The Watchdog Role of the Media - Media as the Fourth Estate

Introduction

The watchdog conception, according to which, the media is supposed to serve as a controller of government, is one among the oldest main beliefs in journalism. The term ‘fourth estate’, the press’ role in being a ‘watchdog’ that will control the government was reputedly coined by Edmund Burke, in late-eighteenth century in England to refer to the political power possessed by the press of that time, on a same level with the other three ‘estates’ of power in the British realm: Lords, Church and Commons.[1] In the beginning, the idea of the press as the ‘fourth estate’ was considered as an independent check on the activities of the state, particularly government. On the other hand, the development of the watchdog role goes further than the borders of government investigation to take account of many other institutions of societal power, including powerful individuals, who may have no official relationship with public office.

This essay will aim to explain the ‘watchdog’ role of the media; in particular it will deal with issues like: Social Responsibility Theory, current trends of media agenda setting, and how media fulfills its role in the society and how it helps opinion make wise and informed decisions. In countries where democracy is fragile, there is less emphasis on the ‘watchdog’ role of the media; circumstances dictate such a thing. On the other hand, in the democratic countries, in the societies with a high level of political culture, the ‘watchdog’ role of the media is highlighted very strongly. Media are considered as a ‘fourth estate’, as a powerful ‘watchdog’, which is used for revealing mistreatments of state authority, in particular protecting the democratic and constitutional rights of the citizens. However, with the slow, but stable, decline of the public’s belief in the mass media,[2] it is contentious whether the ‘watchdog’ role of the media is still undamaged. The essay will prove that media still remains ‘watchdog’, the ‘fourth estate’ that, more or less, realizes its responsibilities toward society.


Social Responsibility Theory

The Social Responsibility Theory is one among other press theories; some say, there are four theories, the others say that there are really just two theories of the press, Authoritarian and Libertarian, which the latter two theories, Social Responsibility and Soviet Communist are merely extensions of.[3] Nevertheless, the Social Responsibility Theory is very important one; it is considered as a theory that should serve to the achievement of valid societal goals. According to this theory, the media have responsibilities toward society; the media should be available to more than a marginal group of people and present more than the opinions of influential politicians. Therefore, the essence of the Social Responsibility Theory is an affirmative role in advocating social justice for general public, which are powerless.

The social responsibility tradition that received its philosophical basis in the American commission of 1947 was actually put into practice with much more determination and effects in countries other than the United States, especially in Western Europe in the two or three decades following the Second World War.[4] The idea was to put order in media’s scene of the Europe; it was a post-war period and Europe needed, more than any thing else, an accountable media that will act responsibly toward demands of society, it will promote a social justice. In a way, for the media, social responsibility should be always a main concern.

The social responsibility model involved a number of ways in which the state could attempt to play a role in attempting to ensure that media fulfills their social obligations whilst at the same time trying, more or less, to retain the independence of the journalism and the freedom of the speech.[5] Mass media should provide citizens with information. They should identify the problems in our society, and unlawful activities of those who have power. Media also should have mobilization function, campaigning for societal purposes in the area of politics and economic development. So, everywhere, social tasks come prior to media rights and freedoms.

The social responsibility model suggests that among others: the media have obligations to society; news media should be truthful, fair, objective and relevant; the media should be free, but self-regulated; the media should follow agreed codes of ethics and professional conducts.[6] According to this, the media in Kosovo and in the region, with a few exceptions, are not respecting the bases of the Social Responsibility Theory. For instance, the daily Bota Sot, deals more with untruthful accusations than with news (i.e. during the national elections before two years daily Bota Sot has written about Mr. Veton Surroi and his ‘marriage’ with the sister of Xhoana Nano-the wife of former Prime Minister, Mr. Fatos Nano).

On the other hand, the Public Television of Kosova (RTK) deals more with unimportant issues than with important ones. People acquire factual information about public affairs from television news, but they also learn how much importance to attach to a topic on the basis of emphasis placed on it in the news. If the first story on the newscast is unimportant one, if the length of time dedicated to the salient story is too short, as RTK is doing there is no way to fulfill tasks toward the public. By calling attention to the secondary matters, while ignoring the important ones, RTK is not fulfilling its responsibilities to citizens of Kosova.

