Suchergebnisse

Autor polemizira s nekoć utjecajnim teorijama transformacije – najistaknutiji predstavnici kojih su Jon Elster i Claus Off e – koje su se temeljile na teoremu o tome kako je nemoguća istodobna uspješna privredna i politička – a negdje i državna – transformacija u Istočnoj Europi. Suprotno tim teorijama, u većini postkomunističkih država Istočne Europe demokracija se konsolidirala brzo. Tu postavku autor dokazuje mjereći konsolidiranost novih demokracija Bertelsmannovim indeksom transformacije (BTI) na četiri razine: na ustavnoj i predstavničkoj razini, te na razinama ponašanja aktera i političke kulture. Promašaje u analizi transformacijskih procesa pripisuje teorijama djelovanja koje su "tranzicijsku paradigmu" iz Južne Europe i Latinske Amerike naprosto presadile u Istočnu Europu. Teorije aktera su, pak, nastojale krajnje kompleksne promjene sustava u toj regiji izvesti iz vrlo formaliziranih i pojednostavnjenih konstelacija aktera, zanemarujući vrlo različite demokratizacijske potencijale pojedinih zemalja. U "teorijskom mraku" tako su ostale tri varijable – modernost, državnost i vanjski akteri – koje teorije modernizacije, teorije sustava i strukturalističke teorije stavljaju u središte svojih razmatranja, a koje su se pokazale iznimno važnima za razumijevanje transformacijskih procesa u Istočnoj Europi. ; The author polemises with once infl uential theories of transformation – whose greats are Jon Elster and Claus Off e – which were based on the theorem that a simultaneous successful economic and political – and, somewhere, state – transformation in Eastern Europe is not possible. Contrary to these theories, in most post-communist countries of Eastern Europe democracy has consolidated rather quickly. The author demonstrates this proposition by measuring the consolidation of new democracies according to Bertelsmann's transformation index (BTI) at four levels: the constitutional and representative level, and the levels of behaviour of actors and political culture. Failures in the analysis of transformation ...

The studies of the third wave of democratization have shown the necessity for a more precise differentiation of forms of democracy, since the definition of democracy exclusively on the basis of pluralist elections has proved lacking. The author also thinks that the instruments of quantitative evaluation of democracies (e.g. the very popular Freedom House index) are not sufficient, primarily because the quantification is not theoretically sound enough & includes a huge dose of arbitrariness. Contrary to this, the author spells Out his concept of embedded & defective democracy. Starting from the terminological suggestion by Philippe Schmitter & the systemic-theoretical description of Niklas Luhmann's intrasystemic communication, the functionally embedded democracy can be defined as a relationship of interdependence & mutual support of five partial regimes of democracy: electoral regime, political freedoms, civil rights, horizontal accountability & the real governing power. Apart from these five partial regimes, whose stable interrelationship is a prerequisite for the internal embeddedness of democracy, there are some external democracy-fostering conditions: the high level of socio-economic development, the integration into the democratically-oriented international economic & political alliances & the vital civil society. The author puts particular emphasis on the importance of the latter since it is not a part of the democratic political system but a way of organizing a non-state sphere of individual & group activity for the protection of individual rights, safeguarding the rule of law, the political socialization & the institutionalization of the public as the medium of democratic self-reflexion. & finally, the main types of defective democracy are outlined -- the exclusive, the domain, the nonliberal & the delegative -- as well as the key reasons underlying these deficits. 3 Tables, 1 Figure, 60 References. Adapted from the source document.

Democratic consolidation of postauthoritarian & posttotalitarian societies is looked into at the levels of (1) basic political institutions; (2) chief proponents of representative democracy (political parties & interest associations); (3) behavior of powerful informal political actors (army, church, entrepreneurs, etc); & (4) civic culture. Democracy is stable only after it has been consolidated on all four levels. This "maximalist concept" of democratic consolidation excludes the explanation of a breakdown of democratic systems by voluntaristic & nonconceptualized descriptions of "deconsolidation.". 1 Table, 1 Figure, 123 References. Adapted from the source document.