Suchergebnisse

The author draws attention to the consideration of the complexity of civil participation in deliberative democracy, indicating that the legislator assumed that dialogue is to be a way of existence, and thus the basis of any social situation in the state. State authorities appointed to serve the people and the common good have to ask citizens about their position in the case, not in order to obtain the desired response, thus emphasizing the departure from the monologue culture in favor of dialogue and communication with the public. The author claims that the normative foundations of the community state are linked by the conviction that public values and purposes are established in the communication process. In this approach, it is important to achieve public purposes and the quality of their achievement, its constructive features are: network, multi-level management, conciliation, participation. The basic mechanisms of action of this type of state are: deliberation, compromise and arrangements are made in the social networks – the dominant type of management of public affairs in this model is co-management. Solicitude of the state as a common good obliges not only a citizen, but means that a citizen has the right to expect that public authority will act so that the Republic of Poland can be considered a common good by citizens. Referring to literature, the author notes that deliberative democracy and its concept put more emphasis on the importance of conversation, discussion and debate on democratic practice than on the importance of voting. Its supporters argue that the debate improves the quality of collective decisions and increases the chances of their acceptance. Varieties of deliberative democracy range from accentuating local representation to reinforcing the debate within representative legislative bodies. The article points out the differences between discourse and deliberation. Moreover, the forms of civic participation and civic participation techniques used in Poland are presented. We have come to live in times when communication, both traditional and with the help of modern media, plays a significant role in shaping societies. It is important to understand the basic laws guiding communication, the ability to properly form interpersonal relationships, cognize the factors affecting the quality of messages transmitted, the technique of freedom of expression, the skill of persuasion and argumentation. The correct perception of the essence of dialogue in a deliberative democracy is its foundation, especially when it concerns institutions aimed at turning natural and legal persons to public decision-making process. Considering the literature, it was found that new participative solutions, primarily the ability to dialogue, could prevent a democratic deficit and also indicated that that civic participation impacts on the creation of deliberative democracy. ; The author draws attention to the consideration of the complexity of civil participation in deliberative democracy, indicating that the legislator assumed that dialogue is to be a way of existence, and thus the basis of any social situation in the state. State authorities appointed to serve the people and the common good have to ask citizens about their position in the case, not in order to obtain the desired response, thus emphasizing the departure from the monologue culture in favor of dialogue and communication with the public. The author claims that the normative foundations of the community state are linked by the conviction that public values and purposes are established in the communication process. In this approach, it is important to achieve public purposes and the quality of their achievement, its constructive features are: network, multi-level management, conciliation, participation. The basic mechanisms of action of this type of state are: deliberation, compromise and arrangements are made in the social networks – the dominant type of management of public affairs in this model is co-management. Solicitude of the state as a common good obliges not only a citizen, but means that a citizen has the right to expect that public authority will act so that the Republic of Poland can be considered a common good by citizens. Referring to literature, the author notes that deliberative democracy and its concept put more emphasis on the importance of conversation, discussion and debate on democratic practice than on the importance of voting. Its supporters argue that the debate improves the quality of collective decisions and increases the chances of their acceptance. Varieties of deliberative democracy range from accentuating local representation to reinforcing the debate within representative legislative bodies. The article points out the differences between discourse and deliberation. Moreover, the forms of civic participation and civic participation techniques used in Poland are presented. We have come to live in times when communication, both traditional and with the help of modern media, plays a significant role in shaping societies. It is important to understand the basic laws guiding communication, the ability to properly form interpersonal relationships, cognize the factors affecting the quality of messages transmitted, the technique of freedom of expression, the skill of persuasion and argumentation. The correct perception of the essence of dialogue in a deliberative democracy is its foundation, especially when it concerns institutions aimed at turning natural and legal persons to public decision-making process. Considering the literature, it was found that new participative solutions, primarily the ability to dialogue, could prevent a democratic deficit and also indicated that that civic participation impacts on the creation of deliberative democracy.

While many people all over the world become conscious about serious defects and inefficiencies of the prevailing political systems based on representative democracy, alternative solutions for more just and inclusive systems of governance continue developing. Alternative forms of democracy based on the idea of civic participation and deliberation have more and more followers, who are willing to implement innovative participatory and collective decision making practices in various areas and at various organizational levels. However, the strife for greater self-governance, reinforcement of citizens role in political decision-making processes and establishment of bottom-up control over public expenditures is often considered as a merely utopian project, especially by those who benefit most from the current status quo. In this article, I examine the fundamental ideological challenges for the new egalitarian approaches and argue that instead of making dichotomous distinction between utopianism and realism, realistically utopian approach is the most desirable.