According to the Social Responsibility Theory, socially responsible media also should represent the public and speak for and to the public interest in order to hold government accountable.[7] So, the media should be considered as ‘watchdog’ that the public rely on for revealing errors and wrongdoing by governmental institutions. The Public Television has never revealed even one illegal act, which is done by governmental institutions, and, of course, there are plenty of them. On the other hand, there are some media, socially responsible, that represent the public interest. One of them is daily Koha Ditore; this daily newspaper has revealed a lot of unlawful activities of politicians. A few days ago this newspaper, Koha Ditore has revealed a latest scandal of Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports, Mr. Astrit Haraqia. The Minister Haraqia has engaged the Italian songstress with Albanian origin to sing for his birthday; every thing has been paid from the money of Kosovo’s tax-payers.

Even in United States, the first constitutional democracy in the world, there are a lot of cases when different forms of media fail to cover issues in a socially responsible manner. For instance, the Nevada Daily Mail, while writing about an investment of Murphy Farms in their city, represented it as a family farm instead of a corporate giant run by Wendell Murphy, an influential former state legislator who is actively involved in gaining agricultural exemptions from state sales taxes; and environmental regulations.[8] Therefore, readers were told not only that family farm had arrived but that the arrival involved potentially controversial issues, such as problems with environment. As a result this investment was not done, since it was not allowed by citizens. By doing this, Nevada Daily Mail didn’t fulfill its tasks to citizens, and later was accused by them for misinformation.[9]

On the other hand, the media’s scene of United States is full of examples where media cover issues in a socially responsible way; it remains a ‘watchdog’ that reveals bad behavior of politicians and in this way fulfills its responsibilities to public. Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were issues of national scope in which a more powerful executive branch of government threw its weight against the media’s ‘watchdog’ legacy; although there have been mixed reviews on the media’s role in these incidents, most authorities writing on that time identify these challenges as the media’s finest exercise of the ‘watchdog’ function.[10]


Current Trends of Media Agenda Setting

Agenda setting is a highly political process: political actors actively seek to bring issues on top of the agenda if they are looking for a change of policy, or to keep them off the agenda if they want to defend the status quo.[11] The function of the media in this process is essential since they determine which issues are the most important ones; agenda setting illustrates a very powerful authority of the media – the capability to inform the public what topics are important.

Two basis assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting: (1) the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it; (2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.[12] First of all, media do not represent certainty; there are filters inside of the media, which decide what is ‘real’ and what is ‘false’. In other words, every thing passes through the filters of the media and after that it will be presented to the public; agenda setting is the process that lets some information to reach the audience while other information is kept out. Secondly, different forms of the media tell us which issues are worthy of our attention; or, as Bernard Cohen stated: “The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about”.[13]

The power of the news media to set a nation’s agenda, to focus public attention on a few key public issues, is an immense and well–documented influence.[14] Do the media in our country and in the region do such a thing? Of course, there are some media in our country that really set an agenda; however, a lot of them do not set an agenda. Among those media that do not set an agenda is our Public Television (RTK); Public Television of Kosova is characterized by an absence of power to set an agenda, to focus attention on a few important public issues. If most of the stories on the newscast are less important ones, if the length of time dedicated to the main story, if any, is too short, as RTK is performing, there is no chance to set an agenda. Besides, RTK deals more with irrelevant issues; consequently, Public Television remains a surrogate media, which doesn’t fulfill its tasks to public.

United States are known as a country where media set an agenda; this happens always, especially, during the elections. During these political races there is rarely evening news that goes by without having something about the city races, congressional races, and the presidential race.[15] Political debates and presidential news has always flooded the headlines and newscasts during the elections. These issues always are essential and everyone talks about the candidates and their programs. It happens like this since the media leads the public to believe that this is important. As McCombs and Shaw stated, “We judge as important what the media judge as important”.[16]


Conclusion

To conclude, the most important role of the media is that of ‘watchdog’, regular and independent inspection of those in power, including, supply of trustworthy information about their activities. The main concern to the watchdog role is to do the investigative journalism. By doing this, the media consider themselves as a representative of the wide public, and of course, the opponent of government. Media representatives have this right as members of the ‘fourth estate” – their role is to keep an eye on politicians on behalf of the public. This role of the media, the ‘watchdog’ role, is essential if citizens want to hold public officials accountable for their actions. Although, there is a small decline of public’s beliefs in the mass media,[17] they still remain a ‘fourth estate’. Media perform its ‘watchdog’ role and in this way fulfills its tasks toward public; otherwise, the scandals mentioned above and unmentioned ones would always remain unrevealed.





