Suchergebnisse

The article reveals the concept and essence of e-democracy, analyzes different approaches in this matter and highlights the features of formation, results and problems of e- government and e-democracy in Uzbekistan.

To fight climate change, democratic countries must find a way to work with autocratic ones.

In recent years, the EU's approach to democracy support has taken a defensive turn. This shift requires a new conceptual framework to capture both its advantages and the concerns it raises.

Cilj ove doktorske disertacije jeste da pruži argumente u prilog epistemičkog opravdanja demokratije. Tvrdićemo da zbog toga što čisto proceduralno opravdanje definiše autoritet i legitimnost demokratije samo u odnosu na pravičnost same procedure, ono ne može biti adekvatno objašnjenje za sve ono do čega nam je u demokratiji istinski stalo. Ljudima je u demokratiji veoma važan i sam ishod demokratskog procesa. Legitimost demokratske procedure, dakle, zavisi i od kvaliteta odluka koje ta procedura proizvodi. Uspon epistemičkih teorija o demokratiji je u skladu sa porastom popularnosti ideje o "mudrosti gomile" koju pronalazimo u različitim oblastima istraživanja. Zbog toga ćemo se osvrnuti na razvoj i rezultate organizacione teorije i predstaviti psihološke nalaze o kapacitetima ljudskog rasuđivanja. Instrumentalne ili epistemičke teorije tvrde da je demokratija legitimna ako i samo ako ima tendenciju da nas dovede do "dobrih" ili "istinitih" političkih odluka. Tvrdićemo da ono što omogućava da demokratsko odlučivanje, pod određenim uslovima, ima veću epistemičku vrednost od alternativnih formi odlučivanja jeste postojanje kognitivne raznovrsnosti unutar grupe koja donosi političke odluke. Pružićemo teorijske i empirijske argumente u prilog epistemičke vrednosti kolektivnog, demokratkog donošenja odluka. Ukazaćemo na značaj političkih institucija koje mogu da omoguće prisustvo kognitivne raznovrsnosti i povećaju nivo pojedinačne kompetencije opšte javnosti. Takođe ćemo tvrditi da je neophodno kombinovati deliberativnu i agregativnu metodu, i to upravo tim redosledom, s obzirom da i jedna i druga imaju važne epistemičke karakteristike. ; The aim of this doctoral dissertation is to provide arguments in support of the epistemic justification of democracy. We will argue that because a purely procedural justification defines the authority and legitimacy of democracy only in relation to the fairness of the procedure itself, it can not be an adequate explanation for all the things we really care about in democracy. The outcome of the democratic process itself is very important to people in democracy. The legitimacy of a democratic procedure, therefore, depends on the quality of the decisions that this procedure produces. The rise of epistemic theories about democracy is in line with the increasing popularity of the idea of the "wisdom of the crowds" that we find in various fields of research. Therefore, we will look at the development and results of organizational theory and present psychological findings about human reasoning capacities. Instrumental or epistemic theories claim that democracy is legitimate if and only if it has a tendency to lead us to "good" or "true" political decisions. We will argue that what allows democratic decision-making, under certain conditions, to have a higher epistemic value than alternative forms of decision-making is the existence of the cognitive diversity of a group that makes political decisions. We will provide theoretical and empirical arguments in favor of the epistemic value of collective, democratic decision-making. We will point out the importance of political institutions that can enable the presence of cognitive diversity and increase the level of individual competence of the general public. We will also argue that it is necessary to combine a deliberative and aggregative method, precisely in this order, given that both of them have important epistemic characteristics.

