Suchergebnisse

Demokratični deficit je že več desetletji stalnica akademskih razprav o Evropski uniji. Vsebina raziskovanj se je skozi čas bistveno spremenila, ohranja pa se temeljna misel, da se demokracija v Evropski uniji sooča z velikimi težavami. Zaupanje Evropejcev v Evropsko unijo je nizko, podobno velja tudi za občutek povezanosti z njenimi organi, zato je očitno, da so spremembe nujno potrebne. Z vsako večjo reformo pride do sprememb, ki bistveno vplivajo na razmerja moči med evropskimi institucijami in na njihov odnos do Evropejcev. Najvidnejše spremembe v zadnjih desetletjih so krepitev moči Evropskega parlamenta, ki se je razvil v vplivno institucijo, uvajanje institutov neposredne demokracije in druge reforme, ki jih je prinesla Lizbonska pogodba. Napredek pa je, žal, na drugi strani uravnotežen s pojavom mehanizmov in institutov, ki demokratična varovala zaobidejo. To so na primer ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti kot odziv na dolžniško krizo evroobmočja in v velikem delu sploh ne spadajo med formalne pristojnosti Evropske unije. V svojem magistrskem delu sem analiziral in kritično ovrednotil procese, ki so bistveno vplivali na ključne organe Evropske unije, njihove spreminjajoče se medsebojne odnose ter predvidene učinke aktualnih reform. Pregledal sem širok izbor literature preteklih desetletji in predstavil različna teoretska izhodišča, na podlagi katerih avtorji skušajo opredeliti in analizirati demokratični deficit in z njim povezane tematike. Ključna ugotovitev mojega magistrskega mojega dela ni le, da so aktualne reforme premalo ambiciozne in demokratičnega deficita ne morejo odpraviti, ampak predvsem da demokratični deficit ni le kategorija akademskih razprav, temveč je zelo močno politično orodje in odločilno usmerja razvoj Evropske unije. Demokratični deficit je zato stalnica evropske demokracije in ne more nikoli biti povsem odpravljen, saj se ob razvoju Evropske unije vedno znova pojavlja v drugačnih oblikah, ki terjajo nove reforme in kritične analize akademikov, intelektualcev, državljanov, politikov in vseh drugih zainteresiranih strani. ; The democratic deficit has been a constant of all academic research on the European Union for the past few decades. While the scope of the research has changed considerably, the basic idea remains the same – democracy in the European Union is in serious trouble. Europeans' trust in the EU is low and the same goes for their connection with European institutions, therefore it is clear that changes are required. Every major reform alters the balance of power between European institutions and their relationship with European citizens. The most visible changes of the past decades are: the empowerment of the European parliament that has been transformed into an influential institution, the introduction of instruments of direct democracy and other reforms brought upon by the Treaty of Lisbon. Unfortunately, progress is balanced out by the emergence of various mechanisms and instruments that surpass all democratic checks and balances. For example, the measures that were adopted as a response to the European debt crisis were mostly not based on formal competencies of the EU. In my Master's thesis I analysed and critically evaluated the processes that crucially influenced the most significant European institutions, their ever-changing relationships and the anticipated effects of the current reforms. I examined a substantial body of literature from past decades and presented diverse theoretical starting points that the authors use to define and analyse the democratic deficit and related topics. The most significant finding of my Master's thesis is not only that the current reforms lack ambition and cannot eliminate the democratic deficit, but also that the democratic deficit is more than just a category of academic research and can often act as a strong political tool that decisively influences the development of the European Union. Therefore, the democratic deficit is a permanent element of European democracy and can never be fully eliminated as it always reappears in new forms that require constant reforms and critical analysis by academia, intellectuals, citizens, politicians and other stakeholders.