Notes:

[1] Denis McQuail, Mass Communication Theory, London, SAGE Publication, 2005, Pg. 169.
[2] Gerald C. Stone & Mary K. O’Donnell, “Public Perceptions of Newspaper’s Watchdog Role”, Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 18, N0. 1-2/1997.
[3] Vincent Campbell, Information Age of Journalism, London, Hodder, 2004, Pg. 32.
[4] Denis McQuail, Mass Communication Theory, London, SAGE Publication, 2005, Pg. 169.
[5] Vincent Campbell, Information Age of Journalism, London, Hodder, 2004, Pg. 36.
[6] Denis McQuail, Mass Communication Theory, London, SAGE Publication, 2005, Pg. 172.
[7] Kristie Bunton, “Social Responsibility in Covering Community: a Narrative Case Analyses”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 13, N0. 4/1998.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Kristie Bunton, “Social Responsibility in Covering Community: a Narrative Case Analyses”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 13, N0. 4/1998.
[10] Gerald C. Stone & Mary K. O’Donnell, “Public Perceptions of Newspaper’s Watchdog Role”, Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 18, N0. 1-2/1997.
[11] Sebastian Princen, Agenda Setting in the European Union, Paper prepared for the NIG Annual Conference, Nijmegen, 11 November 2005.
[12] Paul Weyrich, “TV Network Creates New Link between Citizens, Politicians”, Insight on the News, Vol. 10, N0.4/1994.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Maxwell McCombs, The Agenda Setting Role of the Mass–media in Shaping the Public Opinion (The handbook of Naser Miftari).
[15] Brian Gittinger, “Agenda Setting Function Examples and Applications”, Insight on the News, Vol. 5/1994.
[16] Brian Gittinger, “Agenda Setting Function Examples and Applications”, Insight on the News, Vol. 5/1994.
[17] Gerald C. Stone & Mary K. O’Donnell, “Public Perceptions of Newspaper’s Watchdog Role”, Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 18, N0. 1-2/1997.

Bibliography

McQuail, Denis. Mass Communication Theory, London: SAGE Publication, 2005.
Stone, Gerald C. & Mary K. O’Donnell. “Public Perceptions of Newspaper’s Watchdog Role”, Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 18, N0. 1-2/1997.
Campbell, Vincent. Information Age of Journalism, London: Hodder, 2004.
Bunton, Kristie. “Social Responsibility in Covering Community: a Narrative Case Analyses”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 13, N0. 4/1998.
Princen, Sebastian. Agenda Setting in the European Union, Paper prepared for the NIG Annual Conference, Nijmegen, 11 November 2005.
Gittinger, Brian. “Agenda Setting Function Examples and Applications”, Insight on the News, Vol. 5/1994.
McCombs, Maxwell. The Agenda Setting Role of the Mass–media in Shaping the Public Opinion (The handbook given by Naser Miftari).Weyrich, Paul. “TV Network Creates New Link between Citizens, Politicians”, Insight on the News, Vol. 10, N0.4/1994.

Zhvillimi Social dhe Politika Sociale e Bashkësisë Europiane

Arta Demaj, MA

Hyrje

Qëllimi i këtij punimi konsiston në eksplikimin (shpjegimin) e politikës sociale në Unionin Europian. Do të tentohet të paraqitet një pasqyrë e qartë rreth asaj se si ishte politika sociale në Bashkësinë Europiane; si është kjo politikë sot dhe si pretendohet të jetë në të ardhmen. Pra, në fokus të interesimit do të jetë evoluimi i politikës sociale në Unionin Europian dhe kahjet e zhvillimit të mëtejm të kësaj politike.

Politika konsiderohet si shprehje e vlerave dhe preferencave. Analiza politike është sa aktivitet normativ aq edhe aktivitet empirik. Sidoqoftë, përderisa politika specifike apo tërësia e politikave të caktuara mund të shprehin formulime rreth asaj se çfarë duhet bërë, dhe përderisa këto kanë forcën e ligjit, në anën tjetër politika sociale nuk mund të imponoj ndryshime në disa sjellje apo qëndrime. Megjithatë, politika sociale mund të krijoj një ambient të përshtatshëm për ndryshimin e këtyre sjelljeve dhe qëndrimeve.[1]

Konkretisht, autori i njohur i dimensionit social të politikave, Boulding argumentonte se objektivë (qëllim) kryesore e çfarëdo politike sociale është “të ndërtoj komunitetin ( bashkësinë)”.[2] Pra, shqetësim kryesorë i autorëve të ndryshëm të politikave sociale është krijimi i një ambienti në të cilin qeniet njerëzore marrin përgjegjësi për mirëqenien e të tjerëve dhe ku të drejtat individuale nuk kanë prioritet kundrejt të drejtave të komunitetit (bashkësisë). Sido që të jetë, asnjë politikë sociale nuk mund t’ua imponoj njerëzve që t’i bëjnë këto gjëra dhe të integrohen në bashkësi, nëse një gjë të këtillë nuk e dëshirojnë vet njerëzit.[3]



