Bulletin # 23

Volume 6, Number 4, Issue 23, October 1996
The Graduate Faculty - New School for Social Research
65 Fifth Avenue, Room 404 & 423 - New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 229-5580 - Fax: (212) 229-5894 - E-mail: BreuerI@newschool.edu

Director: Elzbieta Matynia;
Program Coordinator: Ina Breuer;
Assistant and Bulletin Editor: Heshan de Silva-Weeramuni;
Associate: Magdalena Iwanska

The ECEP is made possible through the generous support of The Eurasia Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the USIA, Mr. Aso Tavidian and the G-Tech Corporation.

Table of Contents

Endings and Beginnings

From our hilltop castle in Cracow, a more diverse group than ever at the fifth Democracy and Diversity Summer Institute pondered the trials and tribulations of democracy both in "the region" and beyond. Several new elements enriched this summer's program. Participants representing 23 countries came not only from Croatia and Serbia, for example, or Armenia and Azerbaijan: for the first time we had people from the Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and a strong contingent from South Africa. This included Professor Stephen Gelb, with a course on South Africa's transition, and two junior scholars from Johannesburg and Durban, whose company and insights expanded our comparative perspective in many, many ways.

We were also fortunate to have a unique seminar on the process of state-making as it happened in Israel and is happening in Ukraine, conducted by two distinguished scholars and compelling teachers, Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Bohdan Krawchenko of Kiev-Mohyla Academy. And at a "Breakfast with Sonja Licht," our Yugoslav colleague who heads the Open Society Fund in Belgrade, discussed the chances for peace after Dayton with her own sardonic optimism. The special character of the Institute's formal and informal dialogue is captured for us in a thoughtful letter from Budapest by this summer's alumna, Roza Vajda.

At the Institute's farewell party I asserted that in the East and Central Europe Program endings are beginnings, and this fall at the Graduate Faculty we have plenty of evidence to support that claim; several of this year's Democracy Fellows are Cracow alumni, and the visiting Russian scholars, participants in our autumn institute, Explorations in Political Science, are creating new courses here which they will introduce at their home universities next year.

We also warmly welcome our long-time colleague, Adam Michnik, this fall's G-Tech Visiting Professor in Democracy.

Welcome back to the Bulletin -- E.M.

Opinions
Survival and Dissent in Bosnia
Excerpts from a Conversation with Jan Urban, June 1996

Jan Urban: In 1993 I started going to Bosnia, on some 18 or 19 trips, delivering humanitarian aid and working as a journalist. Wanting to combine these two things, I proposed to the Open Media Research Institute in Prague that we launch a one-year project to try to build a network of people in Bosnia - whatever their nationality - who would be willing to form an independent news agency. And so I've been living in Bosnia since the beginning of the year.

EM: If one wants to look for truly independent media that dare to support the idea of a democratic and multi-ethnic society, where should one look? In Sarajevo?

JU: In Sarajevo, Tuzla, to some extent in eastern Mostar, and in most of what I would call the Bosniac-held part of the Federation [1]. There you have diversity, multi-ethnicity, a variety of political opinions. But not in all of it - there are parts which are run by Bosnian Muslim chauvinists, and which are also enclaves of the Mafiosi. But generally the atmosphere on the Bosniac side is like a different world compared to Republika Srpska or Herceg-Bosna. Herceg-Bosna, which is the Croatian-run part of the Federation, has as many fascist features as Republika Srpska does. So there are very different conditions even within the Federation.

EM: Does anybody know how many Bosnian Serbs in Republika Srpska, if not intimidated by the Karadzic/Mladic apparatus, would be in favor of a multi-ethnic Bosnia?

JU: I don't now. Nobody knows.... What is clear is that there are already dissident groups, even one political party which openly opposes the Karadzic regime, and there are people who are openly asking for the return to a multi-ethnic Bosnia, which is viewed by their authorities as high treason.

EM: Where are they?

