Search

Demokratsko društvo nameće danas i svećenicima nove pastoralne izazove. Stoga, ako želimo ostati vjerni temeljnoj kršćanskoj zadaći - navještati evanđelje - potrebno je pronaći nove načie pastoralnog djelovanja i prigode za navještanje Božje Riječi. Pri tome važno je uočiti prednosti koje pruža demokratsko društvo, kao npr. priznanje i poštivanje dostojanstva i slobode ljudske osobe te zahtjev za sve većom potrebom zrelosti i odgovornosti građana, ali i njegove nedostatke, kao npr. "granice zakona većine", pluralizam mišljenja koji pogoduje donošenju permisivnih zakona, subjektivizmu i zloporabi slobode. U takvoj situaciji svećenici su pozvani i danas navještati Krista raspetoga, ali sa snažnim osjećajem crkvenosti i zajedništva. Osim toga, danas je nužno ići ljudima u susret, osobito rubnim kršćanima, te, kada je potrebno, biti i savjest društva. Proročka homilija, župna kateheza, pastirska pisma, pastoralni sastanci, tribine, akademije, školski vjeronauk, vjerska pouka u predškolskim ustanovama, sredstva društvenog priopćavanja - samo su neka od sredstava koja nam stoje na raspolaganju. Međutim čitanje Svetoga pisma i crkvenih dokumenata, a osobito sakrament pomirenja i osobno svjedočanstvo vjere, uvjek ostaju nezamjenjiva sredstva navještanja Božje Riječi., Contemporary democratic society imposes, new pastoral challenges on priests. Therefore, if we want to stay true to the fundamental mission of a priest - preaching of the Gospel - we should search for new forms of pastoral activities and new occasions for preaching the God's Word. It is important to perceive the advantages offered by a democratic society, such as recognition and respect for dignity and liberty of the human person, requirements for higher level of maturity and responsability of citizens. However, there are also difficulties presented by such a society, like e.g. "the law of maiority", pluralism in thought, which are appropriate for "permissive laws", subjectivism and freedom abuse. Under these circumstances, priests are called upon to preach the crucified Christ, this time with a strong feeling of ecclesiasticism and spiritual union. Besides, it is also important to go to meet people, especially those on the edge of Christianity, and act as consciousness of the society when required. Prophetic homilies, parish catechesis, pastoral letters, pastoral meetings, speakers platforms, functions, catechism in schools and kindergartens, mass media - they are all only some of the means available to us. Nevertheless, the Holy scripture and church documents, especially the sacrament of reconciliation and communication of faith through personal witnessing, will still remain irreplaceable when it comes to preaching the Word of God.

223

Quais as hipóteses de reforma do Estado em sociedades poliárquicas e onde predominam as responsabilidades difusas e as autorias problemáticas? Qual a possibilidade de reforma em sociedades onde o stalemate burocrático conduz os grupos de pressão a encontrarem vantagem na manutenção do statu quo? Qual o resultado de reforma do Estado em sociedades onde a gestão de ciclos eleitorais curtos leva ao privilegiar de soluções conhecidas e de fácil aceitação, em detrimento das grandes transformações socio-económicas? Qual a probabilidade de resultados positivos, resultantes das reformas introduzidas, em sociedades onde existe um longo hiato entre a tomada de decisão e a sua efectiva implantação no terreno, o que gera a multiplicação de efeitos de overshooting? A partir destas e de outras dúvidas sobre a capacidade de reforma das sociedades democráticas, formular-se-á um modelo minimalista e paradoxal de reforma possível em sociedades definidas pela crise da cidadania, pelo risco social e pela incerteza em face dos processos de globalização. What are the chances of conducting state reforms in poliarchic societies dominated by diffuse responsibilities and complex senses of authorship? What are the reform chances in societies where the bureaucratic stalemate lead the pressure groups to find it advantageous to keep the statu quo? What kind of state reform will emerge in societies where the management of short electoral cycles causes the adoption of well-known and easily accepted solutions instead of major socio-economic changes? What kind of positive results can occur when the political reforms are developed in a context marked by a huge temporal gap between decision making and implementation, generating multiple overshooting effects? Based on these and other doubts on the reforming capacity of democratic societies, we propose a minimal and paradoxical model of reform to be used in societies that can be described by citizenship crisis, social risk and uncertainty in the face of globalization.

