Search

U radu se proučava cenzura kao pojava koja podrazumijeva sve postupke koje vlasti poduzimaju protiv medija čiji rad iz određenih razloga smatraju opasnim i nepoželjnim za vlast i društvo kroz povijest pa sve do danas. U prošlosti su vlasti uvijek nastojale utjecati na sadržaje koji su mogli utjecati na javno mnijenje, a time i na podršku postupcima i načinu vladanja te upravljanja društvom. Svrha cenzure uvijek je bila sprječavanje širenja politički nepovoljnih ideja, odnosno onih ideja koje bi za posljedicu mogle imati stvaranje društva koje će se protiviti odlukama vlasti i izroditi ideje novih društvenih i političkih uređenja na čelu s novim vlastima. Dakle, može se zaključiti da je osnovni cilj korištenja cenzure kroz povijest pa sve do danas održavanje moći i podrške postojećoj vlasti. U radu će biti prikazano i kako se cenzura kroz povijest mijenjala te kakav utjecaj ona ima danas na novinarstvo, tisak i medije u Hrvatskoj i svijetu. Prikazat će se i novi trendovi preuzimanja medija od strane velikih stranih medijskih grupa, koje, umjesto lokalnih političkih benefita, fokus stavljaju na ostvarivanje profita. The paper examines censorship as a phenomena that includes all actions taken by the authorities against the media, whose work they consider dangerous and undesirable for the government and society throughout history up to the present day. In the past, the authorities always tried to keep control over the content that could influence public opinion, and thus support the procedures and way of ruling and managing society. The purpose of censorship has always been to prevent the spread of politically unfavorable ideas, that is, those ideas that could result in the creation of a society that will oppose the decisions of the authorities and back up the ideas of new social and political arrangements led by some new authorities. So it can be concluded that the main goal of using censorship throughout history and up to today is to maintain the power and support of the existing government. The paper will also show how censorship has changed throughout history and what influence it has on journalism, the press and the media in Croatia and the world nowadays. New trends in media; takeover by large foreign media groups, who, instead of local political benefits, focus on making a profit, will also be presented.

Pojam autoriteta, napose kako ga vidi Hannah Arendt, nužno je jasno odijeliti od pojmova vlasti i moći. Autoritet pojmovno dolazi prije vlasti i predstavlja njeno utemeljenje. Pojam je nastao od latinske riječi auctoritas, a svoje izvorište ima u antičkomu Rimu u kojem su autoritet, religija i politika bili snažno povezani. U kasnijim povijesnim razdobljima autoritet se iz polja transcendentnoga spuštao u polje svjetovnoga, što je rezultiralo pozicioniranjem autoriteta u narod. To se nije odvijalo u skokovima nego u dugom nizu stoljeća. Takav pomak može biti okarakteriziran kao progresivan, no istraživanjem filozofijske literature dolazi se i do zaključka da je jedna od posljedica bila ta da se moderni autoritet našao u krizi. Razlog je tomu što narod, kao nositelj autoriteta u smislu vezivanja za temelj, ima pravo od političara, koji su birani na određeni mandat, u obnašanju vlasti zahtijevati izvršenje svih zahtjeva koji se pred njih postave. Ukoliko političari ne riješe spomenute zahtjeve naroda, utoliko ih je lakše nego ikada prije u povijesti smijeniti s pozicije obnašanja vlasti. Radi se o svojevrsnoj krizi modernoga autoriteta kojoj se na prvi pogled ne nazire rješenje. Ova kriza, također, još jednom iznosi na vidjelo ontološke temelje autoriteta koji su tek prividno prevladani u demokratskom društvu. Stoga, da bi se ona razriješila treba još jednom razmotriti temelje same demokracije. Početci demokracije ustanovljeni su u antičkoj Grčkoj, a demokraciju kakvu poznajemo danas uvelike su kroz njenu povijest oblikovale ideje slobode, jednakosti i ekonomske proizvodnje. Isprva sramežljivo, potom sve snažnije, te ideje su od pojavljivanja do čvrstoga etabliranja prošle put koji je trajao gotovo nekoliko stoljeća. Međutim, poduzetim istraživanjem demokracije postaje jasnije da se dijagnoza o napetosti modernoga autoriteta iznova potvrđuje. Čini se da odgovor na krizu modernoga autoriteta ne može doći iz postojeće paradigme demokracije, pa ga upravo zato treba tražiti izvan nje. Upravo u pojavi tehnike, koja prodire u pojam demokracije putem tehnike povezanih blokova (eng. blockchain) pronađena je naznaka koja bi mogla trasirati put do razrješavanja krize modernog autoriteta. No prije istraživanja tehnike povezanih blokova valja istražiti i sâm pojam tehnike. Istraživanjem navedenoga pojma ustanovljeno je da potencijal oslobođenja krize modernoga autoriteta ne dolazi po tehnici povezanih blokova ni iz tehnike po sebi, nego iz odnosa čovjeka i tehnike. Čovjek i tehnika u dihotomičnom su odnosu te kao takvi usko povezani od sâmih začetaka ljudskoga roda. Naime, čovjek je oduvijek živio s alatima (grč. tekhne) i konstantno je morao učiti o njima i njihovoj primjeni. Bitno je naglasiti da čovjek nikada nije zaboravio da tehnika, iako mu olakšava život, ne smije nad njime preuzeti primat. Čovjek se u tomu suživotu konstantno podsjećao da je tehnika u položaju objekta, a da je on sâm subjekt koji njome upravlja. Isti je slučaj i kod tehnike povezanih blokova koja predstavlja tehničku okosnicu digitalne demokracije – čovjeku se valja podsjetiti da je on politički subjekt i da je, u tom kontekstu, on taj koji je nositelj političkoga autoriteta, a ne tehnika. To znači da vezivanje za temelj završava na čovjeku koji na sebe preuzima odgovornost odlučivanja. Prilikom toga podsjećanja, čovjek preuzima individualnu odgovornost za djelovanje u zajednici, a njegova aktivna participacija može djelovati na decentralizaciju autoriteta, u smislu decentralizacije odgovornosti. Na taj se način moderni autoritet može izvesti na put izlaska iz trenutne krize i primaknuti korak bliže autentičnijoj aktualizaciji demokracije, ali i njezinog osnaživanja jer decentralizacija podrazumijeva aktivniju participaciju većeg broja subjekata koji tako konačno aktualiziraju svoju ulogu u demokratskom procesu. In the beginning of this doctoral thesis, I will discuss the difference in meaning of authority and political authority. For that purpose, I will use Platonʼs Crito, debate between Huemer and Layman, as well as works of Renaut, Arendt and Weber. The semantic difference between terms of authority, power and political authority has its roots, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, in ancient Rome. The concept of authority among the Romans was strongly connected to the concepts of religion, tradition and politics. The term authority comes from the Latin auctoritas which means ʻbinding to the foundationʼ and is opposite from power (lat. potestas). In Rome, the source of power is positioned in the Senate, and the senators present themselves as reincarnations of the founders of Rome. Also, Senators can interpret the Roman constitution as the founders of Rome would have done it back then. Furthermore, Arendt points out that auctoritas comes from the Latin verb augere, which means ʻto increaseʼ, because it was the responsibility of the senators to increase the foundations of authority. The concept of authority, as Romans knew it, was incorporated into a political institution, the Roman Senate. There was a saying – potestas in populo, auctoritas in senatu sit, which means that, while power resides within the people, Senate has all the authority. Romans separated authority from power, which leads to the conclusion that those two terms were established as opposite concepts. Namely, authority has its roots in the past and power in the present. Religion also played an important role in ancient Rome and it was the connective tissue between power and authority. The term religion comes from the Latin re-ligare, which means ʻbindingʼ (to the foundation). Politics, religion and tradition, as Arendt suggests, were closely intertwined in ancient Rome. After beforementioned analysis, I will present definitions of power, authority and political authority. Political authority, therefore, means having the legitimacy of making a decision which the majority of citizens obey. Power is the very act of making and implementing a decision that affects the lives of people in a particular state. Political authority and power are different concepts, and they also differ with regard to the concept of authority. Authority does not only represent an influence on someone, but based on the concept of auctoritas, the very foundation of political authority. Conceptually, it comes before political authority and before power, and its origins are derived from the Romans. The Greeks did not have anything similar to Roman notion of auctoritas and that can be partly confirmed with analysis of Aristotleʼs Politics. Aristotleʼs notion of authority in Politics is similar to three terms in Greek – archē, kurios and crisis. However, that is nowhere near the meaning Romans produced and because of that we can only talk about reconstruction of the similar concept within Aristotleʼs Politics. Reconstruction can be done in three directions: authority as protection from evil people, authority as an improver and promoter of interactions in society and authority as a result of common interest. At this point of discussion, we might ask ourselves why is it that the concept of authority is so important. In order to get an answer to that question, it will be researched what happens to authority when it is inverted and what consequences this inversion carries with it. For that purpose, thoughts of Hannah Arendt on totalitarian government will be consulted. Arendt points out that one of the symptoms of totalitarianism indicates the absence of hierarchy. The lack of hierarchy creates an impersonal system where disrespect for the law is the modus operandi. Arendt claims that authority cannot function within totalitarianism because there is no hierarchy as a prerequisite, there is no structure, there is just lack of real power and general weakness of the Government. Moreover, Selak Raspudić, a Croatian philosopher, will add to this topic that totalitarianism implies the rule of disorder, a world in which authority is invisible, which inevitably leads to self-destruction of man. The rest of the symptoms of totalitarianism include: the absence of hierarchy, cruel formlessness, disrespect for the law and the accumulation of official apparatus. However, these are not the worst consequences, as the cruelest manifestations of totalitarian regimes are concentration camps. Arendt will conclude that those camps are the true central institutions of