Naučni rad koji je pred nama pozabavio se globalnim fenomenom pandemije virusa COVID-19 (neki ga još zovu i: SARS-2). Predmet istraživanja ovog naučnog rada usredsredio se na domašaje COVID-19 da preko globalne panike straha od smrti utiče na mnogobrojne aspekte društvenog života: globalne promene, politiku, pravo, bezbednost, tzv. socijalne kontakte… Vremenski opseg ograničen je na poslednjih godinu dana, sa povremenim istraživačkim izletima 10-15 godina pre nastanka razmatrane pojave, a prostorni okvir odnosi se na čitav svet. Istraživanje nastoji da na multidisciplinaran način ponudi odgovor na problemsko pitanje: Kako globalni fenomen straha od smrti, izazvan pandemijom virusa COVID-19, utiče na društvene promene?, pružajući tako naučni i društveni doprinos razmatranoj pojavi. Autor je u radu pošao od čitavog niza logičkih metoda (induktivno i deduktivno zaključivanje, generalizacija i analitički pristup) koristeći metode i iz društvenih, pravnih i političkih nauka (metod posmatranja, statistički metod, uporedni pristup, pozitivističko i ciljno tumačenje, institucionalni pristup…)
Demokratski optimizam devedestih godina prošlog veka zamenjuje osobita forma javnog razočarenja u demokratiju. Kriza demokratije praćena institucionalnim deficitima, konfuzijom, niskim stepenom upravljačke sposobnosti da se rešavaju pitanja siromaštva, nezaposlenosti, imigracije, korupcije, simptomi su ovoga stanja. Globalni val populizma najizoštreniji je izraz ove političke patologije. Početak novoga veka rađa uzlet otvorenog neprijateljstva prema demokratiji. Deskriptivni pristupi oslonjeni na proceduralnu dimenziju režima moći ("hibridni režimi", "ograničena demokratija" "iliberalna demokratija", "kompetitivni autoritarizam" ) pokazuju se nedostatnim. U ovome radu autor se vraća klasičnom konceptu "despotizma" i pokazuje normative i teorisjke prednosti ovoga koncepta ("novi despotizam") u analizi novoga režima moći koji izrasta na pretpostvkama sve šireg nepoverenja u demokratske instituciije. ; The democratic optimism of the 1990s has been replaced by a particular form of public disillusionment with democracy. The crisis of democracy, accompanied by institutional deficits, confusion, low levels of management capacity to tackle poverty, unemployment, immigration, corruption, are symptoms of this condition. The global wave of populism is the sharpest expression of this political pathology. The beginning of the new century has given birth to an open hostility to democracy. Descriptive approaches based on the procedural dimension of the regime of power ("hybrid regimes", "limited democracy", "liberal democracy", "competitive authoritarianism") are proving insufficient to capture the new political system. In this paper, the author returns to the classical concept of "despotism" and shows the normative and theoretical advantages of this concept ("new despotism") in the analysis of a new regime of power that grows on the premise of growing distrust of democratic institutions.
U suvremenom zapadnom društvu terorizam je postao kulturalni simbol straha te je samim time postao referentni okvir za evaluaciju bilo kakvih drugih oblika ugroze ljudskoj sigurnosti. Pokušaji donošenja univerzalne definicije terorizma nikada nisu rezultirali uspjehom, a razlog tomu je njegova situacijska i pejorativna priroda te preklapanje s drugim formama političkog nasilja (gerilsko ratovanje, pobune i slično). Na tom tragu, prikazivanje određenih fenomena i događaja kao terorističkih može biti stvar subjektivne konstrukcije značenja tog pojma. Stoga je u ovom radu, uz metodu kritičke analize diskursa protuterorističkih strategija Europske unije i Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, prikazano kako se konstruira strah od terorizma u kolektivnoj svijesti zapadnog društva, te su komparativnom analizom utvrđene sličnosti i razlike u provođenju politike straha od strane zapadnih političkih elita. Rezultati analiza ukazuju kako se prikaz prijetnje koju terorizam predstavlja zapadnom svijetu ne temelji na činjenicama, nego na zamišljanju najgorih mogućih ishodišnih scenarija terorističkih napada. ; Terrorism has become a cultural symbol of fear in contemporary Western society and therefore a frame of reference for evaluation of any other type of threat to human security. Attempts to universally define terrorism have never been succesful because of its situational and pejorative nature and overlap with other forms of political violence (guerilla warfare, insurgency etc.). Consequently, representation of certain phenomena and events as terrorist can be a matter of subjective construction. Therefore, by applying method of critical discourse analysis to counterterrorism strategies of the European Union and the United States of America, it is shown how the fear of terrorism in collective consciousness of Western society is constructed. In addition, comparative analysis method shows similarities and differences in conduction of politics of fear by western political elites. Results of analysis indicate that the representation of terrorist threat to Western society is based not on facts but on imagining worst-case scenarios of terrorist attack.
