Kuri postdemokratija?

LTMokslo darbe vadovaujamasi nuostata, kad postdemokratija yra laikina struktūra - jau ne XX a. demokratija, bet dar ir ne nauja demokratijos forma. Pastarosios ateitis nėra savaime suprantama, kadangi demokratijos transformacijos palydovas yra socialinės nelygybės lemiama reali politinė nelygybė, stiprėjanti politikos ir kitų gyvenimo sričių dedemokratizacija, atotrūkis tarp valstybės ir visuomenės, elitinių ir ekspertinių sistemų įsivyravimas, augantys nekonvenciniai ir gaivališki protesto judėjimai. Demokratijos šalininkams iškilo problema suvaldyti dedemokratizaciją ir nauja forma įtvirtinti pamatinius demokratijos principus. Nežinia, kokie bus demokratijos principų įgyvendinimo mechanizmai ateityje, tačiau žinoma, kad dabar demokratija patiria krizę, taip pat ir dėl to, kad neįvertino savo galimybių-ribų XX ir XXI amžių sandūroje. Savotišką bifurkacijos tašką reiškianti postdemokratija gali būti apibūdinta trijų tipų kategorijomis: (1) prodemokratinė, arba demokratijos istorijos tęsimo postdemokratija (viena versija - demokratija be daugumos; kita versija - demokratija su ne tik rinkimų būdu susidarančia visuomenės dauguma); (2) nedemokratinė / neautoritarinė, arba anokratinė postdemokratija; (3) antidemokratinė postdemokratija. Autoriui klausimas apie postdemokratiją pirmiausia yra klausimas apie demokratijos reprodukciją demokratijose. Nors demokratija patiria krizę, o jos reikalus gožia saugumo ir gerovės aktualijos, kai vis labiau abejojama dabar veikiančios demokratijos galimybėmis šias aktualijas spręsti, postdemokratija nereiškia demokratijos pasitraukimo.Autorius visais galimais būdais ieško argumentų tęsti demokratijos istoriją prodemokratinės postdemokratijos formomis, drauge kritikuoja plintančius "mažesnius" reikalavimus būsimai neodemokratijai. Atskiras dėmesys skiriamas pastangoms tobulinti politinį procesą, neignoruojant demokratizacijos ir dedemokratizacijos procesų vienalaikiškumo, vienakryptiškumo ir vienamatiškumo atvejų, t. y. atskirų dedemokratizacijos procesų, tiesiogiai dar nereiškiančių autokratizacijos. Pabrėžiama, kad postdemokratinė situacija yra tokia, kad neaišku, koks demokratizacijos ir dedemokratizacijos procesų derinys tinkamiausias tobulinant politinį valdymą, sprendžiant gerovės ir saugumo problemas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Demokratijos krizė; Demokratijos ribos; Demokratijos sugrėsminimas; Neoliberalizmas; Postdemokratija; Demokratizacijos ir dedemokratizacijos ryšys; Socialinė nelygybė; Valstybės ir visuomenės atotrūkis; Crisis of democracy; Limits of democracy,; Securitization of democracy; Neoliberalism; Post-democracy; Nexus between democratization and dedemocratization; Social inequality; Break of state and society.

ENThe study is based on the idea that post-democracy is a temporary structure: it is no longer the 20th century democracy, however, not yet a new form of democracy. The latter is not self-evident, since the transformation of democracy is accompanied by the growing authoritarianisation of politics and other areas of life. Advocates of democracy are faced with a problem of combatting de-democratisation and establishing democratisation - popular sovereignty and the participation of all social categories in public affairs - in a new form. No one knows what mechanisms for the implementation of the principles of democracy are going to be in the future. A possibility of a bifurcation point in the development of democracy cannot be ruled out in advance, when it is not clear what direction the present democracies will take and when none of the alternatives seems convincing. However, it is clear that democracy is presently in crisis, and that is also due to the fact that it did not evaluate its opportunities/boundaries at the turn of the 21 st century. That is a study not about a "consistent" democratisation or a "non-consistent" dedemocratisation, but rather about the probability of new versions of democracy in the postdemocracy period. Author discuss correliations between the crisis and limits of democracy, especially in recent decades. Liberal democracy and a neo-liberal economy, as they were known in the 20th century, experience a systemic crisis with the signs of irreversibility. In the context of the neo-liberal "revoliution" autor draw a distinction between democracy and neo-liberalizm. The content of the current unique situation is created by the historical coincidence of the post-communist and post-liberal transfromations. Such a coincidence seems to be rather accidental, however, its significance for the further development of the world is crucial.It ascertains mass absenteeism and the related symptoms of the crisis of democracy and characterises the possibilities and limits of participation not only in the stage of politics, but also in that stage of policy. Democracy is meant to invite citizens to participate in public affairs. But what happens if citizens see the most tangible public affairs vanich from the agenda of their municipalities and being transferred to privatesector companies? Citizens may express their frustration by shrugging their shoulders on democracy. Political participation is crucial from several view points. Democratic political process is impossible without the participation of the majority of society in politics. Everything else is a cover for non-democracy, such as the justification of the "autonomy" of the ruling minority by the political ignorance of the "grassroots" accounting for the majority of the society. The second reason for the participation being crucial is the possibility of the crowd and the ensuing populism; democracy promotes such political participation that later it loses control of it. Integral part of welfare and democracy securisation is the recognition of the lack of internal social security: the growing social inequality, depair and the extent of poverty, as well as the formation of the risk "classes", pose a threat of a difficult to predict conflict. The precariatisation is under way, with its specific part of young people, culturally equipped, yet living in economic deprivation. In the present study, post-democracy is defined as simultaneous, one-directed and one-dimensional process the democratization and de-democratization. Meanwhile, draw distinction between democratization and de-democratization.Three forms of postdemocracy are identified: (1) pro-democratic, or continuing the story of democracy (one of its versions is democracy without the majority, and another, democracy with the majority of society formed not merely through elections); (2) anocratyc, or indifferent to the principle of majority and political pluralism; and (3) anti-democratic and denying the principle of majority and political pluralism. The paper was written in search for the prospect of prodemocratic post-democracy in all possible contexts. What presently impedes it? In the nearest future, prodemocratic post-democracy, as the ability of the ruling minority under mass absenteeism and generally critically low political participation to rule democratically, and possibly even better that the democratic majority could do that, is impossible due to the absence of professionalism of the ruling "class" and political corruption. The current stronger approval of political democracy by the ruling, as compared with the ruled ones, is to be related not so much to the self-control of the former as to their efforts to safely interchange in the power positions. Impediments can be also seen in the version of the prodemocratic post-democracy which is related to the majority formation not in the politics, but in the policy, and primarily due to the de-politicised civil society and the lack of sub-politics. [...]. [From the publication]