totalitarian organizational power. All of these symptoms are the direct result of inversion of authority which clearly indicates the importance of its existence in society. That is why it is interesting to notice how Max Weber and Arendt somehow direct the discussion about authority towards the framework of democracy. In order to better understand how authority acts within democracy, Alain Renaut introduces the authority of the Ancients and the authority of the Moderns. He argues that at one point in history the authority of the Ancients was replaced by a new, modern authority. Wilhelm von Humboldt was among the first philosophers who pointed out this phenomenon by dividing states on the Ancient and Modern ones. Ancient states were most concerned about the overall development and upbringing of a human being in accordance with virtue ethics, while modern states, writes Humboldt, paid most attention to prosperity and productivity. The main question facing the Moderns became how to increase the power that has weakened itself by setting limits in order to establish the foundation of power. Modern government guarantees freedom to people who can use it not only to question it but also to destroy it. According to Renaut, this is the principle of modern-day democracy that is constantly subjected to judgment, change or even overthrowing the elected Government. How did this happen? The people (Greek demos) became the successor of the Roman auctoritas. The foundation of authority positioned itself in demos, and apart from the substantial positional shift of authority, demos is in a constant pursuit to increase its authority based on the Roman principle. On the other hand, elected officials are initially limited in exercise of their power, which makes them unable to do their task properly. Also, elected officials have the power to make decisions, but they cannot increase authority as it is positioned in the demos and not in the Government (which would be the senators in ancient Rome). With regard to the described, the situation of modern authority could be characterized as a state of crisis, namely, as a crisis of modern authority. Arendt agrees that the traditional form of authority has experienced a breakdown and believes that authority can best be rehabilitated through revolution, highlighting the example of the American Revolution. However, a careful study of her thought leads to the conclusion that she too could agree that modern authority is in crisis. Democracy seems to be a system that simultaneously enables the emergence of authority and its crisis. We will try to answer why this is so in the next chapter, where we will try to find the essence of democracy and what this term represents. The research quest will begin with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Thomas Aquinas. For Plato, democracy represents wrong form of organization of the state. Other wrong forms include timocracy, oligarchy and tyranny. Plato points out that democratic rule arises as a result of the degradation of oligarchy. Plato was followed by Aristotle, who believed, in regards of the exercise of power, that power can be exercised by one person, a group of people or a multitude. With this in mind, Aristotle distinguishes between the correct and incorrect types of government. The right types of government strive to work for the common good and they are kingdom, aristocracy and constitutional government, while their opposites are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Cicero has a significant impact in the beginnings of the concept of democracy. In Ciceroʼs work De re publica, Scipio Africanus states that the state (Latin res publica) is a matter of the people. Scipio adds that if the nation wants to survive, it must necessarily adopt some kind of decision-making process. Decision-making in the state could be managed by one, a few or many. Although he admits that in case of necessity he would give primacy to the royal government, Scipio claims that the best type of decision-making is composed of all three decision-making types. Additionally, in this context it should be mentioned that democracy represents an incorrect type of government for Thomas Aquinas as well. Philosophers of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages are responsible for establishing the beginnings of the framework of democracy. In the works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero and Thomas Aquinas, two key features of democracy are clearly outlined – freedom and equality. Although the ideas of equality and freedom in the context of democracy appeared in the Classical period, there were no thinkers who would recognize the people as an essential and unavoidable component in the exercise of power until the Early Modern period. This changed with Machiavelliʼs Il Principe where he tried to somewhat persuade Lorenzo Medici of the importance of winning the people over in the exercise of power. By carefully reading Il Principe, it can be established that Machiavelli tried to direct Medici with recommendations to exercise power with the support of the people, or to rule in popular-democratic direction, so to speak. A few centuries later, Rousseau praises Machiavelli for skillfully serving Il Principe to rulers presenting it as an aid to their rule, when in fact it was a first book of the Republicans. Machiavelliʼs Il Principe for the first time puts the people in a more equal position with the ruler, a position with more respect and recognition. Centuries later, from the idea of more equality between the people and the ruler emerged the concept of republicanism from Rousseau. Rousseau placed equality within the framework of law and considered it to be the crucial element in governing the state. Rousseauʼs contemporary, Montesquieu, pointed out that in a republic, the sovereign power rests with the people as a whole and it is mediated by democracy. For Montesquieu, democracy represents a subtype of republicanism. He also argues that there are two basic laws in democracy. The first one regulates how ballots are submitted, and the other basic law of democracy is that the people should make laws by themselves. In the context of the idea of equality with a focus on laws, Kant is also one of the philosophers worth the mention. His doctrine of the state is based on law, but even more importantly, on eternal peace. For Kant, the equality of all citizens with subordination to legislation is one of the fundamental principles of the republican constitution whose ultimate purpose is to achieve eternal peace. The equality of all citizens is most important in Kantʼs philosophy, which is slightly opposed to Tocqueville who emphasizes the equality of conditions that helps shape the laws in a state, sets maxims for the holders of power to follow and at the same time creates favorable habits of citizens resulting in positive public opinion. Tocqueville went on the study visit to USA where he found a lot of positive elements in its democratic system. When he will emphasize the positive elements of American democracy, he will mention that the reasons for greatness of the American people derive from its laws and customs. Along with the universal right to vote, Tocqueville singles out the jury system as a powerful tool that Americans use to establish democracy. Machiavelli, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kant and Tocqueville made contributions to the idea of equality that eventually ended up as a significant element of modern-day democracy. One of the ideas that also made impact on democracy as we know it today is the idea of liberty. English philosopher John Locke is largely responsible for paving the way for this idea. Locke argues that a human being possesses liberty on the basis of which he can decide to unite with other free people and set up the first Government. This idea created what we now know as liberalism and in its first years of existence it was used as an argument opposing absolutism. In this line of thought, just many centuries later, the modern thinker John Rawls appeared. Key question which concerns him is how is it possible that over time there exists a fair and stable society of free and equal citizens who remain deeply divided by reasonable religious, philosophical and moral doctrines. This question also shows how liberalism evolved from Locke to Rawls. In the discussion about the modern intellectual contribution to liberalism, another important thinker is mentioned in this doctoral thesis, a man who also undoubtedly left a great mark in this context – Isaiah Berlin. Berlin argues that there are two concepts of liberty, namely negative and positive one. Berlin proposes the thesis that the negative concept of liberty is to be free from and consists in ensuring protection from the interference of others in private affairs. Positive freedom, on the other hand, represents freedom to decide for something. Berlin, therefore, believed that political liberty represents the domain of action without interfering from others, that is, if someone prevents one from doing what he wants, then he is not free. The third idea that shaped democracy as we know it today is that of economic production that shapes the political superstructure of the world. Origin of the idea can be traced back to Karl Marx. Accordingly, Abensour claims that it would be wrong to conceptually limit oneself in the study of Marx and consider only his thoughts on the bourgeoisie, the family or civil society, because by doing so one would ignore his effort to find the root which would be authentically political subject in whose place lies demos. According to Abensour, the center of all meaning of the state for Marx is located in the demos. He also points out that the concept of a democratic state is an illusion, and the fullness of democracy is achieved in its establishment against the state. In the Communist Manifesto Marx presents the idea that the structure of society is based on economic production which constitutes political and intellectual history of each historical epoch. History, according to Marx, is nothing but the history of the class struggle between those who exploit, i.e., the bourgeoisie, and those who are exploited, i.e., proletariat. Marx thinks that the proletariat should overthrow the bourgeoisie from power and win the battle of democracy which would essentially mean to centralize production in the hands of the state. In doing so, favourable conditions for communism would be established and that would mean the abolition of private property. Furthermore, according to Marx, the communists are the most advanced and the most resolute section of the proletariat and based on this, they have the ability