Sazetak
Abstract:
This article deals with postmodern understanding of the problem democratic politics is facing. Throughout history, democracy has had different determinations and thus cannot have a universal definition. Since indemocracy everybody’s voice count, it should also support the one who rejects it, and thus this order, in its full realization, creates autoimmunity (Derrida). For Jacques Ranciere, democracy cannot be defined as agreement, but on the contrary, as hatred and disagreement, because only that way fundamental democratic principles and procedures can be respected. Since agreement and equality lead to passivity and annul ability of critical individual thinking,resistance towards democracy itself is necessary in an authentic democracy. For Alain Badiou, democracy means a possibility for everyone to do what he wants and without any criteria i.e., that everybody expresses his opinion without argumentation. Therefore, he understands such order as a space for fulfilment of petty needs. Jean-Luc Nancy understands democracy not only as political order, but a way in which existence appears. He prefers neither direct nor representative democracy but looks at it as a singular plural appearance of the sense. Contrary to some postmodern theoreticians, Chantal Mouffe considers democracy can be realized only in its representative form, but that it also needs to consist of dispute and discussion. When the disputable dimension of democracy disappears, we entre into the post-political state characterized by agreement and passivity. Purpose of this article was to present and analyse some of the characteristics of democratic principles such as conflict, dispute, agreement, indeterminacy but also to point out possibilities of thinkingdemocracy not only as political order, but also as a way of living.
Keywords: democracy; the political; representativeness; disagreement; consensus; democracy to come; populism; singular plural;
Sažetak:
Ovaj rad se bavi postmodernim razumijevanjem problema sa kojima se demokratska politika suočava. Demokratija je kroz historiju dobijala različita određenja, te se stoga, ona ne može imati univerzalnu definiciju. S obzirom da u demokratiji vrijedi svačiji glas, ona bi trebala da podržava i glas onoga ko odbacuje demokratiju, tako da ovaj poredak u svojoj punoj realizaciju stvara autoimunitet (Derrida). Kod Jacquesa Ranicerea demokratija ne može biti definisana kao dogovor, već naprotiv, kao mržnja i nesaglasnost, jer se samo na taj način mogu ispoštovati temeljni demokratski principi i procedure. S obzirom da slaganje i jednakost vode u pasivnost i poništavaju sposobnost kritičkog indvidualnog mišljenja, za autentičnu demokratiju je potrebno praviti otpor samoj demokratiji. Za Alaina Badioua demokratija je mogućnost da svako radi šta hoće bez ikakvog kriterija, to jeste, da svako bez argumenata iznosi svoje mišljenje. Stoga, on ovaj poredak shvata kao prostor zadovoljavanja sitnih želja. Kod Jean-Luca Nancyja demokratija nije samo politički poredak, već način na koji se egzistencija pojavljuje. On ne pravi izbor između direktne ili reprezentativne demokratije, nego je posmatra kao singularno pluralno pojavljivanje smisla. Za razliku od nekih postmodernih teoretičara Chantal Mouffe smatra da se demokratija može realizovati samo u svom reprezentativnom obliku, ali i da se treba sastojati iz konflikta i rasprave. Kada nestane konfliktualna dimenzija demokratije ulazimo u post-političko stanje, koje karakteriziraju slaganje i pasivnost. Svrha ovog rada jeste da se predstave i analiziraju neke karakteristike demokratskih načela poput konflikta, slaganja, neodredivosti ali isto tako i ukaže na mogućnosti mišljenja demokratije ne samo kao političkog uređenja već i kao načina života.
Ključne riječi: demokratija; političko; reprezentativnost; nesaglasnost; saglasnost; demokratija u dolasku; populizam; singularno pluralno;