Suchergebnisse

U radu se objašnjavaju poveznice konsocijacijske demokracije i demokršćanstva koje postoje na teorijskoj i praktičnoj razini. U prvom poglavlju rada prikazana su načela i praksa konsocijacijske demokracije. Drugo poglavlje donosi pregled dosadašnjih spoznaja o poveznicama konsocijacijske demokracije i demokršćanskih stranaka s naglaskom na korporativizmu. U trećem poglavlju podrobno je objašnjena demokršćanska koncepcija demokracije i njezina povezanost s modelom konsocijacijske demokracije. U zaključnom dijelu rada utvrđene su i obrazložene teorijske i praktične spone konsocijacijske demokracije i demokršćanstva. ; Consociational democracy is an empirical and normative form of democracy within plural or deeply divided societies. The theory of consociational democracy is largely based on the analysis of the institutional framework and politics in four European classical consociational countries — the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and Belgium. This article explains the links between consociational democracy and Christian Democracy that exist on a theoretical and practical level. The first part of the article presents the principles and praxis of consociational democracy. The second part of the article provides an overview of current knowledge on the links between consociational democracy and Christian Democratic parties with an emphasis on corporatism. The third part of the paper explains in detail the Christian Democratic conception of democracy and its connection with the model of consociational democracy. The analysis showed that Christian Democracy is theoretically related to consociation due to a counter–majority and non–conflict understanding of democracy. On a practical level, Christian Democratic parties had a prominent political position in all four European classical consociational countries in which they acted as the voice of a Catholic pillar and played a central role in shaping the institutional framework of these countries. Due to an inherent heterogeneity, Christian Democratic parties developed ...

Polazeći od postmodernih teorija diferencije (Luhman, Derrida, Castells) autor ustvrđuje da se pitanje europske budućnosti i demokracije ne može razumjeti preko bilo koje vrste projekta višeg jedinstva, već kao proces političkog djelovanja uz koji se ne može vezati perspektiva unaprijed određenog ustrojstva Europe. Ishodište takve ocjene autor pronalazi u oprečnosti dvaju nesumjerljivih pluralizama: povijesno proizvedenog, koji se očituje u specifi čnim nacionalnim ili religijskim svojstvima i onog koji je određen demokratskom procedurom, koji ne polazi od specifi čnih svojstava pripadnika neke zajednice nego od načela pravne jednakosti. Upravo zbog spomenute razlike, demokracija, pravo, politika ili pak religija su naprosto auotopoietični sustavi, koji se ne integriraju u viša jedinstva, već funkcioniraju kao funkcionalno limitirane cjeline, koje uključuju i isključuju iz sustava različite segmente okoline. Ako nema tog višeg cilja prema kojem Europa treba ići, čemu treba težiti Europa, pa onda i europska demokracija? Odgovor je, smatra autor, u dekonstrukciji europskih vizija, iluzija i projekata, pri čemu kritički potencijal teorija diferencije nije u njihovoj praktičkoj primjeni, nego u njihovom drugačijem razumijevanju stanja stvari. ; Proceeding from postmodern theories of diff erence (Luhman, Derrida, Castells), the author concludes that the issue of the European future and democracy cannot be understood through any kind of project of higher unity, but as a process of political action which cannot be tied with a perspective of a predetermined structure of Europe. The author fi nds the origin of such an assessment in the oppositeness of two incommensurate pluralisms: a historically produced one, manifested in specifi c national or religious properties, and the one determined by a democratic procedure, which does not proceed from specifi c properties of members of a community, but from a principle of legal equality. It is because of the mentioned diff erence that democracy, law, politics or religion are ...

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'.

One of the central notions of the post-Yugoslav literature is the status of democracy in national states formed after the breakup of Yugoslavia. From the perspective of the exile, not only as banishment, but also as a liberating outside view into the once common social, cultural and political space, the post-Yugoslav writers question the social democracy praxis in their former home states comparing it to the social practices in the states of their current residence. In her books of essays, Dubravka Ugrešić ironizes different forms of social ideology in Croatia from the beginning of nineteen-nineties. Her writing recognizes the standards of European democracy accompanied with the ideological view into the questions of social rights, religion and language as the stumbling block of modern society. Ugrešić describes democracy as a notion hiding different things: the praxis of ruthless capitalist exploitation, loss of media freedom, media manipulation, the censorship of corporate capitalism, production of lies, modern slavery. (Don't take it personal, 2014), validating in her essays the importance of literature in disclosure of autocracy masked as democracy. ; One of the central notions of the post-Yugoslav literature is the status of democracy in national states formed after the breakup of Yugoslavia. From the perspective of the exile, not only as banishment, but also as a liberating outside view into the once common social, cultural and political space, the post-Yugoslav writers question the social democracy praxis in their former home states comparing it to the social practices in the states of their current residence. In her books of essays, Dubravka Ugrešić ironizes different forms of social ideology in Croatia from the beginning of nineteen-nineties. Her writing recognizes the standards of European democracy accompanied with the ideological view into the questions of social rights, religion and language as the stumbling block of modern society. Ugrešić describes democracy as a notion hiding different things: the praxis of ruthless capitalist exploitation, loss of media freedom, media manipulation, the censorship of corporate capitalism, production of lies, modern slavery. (Don't take it personal, 2014), validating in her essays the importance of literature in disclosure of autocracy masked as democracy.