to place political power in the hands of the proletariat who would go on to work for the interests of the majority. Marxʼs theory of economic production also means harsh criticism of liberalism as liberalism favours right to own and protect private property. Years after Marx, one who would agree with him on certain points would be Jacques Rancière. Rancière thinks that we as a society do not live in a democracy but in states that have oligarchic laws. The hatred, instead of being directed at the oligarchic system that stands masked behind democracy, turns to democracy as a concept. Hatred, however, can only be used to support an oligarchic system, and in that case, democracy serves as a great tool. Democracy can take a large amount of criticism without offering a solution because the democratic paradox is impossible to solve. To sum up the research about democracy, modern perspectives of democracy are also considered. There will be analysis of Aron on democracy and totalitarianism, Lijphartʼs thoughts on concept of consociational democracy, Dahlʼs perspective that could be considered as a political science aspect on democracy and deliberative perspective of Habermas. However, after an extensive analysis of the concept of democracy and an attempt to penetrate into its essence, no answer was obtained on how to solve the crisis of modern authority. For this reason, in the continuation of the paper, the concept of technology paired with democracy is considered as a possible solution. Heidegger points out that the essence of technology has two meanings. Technology threatens manʼs relationship with the essence of truth, and at the same time directs man to stand next to that essence of truth. It seems that Heideggerʼs statement leads to the conclusion that the use of technology has a dual character. Namely, technology can be dangerous and that must never be forgotten, but at the same time it can enable many things that have a positive effect on the human race. Following Heidegger, Stieglerʼs definition of technology is also analysed in the doctoral thesis. According to Stiegler, technology is the skill by which a certain material is transformed into a product. With this in mind, one can rightfully ask the question: Does the technology serve humanity or does it serve tekhne itself? Stiegler claims that there is a historical dichotomy between the evolution of man and tool (or tekhne which is the root of technology), and in his thoughts he goes so far as to state that the Greek polis also arose because of the tekhne. Stiegler then goes on to criticize Heidegger, considering that his thought about technology was carried out through an instrument that had already been instrumentalized. In other words, man is already thrown into the world of pre-existing technology through which he himself exists and confirms this by using tools, and Heidegger failed to see this. Basically, Stieglerʼs criticism of Heidegger boils down to the fact that Heidegger already thinks of technology through the technological. In addition, Stieglerʼs criticism of Heidegger more clearly demonstrated his thought on the co-constitutional relationship between logos and tekhne. At this point, we might rightfully ask what is the connection between technology and democracy. The answer to that question is that in the merge of technology and democracy digital democracy arises. Digital democracy represents a technical innovation that combines aspects of direct and representative democracy. First of all, it means digital platform, software tool, that aims to allow its users to express their opinion in order to make a final decision for the benefit of the community. Expressing opinion or voting stands out as the most important element of digital democracy. Voting takes place via digital platform and must be safe, transparent and anonymous. Technology that is considered as a possible provider of these values is blockchain. Blockchain represents a distributed and decentralized peer-to-peer network of computers that enables direct data transactions between nodes within the system, thus eliminating the need for mediation and a third party. The system remembers all data transactions and stores them in a distributed ledger. Transactions are stored in blocks that stack on top of each other in a chain form, hence the name block-chain. This technology aims to build and preserve trust and integrity in the system which is achieved through two components: hash technology and cryptographic technology. For the blockchain technology to be considered as the technical backbone of digital democracy, it must enable voting to be carried out safely, anonymously and transparently. After a detailed analysis of its comparative advantages and technical and nontechnical limitations, it is determined that it has the technical capacity to be used as the backbone of digital democracy. However, there is also a possibility that the blockchain will take place of authority in digital democracy. In that case, foundation of political authority is not drawn from the people but from technology. Man is given the possibility to shift the responsibility of decision-making and social action from himself to technology, and if this possibility is accepted, then man dislocates himself from the position of a political subject. The only obstacle in positioning as a political subject is man himself. Blockchain belongs to the probabilistic technology and works on a principle designed by man. In order for the people to truly manifest their freedom and for the crisis of modern authority to be solved, it is necessary to focus on the relationship between man and technology. In this relationship, if a person refuses to become an object of technology, namely tekhne, this person re-establishes itself as a political subject. Hence, the foundation of authority in digital democracy is created in beforementioned relationship between man and technology. One of the most important elements of beforementioned relationship is how technology will be used. What is meant by that? Blockchain as the technical backbone of digital democracy is part of a long and well-known diachronic process of human adaptation to the world around them. The emergence of new technical discoveries represents a challenge that requires adaptation anew, and one of the ways of adaptation is the distinction between good and bad use of technology. In this context, good use implies the use of technology as a tool that achieves efficiency in solving certain problems. It means that technology does not assume primacy in the relationship between man and technology, but represents an equal member of the co-constitutional equation. Bad use, on the other hand, would indicate the predominance in the human-technology equation on the side of the technological, which implies that technology takes primacy in decision-making, and man absolves himself of this responsibility by transferring it to a tool. In order to use the technology well, one of the proposed options is to start with how-to education from young age in the school system. In this case the process of epiphylogenesis, that is, learning mediated by technology, is very important. The goal of epiphylogenesis is to ensure that the memories of our ancestors are not lost and forgotten, but embedded in technology. If we translate Stieglerʼs thought into the context of this work, the crisis of modern authority can be resolved in the relationship between man and technology. The point is to maintain the balance of the relationship, whereby there must be no predominance on the side of technology. According to Stieglerʼs philosophy, authority in digital democracy does not require return to the political, since the political and the technical are one. However, the place of political authority can very easily be taken over by technology, which would lead to an even greater default of modern authority, whereby its crisis would not be resolved. By conducting epiphylogenetic education on the responsible use of technology, it is possible to promote the establishment of balance in the relationship between man and technology, thereby enhancing the path of liberation and not the path of default. However, the path of education about responsible use is not at all easy to reach and depends as much on systematic as on individual efforts. According to Selak Raspudić on this matter, the epiphylogenetic process is increasingly difficult to maintain because modern technology causes a loss of memory, which is crucial for man to be reminded of his role in relation to technology. One of the consequences of aforementioned issue is that technology has enabled man to escape from himself. Such modern man is constantly a subject to a fast-paced lifestyle and is looking forward to new adventures that he will be able to share on social networks. Taking into account all of the above, a solution to the crisis of modern authority can be found in the relationship between man and technology. Reaching this solution would also mean the decentralisation of authority and more authentic version of democracy, but reaching this point is by no means one-dimensional process. That conclusion can be partly confirmed through Berardiʼs work as he mainly criticizes modern technology in conjunction with politics and economics. Berardi reaches the conclusion that politics is technical in its core, what he considers to be a negative trait and in further research he turns to economics, wondering if politics is turned towards itself and if it became technical, can economics be the science that will save the system. Berardi points out that the economy has become a hyper-reality, an artificial world that has lost touch with the real conditions of production. He explains that with the digitization of production, capital becomes more abstract which makes it more obscure and with that it reinforces hermeticity and alienation from the real world. In the conclusion of the thesis, relationship between man and technology represents key component for solving the crisis of modern authority. Technology offers great number of options in digital democracy, and as long as individual treats and uses technology as a tool, a person will establish itself as a relevant political subject. Namely, through epiphylogenetic learning about the responsible use of technology, man positions himself in relation to technology as a political subject who does not give technology the place of authority. By maintaining balance in beforementioned relationship, man will have a chance to realize that it is his responsibility to be an active individual in the society, what will turn democracy into more authentic system and authority will become more decentralised.

