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.

Nakana je ovog rada predstaviti etički pogled na demokraciju Karola Wojtyle - pape Ivana Pavla II. kao aktualan i značajan doprinos obrani demokracije na njenim izvorima. Budući da govor o demokraciji pretpostavlja govor o čovjeku ponajprije se osvjetljuje Wojtylin personalizam kao ishodište za promišljanje smisla demokracije. Wojtylin filozofijski prinos promišljanju smisla demokracije prepoznaje se već u odlučnoj kritici antipersonalistickih koncepcija koje leže u temelju individualizma i kolektivizma, u njegovoj razradi načela "sudjelovanja" kao autentičnog temelja ljudske zajednice, u personalističkoj i teleološkoj koncepciji "zajedničkog dobra", a posebice u isticanju temeljnih načela i fundamentalnih vrijednosti (istine o čovjeku, ispravno shvaćene slobode), bez kojih nije moguće izgraditi autentičnu demokraciju. ; The purpose of this article is to present the ethical view of democracy held by Karol Wojtyle – pope John Paul II, as a relevant and significant contribution to the defense of democracy at its sources. Since the discourse of democracy presupposes a discourse on man, the first step the article takes is to illuminate Wojtyl's personalism as the point of departure for reflecting upon the sense of democracy. Woytyl's philosophical contribution to reflecting upon the sense of democracy canalready be recognized in his decisive critique of the anti-personalist conceptions which are at the base of individualism and collectivism, in his elaboration of the principle of "participation" as an authentic foundation of the human community, in his personalist and theological conception of the "common good" and especially in the emphasis he places on the fundamental principles and fundamental values (the truth concerning man, properly conceived freedom) without which it is impossible to build an authentic democracy.

Autorica u članku analizira demokratsku tranziciju i prvo desetljeće meksičke demokracije. Navodi da se demokratska tranzicija odvijala paralelno sa snažnim uzdizanjem narkobiznisa, što je uzrokovalo stvaranje izvanustavnih aktera – narkokartela. Situacija je najproblematičnija u šest meksičkih saveznih država u kojima narkokarteli uzrokuju manjkavosti u funkcioniranju većine parcijalnih režima ustavne demokracije. U zaključku je iznesen strah da bi se urušavanje demokracije moglo proširiti na ostale savezne države te da bi se Meksiko mogao pretvoriti u narkodemokraciju na cjelokupnom državnom teritoriju. ; In this paper, the author analyses the democratic transition and the first decade of the Mexican democracy. She points out that the democratic transition took place parallel with a huge expansion of the drug business, which caused the creation of extraconstitutional actors – drug cartels. The situation is particularly pressing in six Mexican federal states where the drug cartels cause deficiencies in the functioning of the majority of partial regimes of constitutional democracy. The conclusion raises fears that the collapse of democracy might extend to other federal states and that Mexico could turn into a narco-democracy in its entire national territory.

Zadaća ovoga rada bilo je istraživanje kako mladi shvaćaju vrijednosti demokracije, koliko vjeruju u demokraciju kao politički poredak, koliko su zadovoljni načinom njezina funkcioniranja ("konstitucijom na djelu") i koliko je njihovo povjerenje u institucije sustava. Istraživati razumijevanje demokracije važno je zbog toga što ona više ovisi o mišljenju građana i razini njihove političke kulture nego o svojoj normativnoj konstituciji i formalnom vrijednosnom sustavu. Ova se analiza uključuje u raspravu između fundacionista i antifundacionista o demokraciji i njezinu funkcioniranju. Taj model istraživanja omogućio je uvide u odnos tzv. difuzne i specifi čne podrške demokraciji (D. Easton) te u razjašnjavanje onoga što R. Dahl defi nira kao "demokratski paradoks" u suvremenim demokracijama. Ovo je istraživanje pokazalo da mladi u Hrvatskoj shvaćaju demokraciju u okviru liberalnih vrijednosti, ali i da prilično tendiraju prema tzv. konsenzualnoj demokraciji i socijalističkom sindromu u kojem dominira težnja za socijalnom jednakošću i ekonomsko-intervencionističkom državom. Analiza je dalje pokazala da kod mladih u Hrvatskoj postoji niska razina demokratske legitimacije te još niža razina povjerenja u institucije sustava. To nije dobra osnova za razvoj stabilne i kvalitetne demokracije u hrvatskom društvu. Sve to upozorava na ozbiljne slabosti u političkoj edukaciji mladih u Hrvatskoj te u razvoju demokratske političke kulture i demokratskoga građanstva. ; The task of this paper was to explore how young people understand the values of democracy, how much they believe in democracy as a political system, how much they are satisfi ed with the way democracy works ("constitution at work"), and how much they trust government institutions. It is important to analyse the understanding of democracy, for democracy is dependent on the citizens' opinions and the level of their political culture rather than on its normative constitution and formal value system. Thus, this analysis joins in the debate between foundationalists ...