JU: In Republika Srpska they are in Banja Luka, and a few individuals in Bijeljina and Sanski Most. In Doboj they've now started a new magazine called Alternativa. It's still, shall we say, unbalanced, but there is a very good independent bi-weekly, Novi Prelom, in Banja Luka, which is really good - and it's absolutely open in its opposition.

EM: How open can such opposition be?

JU: As open as were the dissidents in Central and Eastern Europe. They have nothing to lose but their lives. They are threatened, they are intimidated. But it's a very special situation - the country is de facto occupied by IFOR [2] - so it would be very unhealthy to kill someone in cold blood in the middle of the street. And therefore those dissidents are simply taking their chances, and trying to widen the space they have as much as possible now before IFOR leaves, because they know very well that when the soldiers leave, they will be on their own.

EM: Apart from those newspapers you mentioned, are there some other sites of democratic and liberal dissent?

JU: The press is the first - and for a while yet, the only - space where independently-minded people can gather around, and right now there are only those few magazines. There is a plan for an internationally sponsored TV station in Banja Luka, and there is that one, and only one, truly oppositional party in Republika Srpska, which is the Social Liberal Party in Banja Luka. It is quite small, though respected, but it is the only "opposition party" that does not have close ties to Belgrade. Most other so-called opposition parties are either just branches of Serbian political parties in Yugoslavia or simple Milosevic pawns...

EM: What about independent intellectuals, artists, universities?

JU: Most of the independent intelligentsia left, because they did not want to be drafted into the army; they didn't want to have anything to do with this war... Whether some may ever return is another question... And most of the intelligentsia and artists remaining in Republika Srpska now are pathetic nationalists, chauvinists - most of them... You either have to fight [for the nationalists] or you have to run. You are not given any other option. There are those who resist - whatever the price. Those are people who until a year ago were threatened with machine-guns, drafted into the army. For example, the chairman of the Social Liberal Party, Miodrag Zhivanovic, was the only university professor from Banja Luka to be drafted into the army, and he had to spend nearly four years in the trenches.

EM: What about Croatia and Serbia?

JU: Well, I always like to describe both these regimes with one term, and that is national socialism, deliberately trying to impress upon others this comparison to Nazi Germany. These are national-socialist, corporatist, neo-fascist states, and both leaderships - that is, Milosevic and Tudjman - definitely will not stop until they have a Greater Serbia and a Greater Croatia.

EM: What's the situation of the opposition in those two countries?

JU: Very difficult. It's stronger in Croatia, despite all the pressure, because by tradition Croatia has been more decentralized administratively, geographically, socially. For example, Novi List in Rijeka is a very respected, openly oppositional daily. Feral Tribune is absolutely excellent - tough, black humor... But distributed by various structures including a phonily privatized company which, under orders from the authorities, tries to kill Feral by not making its payments. So they really operate under very difficult conditions. Several journalists were detained for interrogations: Victor Ivancic was sued for liable by Tudjman himself. Tudjman's daughter sued the paper several times - and all this happening without too much noise coming from the western media in mid-1996.

EM: Is it that the opposition isn't news?

JU: Let me put it this way. In the late 80s, when I myself was a dissident figure in Czechoslovakia, it was enough that I was taken in for interrogation, and there would be diplomatic protests, there would be the western press writing about it - in a situation where nothing really serious happened to me. Here are people who are getting death threats, and it's not news anymore. What we used to call human rights policy became a non-issue. It's out of date, out of fashion. By giving priority to groups' rights over individual rights we are contributing to the growth of authoritarian regimes in all post-Communist countries, and not only there.

EM: The memory of the war - the wounds - how will all that affect any effort to consolidate what's left of the pro-democratic forces?