Autor istražuje etničko nasilje usmjereno prema Srbima u Zadru 1990. i 1991. koristeći se različitim oblicima pisanih izvora (novine, sudski dokumenti, policijski izvještaji, nalazi psihijatrijsko-forenzičkih vještačenja i srodni izvori) i prikupljenim usmenim svjedočanstvima ljudi koji su tih godina živjeli u Zadru. Istraživanje obuhvaća prva otpuštanja s posla, stvaranje atmosfere straha i nepovjerenja, uništavanje imovine tijekom zadarske "kristalne noći" i nakon nje, te djelovanje "trojki" koje su upadale u stanove i zlostavljale Srbe s ciljem njihovog zastrašivanja i protjerivanja, te na kraju, ubojstva Srba u Zadru u drugoj polovici 1991., s osobitim naglaskom na umorstvo troje zarobljenih Srba u improviziranom zatvoru u listopadu 1991. Autor te događaje promatra u svjetlu diskurzivnog djelovanja državnih i lokalnih elita, koristeći teoriju kulturalne politike emocija koju je iznijela teoretičarka kulture Sarah Ahmed u svojoj studiji "The Cultural Politics of Emotions" u kojoj ističe kako emotivni iskazi osim deklarativnih imaju i performativnu ulogu u smislu da mogu stvarati, oblikovati i teritorijalizirati polje društvenih odnosa. Uloga emocije straha i emocije bijesa u stvaranju podjela bila je razvidna devedesetih, no u većini studija etničkih sukoba u bivšoj Jugoslaviji, nije joj pridana odgovarajuća težina. Autor istražuje kako je politički diskurs koji se u Hrvatskoj počeo artikulirati za vrijeme prvih višestranačkih izbora 1990., a postao sveprisutan početkom ratnih napetosti 1991., utjecao na stvaranje nacionalnih podjela i formiranje društvene situacije u kojoj je međuetničko nasilje postalo društveno prihvatljivim načinom političkog djelovanja. Također, u radu će biti istaknuti načini na koji su zadarski Srbi sami proživljavali vlastitu viktimizaciju, te nedostatak interesa institucija za nasilje prema njima. ; The author examines ethnic violence against the Serbs in Zadar in 1990 and 1991 by using different written sources (newspapers, judicial documents, police reports, medical and forensic ...
The realization and the protection of national interest is, traditionally, linked with the state of national security; national Security implies unobstructed achieving, enjoying and developing of national values and certainty of realizing national interests, absence of threats to national values and interests, as well as absence of fear that they will be endangered. Capability of state to regularly determine and efficiently realize national interests, depends on the level of security of society, state and international community. The policy of carrying out national interests is complicated because it is 'stretched' between real national needs, social interests, political and informal (interest and lobbying) groups, national power, the state of national and international security, national and international right, foreign policy of other states and political international organizations. As well as to propagation of national interests, statesmen are not always objective, and often changes in regime in countries in transition sometimes require drastically change in agenda of national interests. Eventually, contra positive attitudes in terms of declaring and the manner of achieving national interests can encourage conflicts of national and international proportions, especially in societies with undeveloped tolerance, security and political culture, in which the continuity in leading national politics does not exist. In such turbulent circumstances it is not that simple to define and achieve national priorities, and with that ensure national security. That is the situation with the Republic of Serbia too, which is a country in transition and in the process of international integrations. ; Dostizanje i zaštita nacionalnih interesa se, tradicionalno, vezuje za stanje bezbednosti države i nacije: nacionalna bezbednost upravo podrazumeva nesmetano dostizanje, uživanje i razvoj nacionalnih vrednosti i izvesnost realizovanja nacionalnih interesa, odsustvo pretnji po nacionalne vrednosti i interese, kao i odsustvo straha da će biti ugroženi. Od sposobnosti države da pravilno utvrdi i efikasno realizuje nacionalne interese, zavisi i stepen bezbednosti društva, države i međunarodne zajednice. Politika sprovođenja nacionalnih interesa je složena i u disperziji između realnih nacionalnih potreba, interesa društvenih, političkih i neformalnih (interesnih i lobističkih) grupa, nacionalne moći, stanja nacionalne i međunarodne bezbednosti, nacionalnog i međunarodnog prava, spoljne politike drugih država i politike međunarodnih organizacija. Uz to, u propagiranju nacionalnih interesa državnici nekada nisu objektivni, a česte promene režima u tranzicijskim državama neretko uslovljavaju i drastičnu promenu agende nacionalnih interesa. Najzad, oprečnost stavova u pogledu deklarisanja i načina dostizanja nacionalnih interesa može da podstakne konflikte nacionalnih i međunarodnih razmera, posebno u društvima sa nerazvijenom tolerancijom, bezbednosnom i političkom kulturom, i u kojima i ne postoji kontinuitet u vođenju nacionalne politike. U tako turbulentnim okolnostima nije jednostavno definisati i dostići nacionalne prioritete, a time ni osigurati nacionalnu bezbednost. U takvoj situaciji se nalazi i Republika Srbija, kao zemlja u tranziciji koja teži međunarodnim integracijama.
