Rad preispituje teoriju deliberativne demokracije na temelju Rancièreovog poimanja "nesuglasnosti". Predstavljena su dva dominantna pravca teorije deliberativne demokracije - onaj Johna Rawlsa te onaj Jürgena Habermasa. Nasuprot teoriji deliberativne demokracije, Rancière tumači demokraciju kao pojavnost u sporu koji nastaje podizanjem zahtjeva za jednakošću od onih koji su dio zajednice, ali bez udjela u moći ili jednakim pravima. S njegovom teorijom otvara se prostor za preispitivanje dominacije deliberativne demokracije u trenutnim raspravama o demokraciji. Ispituje se mogućnost racionalnog promišljanja kao osnove demokracije u društvu sa složenim i ukorijenjenim nejednakostima te se suprotstavlja važnost konsenzusa naspram nesuglasnosti. ; This paper re-examines the theory of deliberative democracy based on Rancière's notion of "disagreement". Two dominant directions of the theory of deliberative democracy are presented - that of John Rawls and that of Jürgen Habermas. Contrary to the theory of deliberative democracy, Rancière interprets democracy as a phenomenon in a dispute that arises from the raising of demands for equality by those who are part of the community, but without a share in power or equal rights. With his theory, space opens up for re-examining the dominance of deliberative democracy in current debates about democracy. The possibility of rational thinking as the basis of democracy in a society with complex and ingrained inequalities is examined, and the importance of consensus versus disagreement is opposed.
Autor u članku razmatra suvremene oblike predstavničke demokracije u svjetlu triju teorijskih i ideoloških sukoba. Prvi se odnosi na one koji se bore za konsolidiranu predstavničku demokraciju, te razvijaju teorije "manjkave demokracije". Predstavnici tog pravca razmatraju elemente koji nedostaju njihovim režimima da bi normalno funkcionirali kao sustavi predstavničke demokracije, te sustave više ne klasificiraju samo prema formalnim kriterijima (parlamentarna ili predsjednička predstavnička demokracija), nego razmatraju i integraciju drugih podsustava u sustav konzekventnih demokratskih pravila igre u "ukotvljenoj demokraciji". Drugi pravac odnosi se na pojavu populizma kao izazova predstavničkoj demokraciji. Zemlje u kojima je predstavnička demokracija konsolidirana sve su manje zadovoljne formaliziranim rutinama sustava i razvijaju nove populističke vizije bolje i reprezentativnije demokracije nasuprot puke proceduralne demokracije u kojoj postoji konkurencija elita. I na kraju, treći pravac odnosi se na nove modele demokracije koji se razvijaju u normativnim teorijama koje razmatraju nedostatke predstavničkih demokracija. Unutar tog pravca razvijaju se vizije "boljih demokracija" u duhu republikanizma, deliberativne demokracije, refleksivne demokracije i drugih koncepcija "demokratizacije demokracije".* ; In this paper, the author examines contemporary forms of representative democracy in the light of three theoretical and ideological conflicts. The first conflict concerns those who strive for a consolidated representative democracy, and develop theories of "defective democracies". Advocates of this thrust examine the elements which their regimes lack to operate normally as systems of representative democracy, and no longer classify systems only against formal criteria (parliamentary or presidential representative democracy), but also consider the integration of other subsystems into the system of consistent democratic rules of the game in an "embedded democracy". The second thrust concerns the rise of populism as a challenge to representative democracy. Countries in which representative democracy has been consolidated are increasingly dissatisfied with the formalised system routines and develop new populist visions of a better and more representative democracy in contrast to the mere procedural democracy in which there is a competition of elites. Finally, the third theoretical thrust concerns new models of democracy developed in normative theories which deal with the deficiencies of representative democracies. In this view, visions of "better democracies" have been developed in the spirit of republicanism, deliberative democracy, reflexive democracy and other concepts of "democratisation of democracy.
