Е Е Ш

Е

Д и р ти т риј р тиј

( а а )

: а и а :

ф. а и а а ић а и а ић

ј и а: 050/14

и , 2016. и

J

2

I 5

1. 5

2. 6

3. 8

II 9

1.

10

2. 12

3. 15

III 16

1. ђ 17

2. - 21

3. 24

IV 25

V 31

1. 31

2. 38

VI 40

43

45

47

2

ao e .

.

.

, ђ ,

, ,

.

ђ .

,

.

.

, .

, ,

.

,

,

.

.

.

.

3

.

,

, –

, , .

-

:

, ,

.

, .

, ,

,

.

,

.

.

.

.

: ,

,

, ; ,

, ,

; ,

,

.

4

, .

.

,

.

-

.

- -

,

- .

,

.

. : ,

,

, ; ,

, ,

; ,

,

.

5

I

, .

XX ,

50- XX .

: ,

,

( , 2008, 218). ,

.

.

.

,

.

, -

.

1.

50- XX

.

Ј (Schumpeter J.) ,

.

, ,

.

ђ ,

, , „

“ (Schumpeter, 1976). Ј

6

ђ ,

ђ .

“ ”,

“ ” .

.

ђ ђ

( ). ,

, , “ ђ

, ђ

” (Schumpeter,

1994. 269). ђ „ ,

“ Ј

,

,

(Ј , 2012. 29).

„

ђ

“ (Dahl, 1956). ,

. ђ

,

ђ .

ђ , ,

( , 2008, 219).

2.

ђ 50- XX

(Wiliam H. Riker) „

“

7

(Ј , 30). Д ш

1951.

80- ,

.

.

.

, ( ,

2008, 222). :

.

, .

,

,

,

(Ј , 2012, 31).

,

, ,

( , 2008, 226). 18.

,

. ( )

.

.

( )

(Ј , 2012, 32).

8

3.

(B. Constant)

, , ђ

, .

.

(Ј , 2012, 27)..

1970. ц ц ј

ј (C. Pateman),

50- 60-

XX . Њ

ђ .

,

ђ ђ .

,

, , ,

.

.

.

,

ђ ( , 2008, 226,237).

,

90- XX ,

. џ (I. BКНРО) je

.

9

, ђ ђ

.

II

( 2008, 217).

,

, ,

( )

,

ђ .

( )

, .

?

ђ

,

ђ

,

.

, . Њ

ђ

, . ђ ,

, .

,

ђ ,

10

. ,

(Ј 2012, 33,35).

. , 80- XX-

.

, ђ , ,

,

.

ђ , (J. Cohen).

, , .

. , , ,

,

(Cohen 1989).

ђ .

,

. (

2008).

1.

. ђ

, ,

.

, ,

- 1 .

, ,

1

, , 2012. Ф ј ш XXII str 147

11

, .

. ђ

( ),

,

. Erou

.

. Erou , ,

, . Erouova ћ ш .

.

. ,

, ђ

, , .

. ,

.

.

.

Ј

. » ,

. 40

40

. ,

, 320 .

.

. ,

, . 2

2

(2008), « » 139-140 (III –IV)

12

.

,

.

.

,

.

.3

, .

,

.

.

ђ

,

, Cohen.

,

.

ђ

.4

2.

ђ

.

, ,

.

3

, , 2012. Ф ј ш XXII str 147

4

, , 2012. Ф ј ш XXII str 163

13

.

(John Rawls) (Jurgen Habermas)

20.

.

. ј , ,

.

:

.

, , ,

, .

.

.

.

« » 5 ђ

.

-

.

.

,

.

6 : ,

. ,

,

5

Ј , – (2012), THEORIA 2,21/52, 38.

6 IЛТН, .39

14

. ,

, ђ ђ ( ђ ).

(Joshua Cohen), „

“

7

. ,

ђ ,

. .

.

: 8 :

. : ђ

.

: . :

, ђ

. :

.

.

,

.

, ђ ,

, , ,

, ђ .

,

7

Ј , – (2012), THEORIA 2,21/52, 39.

8 IЛТН, .40

15

,

.

3.

ђ , ђ

,

, .

(AЧв GutЦКЧ КЧН DОЧЧТs TСШЦpsШЧ)

, , ,

. .