This article presents conclusions from observation of the first Citizens' Assembly organized in Wrocław (Poland) in 2020. The analysis starts with placing the panel within the most recent developments in a democratic theory followed by an empirical case study based on covert non-participant observation, document analysis and personal interviews. In conclusion, the paper shows that while citizens' assembly is a promising method for engaging citizens in decision-making process, it poses numerous challenges, especially in terms of framing, organizing and moderating the educational and deliberative stages of the process.

The article deals with the theory of deliberative democracy, which is considered from an analytical perspective. Its main aim is to identify the primary directive of the rationality of pluralism, which forms the meta- -argumentative level of discourse on deliberative democracy. In the article, we investigate the theoretical path that the idea of deliberative democracy has passed from Rawls' works through those of Cohen to Brian Barry's impartiality. We also refer to critical voices which highlight topics of interest. The main directives that we distinguish within the rationality of pluralism are: equality, justifi cation, procedure and impartiality. We also point out that these directives may lead to inconsistencies in theories of deliberative democracy. We indicate that the plurality of rationalities is an alternative approach to the rationality of pluralism; however, this is not within the scope of our argument in this article.

The paper concerns one of the concepts of democracy. Each democracy assumes that the people who live together in society need certain procedures/institutions to make binding decisions that take into consideration everybody's interests. The notion of a deliberative democracy is used to describe a system of political decisions based on the decision-making process perceived as a combination of consensus and representative democracy. Discursive democracy is a theoretical model of a political system propagated by Jurgen Habermas and Jon Elster, and also by Joshua Cohen, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. The concept was used for the first time by Joseph M. Bessette in his work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government in 1980, and later on in The Mild Voice of Reason in 1994. Public debate is a key aspect of the discursive concept which emphasizes the manner in which all arguments are presented in open discussion. Discursive democracy assumes a larger participation of citizens in the legislative process by means of institutionalized debates organized to complement the process of informal opinion shaping. Deliberative democracy will win an increasing number of proponents. This certainly is not only a matter of will but also of realistic opportunities to participate in the process of building a deliberative democracy.

The paper concerns one of the concepts of democracy. Each democracy assumes that the people who live together in society need certain procedures/institutions to make binding decisions that take into consideration everybody's interests. The notion of a deliberative democracy is used to describe a system of political decisions based on the decision-making process perceived as a combination of consensus and representative democracy. Discursive democracy is a theoretical model of a political system propagated by Jurgen Habermas and Jon Elster, and also by Joshua Cohen, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. The concept was used for the first time by Joseph M. Bessette in his work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government in 1980, and later on in The Mild Voice of Reason in 1994. Public debate is a key aspect of the discursive concept which emphasizes the manner in which all arguments are presented in open discussion. Discursive democracy assumes a larger participation of citizens in the legislative process by means of institutionalized debates organized to complement the process of informal opinion shaping. Deliberative democracy will win an increasing number of proponents. This certainly is not only a matter of will but also of realistic opportunities to participate in the process of building a deliberative democracy.