Rad preispituje teoriju deliberativne demokracije na temelju Rancièreovog poimanja "nesuglasnosti". Predstavljena su dva dominantna pravca teorije deliberativne demokracije - onaj Johna Rawlsa te onaj Jürgena Habermasa. Nasuprot teoriji deliberativne demokracije, Rancière tumači demokraciju kao pojavnost u sporu koji nastaje podizanjem zahtjeva za jednakošću od onih koji su dio zajednice, ali bez udjela u moći ili jednakim pravima. S njegovom teorijom otvara se prostor za preispitivanje dominacije deliberativne demokracije u trenutnim raspravama o demokraciji. Ispituje se mogućnost racionalnog promišljanja kao osnove demokracije u društvu sa složenim i ukorijenjenim nejednakostima te se suprotstavlja važnost konsenzusa naspram nesuglasnosti. ; This paper re-examines the theory of deliberative democracy based on Rancière's notion of "disagreement". Two dominant directions of the theory of deliberative democracy are presented - that of John Rawls and that of Jürgen Habermas. Contrary to the theory of deliberative democracy, Rancière interprets democracy as a phenomenon in a dispute that arises from the raising of demands for equality by those who are part of the community, but without a share in power or equal rights. With his theory, space opens up for re-examining the dominance of deliberative democracy in current debates about democracy. The possibility of rational thinking as the basis of democracy in a society with complex and ingrained inequalities is examined, and the importance of consensus versus disagreement is opposed.

Iako su SAD jedna od država koja ne predviđa oblike neposredne demokracije na razini federacije, ustavi članica američke federacije prihvaćaju instituciju ustavne i zakonodavne inicijative – jedan od ključnih elemenata za njihovo razlikovanje od Ustava SAD-a. Građani 24 savezne države SAD-a neposredno su od 1904. do kraja 2005. odlučivali o 2.155 ustavnih i zakonskih prijedloga, u 21. stoljeću Amerikanci očekuju širenje novog ustavnog populizma – uporabe institucija neposredne demokracije. Autorice tumače ustavna rješenja i stvarne učinke primjene navedenih institucijana oblikovanje državne politike u tim državama. ; Although the USA is one of the states that does not have provisions for the forms of direct democracy at federal level, the constitutions of American federal states have accepted the institute of constitutional and legal initiative, which is one of the key elements that differs them from the Constitution of the United States of America. The citizens of 24 American federal states directly decided about 2,155 constitutional and law drafts between 1904 and 2005. The American people expect the institutions of direct democracy to be used more extensively in the 21st century. The authors explain constitutional solutions and the effects of implementation of these institutes on the shaping of state policies in the respective federal states. The institute is used for bypassing the state legislatures in order to limit their freedom of action by constitutionalising the political choices. Tax- -reduction initiatives limit the revenues legislatures can levy and spend, and thus control the damage. This institute is becoming a means of launching changes in different public areas, such as taxes and expenditures, campaign financing, public education. However, the state legislatures can limit effects of the successful initiatives by withholding financial aid necessary for their implementation. State policy does not finish at the moment the initiatives are adopted by citizens. Sanctions depend on citizens' ability to establish the facts about the compliance with the decisions made by direct citizens' participation, and on clarity of the texts adopted by initiatives.

Demokracija kao pučka vladavina, od svojega nastanka i praktičke provedbe u antičkoj Grčkoj, pa do suvremenog etabliranja kao sakrosanktnog neupitnog svjetskog poretka, vazda je praćena i osmišljavana filozofijskom raščlambom i promišljanjem u djelima najvećih socijalnih i političkih filozofa, od Platona i Aristotela, preko Lockea, Rousseaua, Montesquieua, Tocquevillea, Kanta, Hegela i Milla, do Deweyja i Rawlsa, što Pavo Barišić u svojoj knjizi Ideal vladavine puka. Uvod u filozofiju demokracije sustavno i pregledno dokumentira i kritički razglaba. Uz osvrt na njegova promišljanja razvoja demokracije od antike do suvremenosti, u ovome se prilogu razmatraju razni njezini aspekti i dimenzije u kritičkom dijalogu s filozofima i ostalim teoreticima demokracije, od Platona i Aristotela, do Deweyja, Lippmanna, Poppera, Wintersa i Scholtea – s posebnim naglaskom na perspektive razvoja demokracije u epohi suvremene globalizacije. ; Since its genesis and practical implementation in the ancient Greece, up to its contemporary confirmation as a sacrosanct unquestionable world order, democracy as the rule of the people has always been conceived by philosophical analysis and reflection in the works of the most significant social and political philosophers, from Plato and Aristotle, through Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Kant, Hegel and Mill, to Dewey and Rawls. This general content of Pavo Barišić's book The Ideal of the Rule of the People: Introduction to the Philosophy of Democracy is in its pages systematically and comprehensively documented and critically discoursed. Reflecting to his consideration of the development of democracy from antiquity to modernity, this paper discusses its various aspects and dimensions, together with the critical dialogue with philosophers and other theoreticians of democracy, from Plato and Aristotle to Dewey, Lippmann, Popper, Winters and Scholte, particularly focusing on the prospects of the development of democracy in the age of contemporary globalization.

