Suchergebnisse

Demokratski optimizam devedestih godina prošlog veka zamenjuje osobita forma javnog razočarenja u demokratiju. Kriza demokratije praćena institucionalnim deficitima, konfuzijom, niskim stepenom upravljačke sposobnosti da se rešavaju pitanja siromaštva, nezaposlenosti, imigracije, korupcije, simptomi su ovoga stanja. Globalni val populizma najizoštreniji je izraz ove političke patologije. Početak novoga veka rađa uzlet otvorenog neprijateljstva prema demokratiji. Deskriptivni pristupi oslonjeni na proceduralnu dimenziju režima moći ("hibridni režimi", "ograničena demokratija" "iliberalna demokratija", "kompetitivni autoritarizam" ) pokazuju se nedostatnim. U ovome radu autor se vraća klasičnom konceptu "despotizma" i pokazuje normative i teorisjke prednosti ovoga koncepta ("novi despotizam") u analizi novoga režima moći koji izrasta na pretpostvkama sve šireg nepoverenja u demokratske instituciije. ; The democratic optimism of the 1990s has been replaced by a particular form of public disillusionment with democracy. The crisis of democracy, accompanied by institutional deficits, confusion, low levels of management capacity to tackle poverty, unemployment, immigration, corruption, are symptoms of this condition. The global wave of populism is the sharpest expression of this political pathology. The beginning of the new century has given birth to an open hostility to democracy. Descriptive approaches based on the procedural dimension of the regime of power ("hybrid regimes", "limited democracy", "liberal democracy", "competitive authoritarianism") are proving insufficient to capture the new political system. In this paper, the author returns to the classical concept of "despotism" and shows the normative and theoretical advantages of this concept ("new despotism") in the analysis of a new regime of power that grows on the premise of growing distrust of democratic institutions.

"Vojničku vladavinu" Monteskje je spominjao u sva tri svoja glavna dela: i u Persijskim pismima, i u Razmatranjima o uzrocima veličine Rimljana i njihove propasti i u spisu O duhu zakona. Međutim, samo je u poslednjem delu ovu proglasio za poseban tip despotije. Taj tip despotije Monteskje je razmotrio na primeru starog Rima i došao do zaključka da se značajno razlikuje od onoga što je obično podrazumevao pod despotijom – onom orijentalnom. Dok je, naime, orijentalna despotija bezvremena, jednostavna i lišena bilo kakve predstave o slobodi, "vojničku vladavinu" kao okcidentalan tip despotije karakterisali bi upravo naglašena kompleksnost i istoričnost u kontekstu pervertiranja slobode: ona bi se mogla razumeti samo kao ishod determinizma koji vodi od urušavanja monarhije preko aristokratske i demokratske republike. ; Montesquieu writes about "military rule" in all of his three main works: in the Persian Letters, in Considerations on the Causes of the Grandeur and Decadence of the Romans, as well as his magnum opus On the Spirit of the Laws. However, only in the last work he defined it as a special type of despotism. Montesquieu analyses this type of despotism by reference to ancient Rome and comes to a conclusion that the Roman example differed significantly from what he usually meant by despotism – that is oriental despotism. He claims, namely, that oriental despotism could be perceived as timeless, simple and devoid of any notion of freedom, while "military rule", as "occidental" type of despotism, would be characterized by its complexity and historicity in the context of perversion of freedom. The "occidental" type of despotism, claims Montesquieu, could be understood only as a stage in a deterministic political development that starts with a collapse of the monarchy that is itself a result of a collapse of the aristocratic and democratic republic.