The aim of the study is to draw attention to new forms of democracy that are decomposing modern parliamentarism. They break the link between the election of representative bodies (parliaments) and general elections. The introduced forms of citizen representation are based on the sampling method. It is a return to the roots of Athenian democracy and the political practice of national sovereignty. These innovative forms include deliberative democracy and participatory democracy. The most famous form of deliberative democracy are citizens' assemblies. The aim of citizens' assemblies is to develop a consensus and restore confidence in the non-party way of making political decisions. They try to solve important social and political problems. In Ireland, they led to a constitutional amendment. It was not only the media success of this new form of citizen representation. The use of the latest information and communication technologies is also reflected in contemporary parliamentarism. They contribute to the accumulation of information in the hands of the government. This increases its informal position. Against this background, the concepts of media democracy and smartphone democracy appear. These new phenomena also contribute to the decomposition of the parliamentarism of our time. ; Celem opracowania jest zwrócenie uwagi na nowe formy demokracji, które dekomponują współczesny parlamentaryzm. Rozrywają one związek pomiędzy wyłanianiem ciał przedstawicielskich (parlamentów) z wyborami powszechnymi. Wprowadzane formy reprezentacji obywateli opierają się na metodzie losowania. Jest to powrót do korzeni demokracji ateńskiej i politycznej praktyki suwerenności narodu. Do tych nowatorskich form należy zaliczyć demokrację deliberatywną i demokrację uczestniczącą. Najbardziej znaną formą demokracji deliberatywnej są panele obywatelskie. Celem paneli obywatelskich jest wypracowanie konsensusu oraz przywrócenie zaufania do pozapartyjnego sposobu podejmowania decyzji politycznych. Starają się one rozwiązywać ważne problemy społeczne i polityczne. W Irlandii doprowadziły do zmiany konstytucji. Był to, nie tylko medialny, sukces tej nowej formy reprezentacji obywateli. Stosowanie najnowszych technologii informatycznych i komunikacyjnych znajduje swoje odzwierciedlenie także we współczesnym parlamentaryzmie. Przyczyniają się one do kumulowania informacji w rękach rządu, co zwiększa jego nieformalną pozycję. Pojawiają się tu pojęcia demokracji medialnej i demokracji smartfonowej. Te nowe zjawiska przyczyniają się także do dekompozycji parlamentaryzmu naszych czasów.

Artykuł analizuje koncepcję partycypacji obywatelskiej opartej na ideach demokracji deliberatywnej i komunikacyjnego budowania sfery publicznej. Wokół idei demokracji deliberatywnej koncentrują się obecnie wiodące debaty dotyczące współczesnych teorii demokracji, społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i wielokulturowości. Deliberacja jest postrzegana również jako najlepszy sposób walki z deficytem demokracji w ramach systemu politycznego Unii Europejskiej. W przeciwieństwie do teorii demokracji zorganizowanej wokół instytucji głosowania, zwolennicy deliberacji wskazują, że tylko deliberacja w sferze publicznej może służyć legitymizowanemu stanowieniu prawa. W artykule dokonano zestawienia dwóch paradygmatycznych ujęć deliberacji: dyskursowej koncepcji Jürgena Habermasa i deliberacji wynikłej z Hobbesowskiego sposobu ujmowania języka i mowy. Pozwala to uwidocznić fakt, że ze znaczenia, jakie nadaje się deliberacji, wyniknąć mogą odmienne wizje państwa i sfery publicznej. The article explores the idea of deliberative citizen's participation and the communicative building of public sphere. The idea of deliberative democracy is at the center of current debates on theories of democracy, civil society, multiculturalism. It is seen as the best way to overcome the democratic deficit in the political system of EU. In contrast to the traditional theory of democracy which emphasize voting as a central institution of democracy, the proponents of deliberative democracy argue that legitimate lawmaking can arise only from public deliberation. The article contrasts two ways of understanding deliberations: the discursive conception of Jürgen Habermas and the idea of deliberation based on the Hobbesian theory of language. The aim is to show that the vision of the state and public sphere is closely related to the concept of deliberation.

The author discusses two concepts of responsiveness in his paper: the concept of active society, developed by Amitai Etzioni, and the concept of responsive public administration by Mateusz Stêpieñ. The author finds both concepts potentially inspiring in the context of theoretical proposals to overcome some dysfunctions of representative democracy. The author of the paper also proposes to include the concepts of responsiveness in the framework of the so-called transformation trend of theories of democracy, which perceives politics as the transformation of individual preferences through rational discussion. The author observes a certain convergence between the concepts of responsiveness and the main assumptions of deliberative democracy (falling into the above transformation paradigm). Both concepts attempt at finding a 'golden mean' between liberal and republican visions of state community, while significantly 'supplementing' liberal democracy concepts, especially those where politics is reduced to a process of an auction of interests. Etzioni's concept is more philosophically oriented and can serve as a theoretical foundation for more general considerations on the functioning of a democratic system and the relations between authorities and citizens. A more practically oriented concept of responsive administration can inspire the analyses of a desired model of self-government administration, whose role in the context of relations with the citizens of local communities is sometimes equal to that of local authorities. ; The author discusses two concepts of responsiveness in his paper: the concept of active society, developed by Amitai Etzioni, and the concept of responsive public administration by Mateusz Stêpieñ. The author finds both concepts potentially inspiring in the context of theoretical proposals to overcome some dysfunctions of representative democracy. The author of the paper also proposes to include the concepts of responsiveness in the framework of the so-called transformation trend of theories of democracy, which perceives politics as the transformation of individual preferences through rational discussion. The author observes a certain convergence between the concepts of responsiveness and the main assumptions of deliberative democracy (falling into the above transformation paradigm). Both concepts attempt at finding a 'golden mean' between liberal and republican visions of state community, while significantly 'supplementing' liberal democracy concepts, especially those where politics is reduced to a process of an auction of interests. Etzioni's concept is more philosophically oriented and can serve as a theoretical foundation for more general considerations on the functioning of a democratic system and the relations between authorities and citizens. A more practically oriented concept of responsive administration can inspire the analyses of a desired model of self-government administration, whose role in the context of relations with the citizens of local communities is sometimes equal to that of local authorities.