.

ђ ,

, , ђ

. ,

, , ,

. ,

,

. Ј

ђ ,

- , .

« »,

,

.9

ђ

. ђ ,

. ђ

,

,

9

Ј , – (2012), THEORIA 2,21/52, 44

16

ђ . Ј

.

. .

“

“ ђ .

ђ

. ,

.

III

, , ,

,

.

.

( )

. ђ

,

.

ђ

ђ . 10

,

.

. Ј

10

, , , , Ф ј ш XXII 20

17

. ђ

,

, ђ .

, . Ј ђ

, .

1. ђ

ђ .

ђ ,

. ђ

, ђ .

ђ 11

.

, , ,

.

ђ ђ

. ђ ђ

, ,

.

ђ JurРОЧ HКЛОrЦКs ђ

.

ђ , ,

ђ , .

ђ

.

ђ ђ

. ђ

, ђ

11 Jurg Steiner , ј , 2015.

18

, ђ ђ

, .

Ј

, , , ,

.

ђ

, , , . ђ

, , ,

, .

ђ . ђ

ђ , .

, ђ .

ђ

.

ђ ђ

.

MКrТУК CХКrК JКrКЦТХХШ JuКЧ UРКrrТгК

342 28 .

.

.

:

1. ђ ,

34%

30%

3 10 28%

11 20 7%

21 30 1%

100%

19

, .

34%

ђ ,

, . ђ

.

ђ

ђ ,

ђ . Simona Mineli

40 , 22 18 .

„ “,

Nansen

ђ .

2. ђ ,

18%

7%

3 10 18%

11 20 23%

21 30 15%

31 40 10%

41 50 7%

51 2%

100%

, .

, 6% .

ђ

, ,

. DТНТОr CКХuаКОrts

20

, ,

. 90

, .

: ђ ?

3. ђ ,

0%

2%

3 10 24%

11 20 35%

21 30 28%

31 40 6%

41 5%

100%

,

, .

,

,

,

.

ђ ђ ,

EurШpШХТs

, Pierangelo Isernia .

2009. 348

, 27 . 25

, , .

, ,

. ,

, ,

21

, ,

.12

2. -

- , ,

,

ђ .

, - :

ђ , ,

. 13 ђ ,

: ,

ђ ,

,

, ђ ђ

.

ђ 70- ,

Ned Crosby. ђ 12 24 ,

. ђ

, ,

, ,

. Ј ђ ђ ,

2003. .14

ђ

, ,

, . ђ

12 Jurg Steiner , ј , 2015.

13 Graham Smith, Deliberartive democracy and mini/putliks, PШХТtТčФК ЦТsКШ, 2008.

14 Ibid, 28.

22

ђ .

25 , ,

500 ђ .

. ,

. ,

.

( )

,

.15

. ђ

. ђ

ђ ,

ђ

. ђ ,

, ,

.16

James Fishin

. ђ - ,

, 459 .

,

, , .

,

, .

,

,

.

15 Ibid str. 29.

16 ibid str. 29.

23

ђ ,

.

ђ - 2004.

ђ

ђ . ђ

, ,

. 160

ђ ,

.

, .

ђ

.

3.

, ђ

. ђ

ђ

.

ђ

. ђ .

ђ

. -

, 20 17,

.

, ђ

, , ,

, .

24

ђ

ђ .

ђ

ђ

. ђ ђ

, . ђ

, .

,

ђ ,

,

.

.

,

. ђ ,

.

ђ . -

ђ ,

. -

ђ ,

, ђ

,

. ђ

ђ .

-

ђ ђ

, ђ ђ .

.

- , :

- ,

25

, ,

, .

,

. ШЧХТЧО

, ђ

. ђ ШЧХТЧО

,

.

ШЧХТЧО .

IV

, ,

,

.

,

, ,

.

,

. ,

, Ј (Jurg Steiner)

Shapel Hilu.

ђ

26

, , .

( 2015 ).

ђ .

ђ

. - , ђ ,

, . ђ

,

,

.

Ј ђ

.

ђ

ђ .17

2007. . 69. «

».18

ђ

.

ђ .

. Rodolfa Lewanskog

ђ 2.138.775 ,

31.453 .

, .