U radu se razmatra šest aluzivnih drama Nedjeljka Fabrija, Reformatori, Admiral Krstof Kolumbo, Čujete li svinje kako rokću u ljetnikovcu naših gospara?, Meštar, Kralj je pospan i Magnificat. Ponajprije se obrazlažu svojstva vremena nastanka Fabrijevih drama, posebno činjenica da su umjetnici mogli biti kazneno odgovorni ako su mimo režimskog ograničenja umjetničke zapitanosti posezali za zabranjenim temama i uzimali ih kao motiviku za izazivanje umjetničke dramske stvarnosti koja bi razotkrivala muku čovjeka u dotičnom vremenu. U tom povijesnom kontekstu u radu se istražuje poslanje pisca, odgovorna pred stvarnošću, da ustraje, da (iz drame Reformatori citira se govor lica iz drame) pretvoriti/i vlastitu sredinu u znanstvenu i književnu istinu i baciti joj je u lice da se gleda i osvijesti. Stoga autor pristupa građenju takvih formi svojih dramskih djela koje su imale svrhu skriti govor o sadašnjosti pod plaštem prošlosti ili snoviđene radnje. Ta skrivenost se u radu imenuje kao govor pod šifrom. Aluzivnost jedne drame prelazi u drugu dramu, ona se nastavlja i nadograđuje, reflektirajući sve više i više bolno autorovo viđenje dramskog zbivanja, koje privodi suočenju s općim svojstvima povijesti. Istraživački razlog rada nastoji razotkriti naboj svojstava svakog pojedinog šifriranog djela, njegovu alegorijsku asocijativnosti, sve do vremenom samoupravnog modela življenja, kad autor postavlja pitanje krivnje vlasti, ali i krivnju onih koji tu vlast slijede. Što se, pak, tiče istraživanja svojstava Fabrijeve posljednje drame Magnificat, rad privodi do posve originalnih autorovih estetsko-dramaturških konzekvenca već znanog modela kazališta u kazalištu. Autor međusobnim suprotstavljanjem dviju usporednih stvarnosti, stvarnosti izvođača djela i umjetničke stvarnosti djela, dolazi do njihova jedinstva pa se one, u konkretnoj povijesnoj situaciji izvođenja, odnosno pisanja djela, identificiraju kao zajednička stvarnost. Iz dešifrirane konkretnosti zbivanja, rad slijedi autorovo nastojanje za preispitivanjem metafizičkih obzora stvarnosti u situacijama kad se vertikalna pozicija vlasti isprepliće s horizontalnom pozicijom čovjeka-patnik, i obrnuto. Tada vidimo da se one samorazvijaju do istosti. I taj rezultat se u radu bilježi kao vrijedan estetski doseg – za razliku od uradaka onih pisaca koji dramsku radnju bilježe iz svoje teze pa tako postaju njezini pisači, bez izgled da slijede takvu dramsku radnju koja se razvija iz sebe same te da se takvim ishodom ostvare kao dramski autori., In this paper we analyse six allusive plays by Nedjeljko Fabrio: Reformatori, Admiral Kristof Kolumbo, Čujete li svinje kako rokću u ljetnikovcu naših gospara?, Meštar, Kralj je pospan and Magnificat. We foremostly focus on the time at which Fabrio’s plays were written, especially on the fact that artists were held to be criminally liable if they dealt with topics that were outside of the scope of the regime restrictions on the artistic freedom and if they took them as motifs for the creation of artistic dramatic reality which would reveal the anguish of the man at that time. Within this historical context we explore the mission of a writer, who is accountable to reality, to persevere, to (we quote from the monologue of one of the characters from the play Reformatori) turn his own environment into a scientific and literary truth and throw it back into its face so that it can see and become aware of itself. Thus, the author approaches the creation of the forms of his plays the purpose of which is to hide the truth about the present under the mantle of the past or a dreamlike plot. This concealment is in this paper termed ‘speech in code’. Allusiveness of one play is transferred into another, it is continued and built upon, and it increasingly reflects the author’s painful vison of the dramatic plot which leads to a confrontation with the general properties of history. The goal of this research is to reveal the charge of the properties of each coded work, their allegorical association, up until the time of the self-governing model of life, when the author raises the issue of the guilt of the authorities, but also of the guilt of those who are compliant with these authorities. As far as the research of the properties of Fabrio’s last play, Magnificat, is concerned, the paper reveals the author’s completely original aesthetic-dramaturgical consequences of the well-known model of theatre within the theatre. By contrasting two parallel realities, the reality of the performers and the artistic reality of the play, the author unites them, and, in the concrete historical situation of performing the play, that is, writing the play, they are identified as joint reality. On the basis of the decoded concreteness of events, the paper follows the author’s striving to re-examine the metaphysical horizon of reality in situations in which the vertical position of power intertwines with the horizontal position of the man-sufferer, and vice-versa. At this point we can see that they evolve to the level of truth. And this result is described in the paper as a valuable aesthetic achievement – unlike the works of those playwrights who develop the plot from their own thesis and thus become its recorders, without any chance of following a plot that develops on its own and thus realising themselves as real playwrights.

Ovim završnim radom prikazana je uloga medija u demokratskom društvu u Republici Hrvatskoj. Tradicionalni i novi mediji nastoje informirati društvo, zabaviti ga, utjecati na njega i omogućavaju transmisiju kulture. U suvremenom svijetu mediji imaju iznimno veliku moć, pa tako utječu i na javnost i na pojedince, a u mnogim slučajevima to rade upravo putem medijske manipulacije. Za Republiku Hrvatsku bilo je vrlo važno razdoblje tranzicije u demokratski sustav jer su vlasti pokušavale utjecati na medije i kontrolirati njihov rad, a taj utjecaj vidljiv je i danas, iako u blažem obliku. Poslije je osnovan Fond za poticanje pluralizma iz kojeg se financiraju neprofitni mediji. Mediji ostvaruju i tri neizostavne funkcije za doprinos razvoju društva i funkcioniranju demokracije, a to su definiranje tema i pitanja koja će se naći na javnoj raspravi (agenda setting), omogućavanje ulaska informacija u javnost (gatekeeping) i kontinuirano praćenje vladajućih elita i onih koji žele doći na vlast (watchdog). This final thesis presents the role of the media in a democratic society in the Republic of Croatia. Traditional and new media influence the society, inform it, entertain, and enable the transmission of culture. In the modern world, the media have a vast amount of power, so they influence both the public and individuals, and in many cases, they work through media manipulation. The period of transition to democracy was very important for the Republic of Croatia because the authorities tried to influence the media and control their work. This influence is still noticeable today but in a milder form. Subsequently, a Media Pluralism Fund was established, which finances non-profit media. Media also has three indispensable functions in contributing to the development of society and its democracy. Those include defining topics and questions which are talked about by the public (agenda setting), enabling the distribution of information to the public (gatekeeping) and continuous supervision of the government and those trying to come to power.

