Suchergebnisse

Cilj ove doktorske disertacije jeste da pruži argumente u prilog epistemičkog opravdanja demokratije. Tvrdićemo da zbog toga što čisto proceduralno opravdanje definiše autoritet i legitimnost demokratije samo u odnosu na pravičnost same procedure, ono ne može biti adekvatno objašnjenje za sve ono do čega nam je u demokratiji istinski stalo. Ljudima je u demokratiji veoma važan i sam ishod demokratskog procesa. Legitimost demokratske procedure, dakle, zavisi i od kvaliteta odluka koje ta procedura proizvodi. Uspon epistemičkih teorija o demokratiji je u skladu sa porastom popularnosti ideje o "mudrosti gomile" koju pronalazimo u različitim oblastima istraživanja. Zbog toga ćemo se osvrnuti na razvoj i rezultate organizacione teorije i predstaviti psihološke nalaze o kapacitetima ljudskog rasuđivanja. Instrumentalne ili epistemičke teorije tvrde da je demokratija legitimna ako i samo ako ima tendenciju da nas dovede do "dobrih" ili "istinitih" političkih odluka. Tvrdićemo da ono što omogućava da demokratsko odlučivanje, pod određenim uslovima, ima veću epistemičku vrednost od alternativnih formi odlučivanja jeste postojanje kognitivne raznovrsnosti unutar grupe koja donosi političke odluke. Pružićemo teorijske i empirijske argumente u prilog epistemičke vrednosti kolektivnog, demokratkog donošenja odluka. Ukazaćemo na značaj političkih institucija koje mogu da omoguće prisustvo kognitivne raznovrsnosti i povećaju nivo pojedinačne kompetencije opšte javnosti. Takođe ćemo tvrditi da je neophodno kombinovati deliberativnu i agregativnu metodu, i to upravo tim redosledom, s obzirom da i jedna i druga imaju važne epistemičke karakteristike. ; The aim of this doctoral dissertation is to provide arguments in support of the epistemic justification of democracy. We will argue that because a purely procedural justification defines the authority and legitimacy of democracy only in relation to the fairness of the procedure itself, it can not be an adequate explanation for all the things we really care about in democracy. The outcome of the democratic process itself is very important to people in democracy. The legitimacy of a democratic procedure, therefore, depends on the quality of the decisions that this procedure produces. The rise of epistemic theories about democracy is in line with the increasing popularity of the idea of the "wisdom of the crowds" that we find in various fields of research. Therefore, we will look at the development and results of organizational theory and present psychological findings about human reasoning capacities. Instrumental or epistemic theories claim that democracy is legitimate if and only if it has a tendency to lead us to "good" or "true" political decisions. We will argue that what allows democratic decision-making, under certain conditions, to have a higher epistemic value than alternative forms of decision-making is the existence of the cognitive diversity of a group that makes political decisions. We will provide theoretical and empirical arguments in favor of the epistemic value of collective, democratic decision-making. We will point out the importance of political institutions that can enable the presence of cognitive diversity and increase the level of individual competence of the general public. We will also argue that it is necessary to combine a deliberative and aggregative method, precisely in this order, given that both of them have important epistemic characteristics.