,

17 Jurg Steiner , ј , 2015. . 38

18

www. consiglio.regione.toscana.it/partecipazione.

27

ђ . 2008.

. ђ .

.

. ђ ,

ђ ђ .

.

.

ђ .

ђ .

2008.

ђ ђ

ђ ,

.

.

ђ ,

.

ђ

, 8. 2007.

.19 ,

, , .

Gerald Bouchard Charles Taylor.

ђ

.

.20

19 Jurg Steiner , ј , 2015. . 248

20 Gerald Bouchard and Charles Taylor (commission co shairs) Building the FutureA. Time for Reconciliation, CШЦЦТssТШЧ

on Acommodation, Bibliotteqe et Archives Nationales du Qvebek.

28

,

џ .

22

16 . 900 ,

400.000 . ђ

.

350 ,

.

ђ

. 1.000 ђ

.21 G1000 1. 2011.

. ,

.

Didier Caluwaerts. 22

Facebook, Twiter .23 1000

704 ђ , 200 ђ

500 ђ online.

ђ : ,

.

ђ .

Ј ђ 2009.

ђ . 24 ђ

ђ

21 Jurg Steiner , ј , 2015. .250

22

www.newdemocracy.com

23

www.g1000.org.

24

www.newdemocracy.com

29

ђ . 150 ђ

online. ђ

The Australian Citizens Parlament and the Future of

deliberative Demokracy.

ђ .

Baogang He i Mark Waren

,

ђ ,

, , . 25

ђ

.

.26

ђ

. ђ

ђ ,

.

ђ

,

,

25 Jurg Steiner , ј , 2015. .251

26 Baogang He and Mark Waren Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinexe Politikal Development, Perspective on Politics

2011. str. 269-289

30

ђ . Ј

.27

1. .

.

2. ,

,

.

.

3.

. .

4. , ,

, , .

5. ,

.

: , ,

.

.

6. ђ .

, . ,

,

. ,

,

:

, .

7. ,

. ђ

, :

, . ,

,

.

27 Ibid str, 252,

31

8.

. , .

.

9. ђ

.

ђ .

. ,

ђ .

10. ,

ђ . - ,

, ђ

. , ,

, , .

, - .

, online ђ

.“

V

1.

, .

ђ ,

, . ђ

,

. ђ

– , ,

, ,

, ,

32

. ђ

.

ђ :28

- ђ , .

- , , ђ ,

ђ .

- , ,

- , , , 30.000 .

- ђ .

- 100.000 ,

.

ђa . ,

. , , :

1) ;

2) ;

3) ;

4) ;

28

. 98/06

33

5) ђ ;

6) ;

7) ђ ;

8) ;

9) ;

10) ;

11) ;

12) , .

ђ

, ђ

.

ђ

ђ ,

, .

1. , ђ .

ђ , ,

ђ , ђ .

ђ ђ , ,

,

, , ђ

34

, ( :

).

ђ

.

ђ

.

,

, .

,

2013. , 25. 2013. ,

.

:29

- ,

- ђ

,

- ,

,

- ђ ђ , ђ ,

29

, , . 30, 1913, .

35

- ђ ,

- ђ ђ ,

- ђ ,

- ђ , ђ ,

- ,

- ђ , ђ ,

- .

,

, :

1) :

ђ , ђ ,

, ,

ђ ,

,

, , ђ ,

,

.

2) ђ ,

, ђ , ђ ђ

.

, :

36

- , ,

ђ

;

- , ђ

, ,

;

- ђ

;

-

;

- ђ

;

- ;

-

;

-

;

- ,

,

, ,

;

- ,

ђ

;

37

- , ( )

, , ,

,

;

- ђ ђ ,

, ђ ђ

,

ђ

;

- ,

ђ ;

-

, ;

- ђ

,

ђ ђ ;

- " " , 8

,

, ђ ;

- ,

;

- ,

;

- , ;

38

- ,

ђ , ;

- ђ ;

- ,

, ђ ђ

;

- ђ

, ђ .

2.

ђ ђ , ,

,

.

„ “ 90- ,

.

2000.

.

.

.

« », ђ

. ,

,

ђ , ,

.

39

,

,

. ,

„ “ , , .

.

,

. ,

.

, .

