Suchergebnisse

Autori članka propituju zašto je pojam postdemokracije postao sporan iako je tek nedavno uveden u raspravu. Ovaj pojam se koristi kao model intepretacije aktualne krize demokracije. Collin Crouch uvodi ovu poziciju u svojoj knjizi Postdemokracija. Na istom je tragu Sheldon Wolin koji drži da je postdemokracija vrsta demokracije koji je na djelu u postmoderno doba. Neovisno o njihovim razlikama, obojica smatraju da je aktualna kriza demokracije poseban fenomen. Međutim, izgleda da ona i nije toliko posebna pojava, prije svega, u europskim kontinentalnim demokracijama. Tako je još pedesetih godina prošlog stoljeća Hans Kelsen pisao o autorima koji su tada pokušavali redefinirati demokraciju na isti način na koji to rade današnji teoretičari postdemokracije. Isto diskurs kao i isti lijek (više demokracije u ekonomskoj sferi) može se pronaći mnogo prije Drugog svjetskog rata. Štoviše, ima mnogo primjera u kojima je narod u zadnjih 200 godina, u ime demokracije, tražio novu ravnotežu s predstavničkom demokracijom. Autori članka smatraju da Jacques Rancière nudi prikladnije objašnjenje ovog problema. On naime ne pronalazi postdemokraciju samo u postmodernom dobu ili u poretku koji nastupa nakon predstavničke demokracije nego uvijek kad se javlja 'legitimiranje demokracije nakon demosa'. ; The authors try to show why the concept of post-democracy has already become contestable even though it was only introduced recently. The concept of post-democracy has been used as a critical model to interpret the crises of democracy in last twenty years or so. Collin Crouch outlines this attitude in his book Post-democracy. Sheldon Wolin also occupies a similar position. He speaks about post-democracy as a democracy functioning in the postmodern era. Regardless of their differences both authors believe that today's crises of democracy is specific. It seems that today's crises of democracy is not particularly new, especially for the continental European democracies. Even in the 1950s Hans Kelsen was writing about such authors who tried to redefine democracy because of its crises between the two world wars. They used a similar discourse on democracy as that which is been used by some theoreticians of post-democracy. We can also find the same discourse on 'the crises of democracy' and the same cure (greater democracy in the economic sphere) much before the 2nd World War. Moreover, there are a lot of examples in which people, in the name of democracy, try to find a new balance with representative democracy in last 200 years. The authors find that Jacques Rancière offers a more appropriate explanation of this problem. He doesn't find post-democracy only er in the postmodern era, or in an order that comes after representative democracy but every time when there is 'legitimization of a democracy after demos'.

This paper aims at examining how democratization in post-uprising Egypt remains flawed and the reasons for this failure. As a background, democratization in post-Arab Spring Egypt has collapsed and it seems now merely an illusion. The situation worsened since Egypt's democratically elected President Morsi was expelled from office through a coup, following mass protests demanding Morsi's discharge. Egypt's democratization is hard to achieve due to the shadow of the Pharaoh in Egypt, that is, entrenched ruling elites; Egypt's democratization process can never succeed while Egypt's old ruling elites are reluctant to allow this to happen. ; This paper aims at examining how democratization in post-uprising Egypt remains flawed and the reasons for this failure. As a background, democratization in post-Arab Spring Egypt has collapsed and it seems now merely an illusion. The situation worsened since Egypt's democratically elected President Morsi was expelled from office through a coup, following mass protests demanding Morsi's discharge. Egypt's democratization is hard to achieve due to the shadow of the Pharaoh in Egypt, that is, entrenched ruling elites; Egypt's democratization process can never succeed while Egypt's old ruling elites are reluctant to allow this to happen.

Autor u članku razmatra tranzicijsko iskustvo parlamenata u šest zemalja Srednje i Istočne Europe: Češke Republike, Mađarske, Moldavije, Poljske, Rusije i Slovenije. Iskustvo šest postautoritarnih parlamenata ukazuje na četiri tipa parlamenata u početnom desetljeću, od kojih su tri bila održiva i na kraju desetljeća. Dva demokratska tipa parlamenata varirala su uglavnom prema koncentraciji njihovih stranačkih sustava: Češka Republika, Poljska i Slovenija imaju višestranački sustav, dok se Mađarska kreće prema dvostranačkom većinskom sustavu. Postsovjetski su parlamenti – treći tip – postali ovisni o predsjedniku. U četvrtom tipu parlamenta, koji se pojavio početkom desetljeća, došlo je do borbe za vlast između parlamenta i predsjednika, i ustavne i izborne. Ti su sukobi razriješeni, premda veoma različito, u Moldaviji, Rusiji i Poljskoj. Ova analiza ističe važnost i ustavnih i izbornih sustava, koji se u demokratski učvršćenim političkim sustavima mogu smatrati dijelom stabilnog izvanjskog konteksta parlamenata, no u novim su postautoritarnim sustavima u stanju stalne mijene. Određivanje onoga što bi u budućnosti moglo postati stabilno u početnom je desetljeću uvelike bilo dijelom kontinuiranih sukoba. Iskustvo postautoritarnih parlamenata ističe i važnost unutrašnje strukture i dinamike u parlamentima. Pokušaji da se defi niraju pravila procedure izražavaju i simboliziraju sposobnost parlamenta da se opremi kako bi funkcionirao kao neovisno tijelo. Između izvanjskih događaja i unutrašnje strukture postoji učinak dinamičke interakcije, koji je nastavio postojati tijekom cijelog početnog desetljeća. ; In this article the author discusses the transition-related experience of parliaments in six countries of Central and Eastern Europe: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Russia and Slovenia. The experience of the six post-authoritarian parliaments suggests four types of parliaments within the initial decade, of which three were viable at the end of the decade. Two democratic types of parliament varied ...

The problem with sovereignty is that it is marked by traditional paradoxes: namely, it represents a stance that presumes an institutional solution, & simultaneously empowers all institutions of a given community (& thus is above them). Sovereignty has the form of a legal instance, but it is also the prerequisite of an entire (positive) legal system of a community; it manifests itself always as a political problem, but nowhere is its solution purely political; & finally, sovereignty is considered a fundamental national categorical (constitutional) basis for existence of a nation, but simultaneously it is always considered, affirmed, &, to some degree, determined in the international context. Adapted from the source document.