The author discusses two concepts of responsiveness in his paper: the concept of active society, developed by Amitai Etzioni, and the concept of responsive public administration by Mateusz Stêpieñ. The author finds both concepts potentially inspiring in the context of theoretical proposals to overcome some dysfunctions of representative democracy. The author of the paper also proposes to include the concepts of responsiveness in the framework of the so-called transformation trend of theories of democracy, which perceives politics as the transformation of individual preferences through rational discussion. The author observes a certain convergence between the concepts of responsiveness and the main assumptions of deliberative democracy (falling into the above transformation paradigm). Both concepts attempt at finding a 'golden mean' between liberal and republican visions of state community, while significantly 'supplementing' liberal democracy concepts, especially those where politics is reduced to a process of an auction of interests. Etzioni's concept is more philosophically oriented and can serve as a theoretical foundation for more general considerations on the functioning of a democratic system and the relations between authorities and citizens. A more practically oriented concept of responsive administration can inspire the analyses of a desired model of self-government administration, whose role in the context of relations with the citizens of local communities is sometimes equal to that of local authorities.

We live in a world ruled by liberal democracy. Moreover, it is becoming commonly launched that we have reached the end of politics, as we know it, and are experiencing the beginning of postpolitics. Political life is becoming deprived of its constituents in the name of the technical approach to political processes (postpolitical). Conflict as an immanent part of politics is also becoming a thing of the past, substituted with a win-win type of politics. In our postideological and postpolitical era everyone seems to accept this central consensus. Developing this thesis, the author deliberates on the resilience of a system based on an erroneous, in his opinion, presumption – the presumption of the end of politics and the beginning of the postpolitics, of which the project of deliberative democracy is a striking example. Relating to Mouffe, the author attempts to leverage the corner stone of deliberative democracy – faith in the possibility of disqualifying the essential correlate of democracy, which is inequality, or as Mouffe describes it herself "the element of indetermination". Following the theories of Mouffe, Laclau, Chomsky, or Wallerstein, the author claims that what we really need is a contestation of the status quo, which instead of a radical change of the political system or creating a new system from scratch would consist in creating a deft sewerage system of social frustrations and the ability to manage conflicts. That is exactly what the project of agonistic democracy should serve, in which a Schmittonian oposition of friend/enemy is replaced with an opposition of friend/opponent. The inability to treat political opponents as adversaries, as I substantiate with the example of the military, following Bacevich's terminology, foreign policy of the United States, leads on to the transformation of the language of politics into a language of morality and ethics. And from this point it is not far to the Manichaean visions and managing not politics but a crusade against the evil. The essay does not provide easy answers and the author is far from moralizing. His real aim is to provoke a discussion, an encouragement of critical thinking and search for truth, the truth – as Pinter put it – hidden somewhere in our life. According to the author it is critical, if democracy is to function.

