Politička borba oko pojmova: kriza demokratije

Abstract

Sveprisutnost reči kriza ne samo u svakodnevnom govoru, već i u akademskim radovima, nije ispraćena adekvatnim određenjem značenja reči. U prvom delu teksta autor nastoji da prikaže promene značenja reči kriza tokom istorije, argumentujući da kriza ne mora nužno imati negativnu konotaciju, već da može predstavljati priliku za promenu. U drugom delu teksta autor istražuje šta se podrazumeva pod pojmom „kriza demokratije“, pri čemu zastupa tezu da su tokom dvadesetog veka različiti autori, zavisno od svojih normativnih i političkih pozicija, pod time podrazumevali različite stvari, nudeći sasvim drugačija rešenja za krizu demokratije. Za objektivno stanje predlagana su različita subjektivna rešenja za prevazilaženje krize, što ilustruje da „demokratija“ i „kriza demokratije“ nemaju fiksirano značenje, već zavise od društvenog i političkog konteksta.

This paper specifies the meaning of terms crisis and crisis of democracy. The ubiquity of the word crisis, not only in everyday speech, but also in academic papers, is not accompanied by an adequate determination of meaning of the word. In the first part of the paper, the author tries to show changes in meaning of the word crisis throughout history, arguing that a crisis does not necessarily have a negative connotation, but that it can be an opportunity for change. It shows what the word meant during the ancient period, when it encompassed the fields of law, medicine, and theology, and how the transfer of meaning from medicine to politics took place. The author especially points out duality of meaning of the word – the crisis implies an objective state that can be determined by impartial observation and, at the same time, a subjective recommendation of a remedy for the crisis. It is precisely the subjective moment that is an opportunity to point out that the terms often do not have objective and scientific meanings, but are colored by the normative and political positions of the authors. In this way, the notion of “crisis of democracy” is approached and the analysis of how the notion of democracy was reconceptualized in the crisis periods (two crises during the twentieth century and the current crisis of democracy). Hence, in the second part of the paper, the author explores what is meant by the term “crisis of democracy”, arguing that during the twentieth century, different authors, depending on their normative and political positions, meant different things and offered completely different solutions to the crisis of democracy. For the objective state of the crisis, various subjective solutions have been proposed for overcoming the crisis, which illustrates that “democracy” and “crisis of democracy” do not have a fixed meaning, but depend on social and political context. When parliamentary democracy was in crisis during the interwar period it was heavily criticized for being ineffective in making decisions in times of crisis and some authors argued in favour of switching towards dictatorship. On the other hand, parliamentarism is resented for the fact that, by depoliticizing economic and social relations, it has made sense to take over power through elections. Models of radical democracy have been proposed as a solution to this problem. After the Second World War, debates about the crisis of democracy were conducted in the context of the Cold War, when some theorists identified democracy with the elitist model. Causes of the crisis are then found in the excessive demands of the citizens and a robust welfare state. Limited participation and disintegration of the welfare state was offered as a solution to this problem This diagnosis of the problem and the proposed solutions have been criticized in favor of greater participation and overcoming the elitist model of democracy. The modern crisis of democracy, especially after 2008, is manifested by the growth of indifference and apathy among citizens. Political field narrowing, impossibility of qualitative change through elections, and growth of distrust towards political parties motivated reconceptualization of liberal democracy in favor of participatory models.