Professor, Phd, Miodrag Labovic, Faculty of Security-Skopje

ISBN 327:321.7]: 327.36

Professor, PhD, Miodrag Labovic, Faculty of security-Skopje,

THE PARADOX OF DEMOCRACY IN CONTEMPORARY GLOBALIZED SOCIETIES AND ITS IPMACT ON INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY

ABSTRACT

Democracy in this paper will be considered through the prism of its multidimensional nature of deep internal contradictions immanent for its contradictory being, on the one hand as a value and system for performance, protection and development of fundamental rights and freedoms and on the other hand, as a method and decision-making procedure in the society at different levels in vertical and horizontal line, or as a form of political organization of society. In its original sense, according the etymological genesis of the word, democracy literally means practicing power by the majority of the people. In this sense, democracy is historically achieved only in the ancient city (polis) Athens.Since then, democracy in various modified versions, according to the different understandings of it, appears through the historical development of society. The paper will be made efforts to give a kind of archetypal contribution to this topic by analyzing the issues discussed at least five levels: what is the paradox of democracy; Is democracy possible in its original sense in today's development of society; why almost all states today regardless of their ideological and political orientation, under which their social orders are founded, each of them want to be labeled as democratic; if democracy is today more a farce than reality and which are the basic postulates and mechanisms on which today operate modern globalized societies; what is the role of globalization on the development of modern democratic processes and trends; what is the reflection of democracy toward multidimensional phenomenon of international and national security, considered in all its dimensions, beyond the traditional understandings of security, exclusively conceptualized in terms of military threats and risks and other traditional security threats and risks, such as crime in all its forms and types of a conventional and unconventional nature, including terrorism.

For the answer to all these open questions of exceptional importance for the modern world in which we live, the historical overview of the development of democracy in this paper will be noted in minimum extent necessary in order to connect the past, present and future. Greater emphasis in the paper the author tries to put in the context of real-descriptive, theoretically-critical and theoretically-interpretative function of science, but more in the context of theoretically-explicative, practically-applicative and normatively-prescriptive s function and aims of science, not only in describing subject matter, but also in the explanation of contemporary phenomena, relationships and processes associated with the respected issues. At the same time the author of this paper will try to offer his visions and proposal-concepts to mitigate and eventually overcome the unfavorable trends tendencies in terms of democratic processes in the contemporary globalized societies.

Keywords: democracy, globalization, international political relations, international and national security

INTRODUCTION

Since antiquity, the ancient city-state of Athens, when there had been practiced direct forms of democratic decision-making bythe free citizens, democracy, have not been realized in its original sense of direct democracy or in its classical notion - rule of the majority of people, until today. From this statement, certainly could be exclude exceptions to the application of direct forms of democratic decision-making in recent years, such as the referendum, even here could be defined and direct, secret and general elections to public representatives in parliaments, local government, presidents of states and other form of decisions of the people, who have plebiscite character. Of course, another question is : whether direct, secret and general elections, one of most immanent characteristics of democracy, which may pass even without any irregularities on the day of the vote, always free and fair elections. These are just a small part of the problems that more or less appear in different ways in the various modern societies. From these and the many other questions can arise much more and a lot of these sub-issues. In this paper the author will try to keep these questions in the form of questions given in the abstract of this paper. But before that, efforts will be made toward contribution to the explanation of paradox of democracy expressed in her deeply contradictory being in the historical development of society. Namely, though, democracy has been developed differently in various stages or different socio-economic and historical formations of social development, in various models and various modified forms of these models, more or less typical of the various societies in specific historical periods, however, remain common features, which make the metaphysical core of democracy across the entire social and historical development. There has been wide-known maxim in literature that democracy is not the best form of political organization, but, there has not been found better, so far.