Cilj ove doktorske disertacije jeste da pruži argumente u prilog epistemičkog opravdanja demokratije. Tvrdićemo da zbog toga što čisto proceduralno opravdanje definiše autoritet i legitimnost demokratije samo u odnosu na pravičnost same procedure, ono ne može biti adekvatno objašnjenje za sve ono do čega nam je u demokratiji istinski stalo. Ljudima je u demokratiji veoma važan i sam ishod demokratskog procesa. Legitimost demokratske procedure, dakle, zavisi i od kvaliteta odluka koje ta procedura proizvodi. Uspon epistemičkih teorija o demokratiji je u skladu sa porastom popularnosti ideje o "mudrosti gomile" koju pronalazimo u različitim oblastima istraživanja. Zbog toga ćemo se osvrnuti na razvoj i rezultate organizacione teorije i predstaviti psihološke nalaze o kapacitetima ljudskog rasuđivanja. Instrumentalne ili epistemičke teorije tvrde da je demokratija legitimna ako i samo ako ima tendenciju da nas dovede do "dobrih" ili "istinitih" političkih odluka. Tvrdićemo da ono što omogućava da demokratsko odlučivanje, pod određenim uslovima, ima veću epistemičku vrednost od alternativnih formi odlučivanja jeste postojanje kognitivne raznovrsnosti unutar grupe koja donosi političke odluke. Pružićemo teorijske i empirijske argumente u prilog epistemičke vrednosti kolektivnog, demokratkog donošenja odluka. Ukazaćemo na značaj političkih institucija koje mogu da omoguće prisustvo kognitivne raznovrsnosti i povećaju nivo pojedinačne kompetencije opšte javnosti. Takođe ćemo tvrditi da je neophodno kombinovati deliberativnu i agregativnu metodu, i to upravo tim redosledom, s obzirom da i jedna i druga imaju važne epistemičke karakteristike. ; The aim of this doctoral dissertation is to provide arguments in support of the epistemic justification of democracy. We will argue that because a purely procedural justification defines the authority and legitimacy of democracy only in relation to the fairness of the procedure itself, it can not be an adequate explanation for all the things we really care about in democracy. The outcome of the democratic process itself is very important to people in democracy. The legitimacy of a democratic procedure, therefore, depends on the quality of the decisions that this procedure produces. The rise of epistemic theories about democracy is in line with the increasing popularity of the idea of the "wisdom of the crowds" that we find in various fields of research. Therefore, we will look at the development and results of organizational theory and present psychological findings about human reasoning capacities. Instrumental or epistemic theories claim that democracy is legitimate if and only if it has a tendency to lead us to "good" or "true" political decisions. We will argue that what allows democratic decision-making, under certain conditions, to have a higher epistemic value than alternative forms of decision-making is the existence of the cognitive diversity of a group that makes political decisions. We will provide theoretical and empirical arguments in favor of the epistemic value of collective, democratic decision-making. We will point out the importance of political institutions that can enable the presence of cognitive diversity and increase the level of individual competence of the general public. We will also argue that it is necessary to combine a deliberative and aggregative method, precisely in this order, given that both of them have important epistemic characteristics.

Despite the progress in all fields, modern society is facing the development of the means of political violence. Technological development also has its dangerous side. Many researches in the field of science are often carried out for the sake of military needs, and scientific researchers are often misused in military purpose. Political violence represents one of the greatest threats for the democratic development and human rights in contemporary society. The main goal of this paper is to analyze the position of political violence in contemporary society, particularly focusing on its covert use by the great powers, which is often justified by the struggle for democracy and achieving human rights. In that sense this paper is divided into two parts. The first part analyzes the globalization process, underling that this process has double face, whose negative side can significantly contribute to the spread of political violence. In the second part the author deals with the relations between policy and violence in contemporary society. The paper underlines the need for critical approach to political violence. This critical approach is crucial for understanding of political violence which is the first step in the fight against it. Political violence is not always negative and sometimes can have a positive role, especially when it comes to defensive war and combating terrorism. But the main problem here is that this can be misused to justify political violence in general. What is positive and what is the negative role of political violence often depends on the perspective of observation. Unfortunately, it seems that the privilege to enforce the standard today is reserved only for great powers, and they have become main judges who decide when political violence is to be approved of or not. This is the way in which a war becomes humanitarian interventions, protection of human rights, etc. That is why it is of great importance to encourage and initiate all actions in science which aim to understand and counter this complex phenomenon.