Ryszard Kapuściński jedan je od najznačajnijih suvremenih poljskih pisaca. Poznat je po izuzetnom umijeću pisanja reportaže, a važno je naglasiti da humanost i univerzalizam čine srž njegovih djela. Između ostalog, njegovo je stvaralaštvo velikim dijelom posvećeno revolucijama, čiji je sastavni, možda i ključni dio problem moći i vlasti, a ovaj rad upravo na taj problem stavlja glavni naglasak. Cilj rada je pokazati na koji način autor prikazuje moć i vlast – kako su one uređene, na čemu se temelje te što se i na koji način o njima u odabranim djelima iznosi. U prvom dijelu rada iznesene su definicije i oblici moći i vlasti koje su kroz povijest nudili brojni znanstvenici. U drugom dijelu rada prikazan je autorov životopis te rasprava o aluziji odabranih djela na stvarnost Poljske 70-ih godina 20. stoljeća. U trećem dijelu slijedi detaljna analiza odabranih reportaža (Car, 1978. i Šahinšah, 1982.) raspoređena na čvorišne točke predstavljenih problematika. Ovdje je naglasak na perspektivi moći i vlasti opisanih vladara: na koji su način vladali i pokazivali svoju moć, kako su se postavljali prema financijskim pitanjima, kako su se odnosili prema podređenima, a naposljetku i kako je došlo do njihova svrgavanja s vlasti i propasti carstava.

Предмет рада је теорија државне суверености у делу Слободана Јовановића. Општа хипотеза тиче се истовременог настанка државе, власти и права, који представљају три елемента Јовановићеве теорије државне суверености. Држава је умна појава, али узрок њеног настанка је колективни нагон за самоодржањем који делује у људској заједници, а чију супротност представља индивидуални нагон за самоодржањем који делује у појединцу. Слободан Јовановић указује да је држава као историјска појава настала услед рата, јер су прве заједнице морале да се организују како би могле да опстану у сукобу са другим заједницама, односно како би интензитет дејства њихове силе био већи. Организованост је условила да се чланови заједнице потчине вољи једног субјекта, који је добио моћ заповедања, чиме је настала друштвена хијерархија, односно власт. Регулисањем односа између владајућег и подређених субјеката, као и између самих подређених субјеката настало је право. Улога државе у савременом свету, према Јовановићевом мишљењу, састоји се из војне, правне и културне мисије, односно заштите државе од напада споља, одржавања унутрашњег мира међу члановима друштва, и обезбеђења материјалних и духовних добара за заједницу. Посебна хипотеза говори о настанку правне државе као последице истовременог настанка државе, власти и права као феномена уопште. Иманентни циљ правне државе је заштита целине заједнице, односно у савременом демократском дискурсу, заштита политичке мањине од тираније већине. У складу са Јовановићевим схватањем, у модерној правној теорији, за разлику од претходних историјских искустава, када су прерогативи највише власти приписивани владајућим субјектима оличеним у физичким лицима кроз теорије владарске и народне суверености, неопходно је ставити акценат на сувереност апстрактне правне личности државе. Правна личност државе састоји се од заједничке воље, која за разлику од опште воље, коју чини воља већине у демократском друштву, представља компромис између воља друштвених група у заједници. Човек делује у друштву преко групе којој припада, а не као појединац. Но, како је немогуће да све друштвене групе и појединци учествују у налажењу заједничке воље, потребно је формирати државни орган који ће представљати верну слику друштва и који ће служити као средство за њено налажење. Тај орган у савременим државама је парламент. Заједничка воља у парламенту настаје расправом и преприком, односно међусобним сузбијањем индивидуалних воља чланова парламента, и она се изражава у закону. Како би усклађивање воља између друштвених група било што успешније, неопходно је и постојање горњег дома у коме ће бити представљени чланови политичке мањине у заједници. Услед своје општости и апстрактности, заједничка воља не може да регулиште и задовољи конкретне друштвене интересе. Та улога припада органима извршне власти, који кроз акте које доносе, заједничкој вољи додају део своје воље оличен у дискреционим овлашћењима. Уколико извршни органи прекораче своје надлежности, и повреде процтор слободе појединца који му држава гарантује законом, или пак ако један појединац повреди простор слободе другог појединца, ове повреде отклањају судски органи путем својих пресуда које представљају заједничку вољу у појединачној ситуацији. Јовановић у свом делу “О демократији” прво прихвата начело строге поделе власти и систем непарламентарне представничке демократије, који касније одбацује у делу “Држава” и прихвата систем парламентарне представничке демократије у коме је подела власти блаже изведена, закључивши да овај систем више одговара настанку правне државе. Ограничење три власти у систему парламентарне представничке демократије одвија се на онтолошком нивоу, приликом доношења аката путем којих власти делују кроз утицај једне на егзистенцију друге, и на феноменолошком нивоу, иницијалним актима појединаца, којима они стављају једну власт у функцију против друге, како би заштитили своја права, у ситуацији када им једна власт повређује та права прекорачењем надлежности. Осим правних метода ограничења изражених преко одговорности једне власти пред другом, услов постојања правне државе је и ванправни метод ограничења оличен у савесном и активном јавном мнењу. Простор деловања који законодавна власт обележава другим двема властима и појединцима у друштву састоји се од слободе која је у савременим држава линеарна, односно одговорна слобода, уређена правним нормама. Линеарна слобода представља садржајно одређен простор деловања слободног субјекта који му је држава омогућила, гарантујући правну сигурност, која представља најважнији принцип правне државе и врховну вредност демократског друштва. Анализирајући актуелно уставно уређење Републике Србије и упоредивши га са концептом државне суверености који у својим делима износи Слободан Јовановић, аутор закључује да се ова два система суштински разликују, из разлога јер је позитивноправним прописима у Републици Србији прокламована теорија народне суверености, која услед својих недостатака отежава развој модерног спрског друштва. Predmet rada je teorija državne suverenosti u delu Slobodana Jovanovića. Opšta hipoteza tiče se istovremenog nastanka države, vlasti i prava, koji predstavljaju tri elementa Jovanovićeve teorije državne suverenosti. Država je umna pojava, ali uzrok njenog nastanka je kolektivni nagon za samoodržanjem koji deluje u ljudskoj zajednici, a čiju suprotnost predstavlja individualni nagon za samoodržanjem koji deluje u pojedincu. Slobodan Jovanović ukazuje da je država kao istorijska pojava nastala usled rata, jer su prve zajednice morale da se organizuju kako bi mogle da opstanu u sukobu sa drugim zajednicama, odnosno kako bi intenzitet dejstva njihove sile bio veći. Organizovanost je uslovila da se članovi zajednice potčine volji jednog subjekta, koji je dobio moć zapovedanja, čime je nastala društvena hijerarhija, odnosno vlast. Regulisanjem odnosa između vladajućeg i podređenih subjekata, kao i između samih podređenih subjekata nastalo je pravo. Uloga države u savremenom svetu, prema Jovanovićevom mišljenju, sastoji se iz vojne, pravne i kulturne misije, odnosno zaštite države od napada spolja, održavanja unutrašnjeg mira među članovima društva, i obezbeđenja materijalnih i duhovnih dobara za zajednicu. Posebna hipoteza govori o nastanku pravne države kao posledice istovremenog nastanka države, vlasti i prava kao fenomena uopšte. Imanentni cilj pravne države je zaštita celine zajednice, odnosno u savremenom demokratskom diskursu, zaštita političke manjine od tiranije većine. U skladu sa Jovanovićevim shvatanjem, u modernoj pravnoj teoriji, za razliku od prethodnih istorijskih iskustava, kada su prerogativi najviše vlasti pripisivani vladajućim subjektima oličenim u fizičkim licima kroz teorije vladarske i narodne suverenosti, neophodno je staviti akcenat na suverenost apstraktne pravne ličnosti države. Pravna ličnost države sastoji se od zajedničke volje, koja za razliku od opšte volje, koju čini volja većine u demokratskom društvu, predstavlja kompromis između volja društvenih grupa u zajednici. Čovek deluje u društvu preko grupe kojoj pripada, a ne kao pojedinac. No, kako je nemoguće da sve društvene grupe i pojedinci učestvuju u nalaženju zajedničke volje, potrebno je formirati državni organ koji će predstavljati vernu sliku društva i koji će služiti kao sredstvo za njeno nalaženje. Taj organ u savremenim državama je parlament. Zajednička volja u parlamentu nastaje raspravom i preprikom, odnosno međusobnim suzbijanjem individualnih volja članova parlamenta, i ona se izražava u zakonu. Kako bi usklađivanje volja između društvenih grupa bilo što uspešnije, neophodno je i postojanje gornjeg doma u kome će biti predstavljeni članovi političke manjine u zajednici. Usled svoje opštosti i apstraktnosti, zajednička volja ne može da regulište i zadovolji konkretne društvene interese. Ta uloga pripada organima izvršne vlasti, koji kroz akte koje donose, zajedničkoj volji dodaju deo svoje volje oličen u diskrecionim ovlašćenjima. Ukoliko izvršni organi prekorače svoje nadležnosti, i povrede proctor slobode pojedinca koji mu država garantuje zakonom, ili pak ako jedan pojedinac povredi prostor slobode drugog pojedinca, ove povrede otklanjaju sudski organi putem svojih presuda koje predstavljaju zajedničku volju u pojedinačnoj situaciji. Jovanović u svom delu “O demokratiji” prvo prihvata načelo stroge podele vlasti i sistem neparlamentarne predstavničke demokratije, koji kasnije odbacuje u delu “Država” i prihvata sistem parlamentarne predstavničke demokratije u kome je podela vlasti blaže izvedena, zaključivši da ovaj sistem više odgovara nastanku pravne države. Ograničenje tri vlasti u sistemu parlamentarne predstavničke demokratije odvija se na ontološkom nivou, prilikom donošenja akata putem kojih vlasti deluju kroz uticaj jedne na egzistenciju druge, i na fenomenološkom nivou, inicijalnim aktima pojedinaca, kojima oni stavljaju jednu vlast u funkciju protiv druge, kako bi zaštitili svoja prava, u situaciji kada im jedna vlast povređuje ta prava prekoračenjem nadležnosti. Osim pravnih metoda ograničenja izraženih preko odgovornosti jedne vlasti pred drugom, uslov postojanja pravne države je i vanpravni metod ograničenja oličen u savesnom i aktivnom javnom mnenju. Prostor delovanja koji zakonodavna vlast obeležava drugim dvema vlastima i pojedincima u društvu sastoji se od slobode koja je u savremenim država linearna, odnosno odgovorna sloboda, uređena pravnim normama. Linearna sloboda predstavlja sadržajno određen prostor delovanja slobodnog subjekta koji mu je država omogućila, garantujući pravnu sigurnost, koja predstavlja najvažniji princip pravne države i vrhovnu vrednost demokratskog društva. Analizirajući aktuelno ustavno uređenje Republike Srbije i uporedivši ga sa konceptom državne suverenosti koji u svojim delima iznosi Slobodan Jovanović, autor zaključuje da se ova dva sistema suštinski razlikuju, iz razloga jer je pozitivnopravnim propisima u Republici Srbiji proklamovana teorija narodne suverenosti, koja usled svojih nedostataka otežava razvoj modernog sprskog društva. The subject of this thesis is the theory of the state sovereignty in the work of Slobodan Jovanović. The general hypothesis explains simultaneous creation of the state, the government and the law, which represent three elements of Jovanović's theory of the state sovereignty. The state is a product of the mind, but the cause for her creation is a collective will for self-preservation which exists in human society, whose counterpart is an individual will for self-preservation which exists in every individual. Slobodan Jovanović points out that, in history, the state was created during the war, because the first communities had to be organized in order to survive conflicts with other communities, or for the intensity of their power to be greater. Organizing caused for the members of the community to be subjected to the will of one subject, who was given the power of command, which produced social hierarchy, or authority. By regulating the relationship between ruling and subjected sides, and between the subjected ones themselves, law was created. State's role in the modern world, according to Jovanović, consists of the military, law and cultural mission, or, in other words, the protection of the state from an outside attack, conserving the internal peace among the members of society and providing material and spiritual goods for the community. A special hypothesis talks about the creation of a legal state as a consequence of simultaneous creation of the state, government and law as a general phenomenon. The immanent goal of a legal state is the protection of a community as a whole, or in a modern democratic discourse the protection of political minority from the tyranny of the majority. In accordance with Jovanović's understanding, in modern theory, unlike previous historical experiences, when the prerogatives of the highest authority were assigned to the ruling subjects embodied in natural person through the theories of the ruling sovereignty and sovereignty of the people, it is necessary to put an accent on the sovereignty of the abstract legal personification of the state. The legal character of the state consists of the collective will, which, unlike the general will, which represents the will of the majority in the democratic society, represents the compromise between the wills of the social groups in the community. A man in society functions through the group to which he belongs, not like an individual. However, considering it is impossible for all the social groups and individuals to be involved in finding a collective will, it is necessary to form a competent authority which will represent a true image of the society and which will serve as an instrument for finding it. That competent authority in modern state is the parliament. A collective will in the parliament is created by an argument and dispute, or repression of individual wills of the members of the parliament and it is reflected in the law. In order for the adjustment of the wills between the social groups to be as successful as possible, it is necessary for the upper house to exist, so the interests of the political minority in the community are represented. Because of the fact it is so universal and abstract, the collective will cannot regulate and please the concrete interests of the society. That role is dedicated to the executive authority, which adds a part of its will to the common will personified in discrete empowerment, through the acts it brings. If the executive authority oversteps its empowerment and harms individual's freedom guaranteed by law, or if one individual harms another individual's freedom, these injuries are corrected by the court through its verdicts which represent a common will in an individual situation. In his piece „About democracy“ Jovanović first accepts the principle of the rigorous division of authority and the system of the non-parliamentary representative democracy, which he later dismisses in his piece „State“ and adopts the system of the parliamentary representative democracy in which the division of the authority is done more moderately, coming to a conclusion that this system is more suitable for the creation of the legal state. Restricting three authorities in the system of parliamentary representative democracy is occurring on the ontological level, upon declaring legal acts, through which the authority acts by influencing the existence of one through the other, and on phenomenological level, by initial acts of an individual, through which they put one authority against the other one, so they could protect their rights in a situation when one authority is harming those rights by overstepping its jurisdiction. Except legal limiting methods expressed through the responsibility of one authority towards the other, the condition for the legal state to exist is also a non-legal method of limitation, expressed in a conscientiousness and active public opinion. The space for action which the legislation designates for the other two authorities and the individual in the society consists of freedom which is linear in modern states, or responsible freedom, regulated by legal norms. Linear freedom represents a designated space for each individual subject to act in, provided by the state, guaranteeing a legal security, which represents the most important principle of a legal state and the highest value of the democratic society. Analyzing the current constitutional system of the Republic of Serbia and comparing it to the concept of the state sovereignty, which is shown in the work of Slobodan Jovanović, the author comes to a conclusion that these two systems are crucially different, for legal regulations in the Republic of Serbia proclaims the theory of the sovereignty of the people which complicates the development of the modern Serbian society due to its flaws.

