Search results

1

Political participation, the Betzavta Method and the interpretation of Hegel’s concept of freedom in "Philosophy of Right"

100%

Pendrakowska P.

Studies in Global Ethics and Global Education

|

2018

|

vol. 10

17-30

EN

The aim of this essay is to confront Hegel’s political philosophy regarding ethical community and civil society with the objective of betzavta, which is an educational method promoting democratic decision-making processes. The concepts of freedom and ethical community were strongly present in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and later on discussed by Zbigniew Pelczynski (1971, 1984a, 1984b), ShlomoAvineri (1972), Charles Taylor (1979) and Marek Siemek (1995,1998). This article reconstructs these Hegelian conceptsbased on their liberalinterpretations andconfrontsthem with contemporary challenges related to minority rights, conflict of values, decision-making processes and political participationin relation to the experiences gained during thebetzavta workshops.The main problem defined is the question whether it’s possible to reach a consensus in a given society that would conclude with the establishment of ethical community. The general assumption of this article is that because of the impossibility to obtain a consensus on fundamental values (lack of compromise on same-sex marriage or abortion), an ethical community that would secure both particular and public freedom cannot be reached. The clash between subjective and objective freedom can be perceived through the lenses of the classical problem of a tyranny of majority, where minorities are pushed towards a submissive compromise with the rules set by the majority. An experience of theBetzavta Method will also be included in the general reflections on the essence of freedom in political participation and the silent presence of certain members in decision taking-processes. null

2

Party Behavior and the Formation of Minority Governments – Experiences in Denmark

100%

Radek R.

Political Preferences

|

2015

|

issue 11

107-124

EN

In many modern democracies, the leaders who make important influential political decisions are highly likely to be party politicians or indeed party leaders. Very often they cannot prepare an adequate strategy for their political parties because it is usually impossible to find out all necessary elements for projecting the goals. It is not surprising that political parties are the most important organizations in modern politics and in the contemporary world, only a few states do without them. The reason that political parties are well-nigh ubiquitous is that they perform functions that are valuable to many political actors. Political parties play a major role in the recruitment of top politicians, on whom the momentous and painful political decisions often fall. With very few exceptions, political chief executives are elected on the slate of some established political party, and very often the head of government continues to serve as the head of the political party that propelled him or her into office. Democracy may be conceived as a process by which voters delegate policy-making authority to a set of representatives, and political parties are the main organizational vehicle by which such delegation takes place. The main aim of this article is focus on the minority government, which are especially common in the Scandinavian countries. They can be more easily formed and maintained where the party system makes it difficult to secure support for an alternative majority coalition to be formed, a vote of investiture is not required, and a government can stay in office unless there is an absolute majority against it. In the article will be emphasized some case studies of Denmark minority government formation and durability. General findings will be confronted with empirical data, which will allow to formulate conclusions about the specific of minority cabinet in Denmark.

3

Katolicka nauka społeczna o większości w demokracji

80%

Zwoliński A.

Polonia Sacra

|

2016

|

vol. 20

|

issue 3(44)

173-189

PL

Najważniejszym, wstępnym warunkiem, przeprowadzenia demokratycznych wyborów jest wolność polityczna w państwie. Nikt i nic, nacisk władzy politycznej, terror ani oszustwo, nie może wpływać na wyniki wyborów lub z góry je określać. Istotnymi elementami polityki wolnościowej państwa jest decentralizacja i samorząd. Obywatelom, grupom isąsiedzkim wspólnotom należy pozostawić możliwość własnych incjatyw i odpowiedzialność, także w zakresie współdecydownia kto i jak pełnić będzie najwyższe funkcje państwowe. Dojrzałe koncepcje demokracji, w tym tzw. „personalizmu wspólnotowego”, mogą być interesujące dla społeczeństw niezależnie od kultury duchowej i tradycji. Prawdziwa wolnośc człowieka polega jednak na tym, że decyzje człowieka zapadają w jego centrum osobowym, w „ja” osobowym, którte też realizuje te decyzje. Wolność nie jest też brakiem zdeterminowania , niezależnością, lecz swoistym zdeterminowaniem – przez siebie samego, a więc rodzajem samozależności, autodeterminizmem. Wolność więc ma dwa wymiary, wyrażające się w: zdolności do podejmowania „własnych” decyzji, oraz w mocy do realizowania tego, co sama postanowiła. Demokracja nie może zastąpić wolności jednostki, wyręczyć ją w jej decyzjach w odpowiedzialności za działania, które podejmuje, także w jej imieniu.

EN

The most important precondition of holding of democratic elections is political freedom in the country. No one and nothing, the emphasis of political power, terror or fraud, cannot affect the outcome of elections or define them from top. Important elements of the libertarian policy of the state are decentralization and local government. Citizens, groups and neighboring communities should be allowed to own initiatives and responsible – also in terms of making decisions who and how will perform the highest state functions. Sophisticated concepts of democracy, including the so‑called “community personalism”, may be of interest for societies regardless of spiritual culture and tradition. But true human freedom lies in the fact, that human decisions are passed in the personal center, the personal “I” who also pursues these decisions. Freedom is not a lack of determination, independence but a kind of determination – by himself, so a kind of self‑depending, self‑determinism. Therefore freedom has two dimensions, expressed in capacity to take “own” decisions and the power to realize what was decided. Democracy cannot replace freedom of the individual, relieve it in its decisions in the responsibility for the action it takes, also on its behalf.

4

Większość źródłem prawdy o dobru?

71%

Andryszczak P.

Analecta Cracoviensia

|

2018

|

vol. 50

EN

The goal of politics is to establish the right legal order. Today according to a very influential standpoint its sources are to be found in opinions dominating in the majority of citizens. The basic principle for people making laws is the will of the majority. This approach is attractive but also contains a serious error. The author critically analyses this position and then gives a solution which goes beyond the interplay of the majority and the minority.

PL

W naszych czasach polityka, dążąc do zbudowania państwa prawa, sięga często do opinii dominujących wśród większości obywateli. Źródłem prawa jest wtedy wola większości. Takie stanowisko, choć atrakcyjne, zawiera poważny błąd. W artykule został on krytycznie zanalizowany, a następnie zaproponowano rozwiązanie nieuwikłane w grę między większością a mniejszością.

Refine search results

1 Analecta Cracoviensia

1 Political Preferences

1 Polonia Sacra

1 Studies in Global Ethics and Global Education

1 Andryszczak P.

1 Pendrakowska P.

1 Radek R.

1 Zwoliński A.

1 2019

1 2018

1 2016

1 2015

Political participation, the Betzavta Method and the interpretation of Hegel’s concept of freedom in "Philosophy of Right"

Party Behavior and the Formation of Minority Governments – Experiences in Denmark

Katolicka nauka społeczna o większości w demokracji

Większość źródłem prawdy o dobru?