scholarly journals The Dayton controversies – public decision-making between parliamentary democracy and partitocracy

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 283-301
Author(s):  
Emir Tahirović ◽  
◽  
Ermin Kuka ◽  

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the pluralization of society and the state began during 1990. This is the time when political parties are formed and the first multi-party parliamentary elections are held. Due to the strong influence and domination of the ethnic principle, political parties were formed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990 in two basic forms: as ethnic or people's (national) parties, and as civic (multiethnic) parties. In almost all election cycles from the beginning of the pluralization of Bosnian society until today, ethnic political parties have won the elections. Ethnic political parties have appropriated a monopoly in the promotion of national interests since the 1990 election campaign, guided by the idea of protecting the national interests of “their“ peoples. The continued rule of ethnic parties without a coalition political agenda and agreement has strengthened ethnic pluralism in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, instead of democratic decision-making and competition between the majority and the opposition, the representative bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina have become an arena and a place of mutual competition and confrontation between the parties that make up the parliamentary majority. The lack of the necessary democratic consensus between the ruling ethnic political parties at the state level was compensated and compensated by the High Representative of the International Community (OHR), who, on the basis of the Bonn powers, promulgated certain laws. Hundreds of laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been promulgated by high representatives. This prevented blockages in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the absence of the necessary consensus of the ruling ethnic parties, it is not possible to develop or strengthen the power of parliaments as the highest representative body of the people and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead of parliamentary democracy, classical partitocracy is at work. The situation is similar at the entity level, and at the cantonal level in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina entity. All this, along with heterogeneous and complicated decision-making procedures and processes, ultimately reflects on the adoption of laws and decisions of importance to society and the state. Complicated forms of decision-making and the existence of a famous mechanism for the protection of vital national interests are some of the obstacles to the development of the state and society. All of these are some of the essential problems, but also the controversies that follow the decision-making processes in the representative bodies in the country. This is especially true of the adoption of important and significant public policies aimed at solving socio-political problems. Only decision-making at the level of local self-government units (municipalities and cities) can serve as a positive example. In general, the local level of government has so far proved to be the most efficient level of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The basis for strengthening the democratic decision-making capacities of the representative bodies of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is contained in the application of the democratic principle on which parliamentary democracy is established and functions. Applying almost all basic and general scientific research methods, as well as the method of analysis (content) of relevant documentation as a method of data acquisition, will identify key problems and controversies of public decision-making and policy making in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the period after the Dayton Peace Agreement. today. A conclusion will be drawn on the need to establish a parliamentary majority based on the coalition agreement and the political program of that coalition, which significantly affects the public decision-making processes and the adoption of the necessary state public policy. Bosnia and Herzegovina is required to reconstruct public decisions in the direction of strengthening state public decisions and policies and building European standards, in order to more efficiently compose them with the requirements and directives of the European Union.

1983 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-87
Author(s):  
S. S. Brand

Private and public decision-making The interaction between the private and public sectors is important in South Africa. Much criticism is expressed by the one sector against the other. This can be partly attributed to an incomplete understanding of the processes of decision-making in the two sectors, and of the differences between them. A comparison is drawn between the most important elements of the decision-making processes in the two sectors. Public decision-making deals mostly with matters concerning the community and the economy as a whole, whereas private decision-making is concerned mostly with parts of the whole. The aims at which decision-making in the two sectors are directed, differ accordingly, as do the perceptions of the respective decision-makers of the environment in which they make decisions. As a consequence, the criteria for the success of a decision also differ substantially between the two sectors. The implications of these differences between private and public decision-making for the approach to inflation and the financing of housing, are dealt with as examples. Finally, differences between the ways in which decisions are implemented in the two sectors, also appear to be an important cause of much of the criticism from the private sector about decision-making in the public sector.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victòria Alsina ◽  
José Luis Martí

Abstract One of the most urgent debates of our time is about the exact role that new technologies can and should play in our societies and particularly in our public decision-making processes. This paper is a first attempt to introduce the idea of CrowdLaw, defined as online public participation leveraging new technologies to tap into diverse sources of information, judgments and expertise at each stage of the law and policymaking cycle to improve the quality as well as the legitimacy of the resulting laws and policies. First, we explain why CrowdLaw differs from many previous forms of political participation. Second,we reproduce and explain the CrowdLaw Manifesto that the rising CrowdLaw community has elaborated to foster such approaches around the world. Lastly, we introduce some preliminary considerations on the notions of justice, legitimacy and quality of lawmaking and public decision-making, which are central to the idea of CrowdLaw.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Trimarchi ◽  
◽  
Federica Antonucci ◽  
Valeria Morea ◽  
◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Pluchinotta ◽  
Akin O. Kazakçi ◽  
Raffaele Giordano ◽  
Alexis Tsoukiàs

Author(s):  
Daniel LÓPEZ RUBIO

LABURPENA: Erreferenduma gai publikoak erabakitzeko bide gisa erabiltzearen aurka egiten den kritika ohikoenetako bat honako hau da: erabakitzeko gabeziak dituela. Erreferendumak soilik balioko luke interesak gehitzeko, hausnarketaz eta elkarrizketaz kezkatu beharrik izan gabe. Artikulu honek zehatz-mehatz aztertzen ditu herri-bozketaren aurreko kanpainan eztabaida-maila arrazoizkoa lortzeko funtsezkoak diren elementu guztiak, hala nola: galdera argia izatea, boto-emaileari informazioa ematea edo baliabide publikoak banatzea tartean dauden alderdien artean. Nazioko eta nazioarteko esperientzietan oinarrituta, tesi hau defendatzen da: horiek guztiak behar bezala arautuz gero erakundeak aurrez aurre dituen gabezietako asko gaindituko lirateke. Azken batean, lan honen bidez frogatu nahi da erreferendumari kritika globalak egitea alperrekoa dela, askoz zentzu handiagoa baitu sistema bakoitzean modu jakin batean diseinatzea. ABSTRACT: One of criticisms usually made against the referendum as a way for citizens to take part in public decision-making processes refers to its deliberative disadvantages. The referendum would be simply an instrument to gather opinions, with no interest in reflection or dialogue processes. This paper thoroughly analyses the key elements to achieve a reasonable level of deliberation in the previous campaign, such as the clarity of the question, the information provided to the voter or the distribution of public resources among the contestants. Considering national and international experiences, the autho supports the idea according to which an appropriate regulation of these key elements would allow us to overcome many of the shortcomings faced by the institution. Ultimately, this paper shows the futility of general criticisms against the referendum while considers that it would be more useful to pay attention to the design of the institution made in each system. RESUMEN: Una de las críticas más habituales que se realiza contra el empleo del referéndum como cauce de decisión de los asuntos públicos es aquella que hace referencia a sus carencias deliberativas. El referéndum serviría como mero instrumento de agregación de intereses, sin preocupación alguna por la reflexión y el diálogo. El presente artículo estudia pormenorizadamente todos aquellos elementos que resultan claves para la consecución de un grado razonable de deliberación en la campaña previa a la votación popular, como la claridad de la pregunta, la información facilitada al votante o el reparto de los recursos públicos entre las partes en liza. Con apoyo en experiencias nacionales e internacionales, se defiende la tesis de que una regulación adecuada de todos ellos podría servir para salvar muchos de los déficits que enfrenta la institución. En definitiva, el trabajo pretende demostrar la escasa utilidad que tiene la formulación de críticas globales a la figura del referéndum, cobrando mucho más sentido dirigir la mirada hacia su concreto diseño en cada sistema.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document