It is with good reason that decisionism stresses the crucial importance of decisions in the political process. But it is necessary to evaluate critically its dramatic pretension (from Schmitt to Agamben), according to which the normality of life is juxtaposed with the pathos of the state of exception & crisis. This erases not only every distinction between normality & the state of exception, but even between democracy & dictatorship. The proper framework from which an explanation of decisionism & its dramatizing forms can be derived is the modern age as a whole. The birth of decisionism from the crisis of tradition & commonality can be observed already in the beginning of modernity: with Machiavelli & Hobbes. We find the peak of dramatisation in Schmitt's decisionism, in the use of political theology for the dramatization of politics as drama of the subject which obtains his self-willed freedom through a secularist disempowerment of God. The other strand of political philosophy advocates the political priority of discussion & discourse, as opposed to the priority of decision. The author is interested in forms of discourse which revolve in a Habermasian or Rawlsian way around the concept of deliberative democracy. The theories of deliberative democracy are mostly characterized by the following postulates: demand for equality & inclusion, for non-coercion & communicativeness, oriented towards mutual understanding. The author points out that these demands reflect too great expectations, which cannot be fulfilled by discourse & discussion (expectations of consensus & rationality, underestimating of pre-discursive assumptions). In the final section, the author concludes that both decisionism & theory of discourse resulted from the modern-age loss of tradition & commonality. Decision & discussion could be perceived as feuding brothers, although they are doing their best to negate their kinship. A mediation of opposition is possible insofar as the feuding brothers recognize the fact that they are related. Unification at least protects them from the danger of irrationalism & excessive expectation of rationalism. Adapted from the source document.
The article presents the research tradition of interpretive policy analysis. After the academic context from which it can be understood is sketched & important theoretical influences which shape its theoretical field are roughly identified, arguments from the works of its main authors, establishing interpretive policy analysis as a paradigm for public policy research, are presented. With the help of categories of ontology, epistemology & methodology, its main characteristics are then schematized. In the end, the question from the article's heading is answered. It is concluded that equating interpretive policy analysis with the political program of deliberative democracy is not necessary & probably not advisable as well. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.
Republicanism and liberalism, as foundations of Modernity, are presented in terms of how they are interconnected and condition one another, as expressed in the conception of Jurgen Habermas' deliberative democracy. Firstly, both concepts are concisely defined; republicanism stresses the principle of virtue and community, while liberalism reveals the freedom of the individual and of particular provinces as the basic point in the development of a free order. Secondly, the author shows how Habermas links the two in the concept of deliberative democracy as inseparable parts of the modern political order. After that, the way is discussed in which Habermas uses the concept in his analysis of the European Union, i.e. of the possibility of deliberative democracy in the space of Europeization and globalization. The author concludes that, viewed from the perspective of Europeization and globalization, the effective potency of republicanism has become significantly reduced, while the potency of neoliberal tendencies has grown, with decidedly fatal consequences. Adapted from the source document.
The increasing use of mini-publics in the policy process, ranging from citizens' juries & deliberative polls to the more recent British Columbia Citizens' Assembly, has coincided with the emergence of theories of deliberative democracy. A growing number of deliberative democrats have turned their attention to mini-publics arguing that they embody desirable institutional characteristics. This article analyses the extent to which mini-publics live up to the deliberative ideal & the ways in which the analysis of the practice of mini-publics allows us to reflect on the evaluative commitments of theorists. Adapted from the source document.
Ovaj rad bavi se važnošću "znanja" i "pristupa informacijama" u formiranju mišljenja mladih građana o pojedinim temama kroz deliberativne procedure. Deliberativna demokracija, kao demokratski model i demokratska procedura koja dopušta sudionicima uključivanje u racionalan i otvoren dijalog prije odlučivanja o određenoj temi, teorijski je okvir na kojem se temelji istraživanje predstavljeno u ovom radu. Empirijski dio našeg rada temelji se na deliberativnom događaju koji se odvio u listopadu 2014. na instituciji za visoko obrazovanje Western Macedonia University of Applied Sciences u Grčkoj. Tema deliberacije bila je "Anketna istraživanja javnog mnijenja o politici". Rezultati ovog istraživanja potvrđuju tezu iz relevantne literature koja naglašava kako deliberativne procedure obogaćuju znanje građana i tako im omogućavaju da učinkovito sudjeluju u procesu donošenja odluka. ; This paper addresses the importance of "knowledge" and "access to information" in the formation of young citizens' opinion through deliberative procedures. The research presented in this paper is grounded in the theoretical framework of deliberative democracy as a democratic model and procedure that allows participants to be engaged in a rational and open dialogue before deciding on a particular issue. Our research draws empirically upon a deliberative event that took place in October 2014 at the Western Macedonia University of Applied Sciences in Greece. The topic of deliberation was "Political Public Opinion Polls." The results of this study are commensurate with the dominant thesis in the relevant literature, which underlines that the deliberative procedure enriches the knowledge of citizens and thus enables them to participate effectively in the decision making process.