Ovaj diplomski rad pruža svojevrstan pregled razvoja sigurnosne i antiterorističke politike EU temeljene na idejama manjeg zla, ravnoteže i trgovanja između slobode i sigurnosti, uz analizu samih ideja. Analizirajući izvanrednost sigurnosne politike EU s jedne, te terorizma kao glavnog izazova sigurnosti EU (uz etničke sukobe) s druge strane, u radu se prikazuju određene proturječnosti sigurnosnih mjera EU utemeljenih na ideji ravnoteže sigurnosti i slobode. Proturječnosti su vidljive, ne toliko u smislu neprestanog pozivanja na nužnost i važnost očuvanja sigurnosti i slobode i paralelnom ograničavanju istih, koliko u smislu ograničavanja ili ukidanje ljudskih prava i sloboda kao načina podizanja općeg stanja sigurnosti bez pružanja konkretnih procjena o učinkovitosti istih, bez stvarnih jamstava ili dokaza o postizanja sigurnosnih uspjeha. Europska integracija počiva na vrijednostima mira, slobode, jednakosti i tolerancije od samih svojih početaka. U kompleksnosti odnosa europskih liberalnih vrijednosti i ciljeva s jedne, te sigurnosne nužnosti i opravdanja s druge strane, ovaj rad svoju tezu temelji na nekoliko primjera ograničavanja temeljnih ljudskih i građanskih sloboda. Građanska prava koja se obrađuju temelje se na Ugovoru iz Maastrichta, dok se ljudska prava temelje se na Europskoj konvenciji o ljudskim pravima. Kada se govori o postizanju, povećanju ili ugrozi sigurnosti, sigurnost se definira kao (I.) "Sigurnost kao stanje osjećaja zbrinutosti i smirenosti, slobode od straha ili tjeskobe" i (II) "Sigurnost kao poduzimanje mjera i postupaka s ciljem poboljšanja sigurnosti države ili organizacije". Europska sigurnost je shvaćena kao strategija vrlo bliska konceptu europskog identiteta tj. kao artikulacija zajedničkih europskih vrijednosti i interesa. ; This master's thesis provides an unique overview of the development of security and counter-terrorism policies of the EU based on the ideas of the lesser evil, balance and tradeoffs between freedom and security, along with an analysis of the ideas ...