Politika sociale në marrëveshjet për krijimin e Bashkësisë Europiane


Që nga themelimi i Bashkësisë Europiane për Thëngjill dhe Çelik ( BETHÇ ), kanë kaluar dekada të tëra.[4] Marrëveshjet e para me të cilat u themelua Bashkësia Europiane nuk e garantonin europianizimin e atyre mekanizmave që njihen si “ politika sociale “ në kuptimin e gjerë. Pra nuk ishin përfillur sa duhet elementet konstituive të politikës sociale si, të drejtat themelore sociale, sigurimi social dhe ligji i punës.[5]

Atëbotë qëllimi i lidershipit europian ishte që të realizoheshin hapat e parë për parandalimin e luftërave të reja në kontinentin europian.[6] Në njëfarë mënyre mendohej se rritja e bashkëpunimit, para së gjithash atij ekonomik, ndërmjet Francës dhe Gjermanisë do t’i garantonte Europës një paqe dhe siguri afatgjate. Duke u mbështetur në këto objektiva, asokohe nuk është menduar shumë në politikat sociale.[7] Më vonë kur lufta në Europë do të konsiderohet ide e tejkaluar, do të bëhen tentativat e para për aplikimin e politikave sociale, përkatësisht, elementeve konstituive që i pëbëjnë këto politika do t’u kushtohet rëndësi më e madhe.



Zvillimi i “dimensionit social” deri në Marrëveshjen e Maastricht-it


Dy nivelet e dispozitave të politikës sociale janë me rëndësi kur bëhet studimi i aktiviteteve relevante të UE-së.[8] E para, dispozitat kuazi-kushtetuese të marrëveshjeve me të cilat janë themeluar: Bashkësia Europiane për Thëngjill dhe Çelik (BETHÇ) dhe Bashkësia Europiane për Energji Atomike (BEEA), i atribuojnë kompetenca selektive në sferën e politikës sociale nivelit europian të qeverisjes. E dyta, legjislacioni i institucioneve të UE-së,[9] që i vendosë në një vend mjaftë specifik aktivitetet e politikave sociale.

Marrëveshjet për themelimin e BETHÇ-së dhe BEEA-së përmbanin disa dispozita për politikat sociale, edhe pse ato zënin një vend shumë të vogël në këto marrëveshje.[10] Kjo për arsye se këto komunitete kishin prioritet proceset integrative për këto produkte. Këto dy Bashkësi (BETHÇ dhe BEEA) përmbanin detyrime të përgjithësuara, që kishin të bënin me rritjen e punësimit,[11] përkatësisht uljen e papunësisë dhe përmirësimin e standardit të jetesës për banorët e vendeve anëtare të këtyre komuniteteve.

Përpos këtyre dispozitave, marrëveshjet për themelimin e komuniteteve të para europiane përmbanin edhe dispozita të shumta në lidhje me mbrojtjen e shëndetit të punëtorëve, por edhe të publikut të gjerë.[12] Kjo sepse, nxjerrja e përpunimi i thëngjillit dhe çelikut ishte shumë e mundimshme për punëtorët. Gjatë punës ata merrnin lëndime të shpeshta për shkak të nivelit të ultë të teknologjisë me të cilën asokohe nxerrej dhe përpunohej thëngjilli. Më vonë, me nënshkrimin e marrëveshjes për Bashkësinë Ekonomike Europiane (BEE), politikave sociale do t’u kushtohet rëndësi më e madhe.[13] Në këtë mënyrë, politika sociale do të bëhet pjesë konstituive e të gjitha marrëveshjeve që do të pasojnë.

Shkolla të ndryshme të mendimit të poitikave sociale morrën pjesë në negociatat për nënshkrimin e marrëveshjes me të cilën themelohej Bashkësia Ekonomike Europiane.[14] Disa shtete angazhoheshin vetëm për konceptin neo-liberal të tregut dhe tentonin të vendosin tregun e lirë edhe në sferën e punës dhe të sigurimit social. Në anën tjetër, disa vende deklaroheshin për një nivel të caktuar të harmonizimit të shpenzimeve në fushën sociale dhe atë të punës.[15]

Në fund u arrit kompromisi sipas të cilit nuk parashihej harmonizimi i politikave sociale në nivel europian.[16] Pra, vendet anëtare të Bashkësisë Ekonomike Europiane (BEE) ishin të pavarura në përpilimin dhe implementimin e politikave sociale. Sidoqoftë, nuk lejohej divergjencë e madhe në këtë drejtim. Filozofia dominante e marrëveshjes së BEE-së ishte se mirëqenia sociale duhet të arrihet përmes rritjes ekonomike;[17] ekonomia do të bazohej në parimet e tregut të lirë dhe nuk do te lejohet një politikë sociale rregullative dhe distributive (shpërndarëse).