The author looks into Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy in the context of the present-day debates on the theory of morals & politics. The starting point of Habermas' theory is his idea of discourse ethics. This is cognitivist ethics in the tradition of Kant, Rawis, Tugendhat & Apel that is built around the concept of normative correctness analogous to the descriptive notion of truth. This idea is best expressed by Kant's categorical imperative, according to which the validity of norms depends on their generalizability. Habermas, in line with Kant, is aware of the impossibility to rationally found universalist ethics. Instead of the final (deductive) foundations he offers the reflexion about the assumptions of a meaningful discourse i.e. the argumentation rules that must be respected if language communication is to be meaningful. Habermas' outline of the theory of law in his book Between Facts and Norms (Faktizirat und Geltung) builds on this moral-theoretical position. In modern society the function of law is to facilitate social communication: law is the legitimate framework of social communication on which the actors can rely. Habermas considers the specific link between human rights & popular sovereignty as the source of legitimacy. Human rights & popular sovereignty mutually condition each other & at the same time there is tension between them. The absolutization of individual rights makes democracy impossible since decision-making is obstructed; absolutization of popular sovereignty leads to the tyranny of the majority & the loss of rights. Habermas thinks that law can be legitimized by communicational mediation between the individual rights & popular sovereignty, in line with the principle that the claim to validity can only be laid by those norms that are approved of by all potentially affected individuals as rational discourse participants. Popular sovereignty is consistently procedurally interpreted. On the one hand, it is practised by means of public discourses & on the other through decision-making processes within democratically structured political institutions. The two dimensions of legitimizing law are different yet complementary: public discourses take place in civil society, political decisions are made in democratic institutions of the state. This is also an outline of the specific position of Habermas' political theory of deliberative democracy. It is equally distant from the model of liberal democracy which emphasizes possessive individualism & the protection of citizens' private interests, & from the republican democratic model that emphasizes political participation of active citizens. The theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of civil society: It is a sort of a practical verification of discourse ethics. Civil society is a sphere of autonomous public communication that is complementary to state administration but cannot substitute it. Communication power is exercised in the "siege mode" i.e. multiple discourses of civil society should contribute to the rationality & legitimacy of the decisions made by the political system, but do not have to replace them nor expose them to populist pressures. 2 Figures, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author looks into Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy in the context of the present-day debates on the theory of morals & politics. The starting point of Habermas' theory is his idea of discourse ethics. This is cognitivist ethics in the tradition of Kant, Rawis, Tugendhat & Apel that is built around the concept of normative correctness analogous to the descriptive notion of truth. This idea is best expressed by Kant's categorical imperative, according to which the validity of norms depends on their generalizability. Habermas, in line with Kant, is aware of the impossibility to rationally found universalist ethics. Instead of the final (deductive) foundations he offers the reflexion about the assumptions of a meaningful discourse i.e. the argumentation rules that must be respected if language communication is to be meaningful. Habermas' outline of the theory of law in his book Between Facts and Norms (Faktizirat und Geltung) builds on this moral-theoretical position. In modern society the function of law is to facilitate social communication: law is the legitimate framework of social communication on which the actors can rely. Habermas considers the specific link between human rights & popular sovereignty as the source of legitimacy. Human rights & popular sovereignty mutually condition each other & at the same time there is tension between them. The absolutization of individual rights makes democracy impossible since decision-making is obstructed; absolutization of popular sovereignty leads to the tyranny of the majority & the loss of rights. Habermas thinks that law can be legitimized by communicational mediation between the individual rights & popular sovereignty, in line with the principle that the claim to validity can only be laid by those norms that are approved of by all potentially affected individuals as rational discourse participants. Popular sovereignty is consistently procedurally interpreted. On the one hand, it is practised by means of public discourses & on the other through decision-making processes within democratically structured political institutions. The two dimensions of legitimizing law are different yet complementary: public discourses take place in civil society, political decisions are made in democratic institutions of the state. This is also an outline of the specific position of Habermas' political theory of deliberative democracy. It is equally distant from the model of liberal democracy which emphasizes possessive individualism & the protection of citizens' private interests, & from the republican democratic model that emphasizes political participation of active citizens. The theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of civil society: It is a sort of a practical verification of discourse ethics. Civil society is a sphere of autonomous public communication that is complementary to state administration but cannot substitute it. Communication power is exercised in the "siege mode" i.e. multiple discourses of civil society should contribute to the rationality & legitimacy of the decisions made by the political system, but do not have to replace them nor expose them to populist pressures. 2 Figures, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.
