Coming to (a Short) Life: The Czechoslovak Parliament 1989-1992

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 9-23
Author(s):  
Adéla Gjuričová
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
National Unity ◽  
Short Life ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
New Politics ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Velvet Revolution ◽  
Unitary State ◽  
Communist Past ◽  
Formal Procedures

The Czechoslovak federal parliament was designed in 1968 to replace the National Assembly of a unitary state and thus formally express equality between Czechs and Slovaks in the newly established federation. After the crash of the Prague Spring reforms, the socialist parliament lost most of its sovereignty, while preserving its federal character and formal procedures, thus providing a sort of “backup” legislature. The Velvet Revolution of 1989, with its proclaimed respect to peace and legality, logically found the ancient régime’s parliament in the centre of new politics. In the revolutionary parliament of 1989-1990, the concept of socialist parliamentarianism began to clash with new motives, such as the national unity, a break with the Communist past, liberal democracy, or subsidiarity. Various blends of socialist, revolutionary and liberal democratic views of the parliament consequently came to life, while each of these concepts as well as every practical policy was perceived and accepted in conflicting manners by the Czech and Slovak publics as well as political representations. Some of these differences turned out to be irreconcilable and the federal parliament eventually played a key role in administering the break-up of Czechoslovak federation in 1992.

scholarly journals The crisis of the classical concept of liberal democracy in the context of modern challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 48-55
Author(s):  
Kateryna Fedoryshyna
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Hybrid Regimes ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Political Forces ◽  
Democratic Societies ◽  
Liberal Approach ◽  
Concepts Of Democracy ◽  
Formal Procedures

The main aim of this paper is to examine the problem of the crisis of liberal democracy in the modern world, referring to the phenomenon of a loss of balance between social and personal good in a pluralistic society. There are several concepts of democracy in political science, including the classic liberal concept, which sees its core priorities collide with recent global challenges. Thus, the relevance of this problem refers to the recent disappointment in the idea of liberal democracy, which shows disillusionment in democracy as such. In response to this trend, some hybrid regimes offer an alternative in the form of so-called democracies with illiberal approaches. From the other side, the liberal democratic platforms are used by populist political forces, which results in dividing democratic societies about the questions hard to finally solve. The Brexit problem – the process of British exit from the European Union – shows recent examples of long-lasting social effects derived from the crisis of liberal democratic concept. The author of the article has come to the conclusion that when it comes to modern democratic processes, classic liberal approach brings the populism threat back to the table. When there is no balance between the totally free civil society with its direct democratic influences and the state structure with formal procedures aimed at total good of beneficial functioning, the liberal instruments would be used by populists. Populism can create severe divisions within liberal democratic societies providing dilemmas, such as Brexit, which are difficult to solve with the same liberal democratic procedures. This means that liberal democratic approach undermines itself with the very fact of the existing tendency to lose balance between the ideal personal freedom (that includes satisfying every citizen’s choice) and public good.

Recalling and/or Repressing German Marxism? The Case of Ernst Fraenkel

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
William E. Scheuerman
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Third Wave ◽  
Third Way ◽  
Tony Blair ◽  
Political Theorist ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Us ◽  
Judith Shklar ◽  
Third Way Politics

I spent a few unseasonably hot summer days in 1996 digging around in the German Federal Archives in Koblenz for what later became a lengthy essay on Ernst Fraenkel (1898–1975), the neglected German socialist political and legal thinker. I still recall struggling to justify my efforts not simply as an historian of ideas but also as a political theorist who, at least in principle, was expected to make systematic contributions to contemporary debates. The problem was that Fraenkel had focused his acumen on investigating liberal democratic instability and German fascism, matters that did not seem directly pertinent to a political and intellectual constellation in which political scientists were celebrating democracy's “third wave.” With Tony Blair and Bill Clinton touting Third Way politics, and many former dictatorships seemingly on a secure path to liberal democracy, Fraenkel's preoccupations seemed dated. Even though Judith Shklar had noted, as late as 1989, that “anyone who thinks that fascism in one guise or another is dead and gone ought to think again,” political pundits and scholars in the mid-1990s typically assumed that capitalist liberal democracy's future was secure. When I returned to the US and described my research to colleagues, they responded, unsurprisingly, politely but without much enthusiasm.

Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
ARASH ABIZADEH
Keyword(s):  
Social Integration ◽  
National Culture ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Public Culture ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Democratic Deliberation ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Shared Norms

This paper subjects to critical analysis four common arguments in the sociopolitical theory literature supporting the cultural nationalist thesis that liberal democracy is viable only against the background of a single national public culture: the arguments that (1) social integration in a liberal democracy requires shared norms and beliefs (Schnapper); (2) the levels of trust that democratic politics requires can be attained only among conationals (Miller); (3) democratic deliberation requires communicational transparency, possible in turn only within a shared national public culture (Miller, Barry); and (4) the economic viability of specifically industrialized liberal democracies requires a single national culture (Gellner). I argue that all four arguments fail: At best, a shared cultural nation may reduce some of the costs liberal democratic societies must incur; at worst, cultural nationalist policies ironically undermine social integration. The failure of these cultural nationalist arguments clears the way for a normative theory of liberal democracy in multinational and postnational contexts.

Ioan Lupaș – the maker and memorialist of the Union of Transylvania with Romania

2021 ◽  
pp. 141-162
Author(s):  
Mircea-Gheorghe Abrudan ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Interwar Period ◽  
First World War ◽  
World War ◽  
National Unity ◽  
National History ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
Parish Priest ◽  
The First World War ◽  
Romanian Academy ◽  
First World

A prolific historian, a professor of the Andreian Seminary in Sibiu, parish priest of Săliștea and an archpriest of Mărginimea Sibiului, a professor of the ‘King Ferdinand I’ University in Cluj, a titular member of the Romanian Academy, a talented publicist, a co-founder of the Institute of National History in Cluj, a deputy in the Parliament of Greater Romania, a minister in the Averescu and Goga-Cuza governments, a patriot and victim of the Bolshevik regime in the 1950s’ Romania, Ioan Lupaș is a scholar with the aura of a saint. Fr. Lupaș is part of the admirable generation of those who committed themselves with all their power and selflessness to the national movement of the Transylvanian Romanians, those who achieved the Union of Transylvania, Banat, Crișana and Maramureș with the Kingdom of Romania on 1 December 1918 and then fought for the consolidation of national unity during the interwar period. Lupaș is part of the leading gallery of the makers of Greater Romania, and one of the few historians-participants who later wrote relevant pages about the astral event in which they were active participants. The study provides a brief biography of Ioan Lupaș, focusing on the activity of the archpriest at the time of the First World War, his involvement in the organization of the Great National Assembly of Alba Iulia, and the way in which he subsequently remembered the events and feelings experienced in the year of the ‘fortunate fulfilling of long-awaited goals’ and of ‘thoroughly well-deserved triumph’.

scholarly journals Polskie zjawy polityczne

Politeja ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4(67)) ◽  
pp. 3-33
Author(s):  
Adam Chmielewski
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Role Model ◽  
Shock Therapy ◽  
The Real ◽  
Velvet Revolution ◽  
Economic Exclusion ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
Real Socialism ◽  
Fruitful Cooperation ◽  
Economic Shock

Poland’s Political Apparitions: How to Dispel ThemIn this paper I will argue that within the decades since the Velvet Revolution of 1989, the mutual perception of the liberal and leftist political formations negatively affected the prospects of their possible cooperation. A failure of the Polish liberals to cooperate with Poland’s Left was among the main reasons for the inability to form a progressive alliance. More importantly, it left a fertile ground upon which populist and authoritarian movements were able to grow. As a result, Poland, initially presented as a role model of the transition from the conditions of the “real” socialism, has become an oppressive despotic regime, just like Turkey and Hungary. I will attempt to explain the emergence of the non-liberal democracy in Poland by stressing in particular the failure of the Polish liberals to take seriously the problems of social and economic exclusion resulting from the economic shock therapy applied during the transformative decades. Pointing to the tradition of the egalitarian liberalism, largely o erlooked in Poland, I will argue that there are both doctrinal resources and practical models which could be tapped by Polish liberals in order to establish a fruitful cooperation with the Poland’s Left. Such a programme would have a chance to succeed on the condition of dispelling the phantom of neoliberalism

Does Liberal Democracy Require a Gandhian Approach to Religion?

Acorn ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-129
Author(s):  
Sanjay Lal ◽  
Jeff Shawn Jose ◽  
Douglas Allen ◽  
Michael Allen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Religious Values ◽  
Public Justification ◽  
Liberal State ◽  
Absolute Truth ◽  
Democratic Socialism ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Unity In Diversity