Abstract. The neoliberal approach taken to the transition from socialism to capitalism in the six former Yugoslav republics has revealed its weaknesses in all spheres of economic activities, including food production. These countries have lost sovereignty with respect to regulating important national policy areas like food trade and production. Liberalisation of the food trade has adversely affected national economies by destroying many small-scale farmers and food producers. Corporate supermarkets have been taking over an ever bigger slice of the retail pie. Social movements are calling for direct democratic control over resources and food production to be regained. The article examines the prospects of these countries to overcome the increasing food insecurity by introducing food sovereignty. Keywords: former Yugoslav republics, food sovereignty, food security, right to food, economic democracy, trade liberalisation

Demokracija je sistem, je paradigma, ki se je brez volitev in udeležbe volivcev, že zaradi njene izvorne filozofske in družbene ideje ne da vzpostaviti in uresničiti. Ni je mogoče in tudi smelo se je ne bi vpeljati kot družbeni red kar tako, samo po sebi, kot še eno avtoritarno možnost z dejanjem avtoritarnega posameznika ali ozke skupine. Če je vzpostavljena, pa je v njenem temeljnem izhodišču, ki sloni na doslednem spoštovanju človekovih pravic, svoboščin in pravičnosti, niti ni mogoče v celoti uresničiti. Kot družbenopolitična pojavna oblika se namreč kaže kot sistem posredne ali neposredne vladavine njenega izvornega nosilca. Neposredna prihaja v konflikt z njeno dejansko uporabnostjo za vsa področja moderno strukturirane družbe, posredna se globoko in neizogibno oddaljuje od njenega bistva in smisla. Kljub temu so demokratične volitve še vedno temeljni, družbenosistemski element in pogoj za vzpostavitev demokratične družbe, zato se od tako vzpostavljenega sistema kot celote utemeljeno pričakuje, da bo volivcem in kandidatom v polni meri omogočil uresničiti njihovo ustavno in mednarodnopravno uveljavljeno volilno upravičenje in poslanstvo, druge upravičeno vpletene subjekte pa v skladu z demokratičnimi volilnimi standardi zadolžil za njihovo demokratično izvedbo, kontrolo in nadzor. Ker uresničevanje volilne pravice na volišču kot klasična oblika volitev s prihodom volivcev v »volilno urejen prostor ali stavbo« in oddajo papirnatih glasovnic v volilno skrinjo počasi, a zanesljivo izgublja svojo družbeno in politično funkcijo kot temeljni pogoj za njeno izvrševanje, je temeljna hipoteza predstavljene naloge zastavljala vprašanje, ali je tradicionalno volišče kot prostor in pravna kategorija uresničevanja ustavnega načela ljudske suverenosti in demokratične oblasti (še vedno) ustrezno zakonsko regulirano in ali zaradi novih načinov in tehnologij glasovanja ta njegova vloga postaja ustavno sporna. ; Democracy is a system, a paradigm which, due to its philosophical and social idea, cannot be established and realised without elections and voters' participation. It cannot and should not be introduced as a social system just like that, spontaneously, as another authoritarian option carried out by an authoritarian individual or a select group. However, when it is established, it cannot be fully realised in its fundamental starting point based on a consistent regard for human rights, freedoms and justice. As a socio-political phenomenon it appears as a system of direct or indirect reign of its original holder. It is directly in immediate conflict with its virtual practicability in all spheres of a modern structured society and indirectly it deeply and inevitably deviates from its essence and meaning. Nevertheless, democratic elections are still a fundamental social system element and a condition for the establishment of a democratic society. Therefore it is reasonable to expect from the established system as a whole to enable the voters and candidates to fully realize their constitutional and internationally established electoral entitlement and mission and to make it possible for the other legitimately involved subjects to be charged with their democratic implementation, control and supervision in accordance with democratic electoral standards. Since the exercise of voting rights at the polling station as a classic form of elections with the arrival of voters in an "electoral space or building" and the delivery of paper ballots in the electoral box slowly but doubtless loses its social and political function as a fundamental condition for its implementation, the fundamental hypothesis of the presented task raised the question whether the traditional polling place as a space and the legal category of the implementation of the constitutional principle of the people's sovereignty and democratic authority are (still) suitably legally regulated, or this role is becoming constitutionally controversial due to new methods and technologies of voting.