JU: When you go throughout former Yugoslavia, you now hear "we were better off before the war," everywhere. Everywhere except in Republika Srpska, where society is held together only by a sense of victimhood. The memory of the war, to have a healing effect, has to be talked about, and to talk about it you need a partner. Still, on all sides, it is very difficult to find people who are able to talk openly about what its roots were, what mistakes were made...There are individuals who want to talk. For instance, those Banja Luka dissidents frequently come to Sarajevo. Yet there are very few people from Sarajevo who dare to come to Banja Luka. It's not because they wouldn't like to. It's because the situation in Banja Luka is very different, and if you're not from there, you risk your life going there. But it's happening: there are already connections. And this debate will start, though people will be overwhelmed with the elections until September. Yet there is a growing understanding that "we must not cut off memory again as we did after 1945." Very often I hear: "This war was possible because we did not talk enough, and in depth, about the Second World War. We allowed the communists, the politicians, to fabricate myths about us."

EM: Do you think the Democracy Seminars, which were outlets for independent discourse in Poland and Hungary in the late 80's, could in some way be adapted to this situation?

JU: I think it's too early. But listen, whatever worked for us in dissident times could work here. It just needs time. Of course, they should get support. Yet these dissidents, too, are lost in their memories of the war, and are susceptible to that sense of victimhood. Only very few of them realize - and this goes for Sarajevo, too - that to be a victim is not a qualification for the job. It was the same with us: we thought it was enough to be brave and to oppose the regime. But then when we won power, we realized that we knew nothing about the world, about politics, about efficiency...

EM: So they are not in a position to strategize.

JU: No, they are just trying to survive, as individuals with some integrity. In crisis situations there is a line one either crosses or does not. It's all about human decency; it's about an unwillingness to be part of a herd; it's the fight for individual conscience: "It is I who says yes or no; I don't allow any institution or party or regime to tell me what to say." It's exactly what Vaculik [3] said about Charter 77: that was "an uprising of character, not of political conviction..." The same is true here, but under much more difficult conditions.

EM: About support: you said that one could facilitate debate. And that their stories should be told...And that in general they should be given more access to the world at large...

JU: Yes, because in the same way, this helped us when we crossed that line and became known oppositional figures. The more attention and the more publicity we got, the safer we were, and it's the same with them. But they are in a much more difficult position there, because they go not only against the regime, they go - as it is painted - against their nation. They are "traitors". They are "exposed" as traitors.

EM: What hope do you see in all this?

JU: In Sarajevo I met an old Muslim peasant who had been expelled from his village by Croats. He had with him a cow that belonged to his Serb neighbor, who'd been expelled from the village even earlier, in '92. He had promised then to take care of the cow for him until the war was over. So there he was in besieged Sarajevo, a city which was hungry, guarding this cow that belonged to a Serb, and looking forward to the end of the war so that he could return the cow. And this is what I call hope.

One of the signators of Charter 77, and one of ECEP's special advisors, the Czech journalist Jan Urban remains in Bosnia to report on the situation after the election.

Endnotes

[1] Under the Dayton Agreement the state and territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina are divided into two "entities": the so-called Muslim/Croat Federation and Republika Srpska. The Federation nominally unites the separatist Bosnian Croats of Herceg-Bosna (capital in western Mostar) with the still fairly multi-ethnic "Bosniacs" (people who regard themselves as Bosnians regardless of ethnicity or religion) of government-controlled Bosnia, whom the western press usually refers to as Muslims. [ed.]

[2] The International Implementation Force [ed.]

[3] Ludvik Vaculik, Czech writer and signatory of Charter 77. [ed.]

Curriculum Activities

Explorations in Political Science
Institute for Social Science Faculty from RussiaSeptember 7, 1996 - October 19, 1996
This Institute is funded by a grant from the Office of Academic Programsof the United States Information Agency (USIA)

The program of the Institute examines the following five fields of political science: the American Political System; Western Political Theory; Political Philosophy; Comparative Politics and International Relations; and Empirical Research Methods. Each course section lasts approximately one week. Each classroom session is followed by separate discussion on teaching the sections covered.

In addition to the sections on political science, each participant will take part in training sessions devoted to the use of the Internet as a tool for research. This component of the curriculum will be conducted by NYU's Associate Librarian Ann Snoeyenbos and the New School's Associate Librarian, David Perry.