In this author-meets-critics dialogue, Sanjay Lal, author of , argues that Gandhian values of nonviolence raise aspirations of liberal democracy to a higher level. Since Gandhian values of nonviolence are closely associated with religious values, liberal democracy should make public commitments to religions on a non-sectarian basis, except for unreasonable religions. Critic Jeff Shawn Jose agrees that Gandhian values can strengthen liberal democracy. However, Jose finds a contradiction in Lal’s proposal that a liberal state should support reasonable religions only. A more consistent Gandhian approach would focus on everyday interactions between citizens and groups rather than state-directed preferences. Critic Douglas Allen also welcomes Lal’s project that brings Gandhian philosophy into relation with liberal democratic theory; however, he argues that universalizing the Absolute Truth of genuine religion is more complicated than Lal acknowledges. D. Allen argues for a Gandhian approach of relative truths, which cannot be evaluated apart from contingency or context, and he offers autobiographical evidence in support of his critical suspicion of genuine religion. Critic Michael Allen argues that Lal’s metaphysical approach to public justification violates a central commitment of political liberalism not to take sides on any metaphysical basis. M. Allen argues that democratic socialism is closer to Gandhi’s approach than is liberalism. Lal responds to critics by arguing that Gandhi’s evaluation of unreasonable religions depends upon an assessment of violence, which is not as problematic as critics charge, either from a Gandhian perspective or a liberal one. Furthermore, by excluding unreasonable or violent religions from state promotion, Lal argues that he is not advocating state suppression. Finally, Lal argues that Gandhian or Kingian metaphysics are worthy of support by liberal, democratic states seeking to educate individuals regarding peaceful unity in diversity.

Toleration, Political Liberalism, and Peaceful Coexistence in the Muslim World

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Bican Sahin
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Muslim World ◽  
Cultural Groups ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Peaceful Coexistence ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic Regimes

How can Muslim societies marked by religious, cultural, and ethnic diversity secure peace and stability? I argue that the principle of toleration provides the most appropriate environment for the peaceful coexistence of these differences, for individuals living in a polity can adopt different moral views and experience their cultural, ethnic, and other differences peacefully. Toleration is mainly a characteristic of liberal democratic regimes. However, different traditions of liberalism lead to different versions of liberal democracy. Also, not all versions of liberalism value toleration to the same degree. I argue that a liberal democracy based on “political” rather than “comprehensive” liberalism provides the broadest space for the existence of differences, for it does not present a shared way of life, but only a political framework within which individuals and groups with different worldviews can solve their common political problems. However, a liberal democracy based on comprehensive liberalism requires cultural groups and/or individuals to subscribe to fundamental liberal values (e.g., autonomy), and this stance limits its room for toleration. Thus, if liberal democracy is going to be introduced into the Muslim world to bring about peace and stability, it must be a liberal democracy based on political, rather than comprehensive, liberalism.

Drama/Theatre and Democratisation: What Two Revolutions Reveal

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-63
Author(s):  
Courtney Helen Grile
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Ongoing Process ◽  
Velvet Revolution ◽  
The French Revolution

This paper will assert that drama/theatre has a role to play in the democratisation process by presenting research that reveals how various forms of drama/theatre practice coincide with democratisation or its opposite, de-democratisation. Correlation between the use of monologic and dialogic discourses within drama/theatre practice and the process of democratisation will be evidenced in two case studies: the early years of the French Revolution and the 1989 Velvet Revolution in (the former) Czechoslovakia. By analysing the conditions and patterns of theatre practice that coincided with the democratisation of these two countries (and in one case, away from it soon after), parallels emerge between monologic discourses within drama/theatre and de-democratisation, and dialogic discourses within drama/theatre and democratisation. The great experiment of liberal democracy is an ongoing process that can be buttressed by process-based theatre practices that exemplify theatre’s ability to foster dialogue and create community amongst participants.

Thirty years from Tiananmen: China, Hong Kong, and the ongoing experiment to preserve liberal values in an authoritarian state

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Chan
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
World History ◽  
Tiananmen Square ◽  
Authoritarian State ◽  
The Past ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The World ◽  
The Cold War

Abstract The 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre marked China out as an exception in the chapter of world history that saw the fall of international communism. The massacre crystalized the mistrust between China and Hong Kong into an open ideological conflict—Leninist authoritarianism versus liberal democracy—that has colored relations between the two since then. This article tracks the hold that authoritarianism has gained over liberal values in Hong Kong in the past thirty years and reflects on what needs to be done in the next thirty years for the balance to be re-tilted and sustained beyond 2047, when China’s fifty-year commitment to preserving Hong Kong’s autonomy expires. Still surviving (just) as a largely liberal (though by no means fully democratic) jurisdiction after two decades of Chinese rule, Hong Kong is a testing ground for whether China can respect liberal values, how resilient such values are to the alternative authoritarian vision offered by an economic superpower, and the potential for establishing a liberal-democratic pocket within an authoritarian state. The territory’s everyday wrestle with Chinese pressures speaks to the liberal struggles against authoritarian challenges (in their various guises) that continue to plague the world thirty years after the end of the Cold War.​

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document