Autor u članku razmatra suvremene oblike predstavničke demokracije u svjetlu triju teorijskih i ideoloških sukoba. Prvi se odnosi na one koji se bore za konsolidiranu predstavničku demokraciju, te razvijaju teorije "manjkave demokracije". Predstavnici tog pravca razmatraju elemente koji nedostaju njihovim režimima da bi normalno funkcionirali kao sustavi predstavničke demokracije, te sustave više ne klasificiraju samo prema formalnim kriterijima (parlamentarna ili predsjednička predstavnička demokracija), nego razmatraju i integraciju drugih podsustava u sustav konzekventnih demokratskih pravila igre u "ukotvljenoj demokraciji". Drugi pravac odnosi se na pojavu populizma kao izazova predstavničkoj demokraciji. Zemlje u kojima je predstavnička demokracija konsolidirana sve su manje zadovoljne formaliziranim rutinama sustava i razvijaju nove populističke vizije bolje i reprezentativnije demokracije nasuprot puke proceduralne demokracije u kojoj postoji konkurencija elita. I na kraju, treći pravac odnosi se na nove modele demokracije koji se razvijaju u normativnim teorijama koje razmatraju nedostatke predstavničkih demokracija. Unutar tog pravca razvijaju se vizije "boljih demokracija" u duhu republikanizma, deliberativne demokracije, refleksivne demokracije i drugih koncepcija "demokratizacije demokracije".* ; In this paper, the author examines contemporary forms of representative democracy in the light of three theoretical and ideological conflicts. The first conflict concerns those who strive for a consolidated representative democracy, and develop theories of "defective democracies". Advocates of this thrust examine the elements which their regimes lack to operate normally as systems of representative democracy, and no longer classify systems only against formal criteria (parliamentary or presidential representative democracy), but also consider the integration of other subsystems into the system of consistent democratic rules of the game in an "embedded democracy". The second thrust concerns the rise of populism as a challenge to representative democracy. Countries in which representative democracy has been consolidated are increasingly dissatisfied with the formalised system routines and develop new populist visions of a better and more representative democracy in contrast to the mere procedural democracy in which there is a competition of elites. Finally, the third theoretical thrust concerns new models of democracy developed in normative theories which deal with the deficiencies of representative democracies. In this view, visions of "better democracies" have been developed in the spirit of republicanism, deliberative democracy, reflexive democracy and other concepts of "democratisation of democracy.

Sve veća nepovezanost građana i donositelja odluka gura politiku u smjeru koji će dovesti do preoblikovanja institucionalnog aranžmana. Komunikacijski alati mogu imati važnu ulogu u razvijanju novih prostora za participaciju građana. Postoje različiti modeli kojima vlada i javna administracija mogu poduprijeti građansku participaciju: e-vlada, otvorena vlada i specifičan dizajn digitalne demokracije. Otvorena vlada može biti jedan od načina za ponovno povezivanje građana i političkih institucija, ali u isto vrijeme može biti i "privlačan" alat za institucionalizaciju participacije odozdo prema gore i njezino umrtvljivanje. Cilj je ovog rada predstaviti prva saznanja međunarodnog istraživačkog projekta na temu otvorene vlade i participacijskih platformi u četiri europske države (Francuskoj, Italiji, Španjolskoj i Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu). Istraživanje nastoji otkriti mogu li platforme za participaciju poboljšati kvalitetu demokracije i može li otvorena vlada doprinijeti demokratizaciji demokracije. ; The growing disconnection between citizens and decision-makers is pushing politics towards a re-shaping of institutional design. New spaces of political participation are sustained and even reinforced by communication, especially by digital communication. Governments and public administrations can find and use different models to facilitate citizens' participation; e-government, open government and a specific design of digital democracy. In this respect, open government can constitute a way to re-connect citizens and political institutions, but at the same time, it can also be an "appealing" tool to institutionalize bottom-up participation and so anesthetizing it. The aim of this article is to present the first findings of an international research project about open government and participatory platforms in four European countries (France, Italy, Spain, the UK). The study tries to understand if participatory platforms can improve the quality of democracy, and if open government can contribute to democratizing democracy.