Other activities included special guest lectures, field trips, and meetings with policy makers on the national, state and local levels. Among the guest lecturers in New York City were Jonathan Schell (Media Studies Center) and Prof. Shlomo Avineri (Hebrew University in Jerusalem). The group was also invited to meet with the President of the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), Professor Stanley Katz, and his colleagues. Brief remarks on the teaching of humanities and political science at U.S. universities were delivered by the Vice President of ACLS Dr. Douglas Bennett.

The field trip to Washington DC included a briefing at Senator Moynihan's office on How Congress Functions on the Staff Level, a tour of Congress, and a meeting with Roy Schotland, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, on The Right to Vote and Its Exercise: Aspects of Representation.

The trip to the state capitol in Hartford, CT., was centered around a meeting on Democracy and State Government. Among the discussants were: Elaine Zimmerman, Executive Director of the Connecticut Commission on Children; Senator Donald Williams; Representative Brian Mattiello; Mr. Joel Cogenjoel of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities; Miles Rapoport, the Connecticut Secretary of State; Louis Martin from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; Leslie Brett of the Connecticut Commission on Women, and Judge Aaron Ment.

Finally, near the conclusion of their stay at the New School, on October 15, the Russian scholars will be introduced to the larger New York community in a round-table discussion: Russia Today: Contradictions of Democracy.

- Institute Faculty -
Prof. Andrew Arato (The Graduate Faculty)
Prof. Youssef Cohen (New York University)
Prof. Martin Gilens (Yale University)
Prof. Jeffrey Goldfarb (The Graduate Faculty)
Prof. Victoria Hattam (The Graduate Faculty)
Prof. Ira Katznelson (Columbia University)
Prof. James Miller (The Graduate Faculty)
Prof. James Nolt (The Graduate Faculty)
Prof. David Plotke (The Graduate Faculty)
Prof. Michel Rosenfeld (Cardozo Law School)
Prof. Ian Shapiro (Yale University)
Prof. Andrzej Tymowski (Yale University)
Prof. Michael Walzer (Institute for Advanced Study)
Prof. Aristide Zolberg (The Graduate Faculty)

- Institute Participants -
Natalia Batova (Chair, Department of Philosophy, Magadan International Pedagogical University)
Antonina Dordous (Chair, Department of Political History, Khabarovsk Pedagogical Institute)
Boris Gubman (Department of Theory and History of Culture, Tver State University)
Vladimir Kostornichenko (Department of Modern History, Volgograd State University)
Dmitri Kukarnikov (Department of Philosophy, Voronezh State University)
Denis Makarov (Department of Political & Social Science, Moscow State Pedagogical University)
Olga Malinova (Department of Political Science, Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technics)
Galina Rokina (Department of History, Mari El State University)
Sergey Savchenko (Department of Philosophy, Moscow State University)
Dmitry Strovsky (Department of Journalism, Ural State University, Yekaterinburg)

Democratic Politics and Policy
Report from the 1995/96 Workshop

The Workshop was made possible through the support of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. Its coordinator was Belinda Cooper, a Senior Fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School.

The fall sessions, which began the Workshop's first section devoted to an "overview" by policy experts, consisted of presentations by the Connecticut Commissioner for Children, Elaine Zimmerman, who gave an introductory presentation on public policy analysis; Professor Monroe Price of Cardozo Law School, who presented a session on the media; the late New School economist David Gordon; and William Glaser, Distinguished Scholar at the New School's Milano Graduate School of Management, who delivered a session on health policy.

The first spring session was given by Jack F. Matlock, Jr., US ambassador to Russia during the Reagan administration. He explained his view of U.S. responses to events in the Soviet Union and the post-Soviet republics in recent years. Asked whether he thought the future held in store a return to the cold war, he replied with a certain amount of optimism.