In this paper, the author argues that political education is indispensable to democracy & dependent on models of democracy. In analysing normative models of democracy, his focus is on the process of creating political will because it is during this process where the role of citizens themselves becomes prominent. The analysis has demonstrated that there are various ways in which citizens can become engaged in the process of creating political will, & that these various ways in fact determine the distinctiveness of each model of democracy. The author shows that strategic political action, as instrumental political action, is characteristic of the classical liberal model, whilst value-rational, ethically laden, action is characteristic of the classical republican model of democracy. The problem with both these models is that the key motives for citizen political engagement -- interests in the liberal model, & the common good in the republican model -- are in a way exogenous to the political process itself. The development of the third model, the theory of deliberative democracy, seeks to overcome these exogenous qualities of interests & the common good in relation to the political process & thus reassert the role of politics in constituting interests & the common good. Thus, the deliberative model of democracy has the potential for constituting & transforming interests & conceptions of the common good. In this model, politics assumes its distinctive function of organising society, resolving conflicts & achieving consensus. In the deliberative model of democracy, political education is provided with new outlines & dimension. These are based on the premises of social cooperation & the notion of the person as capable of acting justly & participate in the public sphere for the purpose of resolving shared problems. References. Adapted from the source document.
The author starts the article with a discussion of the ideas of deliberation & deliberative democracy in general & then presents some impressions & findings of the ongoing comparative research project on global justice movements. The research tries to answer two main questions: "How do (attempts to) deliberation, participation & decision-making look like in different kinds of groups, different countries (and probably at different levels -- from the local to the international)?" & "What factors influence & restrict deliberate/participatory practices?". The presented empirical investigation is mainly based on a semi-structured & full-structured participant observation, complemented by informal interviews in the local & regional groups in six countries & a number of transnational meetings of networks & political campaigns for global justice. The author concludes that global justice groups, though generally putting much emphasis reducing what they perceive as illegitimate forms of power within their own ranks & to deliberate as much as possible, do exhibit quite a number of aberrations from this ideal. Still, the author points out that deliberation, at least at the level of small-scale groups, is not just a dream but actually occurs, & that the majority of these groups are more successful in reducing in their internal communication "hard" power & enabling deliberation than most trade unions, political parties, & big NGOs. Adapted from the source document.
In this paper, the author has tried to describe the relationship between Rawls's concept of the person, social cooperation, & political education. Rawls precisely links political education with the liberal political outlook & not to life in general. Hence, the importance for his theory of the notion of "reasonable pluralism" & the reasonably disagreeing conceptions of a good life. The author has tried to show that, for Rawls, it is the concept of the reasonable individual that is the goal of political education, ie, the ability of a person to adopt the fundamental principles of justice as the conditions for social cooperation, while the "burdens of judgment" are the source & the framework of fundamental political virtues (toleration, respect, reciprocity, politeness, etc) that Rawls promotes & considers important for the idea of the public reason, ie, a sort of deliberative democracy, as well as for the very existence & stability of a political system. Thus, Rawls got involved in the debate on the conception of liberal virtues & the possibility of their political socialization & education. 30 References. Adapted from the source document.