Në marrëveshjen për themelimin e Bashkësisë Ekonomike Europiane (BEE), për herë të parë i janë dhënë disa autorizime Komisionit Europian, në lidhje me sferën e politikave sociale.[18] Kështu, Komisionit Europian i janë dhënë detyra që të promovoj kooperimin (bashkëpunimin) ndërmjet vendeve anëtare të BEE-së. Këto detyrime kishin të bënin me çështjen e punësimit; ligjin e punës dhe kushtet e punës; trajnimet profesionale bazike dhe të avansuara; sigurimin social; parandalimin e aksidenteve në punë; higjienën në vendin e punës; të drejtën e bashkimit në sindikata; dhe të drejtën e negociimit ndërmjet punëtorëve dhe punëdhënësve në lidhje me çmimin e punës.[19]

Megjithatë, karakteri i përgjegjësive të Komisionit Europian në këto punë ishte vetëm konsultativ.[20] Me fjalë të tjera, Komisioni konsultohej me vendet anëtare të BEE-së për problemet e natyrës sociale, me të cilat preokupoheshin shtetet e BEE-së. Në këtë mënyrë u konfirmua fakti se fenomenet e politikave sociale ishin përgjegjësi ekskluzive e vendeve të BEE-së. Nuk duhet harruar se në funksion të proceseve integruese,[21] ndërhyrja në fushën e politikave sociale ishte mundësuar me anë të dispozitave specifike.

Legjislacioni social dhe politika sociale në Bashkësinë Europiane


Ekziston një literaturë e gjerë dhe mjaft e pasur për zhvillimin e politikave sociale në Bashkësinë Europiane.[22] Zhvillimet më të rëndësishme në sferën e politikave sociale janë bërë në ligjin e punës dhe në atë të sigurimeve sociale. Kujdes i veçantë i është kushtuar koordinimit të sistemeve të sigurimeve nacionale. Ky koordinim nuk nënkupton harmonizimin e ploë të sistemeve nacionale.[23] Këtë më së miri e tregon fakti se edhe sot në Unionin Europian ekzistojnë dallime në pagat e punëtorëve, në bazë të të cilave përcaktohet lartësia e sigurimeve sociale.

Edhe në sektorin e ligjit të punës Bashkësia Europiane preokupohej me probleme të shumta.[24] Me plotë të drejtë mund të thuhet se institucionet e Bashkësisë Europiane nuk kishin kompetenca të bëjnë harmonizimin e dispozitave nacionale që kishin të bënin me ligjin e punës. Me kalimin e kohës problemet në këtë sferë u rritën shumë. Kjo bëri që gjatë viteve të 70-ta, të shekullit të kaluar, të miratohen një numër i madh i direktivave, qëllimi i të cilave ishte harmonizimi i mëtejm i ligjit të punës në nivel europian.[25]

Këto direktiva ndikuan që shumë rregulla, të cilat vlenin në nivelin nacional të derogohen dhe të mos vlejnë më. Në vend të tyre filluan të vlejnë rregulla të reja të karakterit supra-nacional.[26] Si rrjedhim u krijuan programe të shumta për harmonizimin e parametrave në fushën e ligjit të punës. Rëndësi e veçantë i kushtohej mbrojtjes së punëtoreve shtatëzëna; mbrojtjes së punëtorëve të rinj; punëtorëve të një shteti anëtar të BEE-së që punonin në shtetin tjetër anëtar të BEE-së.[27]

Në dy dekadat e para të funksionimit të saj, BEE-ja me politikat e saja angazhohej për realizimin e objektivave të proklamuara në marrëveshje.[28] E tëra që bëhej në lidhje me poltikat sociale ishte ajo se garantohej lëvizja e lirë e punëtorëve në të gjitha vendet anëtare të BEE-së, dhe asgjë më shumë. Në fillim të viteve të 70-ta, klima politike ndryshoi. BEE-ja, përkatësisht integrimet që ajo kishte konstituuar nuk ishin të mjaftueshme. Tentohej integrimi i mëtejm; pra, pretendohej unioni ekonomik dhe ai monetar.[29] Në këtë kontekst reforma e Fondit Social Europian konsiderohej si mundësi për bashkërenditje të politikave sociale, dhe përqendrimin e tyre në nivelin supra-nacional.



