Demokracija kao vladavina nikoga! Ima li danas smisla?

I would like to contribute to the ongoing debate on democracy by discussing the notion of the rule of nobody. I first address Rosanvallon\u27s theory of counter-democracy and Keane\u27s concept of monitory democracy. Keane writes about \u27monitory democracy\u27 not only as a new phase in the development of democracy on a global scale, but primarily as an abolishment of all domination in human relations. His idea that in a monitory democracy \u27no body rules\u27, has been criticized by John Dunn and John Gray. They consider it meaningless to claim that in democracy \u27no body rules\u27, since every form of rule needs rulers. I would like to show that both this supposedly realistic criticism and Keane\u27s version of the rule of nobody are too literal and superficial. If we consider democracy to be a kind of sentiment rather than a set of political institutions, we get closer to the puzzling idea that \u27no body rules\u27. This idea, namely, is not about abolishing the rule of men over men, but about being aware of the contingency of all forms of mastery. This was well known to Plato and has been convincingly revived in the works of the French philosopher Jacques Rancière.U članku autor želi doprinijeti aktualnoj raspravi o demokraciji problematiziranjem ideje ‘vladavine nikoga’. Prvo se bavi Rosanvallonovom teorijom kontrademokracije i Keaneovom koncepcijom nadzorne demokracije. Keane smatra da ‘nadzorna demokracija’ nije samo nova faza u razvoju demokracije na globalnoj razini nego se prije svega radi o dokidanju svih oblika dominacije u ljudskim odnosima. Dunn i Gray kritiziraju njegovu ideju da u takvoj demokraciji ‘nitko ne vlada’. Oni smatraju da nema smisla tvrditi da u demokraciji ‘nitko ne vlada’ budući da svaki oblik vladavine treba vladare. Autor članka nastoji pokazati da su ove navodno realistične kritike, ali i Keaneovo shvaćanje koncepcije ‘nitko ne vlada’ previše mehaničke, odnosno da su doslovno shvatile spomenutu koncepciju. Ako bi demokraciju vidjeli kao vrstu osjećaja prije nego skup političkih institucija, onda bi prije proniknuli u ponešto zagonetnu ideju o ‘vladavini nikoga’. Ova ideja, naime, ne znači dokidanje vladavine čovjeka nad čovjekom, nego se odnosi na svijest o kontingentnosti svih oblika gospodstva. To je bilo dobro poznato Platonu i uvjerljivo je oživljeno u djelima francuskog filozofa Jacquesa Rancièrea