Knjiga je plod dugogodišnjega znanstvenog istraživanja. Obuhvaća razna područja. Autor obrađuje pastoral biskupa Marka Kalođere i Ćirila Banića, pastoralne okolnosti nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata na temelju Pastirskih poslanica, zatim prikazuje teološko- pastoralne misli pastoralnih teologa Sergija Lanze i Živana Bezića. Potom se radi o temama vlasti i autoriteta u pastoralu, inicijaciji odraslih, katekumenatu, katehezi i vjeronauku, župnomu i ekonomskomu vijeću, sinodalnosti, relativizmu i mladeži te crkvenim pokretima.

Vladimir Sorokin ruski je postmodernistički književnik rođen 1955. godine. U ovome radu analizira se njegova priča Zasjedanje tvorničkog komiteta (Zasedanie zavkoma) koja je prvi put objavljena u zbirci priča Prvi subotnik (Pervyj subbotnik) 1992. godine. U toj se priči, kao i u većini svojih ranih radova, Sorokin bavi socijalističkim ideologemima i dekonstruira ih vještom imitacijom i kombinacijom raznih stilova. Priča započinje kao socrealistički tekst o problematičnom radniku kojega optužuju da je alkoholičar i nasilnik. U prvom dijelu teksta stilizira se socrealistički tekst, ali se, nakon što komitet privede raspravu kraju, događa nagli obrat i počnu se nizati apsurdne slike nasilja, naturalistički opisi, besmislene riječi i nadrealne scene. Svojim tekstom Sorokin na primjeru političke vlasti dekonstruira vlast teksta, što je vidljivo i u samom pripovijedanju. Kako članovi komiteta postupno gube legitimitet, tako se i struktura teksta do njegovoga kraja sasvim urušava i pretvara se u „samo slova na papiru“.

Od ranih 80-ih nositelji planiranja razvoja turizma zalagali su se za uključivanje interesnih skupina u planiranje iz 3 razloga: zato jer toleriraju negativne učinke turizma, podržavaju investicije javnog sektora i projekte privatnog sektora i gostoljubivije su prema turistima. Gostoljubivost i prijateljsko ponašanje lokalnog stanovništva pridonosi ukupnom zadovoljstvu turista. Tako stručnjaci koji prate razvoj turizma ističu potrebu praćenja stavova lokalnih interesnih skupina s ciljem ranog identificiranja mogućih problema i poduzimanja strategija kojima će se minimizirati eventualne konfliktne situacije koje, ukoliko ostaju neotkrivene, potkopavaju potporu za razvoj destinacije i destinacijsku privlačnost. Stoga je u okviru ovog istraživanja osmišljeno i provedeno. Kvalitativno i kvantitativno istraživanje kako bi se utvrdili stavovi zajednice o turizmu i njegovom budućem razvoju. Istraživanjem su obuhvaćene interesne skupine iz javnog i turističkog sektora te stanovnici. Rezultati istraživanja otklonili su neka od iluzija povezanih s ne(željenim) turističkim razvojem. Jednako važno, rad je unaprijedio istraživanja i metode u turističkom planiranju budući da postoji mali broj radova koji uzimaju u obzir stavove različitih interesnih skupina temeljene na reprezentativnim uzorcima. Since early 1980s tourism planners have strongly advised involvement of local stakeholders in tourism planning for three reasons: stakeholders are more likely to support public sector investment and private sectors projects if they support tourism development; secondly, stakeholders supporting tourism development are more willing to tolerate some of the negative impacts of tourism and thirdly, they are more hospitable to tourists. The last aspect is important given that studies have shown that hospitable and friendly attitudes of locals contribute significantly to overall tourist satisfaction. Thus,the tourism planning experts highlighted the need to monitor attitudes of local stakeholders in order to identify possible problems early and devise strategies that will minimize eventual conflicting situations that would, if left undetected,undermine support for destination development and destination appeal for visitors. Thus, a research agenda based on, both, qualitative and quantitative surveys was devised and implemented, with an aim to ascertain community attitudes towards tourism and its future development. The research included attitudes of public sector stakeholders and tourism sector leaders and residents. The results of these surveys have dispelled some of the illusions related to (un)desirable tourism development. Equally important, they advance the tourism planning research and methods as studies taking into account attitudes of variety of stakeholders based on representative samples of stakeholders population are rare.

U ovom radu se razmatra način na koji dramski pisac Dušan Kovačević tretira pojmove domovine i smrti u svojim komadima, počev od prvih (Maratonci trče počasni krug i Radovan III) do najnovijih (Hipnoza jedne ljubavi). Autor utvrđuje da se ideja domovine u komadima Dušana Kovačevića sastoji od više različitih ideja koje se stapaju sa idejom smrti, kao što su zemlja (u koju se mrtvi zakopavaju), vlast (koja šalje u smrt) i zavičaj (početak i kraj za glavnog junaka). Susretanja i mešanja ovih pojmova daju kompleksnu sliku domovine u svim komadima jednog od najpoznatijih srpskih komediografa., The present work considers the way the play write Dušan Kovečević treats the concepts of homeland and death in his theatrical pieces, from the first ones (Maratonci trče počasni krug and Radovan III) to the latest ones (Hipnoza jedne ljubavi). The author finds that the idea of homeland in the works of Dušan Kovačević consists in several different ideas that merge with the idea of death, such as earth (where the dead are buried), authority (which sends men to death) and homeland (protagonist’s beginning and end). Encounters and mixings of these concepts offer a complex image of homeland in all the pieces of one of the most familiar Serbian comedists.

U ovom radu na temu „Moć, vlast, politika“ govoriti će se o ulozi medija, komunikaciji te manipulaciji unutar komunikacije. Komunikacija je sastavni dio društva te jezik možemo gledati kao proizvod društvenog djelovanja. Osim glavne funkcije komunikacije kao prijenosa informacija dolazi do korištenja manipulacije. Manipulacija je svakodnevno prisutna u društvu te ona utječe na kognitivnu inteligenciju osobe – pod koju spada naša sposobnost da zaključujemo, analiziramo te primjećujemo stvari. Teun Van Dijk nudi tri vrste definicije manipulacije: Socijalno- u kontekstu društva, možemo reći da se manipulacija definira kao nelegitimna dominacija koja potvrđuje društvenu nejednakost, kognitivno – spoznajno, manipulacija kao kontrola uma uključuje miješanje u procese razumijevanja, formiranje pristranih mentalnih modela i društvenih prikaza kao što su znanja i ideologije te diskurzivno – manipulacija uključuje uobičajene oblike ideološkog diskurza, kao naglašavanje naših dobrih strana i isticanje njihovih loših strana.[1] Bitno je napomenuti razliku između manipulacije i uvjeravanja. Iako je nekad teško primjetiti razliku, radi se o položaju osobe kojoj se prenosi informacija – ona sama može odlučiti kako će reagirati, tj. da li želi vjerovati ili reagirati na takav način. Ovdje će biti riječ o manipulaciji kroz jezik, medije te utjecaj boja kroz vlast i politiku. In this paper on "Power, Authority, Politics", we will talk about the role of media, communication and manipulation within communication. Communication is an integral part of society and we can look at language as a product of social activity. In addition to the main function of communication as a transfer of information, the use of manipulation occurs. Manipulation is daily present in society and it affects the cognitive intelligence of a person - under which our ability to conclude, analyze, and notice things. Teun Van Dijk offers three types of manipulation definitions: Socially - in the context of society, we can say that manipulation is defined as non-dominant dominance that confirms social inequality, cognitive-cognizance, manipulation as mind control involves mixing in processes of understanding, forming biased models and social views such as knowledge and ideology, and discourse - manipulation involves the usual forms of ideological discourse, emphasizing our good faces and highlighting their bad sides. [1] It is important to note the difference between manipulation and persuasion. While it is sometimes difficult to notice the difference, it is about the position of the person to whom the information is transmitted - it can decide itself how to react, whether to believe or react in such a way. We will talk about manipulation through language, the media and the influence of color through authority and politics.

