Search

The main goal of this article is to explore the relationship between populism and representative democracy. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, the paper offers a detailed analysis of the three criticisms of populism and the implications these criticisms have on our understanding of representative democracy. First, it addresses the argument that populism inevitably relies on demagogy and it examines the inference this argument has on the concept of political representation in democracy. Second, it discusses the claim that populism relies on the oversimplification of political issues and what this claim reveals about the democratic ideal of the informed and politically responsible voter. The third criticism deals with the anti-pluralist character of populist politics, which, the paper argues, can also be extended to the concept of popular sovereignty itself. In the second part, the article looks more closely at the relationship between populism and representative democracy. Relying on the insights from the first part, it examines different institutional restraints on the will of the majority and how populism redefines these restraints as anti-democratic and elitist barriers to popular will. Finally, the paper questions the prevailing view that sees populism as a phenomenon arising from the tension between liberal and democratic principles within representative democracy and offers an alternative framework for understanding the relationship between populism and democracy., Glavni je cilj ovog članka istražiti odnos između populizma i predstavničke demokracije. Rad je podijeljen u dva dijela. U prvom dijelu rad nudi detaljnu analizu triju kritika populizma i implikacija koje te kritike imaju na naše razumijevanje predstavničke demokracije. Prvo, bavi se argumentom da se populizam neizbježno oslanja na demagogiju i ispituje posljedice koje ovaj argument za koncept političkog predstavljanja u demokraciji. Drugo, raspravlja se o tvrdnji da se populizam oslanja na pretjerano pojednostavljenje političkih pitanja i onome što ta tvrdnja otkriva o demokratskom idealu informiranog i politički odgovornog birača. Treća se kritika bavi antipluralističkim karakterom populističke politike, koja se, tvrdi se u radu, može proširiti i na sam koncept narodne suverenosti. U drugom dijelu, članak se pobliže bavi odnosom populizma i predstavničke demokracije. Oslanjajući se na uvide iz prvog dijela, ispituje se različita institucionalna ograničenja volje većine i kako populizam ta ograničenja redefinira kao antidemokratske i elitističke prepreke narodnoj volji. Konačno, rad propituje prevladavajuće stajalište koje drži da je populizam fenomen koji proizlazi iz napetosti između liberalnih i demokratskih načela unutar predstavničke demokracije te nudi alternativni okvir za razumijevanje odnosa između populizma i demokracije.

The authors are presenting and interpreting the data on Croatian citizens’ attitudes on regulating hate speech, contentious symbols and public commemoration. The data was collected in two nation-wide surveys conducted in 2016 and 2018. The data is analyzed within a normative framework of militant democracy versus anti- democratic tendencies. In the conclusion the authors, invoking the available data, advocate a minimal model of regulating public speech by focusing on public utterances of direct and symbolic hate speech.

The article offers a defense of liberal perfectionism in the light of criticism of perfectionist politics stated in Jonathan Quong?s book Liberalism without Perfection. It argues against Quong?s claims that perfectionism is incompatible with demands of individual autonomy and non-paternalism as requirements of liberal commitment of treating all persons as free and equal.

The paper utilizes Machiavelli’s insight into the nature of core political goals – winning state power, maintaining state power and achieving political vision – by applying it in the context of Croatian politics from independence to 2011. The scope of the research covers four periods: the Tuđman era (1990- 2000), Račan’s governments (2000-2003), Sanader’s governments (2003-2009) and Kosor’s government (2009-2011). In each of these cases we ask how the ruling elite got into power, how they maintained and lost power, and what political vision they achieved. The goal of the study is to understand the interplay between ideological, economic, institutional and tactical aspects of political power and its transformation within the Croatian context.

Što ako sporni zakon ili sporna politika nisu samo loši, neustavni ili u neskladu s našim osobnim moralnim stavovima nego su i duboko nepravedni?

Posebnu važnost u razvoju političke korektnosti imao je rat u SAD-u za "duše američke nacije" između progresivne ljevice i konzervativne desnice.

S obzirom na dominantnu ulogu novca i krupnog kapitala u američkoj politici, teško se oteti dojmu da je tamna sjena oligarhije potpuno prekrila samoproglašeni svjetionik demokracije. Dva su područja gdje je to najvidljivije: financiranje političkih kampanja i institucionalizirani položaj lobista interesnih skupina u Washingtonu.

