The article examines the Slovene “progressive” political parties,
treated as the interwar heirs to the 19th century national liberal traditions, and puts forward references to similar parties from the Czech political context. It demonstrates how the dominant position of political Catholicism within the Slovene political landscape also largely determined the ideological profile and political behavior of the main opposing camp. Pronounced “anti-clerical” orientation was thus essential for Slovene (post-)liberals, marking an important difference to their counterparts in the more secularized Czech context. On other hand the appeal to the national idea remained central for both the Slovene and the Czech interwar national liberal heirs. The specificities of progressives’ national politics are discussed in the second section, where it is indicated that the complexities of their Yugoslavist course, being based not
merely on pragmatic considerations, had mostly different underpinnings than the Czechoslovakist conceptions had in the Czech (post-)liberal politics. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
This article aims to investigate the viewpoint of the
Austro-German liberal movement - both ideologically and practically - towards the arguments for Bohemian state rights made by the conservative Bohemian Great Landowners and Czech political parties in the period from 1861 to 1879. The February Patent of 1861 is a convenient starting point because it reintroduced representative bodies to the Habsburg Monarchy and facilitatedthe development of modern democratic politics. The 1879 parliamentary election is this article’s end point since it constituted a significant turning point in Austrian and Bohemian politics. The Austro-German liberals lost the majority in central parliament while the conservative Bohemian Great Landowners and Czech parties attended parliament after a sixteen-year absence, joining the conservative-Slav coalition supporting the government.
The principal argument is that while the Austro-German liberals (particularly the Bohemian-German faction) were generally opposed to Bohemian state rights, this must be qualifi ed by the genuine desire for compromise (under certain conditions), considerable tactical fl exibility and the wider Imperial context. Chronologically, the article focuses on key parliamentary debates to
illustrate the changing relations: the fluid 1860s, the crucial period from 1867 to 1871 (when there was a real possibility of Bohemian state rights) through to the turning point of 1879. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
Cílem příspěvku z dějin českého politického myšlení je rekonstrukce představy ''dynamické demokracie'' Zdeňka Nejedlého. Studie chce objasnit následující otázky: Jaké formy demokracie Nejedlý rozlišuje? Jaké jsou charakteristiky, základy, výhody a nevýhody různých forem demokracie? Východiskem Nejedlého pochopení demokracie je normativní protiklad mezi demokracií a aristokratismem, z kterého vychází teorie ''dynamické demokracie''. Ta je výrazem názoru, že historický vývoj demokracie nutně vede od feudální přes měšťanskou k hospodářské a sociální demokracii i k demokracii sovětského typu, tzn. k systému sovětů. Feudální a měšťanská demokracie pro Nejedlého představovaly dobré formy, současně je však považoval za zastaralé. Měšťanská demokracie je jako taková spojena s ideologií měšťanstva, s liberalismem a s parlamentem. Nejedlý měšťanské demokracii vyčítal omezení na politiku, ztrátu vztahů mezi lidem a poslanci, a skutečnost, že neodpovídala daným společenským poměrům, což podle něj vedlo k zvrhnutí demokracie v aristokracii. Proto Nejedlý považoval za nutné rozšířit dosavadní politickou demokracii na hospodářskou a sociální úroveň. Zároveň bylo pro něj nevyhnutelné změnit dosavadní reprezentační systém, který je spojen s parlamentem. Místo parlamentu chtěl zavést systém sovětů, který byl podle něj pro 20. století vhodnější.Demokracie sovětského typu se na rozdíl od měšťanské nemůže zvrhnout v aristokracii. Nejedlého teorie ''dynamické demokracie'' popisuje rudimentární koloběh ústav. Demokratické ústavy se mohou zvrhnout v aristokracii, pokud zastupitelé lidu ztratí kontakt s lidem. Zavedením systému sovětů a rozšířením politické demokracie na další oblasti společenského života je však možné se této hrozbě vyhnout., This article is about the history of Czech political thinking reconstructs Zdeněk Nejedlý’s conception of ''dynamic democracy''. The author clarifies which concepts of democracy are distinguished by Nejedlý and which attributes, bases, advantages and disadvantages result from these forms of democracy. Nejedlý’s conception of ''dynamic democracy'' is based on a normative contradiction of democracy and aristocratism. He was convinced that the development of democracy inevitably emerges from feudal and bourgeois states of democracy to its contemporary economic and social forms but also to a democracy of the Soviet type (system of Soviets). According to Nejedlý, feudal and bourgeois types of democracy have been forms of a good quality, but they were outdated in the 20th century. The bourgeois form of democracy is based on the ideology of citizenship, on liberalism and on parliamentary principals. Nejedlý criticized its limitations - for example its strict political definition and the lack of relationships between people and their representatives. Bourgeois democracy simply did not correspond with contemporary society, which, according to Nejedlý, led to the transition from democracy to aristocracy. Therefore, he struggled for a broadening of political (bourgeois) democracy towards a more liberal form in its economic and social sense. At the same time, he advocated the transition from representative parliamentary systems to the system of soviets, which in his eyes would be more appropriate for the 20th century. Unlike bourgeois democracy, its soviet form could not be transited into aristocracy. Nejedlý’s theory of ''dynamic democracy'' describes fundamental alternations of constitutions. Democratic constitutions can be transited into aristocracy if people’s representatives lose their contact with their voters. This threat can be avoided only by introducing the soviet system and by the broadening of the political democracy. (Translated by Dirk Dalberg), and Překlad resumé: Dirk Dalberg
In this essay, I reconsider the politics of contemporary philanthropy by navigating between two dominant ideological perspectives on civil society: depoliticization and demonization. I do so with reference to the recent tribulations of three famous magnate-philanthropists, Osman Kavala, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and George Soros. By revisiting my concept of the “civil society effect” – the romanticizing of civil society as a domain free from instrumental political motivations – I aim to shed light on the broader political terrain of contemporary capitalism, in which private capital is too easily understood as a neutral medium for political transformations. At the same time, I focus on the histories and genealogies that the depoliticization of civil society silences, especially the imperial legacies that opponents of liberal philosophy – new authoritarians such as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán – frequently invoke with pugnacity.