Cilj ove doktorske disertacije jeste da pruži argumente u prilog epistemičkog opravdanja demokratije. Tvrdićemo da zbog toga što čisto proceduralno opravdanje definiše autoritet i legitimnost demokratije samo u odnosu na pravičnost same procedure, ono ne može biti adekvatno objašnjenje za sve ono do čega nam je u demokratiji istinski stalo. Ljudima je u demokratiji veoma važan i sam ishod demokratskog procesa. Legitimost demokratske procedure, dakle, zavisi i od kvaliteta odluka koje ta procedura proizvodi. Uspon epistemičkih teorija o demokratiji je u skladu sa porastom popularnosti ideje o "mudrosti gomile" koju pronalazimo u različitim oblastima istraživanja. Zbog toga ćemo se osvrnuti na razvoj i rezultate organizacione teorije i predstaviti psihološke nalaze o kapacitetima ljudskog rasuđivanja. Instrumentalne ili epistemičke teorije tvrde da je demokratija legitimna ako i samo ako ima tendenciju da nas dovede do "dobrih" ili "istinitih" političkih odluka. Tvrdićemo da ono što omogućava da demokratsko odlučivanje, pod određenim uslovima, ima veću epistemičku vrednost od alternativnih formi odlučivanja jeste postojanje kognitivne raznovrsnosti unutar grupe koja donosi političke odluke. Pružićemo teorijske i empirijske argumente u prilog epistemičke vrednosti kolektivnog, demokratkog donošenja odluka. Ukazaćemo na značaj političkih institucija koje mogu da omoguće prisustvo kognitivne raznovrsnosti i povećaju nivo pojedinačne kompetencije opšte javnosti. Takođe ćemo tvrditi da je neophodno kombinovati deliberativnu i agregativnu metodu, i to upravo tim redosledom, s obzirom da i jedna i druga imaju važne epistemičke karakteristike. ; The aim of this doctoral dissertation is to provide arguments in support of the epistemic justification of democracy. We will argue that because a purely procedural justification defines the authority and legitimacy of democracy only in relation to the fairness of the procedure itself, it can not be an adequate explanation for all the things we really care about in democracy. The outcome of the democratic process itself is very important to people in democracy. The legitimacy of a democratic procedure, therefore, depends on the quality of the decisions that this procedure produces. The rise of epistemic theories about democracy is in line with the increasing popularity of the idea of the "wisdom of the crowds" that we find in various fields of research. Therefore, we will look at the development and results of organizational theory and present psychological findings about human reasoning capacities. Instrumental or epistemic theories claim that democracy is legitimate if and only if it has a tendency to lead us to "good" or "true" political decisions. We will argue that what allows democratic decision-making, under certain conditions, to have a higher epistemic value than alternative forms of decision-making is the existence of the cognitive diversity of a group that makes political decisions. We will provide theoretical and empirical arguments in favor of the epistemic value of collective, democratic decision-making. We will point out the importance of political institutions that can enable the presence of cognitive diversity and increase the level of individual competence of the general public. We will also argue that it is necessary to combine a deliberative and aggregative method, precisely in this order, given that both of them have important epistemic characteristics.

Tunisia has witnessed a disturbing rise in online misogyny and disinformation since President Kais Saied's July 2021 coup.

The article analyzes the long-term impact of democratic institutions on socio-economic and political development of modern society. The author proves that the transitions to democracy in the twentieth century accelerated not only the pace of economic development, but also the processes of social polarization in society. Despite the positive impact of democratic institutions on economic development and political stability, democracy as a form of political rule cannot solve the problem of social inequality. The history of modern democracy shows that it reduces inequality levels only in certain cases, and in most cases social inequality increases both at the national and global levels. ; Анализируется долгосрочное влияние демократических институтов на социально-экономическое и политическое развитие современного общества. Автор доказывает, что переход к демократии в ХХ в. ускорил не только темпы экономического развития, но и процессы социального расслоения общества. Несмотря на положительное влияние демократических институтов на экономическое развитие и политическую стабильность, демократия как форма политического господства неспособна решить проблему социального неравенства. История современной демократии свидетельствует о том, что она только в отдельных случаях снижает уровень социального неравенства, а в большинстве случаев повышает его.

Despite the progress in all fields, modern society is facing the development of the means of political violence. Technological development also has its dangerous side. Many researches in the field of science are often carried out for the sake of military needs, and scientific researchers are often misused in military purpose. Political violence represents one of the greatest threats for the democratic development and human rights in contemporary society. The main goal of this paper is to analyze the position of political violence in contemporary society, particularly focusing on its covert use by the great powers, which is often justified by the struggle for democracy and achieving human rights. In that sense this paper is divided into two parts. The first part analyzes the globalization process, underling that this process has double face, whose negative side can significantly contribute to the spread of political violence. In the second part the author deals with the relations between policy and violence in contemporary society. The paper underlines the need for critical approach to political violence. This critical approach is crucial for understanding of political violence which is the first step in the fight against it. Political violence is not always negative and sometimes can have a positive role, especially when it comes to defensive war and combating terrorism. But the main problem here is that this can be misused to justify political violence in general. What is positive and what is the negative role of political violence often depends on the perspective of observation. Unfortunately, it seems that the privilege to enforce the standard today is reserved only for great powers, and they have become main judges who decide when political violence is to be approved of or not. This is the way in which a war becomes humanitarian interventions, protection of human rights, etc. That is why it is of great importance to encourage and initiate all actions in science which aim to understand and counter this complex phenomenon.

The article considers problematic issues of sovereignty and democracy as constitutional values of modern Russia. It is proved that Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the system of constitutional values reflecting the most important basis of the state and society. Grounds of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation assigned in Chapter 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are a technical aspect of the system of constitutional values. Interaction between constitutional values and national purpose of modern Russian society and state is proved. Basic courses of development of the constitutional axiology are given. ; В статье рассматривается проблематика народного суверенитета и народовластия как конституционных ценностей современной России. Доказывается, что Конституция РФ закладывает систему конституционных ценностей, отражающих наиболее важные устои жизни общества и государства. Формально-юридическим выражением системы конституционных ценностей являются основы конституционного строя Российской Федерации, закрепленные в главе первой Конституции РФ. Обосновывается взаимовлияние конституционных ценностей и национальной идеи современного российского общества и государства. Обозначены основные направления развития конституционной аксиологии.