He stated that, "the sort of differences of opinion that are likely to arise, and have already arisen, between the US and Russia are amenable to diplomacy, are amenable to reason and working them out... Most Americans would like to see gains for Russia, in the sense of a better economy, a healthier society, and even more friendly and open relations with its neighbors, which would be in Russia's interest."

Political scientist and ECEP Associate Yuri Shevchuk presented an analysis of dual citizenship, presenting an argument that dual citizenship may allieviate certain ethnic tensions within regional countries.

World Policy Institute Senior Fellow Tina Rosenberg, National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize recipient for her book The Haunted Land: Facing Europe's Ghosts After Communism, compared the way countries in Latin America and in Eastern Europe have dealt with the legacies of tyranny. For her, one of the most compelling problems in Eastern Europe is in determining the burden of guilt: "In Eastern Europe,... just as the communist dictatorship made almost everyone, with very few exceptions, a victim of communism, it also made almost everyone complicit in some way; everyone was a cog in the repressive machine, unless you were someone who was so successful at removing yourself from society, but these people were very rare... Normal behavior of everyday life, by its nature, made people participants in the regime... Jan Urban always said, 'what we have to look at is not what some "they" did, it's what We did; we have to look at our own participation'."

In the same vein as David Gordon's presentation, our next session of the workshop also saw also David Howell, Chair of the Urban Policy Department of the New School's Milano School, offer criticism of American economic policy in his presentation on Labor Policy.

The following session, on foreign policy, by Sherle Schwenninger, Director of the World Policy Institute, also reflected on issues which were earlier touched upon by Professor Matlock. Mr. Schwenninger outlined the three major thrusts historically found in American foreign policy, the Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian approaches, and illuminated the way each continues to inform current policy positions.

One session of the Workshop considered policy options relating to the special place of Minorities and Marginalized Populations. The session was co-presented by Ari Zolberg, the University in Exile Professor of Political Science at the Graduate Faculty, and the Spring 1996 Visiting Professor in Democracy at the New School, Galina Starovoitova (who was also then running for the Russian Presidency).

The final "overview" presentation concerned Environmental Policy. The session was hosted by George Hamilton, the Executive Director of the Institute for Sustainable Communities in Montpelier, Vermont. He drew upon his own experiences, both the US and the region, in advocating for environmentally responsible development, which is characterized by partnerships between environmental groups and other community members.

The second component of the Workshop series, entitled "Policy Questions in the Area," provided the opportunity for this year's ECEP Fellows to present the research findings they had been concentrating on during their stay at the GF.

Mariam Ohanian, a researcher at Yerevan State University in Armenia, presented a paper on the situation of "Armenian Women in the Period of Transition."

Pew Democracy II Fellows Darius Aidukas and Mariela Vargova gave two papers on constitutionalism issues, one on the Lithuanian case, and the other a cross-national comparative study. Pew Democracy II Fellow Dionyz Hochel and OSI Virtual University Fellow Laszlo Öllös conducted a joint presentation on "Public Policy in Slovakia." Mellon Democracy II Fellow Magda Iwanska tackled the implication of AIDS for public policy formation, concentrating on the Polish and American cases. Pew Democracy II Fellow Pavel Fedorchenko examined the attitudes of civil servants in Ukraine to assess the future possibilities of change there. Mellon Democracy II Fellow Gabor Juhasz presented a very thought-provoking paper on the question of welfare rights and its relationship to economic transitions in the region. Arguing for the adoption of welfare rights as part of the constitution of Hungary, he traced the possibilities for such an endeavor. Open Society Institute Fellows Kinga Czuczor and Malgorzata Gajda presented a joint session on media policy. The former concentrated on television and its impact on the US Presidential elections, and the former presented a paper freedom of speech issues and advertising in the US.

1996 Fellows of ECEP

The Pew Charitable Trusts Democracy II Fellows
Andrew Klepikov (Kiev, Ukraine) Ph.D., Philosophy, Kiev Mohyla Academy, 1996. Mr. Klepikov is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Kiev Mohyla Academy. He plans to use the fellowship to prepare two courses, one on political institutions, and one on political discourse and the public sphere, both topics which he considers essential to the democratization process in Ukraine.