ђ

, ,

.

2014. ,

ђ , ђ

, .

, , .

,

.

Ј , Ј ,

, „ “,

, ,

48 . ,

.

.

40

, .

, ,

.

ђ

„ “,“ “, ,

ђ ,

, .

.

.

-

,

,

,

, , , .

( . . 36/2015) ,

.

VI

, ,

. ,

ђ ,

,

41

, ђ

.

ђ ,

.

. ,

.

,

ђ ,

.

.

.

,

.

ђ , ђ ,

, , .

, ,

.

, ђ

, , ђ

.

. , ,

.

, .

,

42

.

, , , ,

. ђ

ђ

ђ .

ђ .

, , ђ

, , .

ђ ,

.

ђ –

, , ,

, ,

, ,

ђ ,

. ђ

,

,

ђ .

,

.

43

1. , . (2014). ђ .

, . 68. . 861-887.

2. . (1982) , ,

.

3. Steiner J, (2015) ,

4. , . (2012) .

, .

5. , . (2006) ,

.

6. Ј . (2012) - THEORIA 2,

. 55

7. Fiskhin S. J. (2008) O :

, 3-4

8. . (2008) , . 1

9. . (2012) ,

1.

10. Ј . . (2012) ,

, . 2

11. Rucht D. (2008) ,

, 3-4

12. Schafer W. R. (2004) Jurgen Hfabermas

13. (2011) :

,

14. Benhabib S. (2007) ,

15. Smith G. (2008) ,

3-4

44

16. . (2012) ,

, 2.

17. Habermas J.

18. . (2011) ,

19. Sovdad I. (2008) Deliberativna demokracija kot kritika liberalne demokracije, Univerza u

Ljubljani

20. , . 98/06

21. , .09/10

22. ,

. 48/ 94 11/98,

23. ,

, . 30, 1913, .

24. www.parlament.gov.rs

25. www. consiglio.regione.toscana.it./partecipazione

26. www.g1000.org.

27. www.newdemocracy.com

45

:

,

, .

. ,

.

.

, ђ

.

, ђ ђ ,

, .

, КН СШМ,

.

- .

ђ ,

. ђ

.

, , ђ

.

: , , - ,

, ,

46

Deliberative democracy theory

Abstract: The purpose of this research is to show the meaning and significance of the

deliberative democracy theory, possibilities of applying it in a real political life and problems of

its practical application in Serbia and worldwide. The first part of the paper presents general

theoretic principles of the deliberative democracy theory and its part in the modern democracy

theory. It is one of the newer, more contemporary theories of democracy created in the mid

nineties of the past century. In the past twenty years, more and more serious practical and

empiric researches are taking place in the field of the deliberative democracy theory. The basic

principle of the deliberative democracy theory is that the process of democratic volition is carried

out by individuals who participate in making decisions that concern themselves as free and equal

citizens rather than just by achieving most of the elections through aggregation of voters

preferences. Deliberation consists of reasoned discussion, where the participants, accepting each

ШtСОr’s different opinions, can change their initial beliefs during the discussion and accept

stronger arguments of the others in order to achieve good for all.

Modern states and modern political systems still do not have a clearly defined

institutional and political apparatus for application of the deliberative way of making decisions,

yet the deliberative discussions are still being held ad hoc, according to the current needs of the

public authorities. For now, deliberative discussions are taking place most successfully in smaller

groups of people or mini-public. There are still some theoretical disagreements among the

theorists, so many of them still consider the deliberative democracy theory to be a theoretical

ideal and a utopian goal. However, regardless of all theoretical and practical controversy caused

by the deliberative democracy theory, it is still the dominant democracy theory and it should not

be abandoned lightly. There is a great need for deliberation in modern societies, especially in the

evaluation phase, because the citizens should participate in making decisions that affect them.

Key words: deliberative democracy, deliberation, mini-public, greater good, deliberation

in practice.

47

ђ 29.06.1964. .

28.10.1989. .

28.10.1996. .

.

. 2001.

. 2000.

, 2004. 2008. .

,

.

48

je ,

:

• ; • , , /

, ; • / , /

.

,

.

:

, 10.10.2016.

______________________________

49

:

:

: .

pНП , / .

, 10.10.2016.

______________________________