Suvremena politička teorija suočena je s krizom identiteta. Shvaćena isključivo kao grana intelektualne povijesti čija je primarna zadaća komentirati, interpretirati i reinterpretirati klasične i suvremene tekstove odabranih političkih mislilaca, politička teorija prestaje biti politički relevantnom granom političke znanosti. Članak prikazuje na koji je način ta kriza bila identificirana i koji su njezini glavni uzroci, te pokušava odgovoriti na pitanje kako ona može biti prevladana., Contemporary political theory is facing an identity crisis. Understood solely as a branch of intellectual history with a primary task of commenting on, interpreting and reinterpreting classical and contemporary texts of selected ‘greats’, political theory ceases to be a politically relevant branch of political science. The article presents the way in which this crisis was recognized, discusses its main causes and tries to offer a suggestion regarding the way in which this crisis could be overcome.

This paper questions Alasdair MacIntyre’s critique of contemporary liberal theories and institutions. First part of the paper gives an account of MacIntrye’s critique of the Enlightenment Project and its connection to the liberal project. It also introduced the distinction between monist and pluralist understanding of rationality as a means of clarifying the difference between the Enlightenment liberals and contemporary liberal pluralists. Second part deals With MacIntyre’s argument about the modern notion of the self and tries to draw the difference between emotivist and liberal understanding of the self. In the third part author acknowledges that MacIntyre is right in his critique of the Enlightenment liberals’ claims about the universal principles of justice. However, as liberal pluralism does not rest on the notion of the universal principles of justice, MacIntyre’s critique of liberalism fails to recognize different ways of justifying liberal state.

Esej se bavi Parekhovom teorijom međukulturalnoga vrednovanja. Parekhov pristup multikulturalizmu temelji se na otvorenom dijalogu između manjina i većine u odlučivanju o kulturnim praksama koje treba tolerirati. U prvom dijelu autor kritizira Parekhov koncept operativnih javnih vrijednosti kao polazišta međukulturalnoga dijaloga. U drugom se dijelu autor bavi problemom konzistentnosti između Parekhovih teorijskih argumenata i njihove primjene na pojedinačne slučajeve. U zaključku autor argumentira da je Parekhov pristup kojim želi izbjeći nedostatke liberalnog univerzalizma i kulturnoga relativizma neuspio zbog toga što ne osigurava uvjerljivi teorijski mehanizam rješavanja sporova oko kulturalnih vrijednosti i praksi., This paper deals with Bhikhu Parekh’s theory of intercultural evaluation. Parekh’s approach to multiculturalism is based on an open dialogue between minorities and the majority on cultural practices that should be tolerated. In the first part, author criticizes Parekh’s concept of operative public values, which Parekh uses as a starting point for intercultural debate. In the second part, author deals with the problem of consistency between Parekh’s theoretical arguments and their application to particular cases. In the conclusion, author argues that Parekh’s aspiration to avoid both claims of liberal universalism and cultural relativism is unsuccessful because he fails to provide a convincing theoretical argument on how to resolve disputes on cultural values and practices.

This paper examines John Stuart Mill’s idea of philosophical tolerance. The goal of this paper is to show that the role of philosophical tolerance, in the light of the idea of tragic choice, should be extended. Mill saw philosophical tolerance as a corrective tool by which we can enrich and correct our own ideas. Tragic choice, however, entails that certain ideas and values are mutually exclusive. When faced with such a choice, one can not use philosophical tolerance as a method of justifying one’s own view, but as a tool to accept the loss and the sacrifice that has to be made.

Autor se bavi pitanjem pravednog razrješenja sukoba. U prvom dijelu govori o važnosti razrješenja društvenih i političkih sukoba u svakoj zajednici, te o dva pogleda – monističkom i pluralističkom – na samu narav sukoba. U drugom dijelu govori o trima razinama sukoba – sukobu oko načina života i koncepcija dobra, sukobu oko načina na koji želimo ostvariti opće prihvaćene ciljeve, te na koncu, sukoba oko temeljnih načela pravednosti. U posljednjem djelu razmatram na koji način možemo pristupiti razrješenju sukoba, te koji je od tih pristupa, u svjetlu pluralističkih argumenata, najpravedniji., The author deals with the issue of the just conflict resolution. The first part of the article is devoted to the analysis of the importance of resolving social and political conflicts in every community. It also tackles the two views – monistic and pluralistic – of the very nature of conflict. The second part looks into the three levels of conflict – the conflict concerning the way of life and the concept of the good, the conflict regarding the manner in which we want to accomplish universally accepted goals and, finally, the conflict surrounding the fundamental principals of justice. In the last part the author analyses the methods we can adopt in conflict resolution and discusses which of those approaches is most righteous from the point of view of pluralism.