Politika sociale në Marrëveshjen e Maastricht-it


Marrëveshja e Maastricht-it gjeneroi ndryshime përmbajtësore në të gjitha sferat. Proceset integrative vazhduan edhe më tutje drejt një integrimi më të përsosur. U bë përurimi i një unioni politik dhe monetar. Termi “union politik” i referohej forcimit të një sistemi (tërësie) të institucioneve; promovohej reforma procedurale si dhe inovacioni i politikave substanciale. Politikat sociale, përkatësisht reformimi i tyre ishin çështje kapitale në këtë drejtim.[30] Duhet theksuar se Parlamentit Europian i jepeshin kompetenca të shumta në sferën e ligj-vënies.

Marrëveshja e Maastricht-it në mënyrë eksplicite ( të qartë ) përcaktonte kompetencat e Unionit Europian në sferën e politikave sociale. Këto kompetenca mund të përmbledhen në paraqitjen e mëposhtme:

· Kushtet e punës;
· Informimi dhe konsultimi me punëtorët;
· Barazia gjinore për forcën e punës;
· Integrimi i personave të përjashtuar nga forca e punës;
· Sigurimi social dhe mbrojtja e punëtorëve;
· Mbrojtja e punëtorëve pas shfuqizimit të kontratës;
· Përfaqësimi i interesave kolektive;
· Punësimi në vende të treta;
· Lëvizjet e lira të punëtorëve.[31]

Politika sociale në Gjermani

Kornizë ekonomiko-sistemore për politikën sociale në Gjermani është ekonomia sociale e tregut.[32] Për ekonominë sociale të tregut thuhet se është “rruga e tretë” ndërmjet kapitalizmit klasik dhe socializmit totalitar. Gjermania në aktin më të lartë juridik siguron realizimin e drejtësisë sociale: garantohen liritë individuale në lëmin e veprimit, kontraktimit, zgjedhjes së profesionit, lëvizjes së punëtorëve dhe pronës private.[33]

Kujdes i veçantë i kushtohet nivelit të lartë të punësimit.[34] Me këtë synohet të ruhet stabiliteti social, funksionimi më i mirë i forcës punuese etj. Janë të njohura veprimet e qeverisë gjermane në aplikimin e masave kejnsiane me qëllim të ruajtjes së shkallës së lartë të punësimit. Politika e funksionimit të fuqisë punëtore shfrytëzon dy grupe instrumentesh: “aktive” dhe “kompensuese”. Politika aktive ka të bëjë me shërbimet për arsimimin profesional, ofrimin e ndihmës me rastin e kalimit në punë të re etj. Kurse politika kompensuese ka të bëjë me kompensimin material të atyre që janë të papunë.[35]



Konkluzioni

Deduktimi nga gjithë kjo është i qartë, politika sociale e Bashkësisë Europiane ka evoluuar në drejtim pozitiv. Me themelimin e BETHÇ-së, por edhe më vonë, politika sociale ka qenë e anashkaluar gati në tërësi. Mirëpo, me kalimin e kohës, do të kuptohet rëndësia që ka politika sociale për proceset integrative që tashmë kishin përfshirë Kontinentin e Europës. Hapat e parë integrues në politikat sociale të vendeve europiane u bënë për të mbrojtur fuqinë punëtore dhe shëndetin e saj por edhe të publikut të gjerë; në këtë kohë rëndësi i kushtohej edhe sistemit të sigurimeve sociale.

Me marrëveshjen e Maastricht-it gjërat filluan të ndryshojnë për të mirë. Që nga ajo kohë, kur filloi të realizohet unioni politik e më vonë edhe unioni monetar, shumica e kompetencave të fushës së politikave sociale ka filluar të bartet në institucionet europiane. Tempoja e integrimeve është intensifikuar shumë; mundësitë reale janë që kompetencat e institucioneve europiane në sferën e politikave sociale të rriten edhe më shumë. Pra, pritet të ndodh unifikimi i politikave sociale në kuadër të Unionit Europian.