We live in a world ruled by liberal democracy. Moreover, it is becoming commonly launched that we have reached the end of politics, as we know it, and are experiencing the beginning of postpolitics. Political life is becoming deprived of its constituents in the name of the technical approach to political processes (postpolitical). Conflict as an immanent part of politics is also becoming a thing of the past, substituted with a win-win type of politics. In our postideological and postpolitical era everyone seems to accept this central consensus. Developing this thesis, the author deliberates on the resilience of a system based on an erroneous, in his opinion, presumption – the presumption of the end of politics and the beginning of the postpolitics, of which the project of deliberative democracy is a striking example. Relating to Mouffe, the author attempts to leverage the corner stone of deliberative democracy – faith in the possibility of disqualifying the essential correlate of democracy, which is inequality, or as Mouffe describes it herself "the element of indetermination". Following the theories of Mouffe, Laclau, Chomsky, or Wallerstein, the author claims that what we really need is a contestation of the status quo, which instead of a radical change of the political system or creating a new system from scratch would consist in creating a deft sewerage system of social frustrations and the ability to manage conflicts. That is exactly what the project of agonistic democracy should serve, in which a Schmittonian oposition of friend/enemy is replaced with an opposition of friend/opponent. The inability to treat political opponents as adversaries, as I substantiate with the example of the military, following Bacevich's terminology, foreign policy of the United States, leads on to the transformation of the language of politics into a language of morality and ethics. And from this point it is not far to the Manichaean visions and managing not politics but a crusade against the evil. The essay does not provide easy answers and the author is far from moralizing. His real aim is to provoke a discussion, an encouragement of critical thinking and search for truth, the truth – as Pinter put it – hidden somewhere in our life. According to the author it is critical, if democracy is to function.

Pierwsza część artykułu jest próbą identyfikacji najważniejszych strukturalnych przyczyn "zwrotu populistycznego". Kluczowa z nich to załamanie się umowy społecznej, której rdzeniem był model opiekuńczego państwa dobrobytu. Druga część artykułu prezentuje reakcje – zarówno rządzonych, jak i rządzących – na tendencje odpowiedzialne za obecny kryzys zaufania politycznego. Strona społeczna oczekuje od rządzących "polityki konkretów". Ale też staje się coraz bardziej antyestablishmentowa, antysystemowa i coraz bardziej odwrócona od niepewnej przyszłości. Z kolei rządzący przyjmują postawę wyczekiwania albo podążają w kierunku demokracji nieliberalnej. W trzeciej części artykułu podjęta została próba naszkicowania najważniejszych punktów nowej umowy społecznej, za jakie uznano (1) gwarancje bezpieczeństwa statusowego i godnościowego, (2) większe niż dotąd oparcie mechanizmów na merytokracji i demokracji deliberatywnej oraz (3) edukację do podmiotowości, emancypacji i autonomii. ; The first part of this article is an attempt to identify the main structural reasons for the 'populist turn'. Of them the key one was the collapse of the social contract the core of which was a model of a welfare state. In the second part, the reactions to the tendencies responsible for the current crisis of political confidence in those who govern and of those being governed are presented. The social side expects from the governors a 'policy of concrete solutions'. At the same time, the attitudes of those who are governed become increasingly anti-establishment, anti-system and are generally and steadily turning away from the uncertain future. Those who govern, on the other hand, adopt expectancy attitudes or are heading towards non-liberal democracy. In the third part of this article, an attempt is made to outline the main provisions of the social contract, which have been considered to be (i) guarantees of the security of the status and dignity, (ii) a greater than before reliance on meritocracy and deliberative democracy, and (iii) education to subjectivity, emancipation and autonomy.

In the transition period in Poland from 1989 till 2016 education did not become a source of ongoing changes in the country. Subsequent formations of power, selected through elections, instead of decentralizing school system, led to the creation of allegedly new models of school in a corset of centralism. To make matters worse, the prime ministers of consecutive governments from different political parties, taking into account their own or party interests, employed the ministry of national education (or their decision-making power apparatus), who disturbed communicational relationships with the public. In this article I explain the reasons for betrayal of fundamental assumptions of the "Solidarity" movement in the years of 1980-1989 by elites. As a result Polish society abandoned the deliberative and participatory democracy. ; W okresie transformacji 1989-2016 edukacja polska nie stała się źródłem zachodzących w kraju przemian. Wyłaniane w wyniku wyborów kolejne formacje władzy w resorcie edukacji zamiast decentralizować i decentrować ustrój szkolny, prowadziły do kreowania rzekomo nowych modeli szkoły w gorsecie centralizmu. Co gorsza, premierzy rządów wszystkich stron politycznych oddawali ministerstwo edukacji narodowej w ręce albo ministrów, albo ich decyzyjnego aparatu władzy o zaburzonych relacjach komunikacyjnych ze społeczeństwem, załatwiających interesy dla siebie lub dla własnych środowisk partyjnych. W artykule wyjaśniam przyczyny zdrady elit fundamentalnych założeń ruchu "Solidarności" lat 1980-1989, która skutkuje odchodzeniem polskiego społeczeństwa od demokracji deliberatywnej, partycypacyjnej.