The circumstances and prespectives of enterprenuership depend on the economic system and the economic policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The system and the policy depend on the entire social and political system. An agreement about the system of building demokracy has not been reached yet. The core of the problem lies in the fact that the economy, which could finance all needs and functions that are essential for survival B&H as a state, could be devlopment only under specific conditions. If these conditions are not meet, B&H as a state created by Dayton and other agreements, would neither function (could not be financed from its own resources – the economy) nor survive (without other financial resources) regardless by whom it was contemplated, created or desired. Those who declare such a state as too expensive, who claim that real needs of citizens and the state could be financed only by devloped economy (up to the level of sustainable social peace and self-preserved state/society), who declare it unrealistic to espect rapid development of the economy to such a level, and demand searching the other solutios – how to finance the minimum needs of the state/society until the economy is ready, and how to create a functional state which would not overburden the economy and endanger its competitiveness (less expensive state) – should not necessarily be proclaimed enemies of the Bosnia and Herzegovina.

159

223

82

Ten years after the movements of the squares we are reminded of how the popular surge of activism shook the foundations of European politics. The ensuing appearance of new political parties—envisioned as carrying the torch of popular participation—has led to recurrent claims that the European “Peoples” would be better represented by challenging a depoliticized, unpopular, and technocratic mainstream. Populism is depicted as a force that has reawakened the political spirit of ordinary people, for better or worse. In the wake of these empirical developments, populism and its relation to the mainstream must be interrogated. The field of populism studies has different approaches to how populism relates to mainstream politics and democracy itself. Some would like to argue that it is a complete exception and a danger to democracy, whilst others make the claim that it is an intrinsic part of a democratic society.This article investigates the literature on populism studies, paying particular attention to the spectrum of descriptions of populism along two axes: (1) normal and exceptional forms of political participation and (2) inclusive and exclusionary forms of politics. These two axes are found to constitute the central themes in the contemporary literature on populism, namely the question of whether populism poses an external threat to liberal democracy and whether progressive movements can successfully appropriate the populist form. Avoiding the usual pitfalls of opposing populism to an idealized version of liberal politics (often associated with the proper, European way of civilized political representation) the article investigates the elements of coloniality and the myth of civility sustaining populism studies. In other words, it contends that the debates in populism studies can only make sense in an absence of considerations about the links between the historical experience of colonial conquest and the constitution of modern forms of political subjectivity. This determines which forms of politics are to be considered normal or exceptional. This article will draw on the interfaces between Laclau’s work and decolonial thought (using the latter to complement the former). It proposes a framework and sets an agenda for a thorough recognition of the problems of modern subjectivity—its relationship with coloniality and civility—in populism studies. The article develops a radical critique of populism studies and argues that any emancipatory break always carries vestiges of the order it wishes to overthrow and that this needs to be recognized to a higher degree in the field.This article will be laid out as follows. The first part introduces the concepts of coloniality and civility—the guiding principles of our analysis of the field of populism studies—and relates them to the exceptionalist thesis, or the idea that populism poses an external threat to democracy. The second part engages with critical approaches to populism that do not subscribe to the exceptionalist view but remain oblivious to the question of coloniality. We argue that this omission, to different degrees and with very different political undertones, is responsible for the inscription of the myth of civility as the “cipher” of their analysis of populism. In response to this, the third part proposes a research agenda that attempts to bypass the field’s debates and re-focus scholarly attention on the reproduction of colonial/Eurocentric forms of political subjectivity as a central problem of democratic theory.