Promidžba demokracije temeljni je cilj vanjske politike EU-a, a ujedno i međunarodna dimenzija demokratizacije kao temeljnog i ključnog političkog ishoda proširenja unija na države Istočne, Srednje i Jugoistočne Europe. U svjetlu relevantnosti te tematike ovaj rad nastoji definirati pojam, doseg i primjenu promidžbe demokracije u međunarodnim odnosima, posebice prema postkomunističkim državama u posthladnoratovskom razdoblju, instrumente, ciljeve, strategije, ograničenja, evolutivni okvir promidžbe demokracije, kao i njezinu primjenu na primjeru Europske Unije, posebice u odnosu na bivše komunističke države, gdje je zamijećeno da vanjski akteri ne mogu potaknuti demokratizaciju i dovesti do stabilnih političkih poredaka ukoliko snažni unutarnji politički akteri ne budu "upravljali" elementima državnosti i modernizacije ; Democracy promotion is a crucial objective of the EU foreign policy; at the same time it is also the international dimension of democratization as a fundamental and crucial political outcome of the EU enlargement to Eastern, Central and Southeastern Europe. In light of the relevance of that topic, this paper attempts to define the concept, scope and application of democracy promotion in international relations, especially in the post-communist countries in the post-Cold War period. It will also examine instruments, objectives, strategies, constraints and evaluation framework of democracy promotion, as well as its implication on the case study of the European Union, particularly regarding former communist countries. In these cases it was observed that external actors can encourage democratization and lead to a stable political order if elements ofstatehood and state modernization are not discouragely "managed" by influential internal political actors.

Hrvatski ustav promijenjen je 2010. godine kako bi se snizili uvjeti za provedbu neposredne demokracije na nacionalnoj razini, te na taj način spasio referendum o članstvu Hrvatske u Europskoj uniji od vjerojatnog neuspjeha. Od tada je u Hrvatskoj došlo do naglog uspona građanskih inicijativa putem kojih je zaustavljana provedba nekoliko vladinih reformskih prijedloga. Stoga se može reći da je u Hrvatskoj recentna privlačnost neposredne demokracije stvorila novo okružje za djelovanje predstavničke demokracije. Počevši od teorijskih razmišljanja, ovaj članak analizira praksu neposredne demokracije u odabranim tranzicijskim zemljama, koja bi mogla biti poučna za Hrvatsku. Središnji dio članka razmatra prepreke na putu prema učinkovitoj provedbi neposredne demokracije u Hrvatskoj. ; In 2010 the Croatian Constitution was changed to lower the requirements for the implementation of direct democracy at the national level, in order to save the referendum on Croatia's EU membership from possible failure. Since then, Croatia has witnessed a sharp increase in people's initiatives that have managed to block a number of the government's reform proposals. Therefore, the newly discovered appeal of direct democracy in Croatia has created a new environment for the operation of its representative democracy. Starting from theoretical notions, this paper analyses the practice of direct democracy in selected transitional countries, which could be instructive for Croatia. In its central part, the paper explores the obstacle that stand in the way of the efficient implementation of direct democracy in Croatia.

Ovaj članak analizira razlike između konsocijacijske i centrifugalne demokracije, nudeći pojmovni pregled tih dvaju modela i uspoređujući ih na primjerima Švicarske i Bosne i Hercegovine. Po prvi se put modelu demokracije u Bosni i Hercegovini pripisuje pojam centrifugalne demokracije. Takvo određenje potvrđuje se analizom povijesnog razvoja institucija te analizom postojećih glavnih društvenih rascjepa i sukoba među političkom elitom. Razvoj konsocijacijske demokracije na primjeru Švicarske analizira se od 1848. godine, a centrifugalna demokracija u Bosni i Hercegovini od 1878. godine. U članku se također razmatraju "politički korektivi" koji stabiliziraju i aktivno usmjeravaju rad političkih elita u Švicarskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini. To su referendum i pučka inicijativa u prvom slučaju te prisutnost međunarodne zajednice u drugom slučaju. Zaključno se razmatra možebitni proces transformacije bosanskohercegovačkog poretka iz centrifugalne u konsocijacijsku demokraciju i oprimjeruje se potencijalnim inovacijama u institucionalnom dizajnu koje bi slijedile švicarski model. ; This paper analyzes differences between consociational and centrifugal democracy. It offers a conceptual framework for the two models and compares them through the Swiss and Bosnian Herzegovinian cases. For the first time, the concept of centrifugal democracy is attributed to the Bosnian-Herzegovinian model of democracy. This attribution is confirmed through an analysis of the historical institutional development, and of existing cleavages and conflicts among political elites. The development of Swiss consociational democracy is examined since 1848, while the development of Bosnian-Herzegovinian centrifugal democracy is assessed since 1878. The paper also considers "political correctives", which stabilize and direct the work of political elites in Switzerland and Bosnia and Herzegovina. These comprise referenda and popular initiatives in the first case and international community in the second case. The paper concludes with an assessment of a possible process of transformation of Bosnian-Herzegovinian centrifugal democracy into consociational democracy, and provides examples of potential institutional innovations that would follow the Swiss model.