Scholarly record
WHY DIRECT DEMOCRACY HAS NOT BECAME A MODERN FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
Abstract
An underlying thesis of the issue is defined in the causes of the historical failure of direct democracy and on the causes of the factors responsible for the victory of the principle of representative governance in modern political system. Presented paper is based on author´s attempt to generalize the views of various authors of modern political science and practical political and historical experience. Organizational difficulty, numerousness of political community, economic or financial questions, the need for professional decision-making, cognitive incompetence and emotional acting of masses are the most important arguments against the direct democracy. An original source of the representative government creation is a process of reduction of the political community to a few tens even hundreds of individuals authorized to take decisions on behalf of the whole society realised by elections. The issue of fairness and equality in this case has been suppressed in the background. The constitution provides guarantee of rights and freedoms that citizens can use. The second source is the issue of transformation of rational responsibility of elected representatives to irrational responsibility (towards their own consciousness and conscience). This is related to the alienation of a representative from a voter, what has become an attribute of representative democracy. Another feature of the process of representative democracy establishment is a monosubjectivity of the mediation of representatives. The modern political parties have won a monopoly on representation; original general civic dimension of the representatives was replaced by the personnel policy of political parties. The selection of representatives is not performed by the people – citizens anymore. The sovereignty of the people was reduced to the assent of pre-selection, which was made by the political parties, instead of citizens. The citizen in the period between elections does not have any option to positively, but especially negatively punish the bad conduction of representatives of political parties, which he gave his voice to. The very political freedom is reduced to a few seconds of the electoral act. This also implies to the changes in the principles of the separation of powers. Parliament shall become the sole and supreme legislative body of the politically differentiated society. The creators of the modern political system of liberal-democratic type are decided to connect with each other irreconcilable principles of equality and individual freedom by the creation of representative governance principle.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References15
KOPER, J. (2003). Mechanizmy vzniku moderného politického systému. Bratia Sabovci: Zvolen. ISBN 80.89029-67-1125-3, pp. 44, 2003
HELD, D. (1991). Political Theory Today. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804718989, 9780804718981.,pp.225, 1991
TÓTH, R. (1998a). Koncepcia politického systému. Bratislava: Úrad pre stratégiu rozvoja spoločnosti vedy a techniky Slovenskej republiky. ISBN 80-968077-0-6., pp.21,1998
VASIĽKOVÁ, A., - KOPER. J. (2013). Comparative Politics of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. Professional Publishing: Praha. ISBN 978-80-7431- ,pp7, 2013
DAHL, R. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-04938-2, pp.341, 2013
UHLEROVÁ, 2012. Odbory na Slovensku po roku 1989 v kontexte sociálneho partnerstva. UMB Banská Bystrica, Fakulta politických vied a medzinárondých vzťahov. 2012 Bratia Sabovci. Banská Bystrica. ISBN: 978-80-557-0475-3, pp.42, 2012
KRÁLIK, J. (2010). Procesy a efektivita vo verejnej správe. Fakulta politických vied a medzinárodných vzťahov UMB: Banská Bystrica. ISBN 978-80-557-0106-6, pp. 7. 2010
TÓTH, R. (1996b).Volebné systémy. SAMO (Spoločnosť, armáda, osobnosť).No. 1. p.19. 1996
AZUD, J.; KOPER, J. (1997). Ústavné práva a slobody. SAMO (Spoločnosť, armáda, osobnosť). No. 2. pp. 55, 1997
KULAŠIK, P., TÓTH, R. (1998). Úvod do politológie. Liptovský Mikuláš: Tatra revue. ISBN 80-967988-5-5., pp. 109, 1998
KLUČIAROVSKÝ, M. 2015. Recenzia na knihu: Bariéry a paradoxy demokracie. In Politické vedy. [online]. Roč. 18, č. 1, 2015. ISSN 1335–274,s.190-194. Dostupné na internete:<http://www.politickevedy.fpvmv.umb.sk/userfiles/file/1_2015/KLUCIAROVSKY.pdf>.pp. 193, 2015
KOVÁČOVÁ, E. (2010) Verejná správa na Slovensku. Úloha a postavenie územnej samosprávy. Fakulta politických vied a medzinárodných vzťahov UMB: Banská Bystrica. ISBN 978-80-557-0101-1, pp. 11, 2010
ONDRIA, P. – ŠIMOŇÁK, V. (2011). O práve, štáte a moci. Professional Publishing: Praha. ISBN 978-80-7431-070-6, pp. 108, 2011
KLINČÁKOVÁ, G., Strategické koncepcie demokratického transformačného procesu a atribúty ich efektívnosti, In INTERPOLIS´14, Banská Bystrica UMB, 2014, pp 28.
KOVÁČIK, B. (2009). Moderné teórie demokracie. Kritická analýza vybraných modelov. Fakulta politických vied a medzinárodných vzťahov UMB: Banská Bystrica. ISBN 978-80-8083-846-1,pp. 4, 2009
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.