U ovom radu analizira se politički diskurs dvojice političara, Andreja Plenkovića, predsjednika HDZ-a, koji je na dužnosti predsjednika Vlade Republike Hrvatske, i Davora Bernardića, predsjednika SDP-a, koji je po toj poziciji i predvodnik hrvatske oporbe. Unutar toga analizira se i njihova argumentacijska vještina u javnoj komunikaciji te stav o nizu aktualnih političkih i društvenih tema, kao i njihov odnos prema medijima. Predložak za ovaj rad su tekstovi koji su u o njima objavljeni na portalima Jutarnjeg lista i Večernjeg lista u 2017. godini. Cilj je istraživanja bio utvrditi način na koji komuniciraju s javnošću te kakav dojam ostavljaju na potencijalno biračko tijelo. Ovdje je riječ je o dvojici posve različitih političkih aktera s različitim pozicijama na političkoj sceni, ali i s jednom zajedničkom ulogom, a to je vođenje svojih stranaka, već desetljećima najvećih i najutjecajnijih u Hrvatskoj. Prva je hipoteza, temeljena na dugogodišnjoj svjetonazorskoj orijentaciji spomenutih dnevnih listova bila kako će Andrej Plenković biti bolje prikazan u tekstovima na portalu Večernjeg lista nego u Jutarnjem listu te da će Davor Bernardić biti bolje prikazan u tekstovima Jutarnjeg lista nego u Večernjem listu. Analizom je utvrđeno kako je Andrej Plenković doista pozitivnije prikazan u Večernjem listu. Iznenađuje, međutim, podatak da je i Davor Bernardić bolje prikazan u Večernjem listu. Druga je hipoteza kako je većina objavljenih tekstova o njima informativnog sadržaja, odnosno da spadaju o objektivne novinarske žanrove (vijesti, izvještaji), što znači da je osjetno manje komentiranih tekstova, a to je i potvrđeno. Zahvaljujući tomu, medijskoj je publici ostavljena mogućnost da o dvojici političara i sami donose kvalitativne sudove. Treća je hipoteza bila kako će se obojica najviše spominjati u kontekstu tadašnjih lokalnih izbora. Ova hipoteza istraživanjem nije potvrđena, jer se o Plenkoviću najviše govorilo u kontekstu „afere Agrokor”, dok je o Bernardić bio u središtu interesa u već tada vrlo aktualnoj „krizi u oporbi”. Četvrta je hipoteza glasila kako će oba lista, kako bi i vizualno pojačavala dojam svojih tekstova, ponavljati neke specifične fotoportrete tih političkih ličnosti. Utvrđeno je, međutim, kako Jutarnji list doista ponavlja neke svoje fotografije, dok Večernji list to u pravilu ne čini. Posljednja je hipoteza bila kako će Andrej Plenković, iako bi zbog činjenica da se nalazi na čelu izvršne vlasti trebao biti izloženiji kritičkim opaskama, općenito biti bolje prikazan u medijima negoli predsjednik oporbenog SDP-a, koji od samog dolaska na svoju poziciju ima vrlo ozbiljnih problema u komuniciranju s javnošću. Metodom analize diskursa utvrđeno je kako je Plenković doista mnogo uvjerljiviji od Bernardića, čiji je komunikacijski diskurs vidno slabiji te se ne može uspoređivati s načinom na koji komunicira predsjednik HDZ-a i aktualni premijer.

Razdoblje fantastične književnosti u hrvatskoj literaturi pojavljuje se tijekom sedamdesetih godina dvadesetog stoljeća, a uglavnom je obilježeno društvenim eskapizmom. Proza Stjepana Čuića, inovativna je upravo u različitosti od ostalih hrvatskih fantastičara, a njezine glavne odrednice su miješanje zbilje i fantastike. Osjećaji neizvjesnosti i nesigurnosti u portretima likova, njihova stanja nesigurnosti, tjeskobe i neodlučnosti, izobličavanje motiva vlasti, povezanosti likova mjesta i vremena unutar samih djela, ali i na razini povezanosti djela u cjelini glavne su fantastične odrednice Čuićeve proze. Groteska i ironija u kojima se autor služi pri opisivanju vlasti kao glavnog motiva njegove proze predstavlja poveznicu između fantastike i stvarnosti proznih djela The period of Croatian fantasy literature occurred during the seventies and it is mainly characterized with social escapism. Stjepan Čuić’s prose is innovative precisely in the way it differs from the rest of Croatian fantasy writers, its principal characteristic being mixing reality and fantasy. Apart from that, the main features of Čuić’s fantasy prose are: uncertainty and insecurity of characters, their states of anxiety and indecision, the distortion of authority motifs, the connection between characters, space and time within the works, and also at the level of the works in general. The grotesque and irony that the author uses to describe authority as the principal motif of his prose represent the link between the reality and fantasy of prose works.

Monsinjor Božo Milanović, svećenik, znanstvenik, profesor, publicist, kulturni i javni djelatnik, izdavač i urednik knjiga i novina, političar i diplomat zasigurno je jedan od najznačajnijih Istranina XX. stoljeća. Na svojemu je 90-godišnjem životnome putu prošao kroz, za suvremeno doba, vjerojatno najznačajnije europske i svjetske događaje od kojih ga se mnogi, neizostavno, u većoj ili manjoj mjeri dotiču. Milanović živi za vrijeme izbijanja Prvoga svjetskog rata, u međuratnome razdoblju kada se bori protiv fašizma te za vrijeme Drugoga svjetskog rata i nakon njega, kada borbu umjesto fašista zamjenjuje nova komunistička vlast. Kroz sva ta navedena razdoblja, Milanović se, iako po svome odabiru svećenik, zbog životnih stavova i uvjerenja, bavi svjetovnim i diplomatskim pitanjima. Tako je razdoblje do 1946. Milanović uvelike posvetio rješavanju narodnih problema, odnosno, potpomagao je u borbi hrvatskoga istarskog naroda za hrvatsku nacionalnu integraciju. Tek nakon Pariške mirovne konferencije i odstupanja hrvatskog svećenstva od daljnjih miješanja u politiku, Milanović započinje graditi svoj Crkveni put i okreće se rješavanju Crkvenih pitanja. Takvu je ideologiju, bez uplitanja u svjetovnu vlast vodio do kraja života. Monsignor Božo Milanović, a priest, a scholar, a professor, a publicist, a cultural and public worker, a publisher and editor of books and newspapers, a politician and a diplomat, is certainly one of the most important 20th-century Istrians. In the 90 years of his life, he lived to see probably the most significant European and world events, and many of them were inevitably, to a greater or lesser extent, part of his life. Milanović lived in the outbreak of the First World War, in the interwar period when he fought against fascism, during World War II and after it, when the struggle against a new communist regime replaced the struggle against the fascists. Although being a priest, Milanović dealt with secular and diplomatic issues throughout these periods, due to his life attitudes and beliefs. Thus, in the period up to 1946 Milanović devoted a great deal of his life and work to solving the problems of the people, ie, he helped in the struggle of the Croatian Istrian people for Croatian national integration. Only after the Paris Peace Conference and the departure of the Croatian clergy from further interference in politics, Milanović began building his Church road and turned his efforts to the resolution of Church issues. He lived this kind of ideology, without interfering in secular power, until the end of his life.