U ovome broju časopisa Etnološka tribina objavljujemo temat koji problematizira javne prostore. Radovi u tematu bave se simboličkim i jezičnim preoznačavanjem javnog prostora prilikom demonstracija u Istanbulu 2013. godine (Selvelli); konfliktnim vizijama modernosti kroz izgradnju i mijenu javnih prostora u srpskom gradu Jagodina (Petrović); procesima evaluacije urbanih javnih prostora u različitim dijelovima Lisabona (Gato); kognitivnim mapiranjem kretanja u američkom gradu Austinu obilježenom rasnom diferencijacijom (Norkunas); javnim prostorima i njihovim oživljavanjem kroz projekte urbanog vrtlarenja i biciklizma (Poljak Istenič); mentalnim mapiranjem i percepcijom straha u primjerima estonskoga prostora (Hiiemäe); interakcijama zagrebačkih sakupljača boca i njihovom (ne)vidljivošću u javnom prostoru (Vukušić i Stelko); te situacionističkim konceptom dérive kao oblikom suvremene urbane etnografije propitane na primjeru Delhija (Sharanya). Radovima koji se bave javnim prostorima u raznim gradovima svijeta želimo, između ostaloga, pokrenuti i raspravu o potencijalnu urbanih politika i suvremenog urbanog života prema razvijanju participatornog te društveno i okolišno održivog grada. ; The thematic section of this year's issue of Etnološka tribina focuses on public spaces. The articles deal with the spatial and linguistic reappropriation and resignification of public space during the protests in Gezi Park, Istanbul in 2013 (Selvelli); conflicting versions of modernity engendered by the construction of and changes made to public spaces in the Serbian town of Jagodina (Petrović); processes of evaluating urban public spaces in Lisbon (Gato); cognitive mapping of movement and race issues in Austin, Texas (Norkunas); public spaces and their revival through urban gardening and cycling (Poljak Istenič); mental mapping and the perception of danger in Estonian spatial examples (Hiiemäe); bottle collectors' interactions and their (in)visibility in public spaces in Zagreb (Vukušić and Stelko); the Situationist concept of dérive as a form of contemporary urban ethnography as discussed through the example of Delhi (Sharanya). The underlying intention of this thematic section is to foster an interdisciplinary discussion concerning the potentials of contemporary urban life and politics so as to develop a participatory, just, as well as socially and environmentally sustainable city.
Utemeljen na polazištima kritički orijentiranih sigurnosnih studija i studija terorizma, rad propituje metodološke, epistemološke pa i ontološke aspekte fenomena državnog terorizma. Tvrdi se kako je državni terorizam sustavno zanemareno područje znanja o terorizmu, iako je empirijski vrlo evidentan fenomen. U prvom dijelu rada propituje se klasična i suvremena politološka, sociološka, pravna i filozofska misao važna za razumijevanje države, sigurnosti, terorizma i državnog terorizma. Počevši od Weberove definicije države kao nositeljice monopola na nasilje i njegova koncepta razlikovanja vladavine (Herrschaft) i sile (Macht) tvrdi se da monopol na silu ne podrazumijeva korištenje svakog oblika sile i da država ne može biti ekskulpirana u situacijama kada koristi silu koja ima sva obilježja terorizma. Upravo za ključnim obilježjima terorizma traga se u drugom dijelu rada gdje se analizira postojeće znanje o terorizmu i državnom terorizmu. Na temelju postojećih definicija koje čine bazu od ukupno 373 definicije, sadržajnom i frekvencijskom analizom, dolazi se do operacionalne definicije terorizma i državnog terorizma. Izlučenih šest konstitutivnih elemenata terorizma ukazali su da je državni terorizam organizirana upotreba sile i nasilja ili prijetnja upotrebom nasilja kojom se posredstvom intencionalnog širenja straha odnosno terora, a na temelju anticipiranih reakcija širih psiholoških učinaka, nastoje ostvariti politički ciljevi, a kojega provodi i/ili sponzorira država. U fokusiranoj studiji s mnogo slučajeva u trećem dijelu analizira se državni terorizam na empirijskim primjerima dvadeset i jedne države (N=21). Slučajevi su selektirani na stogodišnjem dijakronijskom kontinuumu, počevši od 1914. godine i sarajevskog atentata na austro-ugarskog prijestolonasljednika Franju Ferdinanda pa do recentnih primjera protuterorističkih politika. Kroz povijesnu perspektivu, komparativnom metodom uz primjenu dizajna najrazličitijih slučajeva, potvrđena je polazna pretpostavka: terorizam jest ciljno racionalno sredstvo za postizanje političkih ciljeva država i njegova je pojavnost neovisna o tipu političkog režima. Kvalitativna i kvantitativna obilježja državnog terorizma nerijetko se razlikuju kako između tako i unutar triju poduzoraka (režima), no usprkos kontekstualnim razlikama, može se utvrditi da je u totalitarnim režimima državni terorizmu ekstremnih razmjera i predstavlja važnu polugu vladavine, dok je u autoritarnima, a napose u demokratskima riječ o fokusiranijem državnom nasilju, najčešće sa specifičnim oblicima djelovanja. ; The basis of this doctoral work rests on the fact that the state terrorism is ignored in the context of mainstream security and terrorism knowledge. Security studies as well as rapidly growing terrorism studies are predominantly focused on non-state terrorism. Critical voices which indicating the importance of the state terrorism phenomenon have emerged in the mid-1990s. Based on the starting points of critically oriented security studies and terrorism studies, this work analyzes the methodological, epistemological and even ontological aspects of