Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  political integration
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The main purpose of the survey discussed in this paper is to answer the question of which factors describe the status of political integration of Poles in Austria. Political integration concerns the phenomenon of joining the political life of a given political system and, to some extent, also its results. For the purpose of this study the notion of political integration is to stand for the involvement of the ‘visiting’ citizens in the political life of the ‘host’ state, in particular political participation, taking the form of public activity and voting in elections. The survey adopts a general theoretical model where the state of integration of Poles in Austria is comprehended in terms of a three-element political culture (comprising cognitive, emotional-and-assessing, and behavioral elements). It undergoes external influences, related to the period spent living abroad, and domestic influences of social identity (approached functionally). Additionally, the model assumes that these factors can be internally related. The empirical aspect of the analysis is based on the authors’ own survey carried out using a questionnaire, psychological scale and focus group interview of a sample of Polish émigrés in Austria.
EN
The article discusses the United Kingdom’s policy towards the first post-war integration initiatives of Western Europe and the United States. It was a special period in the history of the European integration. Then, for the first time in the history of Europe, there were real opportunities for practical implementation of at least some of the numerous integration ideas. The initiators and authors of projects to unite Europe were various political organizations of Western Europe and the government of the United States. The United Kingdom was a world superpower at that time and because of various reasons it had to take an ambivalent stand on the issue of Western European integration. On account of the specificity of its international interests, which are thoroughly analyzed by the author, this state could not actively participate in the European integration trend. However, it was not in the British interest to sabotage the integration undertakings of the continental part of Western Europe either. In such circumstances, the United Kingdom forced through a policy of close co-operation between Western European countries as an alternative to integration ideas. Until 1954 the British policy towards continental integration initiatives can be described as very effective. The United Kingdom skillfully managed to hold up the use of post-war American aid to Europe as a form of stimulus for Western European integration (European Recovery Program – Marshall Plan). As a result of its policy, an authentically European parliamentary assembly, aimed at initiating and stimulating European integration process through grass-roots social pressure on governments (Resolution of the Hague Congress), did not take place. The political and diplomatic successes determined the British assessment of prospects for the European integration and British possibilities to influence the process of Western European unification. They made British politicians incorrectly – as it turned out – believe that the United Kingdom could successfully halt attempts of supranational integration by forcing through an idea of co-operation of sovereign states. After a few years there were no doubts that the assessment had been wrong. In this case traditional attitude towards international politics did badly in comparison with new realities, i.e. an innovative integration trend.
EN
Europe has failed to fully integrate its immigrants, and difficulties in this domain influence public opinion regarding newcomers and immigration policies today. Drawing on the concepts of Swedish political scientist Tomas Hammar, who proposed four “gates” to (political) integration, countries should define “gates” for the political, economic and cultural integration of their immigrants. As experiences of the last decades have shown, political integration is necessary, but not sufficient. The economic sphere has been accepted as key, but the cultural sphere has yet to receive the attention of scholars and policymakers it requires. Policies directed at receiving societies are also necessary to facilitate integration.
PL
Europa nie poradziła sobie z pełną integracją imigrantów, a trudności w tej dziedzinie wpływają dziś na stosunek społeczeństw do przybyszów i na polityki imigracyjne państw. Opierając się na koncepcjach szwedzkiego politologa Tomasa Hammara, który zaproponował cztery „bramki” integracji (politycznej), państwa powinny zdefiniować dla swych imigrantów „bramki” integracji politycznej, ekonomicznej i kulturowej. Doświadczenia ostatnich dziesięcioleci pokazują, że integracja polityczna jest konieczna, lecz niewystarczająca. Sfera ekonomiczna jest już powszechnie uznawana za kluczową, natomiast badacze i twórcy polityk nadal przywiązują niewystarczającą wagę do sfery kulturowej. By ułatwić integrację, konieczne są także polityki kształtujące postawy społeczeństw przyjmujących.
PL
W artykule sobą podjęto próbę porównania zachodnioeuropejskiego i eurazjatyckiego modelu integracji politycznej. Analiza ta prowadzi do wskazania podobieństw i zasadniczych odmienności owych modeli. Autor ukazuje, w zwięzły sposób, dwa różne procesy integracji w ich historycznej i instytucjonalnej perspektywie, uwzględniając geokulturowe oraz geopolityczne tło związane z kształtowaniem się wspomnianych dwóch modeli.
EN
The paper is an attempt to compare Western European and Eurasiatic models of political integration. The analysis includes an overview of the similarities and essential differences between the models. The author presents, in a concise way, the two different processes of political integration in their historical and institutional perspective, including geocultural and geopolitical background related to the forming the models under consideration.
PL
Historia dostarcza świadectw skorumpowanych intencji wielu rewolucjonistów, którzy objęli władzę (np. rewolucja irańska, Aung Suu Kyi w Birmie). Niektórzy aktorzy sceny politycznej roszczą sobie pretensje do legitymizacji dowolnych działań z ich strony. Za przykład mogą posłużyć przywódcy niedawnych społecznych ruchów wolnościowych w Egipcie, którzy przypisują sobie prawo decydowania o tym, co jest moralne, i kto zostanie przyszłym celem podejmowanych manewrów politycznych. Tymczasem, panuje reżim wojskowy. Wydaje się, że nikomu nie zależy na staraniach na rzecz demokratyzacji systemu. Jakkolwiek były minister obrony Abdelfattah Al-Sisi twierdzi, że toczy walkę z korupcją w łonie własnego reżimu, kraj czeka jeszcze długa droga, by unormować sytuację. W niniejszym artykule poruszono kwestię wzajemnie sprzecznych i rodzących dezorientację wystąpień medialnych i politycznych egipskiej opozycji, w których wybrzmiewają tendencje populistyczne i które sprawiają, że opozycja przegrywa na zasadach, zgodnych z procesem demokratyzacji, zmuszają ją do zajęcia popularnego stanowiska lub przegrania samego procesu demokratyzacji.
EN
Many revolutionary figures throughout history proved their corrupted intention whenever they reached authority (e.g., the Iranian revolution, Burma’s Aung Suu Kyi). Some political leaders in Egypt claim they own it all depending on whom they represented in the latest major social uprising, and they define what is moral or who shall be the target for future political manoeuvres of the ruling military regime. With no one taking the lead for democratising the system, and the ex-minister of defence, incumbent President Abdelfattah Al-Sisi allegedly caught up in an internal fight with a corrupt government, the country’s better future seems to be a long and arduous struggle away. This paper addresses the overlapping and misleading media and political utterances of Egyptian opposition, who either takes a popular stand or loses followers through democratisation itself.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.