Autor analizira Rawlsov koncept preklapajućega konsenzusa u svjetlu nedavno objavljenog naputka Vatikanske Kongregacije za nauk vjere o participiranju katolika u političkom životu. Rawls uvodi ideju preklapajućega konsenzusa kao institucionalni mehanizam kojim se želi izbjeći nametanje jedinstvene moralne, filozofske ili vjerske doktrine svim građanima i time sačuvati pluralizam vrijednosti suvremenih liberalno-demokratskih društava. Komparirajući temeljne crte Rawlsove teorije političkog liberalizma s naputkom katoličke crkve o participaciji njezinih vjernika u političkome životu koji potpisuje kardinal Ratzinger, autor dovodi u pitanje održivost ovog Rawlsovoga koncepta, kao i mogućnost pomirenja liberalnog shvaćanja građanina nasuprot katoličkom idealu participacije vjernika u političkom životu zajednice., The author analyses Rawls’ concept of the overlapping consensus in the light of the recently published set of instructions of the Vatican’s Congregation for the doctrine of the faith about the participation of Catholics in political life. Rawls introduces the idea of the overlapping consensus as an institutional mechanism aimed at avoiding imposing a comprehensive moral, philosophical or religious doctrine on all citizens and thus preserving the pluralism of values of contemporary liberal-democratic societies. By comparing the basic outlines of Rawls’ theory of political liberalism with the set of instructions of the Catholic Church about the participation of its flock in political life, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the author challenges the viability of this concept of Rawls’, as well as the possibility of reconciling the liberal notion of the citizen with the Catholic ideal of the participation of believers in the political life of their communities.

Autor razmatra koncept neutralnosti države kroz raspravu koja se vodila među političkim teoretičarima posljednjih 30-ak godina. Pojam neutralnosti predstavlja se kao ključan za pitanje legitimiteta i granica djelovanja liberalno-demokratskih država, te kao institucionalno rješenje za rastući kulturni, vjerski i moralni pluralizam u suvremenim zapadnim društvima. Počevši s Rawlsovom teorijom pravednosti, a nastavljajući Nozickovom libertarijanskom kritikom, MacIntyreovom kritikom liberalizma i Sandelovim, Taylorovim i Razovim argumentima o nepomirljivosti koncepcija općega dobra i neutralnosti države, autor govori o odnosu neutralnosti i socijalne države, pluralizma vrijednosti, javnih politika i općeg dobra. Zaključno, autor razlučuje neutralnosti načela i neutralnosti javnih politika, zalažući se da se prihvati samo ovo prvo određenje., The author discusses the concept of state neutrality through the debate led by political theorists in the last 30 years. The notion of neutrality is presented as crucial for legitimacy and scope of liberal-democratic government and also as an institutional solution to the rising cultural, religious and moral plurality of contemporary western societies. Starting with Rawls’ theory of justice, the article continues with Nozick’s libertarian criticism, MacIntyre’s criticism of liberalism and Sandel’s, Taylor’s and Raz’s arguments about incompatibility of the concepts of common good and state neutrality. The author discusses relations between neutrality and welfare state, plurality of values, public policy and common good. In conclusion, the author distinguishes neutrality of principle and neutrality of public policy, advocating for the former understanding of the notion of neutrality.

Članak raspravlja o ljudskim pravima u kontekstu globalizacije. Proces globalizacije čini svijet povezanijim na političkoj, gospodarskoj i kulturnoj razini. No podrazumjeva li ta sve veća povezanost i globalni konsenzus oko temeljne moralne pozicije - konsezus o ljudskim pravima? Analizirajući četiri aspekta: 1) nosioca ljudskih prava, 2) listu prava, 3) povredu i zaštitu prava, 4) njihovu legitimnost, te razmatrajući dvije nepomirljive pozicije - univerzalizam i kulturni relativizam, autor pokušava odgovoriti na ovo pitanje., The paper discusses human rights in the light of globalization. The process of globalization makes this world more closely connected on political, economical, and cultural levels. Still, the question is whether this raising connection presupposes the global consensus on the basic moral issue - the consensus on human rights. The author is trying to discuss this issue by analysing four aspects which are: 1) the bearer of human rights, 2) the list of rights, 3) the abuse and the protection of rights and 4) their legitimity, and by considering two confronting views - universalism on the one hand and cultural relativism on the other hand.

Autor obrađuje temu procesa demokratizacije u tranzicijskim zemljama. Izdvaja dva ključna procesa za izgradnju demokratskog političkog sustava i civilnog društva – pluralizam i depolitizaciju. Autor daje argumente za oba ova procesa, objašnjava njihovu važnost i predlaže mogući metodološki pristup njihovoj empirijskoj analizi.