the phenomenon of state terrorism. It is argued that the state terrorism is systematically neglected area of knowledge, although it is very evident phenomenon. In the first part of this doctoral work the classical and the contemporary political, social, philosophical thought and jurisprudence important for the understanding of the state security, terrorism and state terrorism have been examined. Max Weber's concept of the state and difference between legitimate domination (Herrschaft) and coercive power (Macht) in the exercise of sovereign state functions is at the center of theoretical discussions. We claim that this distinction remained outside of much Western scholarship. Their concepts are based on logic of what the state and its relations to society should be not what it is. In contrast to this mainstream normative oriented model we examine the empirical reality which is laden of state terrorism examples. Therefore, the second part of this work is dedicated to analysis of existing knowledge about terrorism and state terrorism. The emphasis is on the definitions of terrorism, so for this purpose the database of 373 terrorism definitions was constructed. Definitions collected from the scientific and academic sources, the expert sources, the available official sources of various institutions and organizations, news, etc. were subjected to content and frequency analysis. Those analyses indicated six key elements used for defining state terrorism, which is relevant to the selection of empirical cases. It is found that the state terrorism is the use of organized force and violence or threat to use violence as a means of intentional spreading fear and terror based on the anticipated reactions of broader psychological effects which seeks to achieve political objectives and which is conducted and/or sponsored by the state. It is not an ideology, but the strategy and tactic that can be used by all, including the states. Despite the fact that the most of the definitios are actor-neutral and that their contents coincide, there is no unified definition. According to such understanding, the third part is a focused study with a lot of cases (N=21) where the unit of analysis was state terrorism and analytical sub-units were states (cases) selected from the one century time span (1914th-2014th) complemented with the most recent cases (until the end of 2016th). Thus, it is a diachronic analysis (cross-historical analysis). Since the selected cases differ in several relevant independent variables (social, economic, geographic, cultural) the comparative analysis is based on the most different systems research designs. The basic criterion of comparison was the regime (totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic) in accordance with the tipology of Juan Linz. The main aim of such typology and case selection was to test the general thesis: terrorism is an integral instrument of state action that occurs in all types of political regimes and which states used/use as a form of rational choice to achieve their goals. The third part includes political and sociological analysis of primary and secondary sources for each case (state). The analysis of state terrorism included Italy during Mussolini, Nazi Germany, Lenin and Stalin Russia/Soviet Union, communist Poland, Mao Zednog's China, North Korea regime and Idi Amin's Uganda as a totalitarian regimes. The second group of states are, according to Linz proposal, authoritarian regimes. Here is a Serbian example of state sponsored terrorism in Sarajevo 1914 and assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Another example is Yugoslavia from the mid of 1960 even if it is not purely clear is it predominantly totalitarian or authoritarian regime. Other examples are the rule of Francisco Franco in Spain, death squad in Argentina, Gaddafi's Libya, the rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi in Iran and Suadi Arabia sponsoring of terrorism. Within a democratic cluster the United States of America, Israel, United Kingdom, France, Russian Federation, modern Turkey and Macedonia were analysed. The main findings in turn suggest that the state terrorism was/is practiced in totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic systems, was/is used in war or peace, was/is used by the rich and the poor countries of different cultural, political, economic, geographic and other features. In other words, terrorism is an universal form of state action, but the specific context of each of the analyzed cases does not provide the right to generalize or compare countries according to the basic independent variables - the type of regime. Divided societies and various social cleavages like political (ideological), ethnic, cultural, language, religious, economic and other are evident in the most of the internal state terrorism cases. Although the contexts of countries are quite heterogeneous, in each case analyzed rationality is a common feature of state terrorism. Statet are trying to achieve political goals in the most effective way, what is decisively for using a specific form of violence or threats of violence that we call terrorism. Although it is one of the most frequently used terms in the social sciences, it is evident that terrorism is not conceptually cleared. It is deeply socially constructed concept which depends on a variety of interests. This also affects the contemporary counterterrorism policy. Within the science and policy, terrorism is predominantly viewed as a war and/or