homogenization and the dissolution of the federal state were a natural outcome of the constitutional foundations of the system. When in the 1980s, republican elites defined national self-determination not politically, in terms of citizens’ rights, but ethnically, in terms of group rights, they were closely following the Constitution. They recognized that insistence on primordial social, national and cultural differences in the country could be used to legitimize political power within their respective federal units. This insistence on the ethnic principle radicalized inter-ethnic relations in the country to the extent that the destruction of Yugoslavia became inevitable