Suchergebnisse

This case study describes the boycotts of parliament in Serbia since the multi-party elections in 1990, with a special focus on the 2019 boycott, as well as the main reasons behind and the effects of these boycotts. The research used the data from the literature and newspapers about the parliamentary boycotts from 1990 to 2019, the Open Parliament Initiative data on the conditions in parliament in the current session, as well as the original data obtained on the 2019 boycott through a survey of MPs and opinion polling. Our study shows that boycotts in Serbia are not a frequent phenomenon. The ethnic minority parties first started boycotts of parliament as early as the first multi-party elections in 1990. The first boycott of parliament by a nationwide group of opposition parties was in 1995 and was caused by the ending of live broadcasts of parliamentary sessions. On two occasions a single opposition party boycotted parliament for a prolonged period of time in 2000 and 2005. Finally, the 2019 boycott of parliament is only the fourth identified boycott, and the most radical since 1995. Due to the importance and the relevance of the ongoing boycott, we focus on the conditions in the 2016 parliament, especially the blocking of the minority's role in the legislative and oversight functions of parliament, as well as the specific phenomenon of majority filibustering, effectively disabling the debate about the laws, which became a permanent feature in parliament from December 2017. The 2019 boycott was in the making since the "boycott of warning" in May 2017; however it accelerated from autumn 2018 in the context of mass protests and the formation of a coalition of opposition parties. Out of 88 opposition MPs, 55 MPs participate in the boycott. They explain their decision in terms of dissatisfaction with parliament's performance and the reaction to the demands of the protesters. Their primary stated aim is to put pressure on the majority and change practices in parliament. However, polling in March 2019 showed that ...

Participation in deliberation in stable democracies produces effects which are beneficial for democracy, while the results of deliberative innovations in non-democracies are more ambiguous. This article contributes to the debate about the effects of participatory democratic innovations on attitudes, related to democratic commitments, political capacities and political participation, in the increasingly ubiquitous hybrid regimes. We present the evidence collected from the participants before and after deliberative mini publics (DMPs), held in Serbia in 2020. Serbia is an exemplary case of a recent wave of autocratization, which had led to it becoming a hybrid regime, and it had no track record of deliberative innovations. When conducting the mini publics, we introduced an innovation in the standard design, by including active citizens – representatives of local initiatives or social movements particularly interested in the issue of DMPs. We could not find evidence that the democratic innovation affected attitudes of participants regarding democratic commitments, political capacities and political participation. However, we did find that participants of the DMPs became less satisfied with the functioning of the democracy on the local level. We argue that the anti-democratic wider context of hybrid regimes can produce adverse effects when introducing participatory democratic innovations, at least when it comes to this specific dimension of political participation. We conclude with the suggestions for further research, and a call for consideration of the wider political context when designing democratic interventions in hybrid regimes. ; U stabilnim demokratijama učešće u deliberaciji proizvodi efekte koji pogoduju demokratiji, dok su rezultati deliberativnih inovacija u nedemokratijama neodređeniji. Ovaj članak predstavlja doprinos debati o efektima participatornih demokratskih inovacija na stavove o privrženosti demokratiji, političkom kapacitetu i političkoj participaciji u sve prisutnijim hibridnim režimima. U ...

This volume strengthens the dialogue between conceptual perspectives, approaches and fields on deliberative and participatory forms of democratic innovation and offers novel insights, focusing on the Southeast European space. Traditional forms of participation seem insufficient in satisfying the growing complexity of the democratic processes, especially in the context of autocratizing societies. It is crucial to examine the possibilities of democratic innovation in political research and practice, trying to establish a connection between the possibilities and limits of representative democracy and social movements as possible carriers of the process of democratic innovation. This book offers novel insights into practices of civil society and social movements and their pathways carved to initiate a deep change in political thinking and practice and compelling insights for scholars and students of Southeast Europe, social movements and democracy.

This volume strengthens the dialogue between conceptual perspectives, approaches and fields on deliberative and participatory forms of democratic innovation and offers novel insights, focusing on the Southeast European space. Traditional forms of participation seem insufficient in satisfying the growing complexity of the democratic processes, especially in the context of autocratizing societies. It is crucial to examine the possibilities of democratic innovation in political research and practice, trying to establish a connection between the possibilities and limits of representative democracy and social movements as possible carriers of the process of democratic innovation. This book offers novel insights into practices of civil society and social movements and their pathways carved to initiate a deep change in political thinking and practice and compelling insights for scholars and students of Southeast Europe, social movements and democracy.