Search

Begin New Search Author Gazela Pudar Drasko Publication Year within 25 Years

1. How did Serbia unite Chomsky, Mironov and Fukuyama? Engaging with the New Despotism

Author:
Vedran Dzihic and Gazela Pudar Drasko
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
It is difficult to imagine what could unite Jürgen Habermas, Francis Fukuyama, Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Walzer, Yuval Noah Harari and Vladimir Mironov.1 However, the renowned Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory in Belgrade (IFDT), founded to settle dissident intellectuals expelled from the university for their involvement in the Yugoslav 1968 protests, managed to do so. An international appeal has reached us in the past few days which has revealed once more the ongoing clandestine attack on freedom of thought and academic autonomy in Serbia. Unfortunately, Serbia is not alone in democratic backsliding, neither in Southeast Europe or Europe more generally, nor at the global level. Democracy has been openly challenged in several EU states, while the most recent developments in the USA have revealed the depth of internal fractures in American liberal democracy. Thus, it is not surprising that the Southeast European region (SEE) - a post-conflict, semi-peripheral area in Europe - faces growing illiberalism and varying types of competitive authoritarianism and new despotism.
Topic:
Human Rights, Law, and Authoritarianism
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia

2. Values at Stake: Southeast Europe: A Normative Marktplace?

Author:
Vedran Dzihic, Gazela Pudar Drasko, Nilay Kilinc, Nilay Kilinc, and Senada Šelo Šabić
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
Europe has not yet achieved creating a common European sense of »who we are«. The question is whether EU normative influence ever truly existed and whether substantial normative transfers to Southeast Europe (SEE) have ever been achieved. The prevailing top-down »one size fits all« approach to democratization in Southeast Europe must be contested in favour of a more nuanced methodology that considers the interests, grievances, and demands of each society.We cannot have societies with true European values without creating high-quality discursive spaces where SEE citizens can socialize as active citizens. We need to build a democracy of informed and engaged citizens that do not exclude each other.
Topic:
Democratization, European Union, Regional Integration, and Norms
Political Geography:
Europe and Southeast Europe

3. Democracy and human rights agency for change: Alternative Democratic Practices in Southeast Europe

Author:
Vedran Dzihic, Gazela Pudar Drasko, Felix Henkel, Irena Fiket, Ivan Stefanovski, and Rastislav Dinic
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
Almost twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War, initial euphoria about democratic change in many countries in the East and Southeast of Europe has given way to growing mistrust of political institutions and politicians, and an increasing disaffection with democracy itself. This wide-ranging disaffection has many sources. One of them lies in the increasingly weak performance of governments and the fact that »democracy«, whatever the term meant at the beginning of the transition processes, has failed to deliver on its promises. Politicians and governments no longer seem able or willing to deliver tangible results to their voters. Politics in Southeast Europe produces no or too few goods »for« the people and instead of »delivering«, engages in populist nationalism, politics of fear, and serves particular power interests The contributions to this publication discuss several approaches to active engagement and thinking about alternatives. The first paper examines the question if and how the emancipatory energy found in social movements may help in renewing social democracy (Felix Henkel). The next paper combines theoretical thinking about democratic innovations as opportunities for channelling popular discontent with concrete inquiry into the situation in Southeast Europe (Irena Fiket). The third paper provides an analysis of the Sisyphean task of democratizing societies, using the example of North Macedonia (Ivan Stefanovski). Last but not least, the fourth paper focusses on local struggles and actions in the Serbian city of Niš (Rastislav Dinić). The mobilization in Niš, where activists are in everyday contact with citizens at the local level, creates a deeper foundation for political engagement inscribed into the living context of individuals. This »grounding« together with broader societal utopian horizons of progressive thought provides a framework for the democratic renewal of Southeast European societies, a renewal that should be high on the agenda of the EU and all international actors dealing with the region.
Topic:
Politics, European Union, Democracy, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Europe, Balkans, and Southeast Europe

4. Political Culture in Southeast Europe. Navigating between Democratic and Authoritarian Beliefs and Practices

Author:
Vedran Dzihic, Gazela Pudar Drasko, Damir Kapidzic, Dario Cepo, Jelena Dzankic, and Jelena Vasiljevic
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
The failure of the countries in Southeast Europe in the last three decades to initiate deep political and societal change that would lead them towards the goal of liberal democracy cannot be explained only by the reference to wars and internal conflicts or by external factors related to their peripheral position in Europe. We argue that political culture has to be taken into consideration to help explain the phenomenon of defective or phony democracy in the Western Balkans. A more forceful expression of emancipatory values by youth, along with greater action capabilities provided by economic growth, could create a more democratic political culture and leaders that are more accountable within a generation. However, it is necessary to have knowledge and understand what we want to influence, because simply supporting ›democracy‹ can go hand in hand with support for authoritarian values. It has to be accepted and fully realized that political conditions and practices are not part of the inherited cultural repertoire, but are shaped by highly complex and intertwined structural and socio-economic processes. Then we will be able to respond with adequate (political and structural) propositions and solutions that might »expand popular capacities« (in the words of Stuart Hall) and bring about the desired change in Southeast Europe.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Democracy, Leadership, and Political Culture
Political Geography:
Europe and Southeast Europe