Boris Kostov (Bourgas, Bulgaria) M.A., Political Science, Sofia University, 1995. Mr. Kostov is presently a Ph.D. student at Sofia University, and is a Cracow alumnus. His primary research concerns the problems of European political integration and the wider implications of this process for global politics.

Anna Laido (Tallinn, Estonia) Post-graduate student, University of Tartu. Ms. Laido, another Cracow alumnus, also has experience at the Estonian Parliament, as a Secretary of a Parliamentary Faction of the Estonian Parliament, and has worked as a specialist for the Department of Foreign Relations. Her research interests concern educational and non-profit management issues.

Michal Vasecka (Bratislava, Slovakia) M.A., Sociology, Masaryk University, Brno, 1995. Mr. Vasecka teaches Public Policy Analysis at Academia Istropolitana, and is a Program Manager and Legal Advisor to INFOROMA, an NGO which aims to advocate on behalf of the Roma in Slovakia, and which is working for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Andrew W. Mellon Democracy II Fellows

Malgorzata Gajda (Warsaw, Poland) M.A., English, University of Warsaw, 1993. She is a post-graduate student at the North American Studies Center of Lodz University and has taught courses on American culture in the English Department, University of Warsaw, where she has also been accepted as a Ph.D. student. Her research interests center around the representation of women in the media.Agnes Kende (Budapest, Hungary) M.A., Sociology, Eotvos Lorand University, 1996. Ms. Kende is also the Executive Director of the Hungarian Federation of Free Radios, and has taught courses on national identity and cultural anthropology. Her research interests focuses on the situation of the Roma in Hungary and the integration of racial minorities within majoritarian state frameworks.

Media, Politics and Policy
an invitiation to the 1996/97 electronic workshop

Democracy & Diversity: The Fifth Summer Institute in Cracow, Poland,
July 21 - August 10, 1996

This year's Institute curriculum was designed and taught by Professors David Plotke (Citizenship and Democratic Politics Today), Jeffrey Goldfarb (Problems in Democratic Culture), Ann Snitow (Theories of Gender in Society), Shlomo Avineri and Bohdan Krawchenko (The Making of State and Society: Israel and Ukraine), and Stephen Gelb (South Africa's Transition in Comparative Perspective). A policy workshop was led by Elaine Zimmerman.

Student Body

For this summer's Institute in Cracow, we selected 53 junior scholars from 23 countries, representing 30 cities and 24 institutions of higher learning. These countries were: the U.S.A., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, Poland, Peru, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, and Ukraine.

Other Activities

A Workshop on "How to Teach," (conducted by the Institute's faculty) An evening with Nobel Prize Laureate Czeslaw Milosz A briefing with Adam Michnik, Editor-in-Chief of Gazeta Wyborcza Breakfast with Sonja Licht, Director, Open Society Fund, Belgrade A Roundtable on South Africa with Stephen Gelb, Tiyani Mohlaba and Brendon Boyce A screening of a documentary called Citizens, by R.W. Adams A slideshow and lecture on the arts in Cracow by J. Walek, Curator of the Czartoryski Museum A tour of Kazimierz, the historic Jewish neighborhood of Cracow, by David Miller of the World Monuments Fund A tour of Jagiellonian University A guided tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest German death camp in Europe.

Thoughts on the Cracow Institute
Roza Vajda

Probably the most difficult task our professors had to undertake was how to engage people of very different backgrounds in discussions of problems that affect us all, achieving a balance between rational arguments and emotional reactions. It was very instructive to see how Ann, Jeff and David, whose courses I took, managed to obtain this goal in different ways.

Jeff made us speak out about our personal convictions and cooperate in marking the field of the conversations. Old views were challenged and new ideas were born, and the assets of democracy were examined critically instead of being taken for granted. These processes and practices, I think, helped us a lot in establishing a personal relationship to democratic ideals.