T eorija društvenog izbora postavlja značajan izazov pred teoriju demokratije. Erouova teorema mogućnosti pokazuje da nije moguće istovremeno da budu zadovoljeni neki normativni uslovi u pogledu procedure glasanja koji garantuju da je ona fer i da ishod glasanja bude koherentan. Ovaj rezultat dovodi u pitanje normativnu opravdanost demokratije u onoj meri u kojoj se ona zasniva na proceduri glasanja. Kao jedan od mogućih puteva za rešenje Erouovog problema predložen je uslov jednovršnosti u pogledu poredaka preferencija. U ovom radu bavićemo se pitanjem u kojoj meri koncepcija deliberativne demokratije može da doprinese postizanju jednovršnosti koja potom garantuje koherentan društveni izbor. U tom kontekstu posebno ćemo istražiti tezu da javna deliberacija dovodi do metasaglasnosti koja potom može da implicira jednovršnost. Ovoj tezi pristupićemo ispitujući njenu empirijsku i normativnu adekvatnost. ; T he social choice theory presents a significant challenge to democratic theory. Arrow's impossibility theorem shows that it is not possible for some normative conditions – regarding the voting procedure guaranteeing its fairness and that the outcome of voting be coherent – to be satisfied at the same time. This brings into question normative justification of democracy to the degree to which it is based on the voting procedure. The single-peakedness condition was proposed as one of the possible ways to solve the Arrow's problem. In this paper we will explore to what extent the conception of deliberative democracy may contribute to achievement of single-peakedness which subsequently guarantees coherent social choice. In this context we will particularly explore the thesis that public deliberation leads to meta-agreement which might subsequently imply single-peakedness. We approach this thesis by probing its empirical and normative adequacy.

This paper introduces the concept of social capital as a valuable social resourcewhich is accumulated and developed via activities of civil society organizations: through reciprocal relationships as well as through relations with the domain of political power. Civil society, as the institutional actor of political participation, is in a relationship with social capital, which, to a great extent, improves the political, economic and cultural aspects of societies – those with consolidated democracy and institutions, as well as post communist societies with nonconsolidated democracy. Strengthening and development of civil society has a positive impact on the strengthening and development of social capital and vice versa. On the other hand, social capital lays a solid foundation and a base for the growth and strengthening of civil society, thus raising citizens' awareness about political participation which is an indispensable ingredient of the development of democracy. By depicting norms, networking and trust, as well as by distinguishing bonding from bridging social capital, this paper is going to portray the subject matter of social capital which is "utilized" by the citizens' and stakeholders' effi cient collaboration, thus contributing to democratic development. The stability of developed social capital facilitates the development of political participation and enhances democratic development.

The article is based on a critical review of existing literature in the field of political participation and representation of women in democratic institutions and procedures in contemporary society. Then, on the basis of relevant statistical indicators, it provides a state-of-the-art review of the participation of women in executive, legislative and judicial government in the European Union countries. The paper especially highlights the obstacles women face in the candidature for political office and when entering the political arena. It takes into account only the political factors, such as the type and structure of the electoral system, the number of parties in the parliament and their ideological differences, the number of candidates at polling stations, and the candidates' nominations for political offices, which have a crucial influence on the possibility for women to enter the political arena. Gender equality policy in the European Union in recent years has achieved significant success in the direction of larger and more equitable representation of women in all spheres of public life. However, women still do not participate in a sufficient number of institutions of governance and decision-making in economics and politics. The mere numerical, descriptive presence of women in political institutions is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the increase of their political power.

In this paper, populism is regarded as a kind of ideological map that facilitates to the citizens their coping in the political space, as well as a "thin-centered ideology" which has at his center the idea that politics should be a reflection of the will of the people, the idea that a clean and moral nation confronts a corrupt elite and "out groups", "out groups" which actions endanger or impair the rights and values of the nation. The paper focuses on some fundamental theoretical considerations on populism and empirical determination of the elements of populism in the public opinion in Serbia. Based on opinion polls in Serbia it has been shown what is the relationship of citizens to the people, political elites, democracy and its institutions, as well as the attitude towards "out groups". Empirical research conducted in Serbia in 2017 confirms the hypothesis that the gap between citizens and their elected representatives is deep, and it marks also that conventional politics increasingly faces the difficulties to reach citizens, and that lack of trust in political parties is generated in all spheres of representative democracy. In the political life, "out groups" are instrumentally ranked by political actors according to the necessities of the moment, and the empirical research of attitudes shows that they are in the same way as "out groups experienced by the citizens.