Gerovės saugumizavimas postdemokratijos kontekste

LTTyrime nagrinėjamos gerovės valstybės problemos legitimuojant liberalią demokratiją, remiantis saugumizavimo politikos logika. Postdemokratija - liberali demokratija legitimavimo krizės situacijoje globalaus (hiper)pliuralizmo kontekstuose. Aptariama saugumizavimo sampratos kaita, sudariusi prielaidas individualios ir kolektyvinės gerovės grėsmių ir saugumo konstravimo studijose remtis istoriniu, kultūriniu ir socialiniu kontekstais. Saugumizavimo turinį siekiama atriboti nuo galios diskursų, saugumizavimo studijas - nuo valdžios elitų formuojamos politinės darbotvarkės. Gerovės valstybės vaizdinių konkretizavimas XX a. vidurio liberaliose demokratijose atliko reikšmingą normatyvinio legitimavimo funkciją. Efektyviai veikiančios gerovės valstybės švelnino socialinės ir ekonominės nelygybės padarinius visuomenėse. XXI a. vyksta nuolatinis gerovės valstybės problemų perkėlimas iš politizuotos į saugumizuojančią politinės darbotvarkės formavimo stadiją. Tyrime konstatuojama, kad postdemokratinėje liberalios demokratijos raidos stadijoje saugumizuojančių veikėjų laukas, palyginus su tradicinės demokratijos laikotarpiu, gerokai prasiplečia. "Grėsmių slenkstį" nubrėžia ir jų "sąrašą" sudarinėja ne tik valstybių vardu veikiantys oficialūs asmenys ar viešajame diskurse įtakingi profesionalūs ekspertai. Gerovės valstybių kūrimo iššūkiai ir padažnėjusios neoliberalaus globalios demokratijos projekto nesėkmės implikuoja vidinio ir tarptautinio saugumo rekonceptualizacijos poreikį. Skirtingus gerovės valstybės tipus reprezentuojančiuose diskursuose stiprėjanti politikos saugumizavimo tendencija gilina liberalios demokratijos legitimavimo krizę.XXI a. gerovės valstybės diskursuose libertarų individualistinei, procedūriniu teisingumu legitimuojamai demokratijai oponuoja du idėjinėmis ir metodologinėmis ištakomis priešingi, bet valstybės ir visuomenės politinės raidos vektoriais suartėjantys metadiskursai: 1) demokratiją transformuojantis liberalios tradicijos "viduje" (Johnas Rawlsas (John Rawls), egalitarai, socialinis liberalizmas); 2) liberalizmui atvirai oponuojantis, jos tradicijai "išoriškas" (komunitarizmas, respublikonizmas, multikultūralizmas, feminizmas). Atsiranda daugiau erdvės ir refleksyviųjų galių konstruoti adekvatesnius gerovės valstybių / visuomenių modelius ir siekti jų politinio įgyvendinimo. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Gerovės valstybė; Saugumizavimas; Demokratijos legitimumas; Paskirstomasis teisingumas; Welfare state; Securitization; Legitimacy of democracy; Distributive justice.

ENThe issues of threats and security have recently moved to the centre of attention of researchers interested in the problems of the welfare state development. The purpose of the present paper is to reveal the implication of the problems of the welfare state in the legitimacy of liberal democracy. The theoretical assumption of the paper: the significant role in strengthening the potential of the normative legitimacy of democracy was played not only by the images of the social welfare of the opponents of liberalism but also by the trend of socialization of liberalism developed by J. Rawls in a Theory of Justice. Securitization was understood by the representatives of the Copenhagen School as the ability of securitization actors (governments, political leaders) to present a certain problem (a referent object) in the public discourse as posing an existential threat to the nation, society, its significant groups, and the state. The authors viewed securitization critically: there they saw the application of military logic by abandoning normal politics, methods, and principles. They described desecuritization as a choice of normal long-term politics. Taking into account the growing interdependence of states, closer interplay between the studies on internal and external security and, at the same time, the broader field of research on security, researchers have supplemented the concept of securitization with new elements from other social sciences. Critics of the Copenhagen theory of securitization suggested to expand the conception of threats and the "list" of sources of security discourse by drawing attention to social, political, and historical contexts in which certain security discourses become possible by including cultural identity, historical narrative, ant the imperatives of human rights and social justice.The idea of the welfare state and its concretisation in liberal democracies of the 20th century played a significant function of normative legitimation. Effective welfare states had to mitigate the consequences of social and economic inequality in societies. In spite of the Cold War, in stable democratic states, due to sufficiently effective means of social policy, the conditions that would have required the application of political measures of securitization were not formed. The early manifestations of the welfare state and the delegitimation of liberal democracy are recorded in the methodological opposition and ideological debate of the proponents of libertarian liberalism and social liberalism. Different conceptions have collided: the individual, the citizen/consumer, the content of the good and rights, the functions, scope and extent of democratic politics and democratic state in defending the essential interests of a citizen. Under the conditions of global hyperpluralism, the problems of the welfare state have gradually shifted from the stage of politicized to a stage of "securitizing" political agenda. A latent value conflict of post-democracy, which had resided within the liberal democratic camp, due to dominant universal discourse of securitization with many securitization actors, disclose different thresholds of threat. Therefore, the subjectively perceived welfare falls into a situation of constant danger forcing: 1) the troubled citizens to seek for protection in a patronising state, to protect the general democratic will from the egoistic individualism destroying community and citizenship; 2) the worried defenders of the individual freedom, who perceive that the greatest threat to the thorough development of a personality is in a heavy bureaucratic welfare state, to protect liberal values from the excess of democracy.The individualist neoliberal democracy, legitimized by procedural justice in the welfare state/society discourses of the 21st century is transformed into two overlapping narratives of different origins: 1) the "inside" narratives of liberal tradition of democracy (J. Rawls, egalitarians, social liberalism); 2) narratives "external" and openly opposed to liberal tradition (communitarianism, multiculturalism, feminism). The overlapping points of these narratives: normative democratic models are additionally legitimized by socially distributed and subjective justice and give impulses for post-societies to construct adequate welfare states/societies and to realize them politically. In this way, the pursued liberal democracy gains wider and deeper social and empirical legitimacy. [From the publication]