David "used" us as actors whose common performance was supposed to demonstrate what is at stake in certain problematic situations. This game allowed us to be impartial and open-minded about serious political and legal issues facing democracies.

Ann's situation was extremely demanding, since the students in the gender course had very different interests: some of them were practice- oriented, eager to know how to use the ideas provided by this field of study; while others wanted to see how these ideas were constituted, and what the social-scientific theories behind them are. Thanks to the careful selection of the reading material, and to the combination of university seminar with "consciousness-raising group" meetings, we got not only what we had expected, but even more.

As far as the outcome of the discussions is concerned, it was very useful that we were, so to speak, forced to take the differences of opinion not as expressions of ill will or false points of view, but as variations of valid interpretations. What else could people have done, living so close together for nearly one month? It was more amusing to listen to arguments and analyze the nature of conflicts than to pass judgment on each other. For this reason, everyone felt the need to present clear and consistent arguments. The result was rarely consensus, but rather a heterogeneous picture, demonstrating, among other things, essential differences in the content of the basic concepts of democratic culture. On the one hand, there was mostly a general agreement regarding the fundamental ideas of democracy, while on the other, people had to recognize how the local contexts modify the meaning of these principles.

Roza Vajda is a graduate student in anthropology at Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest.

Awards for Tina Rosenberg

In Memoriam

NOTES

IN OCTOBER:

Wednesday, October 2
Dmitry Strovsky, Professor of Journalism, Ural State University, will speak on "The World Through the Russian Media," 6 p.m., Machinist, Room.

Monday, October 14
Zora and Martin Butora, sociologists from Bratislava, Slovakia, will speak on "Democracy and Media in Slovakia" 6 p.m., Room 242.

Tuesday, October 15
"Russia Today: Contradictions of Democracy," RoAundtable with the visiting Russian scholars , [see above] 5:30 p.m, Orozco Room, 66 W. 12 St.

IN NOVEMBER:

Wednesday, November 13
Daniel Calingaert and Robert Jenkins of Civic Education Project will present the outcome of a report on "Educating for the Transition: A Needs Assesment of Social Science Higher Education in Central and Eastern Europe," 6 p.m., Room 242

Thursday, November 21
Adam Michnik, Fall 1996 Visiting Professor in Democracy, will speak on "Central Europe After Communism," 6 p.m., Room 242.

IN DECEMBER:

Wednesday December 4
Dr. Gramoz Pashko, economist and former Deputy Prime Minister of Albania, will speak of "Six Years After the Revolution: The Case of Albania," 4 p.m., Machinist Room.

Meetings

• Mladjan Dinkic, Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade;
• Sondra Myers, Conneticut College;
• Sonja Licht, Director, Open Society Fund, Belgrade;
• Jan Urban, Open Media Research Institute, (Prague-Sarajevo);
• Bohdan Krawchenko, Kiev-Mohyla Academy;
• Bogdan Bialek, The Citizens Committee for Reconciliation and Dialogue, Kielce, Poland;
• Joachim Russek, The Judaica Foundation, Cracow;
• Jacek Wozniakowski, President, and Jacek Purchla, International Cultural Center, Cracow;
• Tereza Grellova and Michal Horsky, Milan Simecka Foundation;
• Radim Marada, School of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno;
• Leszek Koczanowicz, Institute of Philosophy, Wroclaw University;
• Janusz Lewandowski, Institute for Studies of Market Economy, Gdansk;
• Adam Gula, Polish Foundation for Energy and Lawrence Markel, Vice President of Electrotek Concepts;
• Jonathan Schell, Media Studies Center, New York City;
• Zbigniew Bujak, Member of the Parliament of Poland;
• Jedrzej Krakowski, European Studies Center, University of Silesia;
• Susan Bronson, Social Science Research Council, New York City;
• Douglas Bennett, Vice President; Jason Parker, Program Director, Committee on Eastern Europe; American Council of Learned Societies.