This article is aimed at expanding the democratic tool kit of mechanisms for public consultation. It is aimed at showing that it is indeed possible to combine inclusiveness & thoughtfulness -- rather than force us to choose between them. The author's institutional innovations for combining the two democratic aspirations are deliberative polls & Deliberation day. The article shows that these mechanisms of public consultation manage to avoid contentions that mass participation undermines collective thoughtfulness. Adapted from the source document.
The author introduces the concept of agonistic democracy as an alternative to the deliberative model, along the lines of John Gray & Chantal Mouffe in their insistence on the primacy of the political in the public sphere & the agonistic character of social relations. On the one hand, the primacy of the political calls our attention to the drawbacks of the solutions to political & social conflicts by means of legal procedures. On the other, the agonistic theory of plural societies insists on relinquishing the harmonious view of society; ie, we have to come to terms with the fact that there are certain unsolvably & irreducibly deep conflicts. Agonistic democracy highlights social conflicts & divisions with the explicit purpose of their discursive grouping, the formation of a hegemonic discourse & the permanent reshuffling of the existing power relations, & to avoid their downsizing. Its goal is to turn antagonism (friend-foe) into agonic (friend-adversary). The paper ends on a cautionary note by identifying the shortcomings of all democratic models, including those by Gray or Mouffe, which is particularly important to bear in mind at a time when we are becoming -- or have already become -- bigger losers in peacetime than in an open conflict. Hence, there is not perfect democratic model or a perfect recipe for eradicating tragic conflicts. 20 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author analyzes recent Habermas' writings on the process of European integration & the new international political order. Having for a long time ignored the issues of foreign policy, in his recent works & speeches Habermas has increasingly turned to these topics. The supranational level is becoming important both due to the more severe limitations to state sovereignty in the process of globalization, & because of the development of new mechanisms of international cooperation & the new regional economic-political integrations. In his theory of democracy at the national level, he emphasizes its deliberative character & shows public communication as the central sphere of mediation between the informal (private) opinions & the institutions of the formation of political will. However, today it is necessary to go beyond the boundaries of the nation-state & establish the parallel mechanisms of political deliberation & decision-making at the international level. The most important step in that direction are regional integrations (in Europe, naturally, it is the European Union). The regional integrations must supplement the UN institutions to compensate for the loss of the ability to govern at the national level & to create a counterbalance to global capitalism. In this context it is important to get the answers to a certain crisis of the EU identity. The European Union today is often seen as a mechanism of bureaucratic management & restrictive regulation, instead of as a guarantor of good life. Habermas thinks that Europe should focus on the guarantees of fundamental rights & values such as the right to education, social justice, autonomy & participation. For that purpose, the European Union should develop into a federal state. To the Euro-skeptical objection that Europe lacks a state-building nation i.e a unified nation as the foundation of political community, Habermas responds that the European civil sodety, European public & the common political culture -- if, indeed, they can be built -- are sufficient for Europe's political unity. The process of designing & adopting the European Constitution has strengthened all three components. The Constitution also helps to explain the objectives of the European integration (boundaries of EU's expansion, interrelationship among levels of goverment) & to enhance legitimacy by creating a fundamental legal act, its the design of which European citizens are involved. For Habermas, the crisis of European unity caused by the disunity of the member-countries' governments over the American war in Iraq is an opportunity. The mobilization of the European civil society against that war (as demonstrated by the pan-European peace demonstrations of 15 February 2003) & the creation of the model of the procedurally well-ordered international politics & cooperation which boosts economic development & social security serve as the counterbalance to the American unilateralism & the aspiration for domination. Habermas supports the model of "multispeed Europe" & thinks that it will not cause a rift in the EU, but can as a matter of fact dynamize the process of European integration. The author concludes that Habermas' political views of the European integration & international politics contain a remarkable dose of utopism. However, the attempt to see beyond the limitations of the existing political reality is a must if these limitations are to be overcome. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.