criminal. Terrorism is not treated as a phenomenon that is generated from the political area and counterterrorism policies do not target the real causes of terrorism. The perspective of terrorism as a war and crime which is imposed by politics that cooperates with science, leads to a spiral of violence. Illegal and immoral state counterterrorism actions lead to the even more brutal reactions of non-state groups. This trend is especially noticeable from September 9/11 when the "war on terror" started. From this moment it is especially evident that in the name of national security, the degradation of democratic values and endangering human rights and civil liberties have begun. This is best reflected in the new security policies, counterterrorism laws and the state of emergency institute. Also, the democratic deficits are obvious in the examples of interventions in other countries. Illegal character of the war in Iraq shows that international law is not a guarantee nor law nor justice. Those are some contemporary examples of state illegal actions which could be classified as state terrorism in democratic states, but the history is full of state terrorism evidence. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes in the 20th century, as well as some actual examples, suggesting that the scientific community is biased and ignores the important historical facts as well as contemporary trends. By securitization of terrorism concept, the state harnessed science to its own interest – first of all creating counterterrorism policies. Instrumented science can act only within the limits defined by the state. The main characteristic of the joint state and scientific activity is hypocrisy where identical phenomena do not have identical names. State and science are taking a morally superior position, so state terrorist actions are called "necessary security measures", and terrorism as a pejorative term is reserved only for non-state actors. Further scientific and political ignoring of state terrorism topic, denying a unique definition of terrorism, refusing the recognition of state crimes that fall into the category of terrorism and insistence on counterterrorism as war strategy only feeds the modern evil of non-state terrorism. As long as there is not a change of paradigm in which the force will be firmly under the auspices of the law and policy of double standards will not exist, it is not realistic to expect that the state will eliminate the problem of contemporary non-state terrorism.
This critical essay deals with the book Can Democracy Work? by James Miller, which, warning of the problems of democratic politics, retains democratic faith. By combining political science and historiography, and intertwining the history of ideas with political biography in portraying different episodes in the history of democracy, the book seeks to give insight into the riddle of democracy. This riddle is exhibited in various theoretical and practical tensions: between the Rousseauian demand for sovereignty of the people and the general will on the one hand, and the Platonistic epistemic skepticism about the ability of the people to decide and the political demands of liberalism on the other; between the need to control the rulers and the political-economic dynamics of corruption and clientelism incited by democratic politics; between rebellion against the elites as a species of functional political hygiene in a polity, and uncertainty of outcomes brought by the inherent instability of democracy and its aptitude to excess; and between the seeming inevitability of elections and their cooptational trap. Between the liberalism of fear a la Judith Shklar and the thrills of populism a la Chantal Mouffe, the author retains democratic faith – a political version of Kierkegaardian existentialism which goes beyond the undecided, forever doubting reflection and a political good that is shared with others, in spite of the uncertainties of public opinion and the ascertained questionability of civic virtue in the open field of the political in history. ; Ovaj se kritički esej bavi knjigom Može li demokracija biti djelotvorna? Jamesa Millera koja, upozoravajući na probleme demokratske politike, zadržava demokratsku vjeru. Kombinirajući političku znanost i historiografiju te ispreplećući povijest ideja i političke biografije u prikazu različitih epizoda u povijesti demokracije, knjiga nastoji dati uvid u zagonetku demokracije. Ta se zagonetka pokazuje u različitim teorijskim i praktičkim napetostima: između rusoovskog zahtjeva za suverenošću naroda i općenite volje s jedne strane te platonističke epistemičke skepse prema sposobnosti naroda da odlučuje i političkih zahtjeva liberalizma s druge strane; između potrebe za kontrolom vladajućih i političkoekonomske dinamike korupcije i klijentelizma koju potiče demokratska politika; između pobuna protiv elita kao nekovrsne političke higijenske funkcije poretka i neizvjesnih ishoda koje donosi inherentna nestabilnost i sklonost demokracije ekscesima te između izgledne nezaobilaznosti izbora i njihove kooptacijske zamke. Između liberalizma straha na tragu Judith Shklar i populističkog uzbuđenja na tragu Chantal Mouffe, autor zadržava demokratsku vjeru – političku inačicu kjerkagorovskog egzistencijalizma koji stupa s onu stranu neodlučne, vječito sumnjajuće refleksije i političko dobro koje se dijeli s drugima, unatoč svim neizvjesnostima javnog mnijenja i dokazane upitnosti građanske vrline u otvorenom polju političkog u povijesti.