A summary ofthe main pointsof the variousmodelsof democracythroughthe historical development ofdemocraticthought

Funeral speech of Pericles, who published Thucydides, can draw some basic premises of classical Athens democracy, which in later years would no longer be able to meet in the original sense: All free citizens had participated in creating a common life. Irrespective of the status or wealth, demos had had sovereign power for actively participating in decision-making on legislative and judicial duties. City Hall had had a sovereign government. There had been several methods for the selection of candidates for public office: direct elections, lot, rotation and short terms. A same person can not perform the same position more than double , except for military positions. The public servants had gotten adequate compensation for performing a public service. There had not been differences in privileges among ordinary citizens and public servants. General social conditions had been: small city-states, which mostly dealt with agriculture. The economy was based upon the labor of slaves, as free citizens enabled leisure. The free citizens had had Additional free time for public obligations because they had not had homework to which were bound women.[1]

Despite Aristotle, one of the most critical of Athenian democracy was Plato. How far were the views of Plato and how to anticipate today's conditions of democracy, following best illustrate his allegations, that because of the ferocity of their real authentic power will quote in the text. Namely, Plato believed that political control must be in the hands of the minority. Known Plato's division of four constitutional forms of government, oligarchy (rule by the aristocracy); timocracy (rule by the rich); democracy (rule by the people); and tyranny (rule oby a single dictator); Plato, though criticized all four types of rule, he watched with particular disdain for democracy, which "has the treated all people equally, regardless of whether they really are equal or not ... According to Plato, that is why people their behavior guided by instincts, feelings and prejudices. The only leaders who admired the people who know how to flatter politicians-especially if they prove themselves as friends of the people. In a democracy, there can be no proper leadership because leaders depend on the will of the people and hence they act in a direction that will allow them to maintain their popularity and their positions. Careful estimates, responsible decisions, unfavorable choices and unpleasant truths in the democracy will inevitably be avoided. Democracy marginalizes wise. All those involved in political life claiming to represent the interests of the community, but in fact, they represent only their own selfish interests and greed for power acquisition".[2]

Plato main thesis is that the world's problems can not be solved while in the government does not come philosophers, because only they, who are educated and trained have the ability to harmonize all the elements of life in accordance with the rule of wisdom. The views presented in the "State", Plato later changed in his works "Statesman" and "Laws." Thus, in these his views later he allowed the possibility that the real state apart from ideal, justice could not sustain without some form of consent of the people. In fact, Plato advocated the idea of ​​a mixed state, which combined elements of monarchy and democracy. He anticipates later views of Aristotle, a Republican from the Renaissance period, and the proportional voting represented in the works of liberal thinkers such as John Stuart Mill.

The classic model of democracy after the collapse of the Athenian city-state, disappears from European political thought, until his reinstatement as ideologically inspired the Renaissance period in Italy and the emergence of a new middle class, to which is needed a new political frame: protective and developmental republicanism in the Italian city-states. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), is considered as a first theorist of the modern state. He tries to find the balance between state and citizenry. Studying history he came to the realization that the main forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy essentially unstable and tend to degeneration and corruption. Machiavelli believed that after initial positive development, the monarchy shows a tendency toward tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy and democracy to anarchy, after which comes to re-coup to the monarchy. Machiavelli continues the historical continuum of anthropological pessimism about human nature, which has its roots in Plato, followedfurther byothermost importantpoliticalthinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Hegel, Weber, up to Hayek. Otherwise, he advocated the theory of mixed government, which can compensate for the shortcomings of all other constitutional forms and balance the competing interests of rich and poor. Machiavelli's argument is not only due to the historical events, especially the mixed power of Rome, which for him constituted the most exemplary, but also his original reasoning that in a some way it anticipated the subsequent learning of the separation of power. Similarly ancient democrats and republican thinkers such Marsilij from Padua and Machiavelli believed that in the process of governance should be included artisans and small traders. Foreigners, employees, servants and all other dependent groups, such as women and children are considered to have no interest in public affairs.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) is one of the most influential theorists of democracy. His thesis on "absolute" democracy, where the will of the majority should unconditionally accept all citizens due to reasonable cause of the common good, that should be achieved through education, in fact, represent the most radical ideas of democracy. He is the most important representatives of the development republicanism. His ideas will make an impact during the French bourgeois revolution and the Marxist democratic tradition. Inspired by his native city-republic of Geneva, Rousseau designed the ideal conditions for the development of his republican conception of democracy, for which he was aware that he would never meet in the new world that was born in front of his eyes. Namely, it creates insuperable gap, emphasizing the sovereignty of the people which threatens the sovereignty of the individual. However, in his most famous work "The Social Contract" Rousseau explains enlightening mission of the social contract between the people and the government or ruler. His conception of autonomy is often interpreted as a position contrary to the liberal democratic tradition and its democratic model failed to anticipate conditions which were created in a new world of industrial revolution and the massive nation-states. However, the pattern of development republicanism, which in its center has moral of the Republican traditionalism and autonomy of sovereign popular will, left a lasting inspiration for the later models of democracy.

