首页> 外文学位 >Political liberalization in post-communist states: A comparative analysis of church-state relations in Croatia and Slovenia.
【24h】

Political liberalization in post-communist states: A comparative analysis of church-state relations in Croatia and Slovenia.

机译:后共产主义国家的政治自由化:对克罗地亚和斯洛文尼亚教会与国家之间关系的比较分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

A major distinction between Croatian and Slovenian politics is the foundations upon which their respective political elites based their programmes and how these programmes developed in response to internal and external challenges. In Croatia, the foundation was based on a historical tradition of the Croatian state. This informed a political approach that was more obstructionist and that, more often than in Slovenia, was used to justify zero sum games and revolutionary change with the maximal goal of independence. Slovenia lacked a state tradition and was cognizant of the pressures exerted by great powers, particularly on its northern and western borders. The Slovenian political elite focused on ensuring Slovenian linguistic rights and cultural distinctiveness with the maximal goal of autonomy achieved through a greater reliance on positive sum games---incremental change and co-operationist politics. Neither nation was "liberal," according to liberal democratic standards, prior to the 1990s. However, there are discernable historical patterns of politics that demonstrate greater and lesser amenability to the development of political liberalism.;The relationship between church and state is but one realm of policy making that can be used to illuminate patterns of post-communist political liberalization. Church-state relations were chosen for this case study because both Croatia and Slovenia were faced with the same issues, including concordat content and creation, property restitution, public funding of the Catholic Church, and the RCC's involvement in education. In addition, the same types of government, party, and Church actors are involved.
机译:克罗地亚和斯洛文尼亚政治之间的主要区别是其各自的政治精英基于其计划以及这些计划如何应对内部和外部挑战而建立的基础。在克罗地亚,基金会的基础是克罗地亚国家的历史传统。这提供了一种政治方法,这种方法更具阻挠性,而且比斯洛文尼亚更经常被用来为零和博弈和革命性变革以最大的独立性目标辩护。斯洛文尼亚缺乏国家传统,并且意识到大国施加的压力,特别是在其北部和西部边界。斯洛文尼亚政治精英着重于确保斯洛文尼亚的语言权利和文化独特性,并通过最大程度地依靠正和博弈(增量变化和合作政治)实现最大的自治目标。根据自由民主标准,在1990年代之前,这两个国家都不是“自由主义者”。但是,有可辨别的政治历史模式显示出对政治自由主义发展的适应性增强和减弱。;教会与国家之间的关系不过是决策的一个领域,可以用来阐明后共产主义政治自由化的模式。在本案例研究中选择了教会与国家之间的关系,因为克罗地亚和斯洛文尼亚都面临着相同的问题,包括和解内容和创作,财产归还,天主教的公共资助以及RCC参与教育。此外,还涉及相同类型的政府,党和教会参与者。

著录项

  • 作者

    Kotar, Tamara.;

  • 作者单位

    Carleton University (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 Carleton University (Canada).;
  • 学科 Political Science General.;Political Science International Law and Relations.;Political Science Public Administration.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 509 p.
  • 总页数 509
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 政治理论;政治理论;国际法;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号