Notes:

[1] Clive Archer & Fiona Butler. The European Community: Structure and Process. New York. St. Martin’s Press. 1992. Fq. 18.
[2] Desmond Dinan. Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community. Boulder. Linne Rienner. 1994. Fq. 23.
[3] David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995. Fq. 25.
[4] Ibid. Fq. 29.
[5] David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995. Fq. 32.
[6] Skender Berisha & Musa Limani. Integrimet Ekonomike europiane. Prishtinë. Koha. 2004. Fq. 24.
[7] Blerim Reka. E Drejta e Unionit Europian. Prishtinë. KIEAI. 2000. Fq.121.
[8] David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995. Fq. 46.
[9] Ibid. Fq.49.
[10] Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000. Fq. 125.
[11] Desmond Dinan. Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community. Boulder. Linne Rienner. 1994. Fq. 321.
[12] Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000. Fq. 130.
[13] David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995. Fq. 56.
[14] Ibid. Fq. 61.
[15] Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000. Fq. 135.
[16] Ibid. Fq.139.
[17] Bashkim Zahiti. E Drejta Europiane. Prishtinë. De Rada. 2002. Fq. 76.
[18] Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000. Fq. 139.
[19] Desmond Dinan. Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community. Boulder. Linne Rienner. 1994. Fq. 328.
[20] David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995. Fq. 59.
[21] Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000. Fq. 143.
[22] Ibid. Fq. 147.
[23] David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995. Fq. 67.
[24] Ibid. Fq. 151.
[25] Fiona Butler. The European Community. New York. St. Martin’s Press. 1992. Fq.142.
[26] Desmond Dinan. Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community. Boulder. Linne Rienner. 1994. Fq. 328.
[27] Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000. Fq. 149.
[28] Fiona Butler. The European Community. New York. St. Martin’s Press. 1992. Fq.146.
[29] David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995. Fq. 69.
[30] Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000. Fq. 153.
[31] David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995. Fq. 69.
[32] Nagip Skenderi. Ekonomia dhe Politika Botërore. Prishtinë. UP. 2003. Fq. 197.
[33] Ibid. Fq. 198.
[34] Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000. Fq. 157.
[35] Nagip Skenderi. Ekonomia dhe Politika Botërore. Prishtinë. UP. 2003. Fq. 203.

Bibliografia

Nagip Skenderi. Ekonomia dhe Politika Botërore. Prishtinë. UP. 2003.
Blerim Reka. E Drejta e Unionit Europian. Prishtinë. KIEAI. 2000.
Skender Berisha & Musa Limani. Integrimet Ekonomike Europiane. Prishtinë. Koha. 2004
Bashkim Zahiti. E Drejta Europiane. Prishtinë. De Rada. 2002.


Burime nga Libraria On-line: Questia Media America, Inc. http://www.questia.com/

Clive Archer & Fiona Butler. The European Community: Structure and Process. New York. St. Martin’s Press. 1992.
Desmond Dinan. Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community. Boulder. Linne Rienner. 1994.
David Harrison. The Organisation of Europe. London. Routledge. 1995.
Stephan Leibfried. European Union Countries: Social Policy. London. Pierson. 2000.
Fiona Butler. The European Community. New York. St. Martin’s Press. 1992.

Debate and its Importance to our Society

In a discussion about importance of public debate for Kosovo’s society, a worker 41 years old said that political debate is bad for our society. “There is nothing good in arguing about problems we face now, especially about political corruption, because we will deal with these things after we get independence”.

We tried to change his opinion about arguing things and after more than 15-minutes everything was clarified. “It is unbelievable”, he said “I never analysed these things from this point of view”.

So, he found out that he was wrong. Actually, Kosovo’s citizens are experiencing a political system where public gossips, political insinuations, and political corruption have replaced political dialogue, issues about the politicians’ responsibilities, and discussing about everyday’s problems. This political environment does not promise well for our fragile democracy.

Debate, as an activity essential to proper governance, has been an important part of most cultures and ages. Indeed, in lands ranging from ancient Athens to modern America, debate has been very important to the culture's social operation, intellectual discourse, and especially to political life.

It is undeniable fact that human beings are opinionated creatures. We hold strong beliefs about such various issues as which party should win parliamentary elections in Kosova, which is the best restaurant in town, or whether some politicians deserve to be elected or not.

In a broader sense, debate may be considered as the process of decision making in which alternative choices are expressed and compared. Debate is the process by which authentic values are advanced, and dubious occurrences are eliminated or prevented.

Democratic societies, it is true, may place a particular premium on public debate as the basic means by which citizens participate in the formulation of policy. But debate has played important roles in even the most feudal, doctrinaire, and totalitarian societies, if only among the privileged elites. Comparatively closed societies may place restrictions on who may debate, the topics that may be debated, and what may be said about the topics, but debate nevertheless persists even in such societies.