The beginnings of liberal democracy are found in the book "Leviathan" (1651) by Thomas Hobbes, who believed that man has a continuous tendency for power, that only death can break. Such a natural state, "war of all against all", he tries to overcome through the liberal principles of consent and agreement to transfer the rights of individuals to the almighty sovereign, which would unite all the individuals through whom they will rule. Hobbes thought shows anti-liberal tendencies, because it turns out that Hobbes, in fact, had not asked for individuals to sign a contract, but to learn their reasonable obligations that would follow if we assume that such an agreement was signed in favor of the all-powerful sovereign.

And John Locke like Hobbes tried to find legitimate form of government that will ensure security, peace and freedom in order to overcome the conditions of pre-political natural state. However, John Locke rejected the idea of ​​Hobbes for transferring rights in the hands of an all-powerful authority that will have unlimited sovereignty. The work of Locke radically broken that idea with conceiving the main postulate of European liberal representative democracy - meaning and purpose of existence of government is to ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens, who are the best evaluators of what is best for their own interests. Although, they are given in rudimentary forms, Locke`s understanding of key aspects of democracy anticipate trends in the later development of liberal democratic tradition.[3]

If Locke laid the principles of liberal representative democracy, to Charles Louis De Seconda Baron De Montesquieucan freely say that laid the foundations of the reformed institutional representative government. In his work "In the spirit of the laws" (1748), he suggests that every person involved in government is inclined towards its misuse, as well as the propensity to enjoy power as long as possible. In order to prevent this situation Montesquieu thinks that authorities must be constrain by other authorities. Bridging the republican and liberal traditions of self-interest and the public good, Montesquieu more clearly than Machiavelli and Locke, who also spoke of a mixed government, expressed the need for separation of powers and the distinction between legislative, executive and judicial power. He thought that the state must be organized in that way, so that it will balanced represent and protect the interests of the monarchy, the aristocracy and the people. However, Montesquieu unlike Locke not envisaged the possibility that if the citizens are dissatisfied with the government to change its form. Montesquieu considered a small number of people-voters of that legislation was not responsible, and the monarch should have had the right to cancel the legislature. In his work pervades thinking that the governed accountable to the rule, not vice versa.

One of the key creators of the American Constitution James Madison in his political philosophy and emphasis on factions in democracy, presented too strong views that are in line with the historical continuum of anthropological pessimism and limited intellectual potential of the human beings for democracy. Madison says that the diversity in capacities and skills, propensity to wrong judgment and premature conclusions, connectivity with different leaders, passion for a wide range of different interests, all that creates insurmountable problems in the uniform interpretation of the priorities and interests. Self-love and reason go together. They have proportionally impact on effects between rationality and passion, continues Madison.

Jeremy Bentham and James Mill were ready to debate the justification of democracy. However, it have been thought that the son of James Mill, John Stuart Mill, significantly determined the direction of modern liberal democratic thought. In his most famous work "On Liberty," Mill elaborates principle that should be set the limits of authority for use of force against the individual. Thus, according to him, the only reason that fairly force can be used by the government against the individual, against his will, is preventing such an individual to injuries other individuals.[4]

The theory of liberal representative democracy exceeds practical limits, that massive nation states with large citizenship and a large territory impose on the democratic idea as a viable and sustainable large territories and in large time intervals. However, it should be noted that a representative liberal democracy, its contemporary characteristics received in the second half of the 20th century, when it was established in the West and promoted as desirable paradigm for the rest of the world. It happened when adults have received equal right of vote, without distinction as to race, sex, religion, class etc. Otherwise, in its essence, representative liberal democracy implies elected government, free and fair elections in which each citizen's vote has equal weight, broadly defined framework of human rights and freedoms, the right of citizens to resist the government or be potential participants in it, and autonomy of association in NGOs, social movements, interest groups, political parties and similar.