Tema broja

OGLEDI I STUDIJE

KRITIKA PROPORCIONALNIH IZBORNIH SISTEMA U DUBOKO PODIJELJENIM DRUŠTVIMA

Sažetak

Rad se bavi teorijskom konceptualizacijom proporcionalnog izbornog sistema stranačkih lista u duboko podijeljenim društvima i kritikom upućenom na njihov račun. U obzir se uzimaju postkonfliktne ili države sklone konfliktu sa naglašenim nacionalnim, etničkim, vjerskim, rasnim ili drugim rascjepima oko kojih se formira polje politike i u kojima se primjenjuje proporcionalni izborni sistem stranačkih lista. Cilj rada je da se izlože argumenti koji idu u prilog kritici proporcionalnih izbornih sistema stranačkih lista i njihovih efekata. Sa obzirom da je izborni sistem jedan od ključnih mehanizama upravljanja konfliktima i postizanja mira i političke stabilnosti, smatra se da proporcionalni izborni sistem doprinosi političkoj stabilnosti jer omogućava predstavljenost društvenih segmenata u parlamentu. Ipak, postoje teoretičari koji sa različitih teorijsko-empirijskih stanovišta kritikuju proporcionalni izborni sistem i smatraju da on još više produbljuje socijalne rascjepe i narušava političku stabilnost.

Ključne reči:

Reference

    1. Бибер, Флоријан: Институционализирање етничности – постигнућа и неуспјеси након ратова у Босни и Херцеговини, на Косову и Македонији, Форум Босна, Сарајево, 2004.
    2. Bogaards, Matthijs: „Electoral choices for divided societies: multi-ethnic parties and constituency pooling in Africa“, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 43:3, pp. 59–80, 2003.
    3. Duverger, Maurice: Political Parties: their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, North, B. and North R., tr. New York: Wiley, Science Ed., 1963.
    4. Horowitz, Donald: Ethnic Groups in Conflict, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1985.
    5. Horowitz, Donald: A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1991.
    6. Horowitz, Donald: „Constitutional Design: Proposals versus Processes“, in: Andrew Reynolds (ed.), Architecture of Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
    7. Lijphart, Arend: Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1977.
    8. Lijphart, Arend: „The Alternative Vote: A Realistic Alternative for South Africa?“, Politikon, 18:2, 91-101, 1991.
    9. Lijphart, Arend: „Constitutional Design for Divided Societies“, Journal of Democracy, 15:2, pp. 96-109, 2004.
    10. McGarry, John: Northern Ireland and the Divided World – The Northern Ireland Conflict and the Good Friday Agreement in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press Inc., New York 2001.
    11. McGarry, John., O’Leary, Brendan: „Consociational Theory, Northern Ireland’s Conflict, and its Agreement. Part 1: What Consociationalists Can Learn from Northern Ireland”, Government and Opposition, Blackwell Publishing, 41, No. 2, pp. 43-63, 2006.
    12. McGarry, John., O’Leary, Brendan, „Consociational Theory, Northern Ireland’s Conflict, and its Agreement 2. What Critics of Consociation Can Learn from Northern Ireland”, Government and Opposition, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 249–277, 2006.
    13. Mozaffar, Shaneen: „Electoral Rules and Post-Civil War Conflict Management: The Limitations of Institutional Design“, in: Matthew Hoddie and Caroline A. Hartzell (eds.), Strenghtening Peace in Post-Civil War States, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2010.
    14. Rabushka, Alvin., Shepsle, Kenneth: Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability, Merrill, Columbus, OH, 1972.
    15. Rae, Douglas: The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1971.
    16. Reilly, Benjamin: Democracy in Divided Societies – Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    17. Reilly, Benjamin, „Electoral Systems for Divided Societies“, Journal of Democracy, 13:2, pp. 156-170, 2002.
    18. Reilly, Benjamin: „Political Engineering and Party Politics in Conflict-Prone Societies“, Democratization, 13:5, pp. 811-827, 2006.
    19. Reynolds, Andrew., Reilly Ben: The International IDEA Handbook for Electoral System Design, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistence, Stockholm, 1997.
    20. Reynolds, Andrew: Electoral Systems and Democratization in Southern Africa, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.
    21. Rokkan, Stein: Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. 1970.
    22. Sartori, Giovanni: „Political Development and Political Engineering“ in:D. Montgomery and A.O. Hirschman (eds.), Public Policy, Vol. XVII, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 261-298, 1968.
    23. Sisk, Timothy: Democratization in South Africa: The Elusive Social Contract, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995.
    24. Tsebelis, George: „Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism“, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, 289-325, 1995.
PERIODIKA Politička revija 4/2015 УДК 342.827.2:316.48 167-183
ç