Consequently, the importance of the debate for a society, especially societies that are in transitional phase, is very important. Everything must be discussed; political corruption as a very frequent phenomenon in our country can not be considered as a taboo topic. If we wait till we get independence, as wide public thinks, and then resolve all our problems that is equal with disaster. Maybe we will get independence, but we will not need it then, because nobody wishes to have a fail state which is dominated by Mafia and organized crime. What may be needed is that as well as working on establishing of the state and getting independence, we should work on eliminating and preventing terrible phenomena within our society.

We need to construct a new paradigm of politics that goes beyond personal interests, and which rejects political corruption. Without a doubt, a political paradigm based on interactive dialogues and arguing about every problem will produce new ideas and rational decisions necessary for democratic state building. Therefore, the only way to implement these tasks is reinforcement of debate as a prerequisite for the attainment of wisdom and, ultimately, of liberty itself. The promotion of debate happens rarely, if ever; even a worker 41 years old criticizes this occurrence. “Why they’re doing this to us?” he wondered aloud.

Aged People, the Challenge of Society

Arta Demaj, MA

At age 76, Azize Belegu is settling into a new home. The grandmother of eight and great–grandmother of twelve recently moved to: “Shtëpia e Jetës”, a public institution in Peja, which deals with accommodation of elderly people. Krasniqi has placed a vase with flowers on balcony and some toys on sleeping room, to remind her on place where she has lived with her beloved.

In a lot of ways, Belegu is like many elderly Albanian women; she has never worked in any institution and gets 40-euros per month. She is dependent entirely on this sum of money to support her self in late days of life. However, in other ways, she is different from many of her contemporaries, she lives alone.

“There is a cultural preference in the Albanian community to want to care for a loved one in the home, to keep them close to children, grandchildren and their community” says Xhavit Shala, a sociologist which has done some studies regarding to these issues. “There is a lot of tradition in the culture, but there is also a lot of change within the population. Clearly, we are going to see more elderly Albanians living alone.”

Shala’s research, examines health care and aging in our society. His basic concern comes down to one question: “Who will be responsible for elderly Albanians, the members of generations that get 40-euros per month, when they can no longer care for themselves”?

“The accumulation of economic disadvantages can really place the elderly, at a very high risk for reliance on their families,” says Shala.

Modern Albanians are caught in a dilemma. They have a tradition of caring for their elders at home; these elders need their care and have few other options. At the same time, Albanians of present days may not have the resources, either economically or functionally, to care for them. They may also lack the resources to finance alternative care.

“The people I have spoken with often express the guilt they feel with not really being able to be there for their families as much as they would like to,” says Shala. “All families want that level of support as we get older. It’s a big predictor of whether we’re going to be able to have a healthy end-of-life experience. But for Albanians, there is a very strong cultural expectation for family members to be there.”

The social changes, in particular economic problems, facing Albanian families and the expected increase in the number of elderly Albanians are likely to alter this in the decades to come. “Addressing the accommodation needs of the elderly Albanians is far too important to our country not to deserve our serious attention,” Shala says. “I am not so optimistic that we will resolve these problems in the near future”.

Unlike Shala, Belegu is hopeful. Inside her apartment, she has set photos of her children, grandchildren and great–grandchildren. She works a complicated decorative cover. She is still getting to know her neighbors, joking that there is no way to get everyone outside their apartments at the same time.“But I think it’s going to be great here,” says she. “I’m thankful that people do this for elderly people so that we can, at least, have a place to go”.

Children without Childhood

At age twelve, Flaka Gashi deals with unusual job, selling cigarettes in the streets of Prishtina. She has a father who is works’ invalid, mother who is housewife and three younger sisters. Recently she left the school, in order, to make money to feed her family.

In a lot of ways, Gashi is like a lot of young Albanian children; she belongs to poor family. However, in other ways she is different from several of her contemporaries. She is the only working person in her family.

“In the near past, Albanian family had values. It was impossible to work if you were not a grown person”, says Xhavit Shala, a sociologist. “At the present, Albanian families are faced with a lot of changes. Everybody, including children, is potential worker. This is a result of economic problems. The accumulation of economic disadvantages can really place the children, at a very high risk for reliance on their families. What is more, children are considered as a mean of profit”.

“Concerning the problems that Albanian families are facing with”, Shala says “I am not so optimistic that we will resolve this problem in the near future.

Like Shala, Gashi is pessimistic too. “I do not enjoy while doing this. Sometimes, when I don’t sell anything, I have to beg people to buy from me cigarettes or chewing gum”, says Gashi. “People know to be very cruel sometimes. Once, an owner of cafeteria told me with ignorance: hey, child without childhood, get the hell out of my property”.