Okrepljena ustavna demokracija

Najpomembnejša značilnost spopadanja z veliko finančno, gospodarsko in socialno krizo od leta 2008 naprej je, da se poskuša na globalni, evropski in nacionalni ravni rešiti v okviru obstoječega omejevalnega niza institucij reprezentativne demokracije, tržnega gospodarstva in svobodne civilne družbe. Razprave o alternativnih institucionalnih oblikah, ki bi temeljito preoblikovale ustavno demokracijo, tržno gospodarstvo in svobodno civilno družbo v smeri bolj vključujoče, bolj raznolike in bolj eksperimentalne družbe, še vedno ni na mizi. Obstajajo le posamezne regije v prvem in tretjem svetu, ki uspešno eksperimentirajo z novimi institucionalnimi oblikami in veljajo za najuspešnejše regije ne le po merilih konkurenčnosti, temveč tudi socialne kohezivnosti, ekonomskih in izobraževalnih priložnostih ter inovativnosti. Teoretično izhodišče za razpravo v okviru sodobnih institucionalnih teorij je naslednje: klasična ustavna teorija, politične stranke, utemeljene v devetnajstem stoletju, in množična fordistična proizvodnja, organizirana po ekonomskih principih zgodnjega dvajsetega stoletja, ne morejo ostati institucionalni okvir za organizacijo in delovanje modernih demokratičnih družb enaindvajsetega stoletja. Za bolj ustvarjalni, domišljeni dialog na nacionalni ravni in za okrepljen nacionalni razvojni projekt v okviru EU potrebujemo resnično neodvisno in avtonomno, a dobro organizirano civilno družbo. Ta mora postati partnerica političnim strankam, ki bi se morale odlikovati po izdelovanju bogatih in raznolikih programskih alternativ. Namesto ustvarjanja površnega konsenza bi morali bogatiti in krepiti razpravo o razvojnih alternativah ter zanje ustvarjati široka družbena zavezništva. Seveda pa pri iskanju poti iz krize - ne na evropski ne na nacionalni ravni - ni bližnjic. Pretekli dve leti sta bili tako v evropskem kot nacionalnem ustavnem in razvojnem kontekstu v veliki meri izgubljeni in ju bo težko nadomestiti.The key characteristic of dealing with the financial, economic and social crisis since 2008 is that efforts are being made to solve the crisis on global, European and national levels within the existing limited set of institutions of a representative democracy, market economy and free civil society. A discussion of the alternative institutional possibilities which would comprehensively restructure the constitutional democracy, market economy and free civil society towards a more inclusive, more diverse and more experimental society is not yet on the table. There are regions as exceptions in the first and third world which are recognised as the most advanced regions not only according to the level of their competitiveness, but also according to their social cohesiveness and economic and educational opportunities, as well as their innovation levels. The theoretical basis for the discussion in the context of modern institutional theories is as follows: classical constitutionalism, political parties founded in the nineteenth century and mass Fordist production developed according to the economic principles of the early twentieth century cannot remain an institutional basis for the organisation and functioning of modern democratic societies in the twenty-first century. In order to facilitate more creative, imaginative dialogue at the national level and to strengthen the national development project within the EU context we need a truly independent, autonomous and well-organised civil society. It has to become a partner of political parties. Political parties should be able to develop and excel on the basis of rich and diverse programmatic alternatives. Instead of having a superficial consensus, we should foster and strengthen the discourse on the alternative development pathways and be able to create broad social alliances in striving for such pathways. The past two years were wasted in the national and European constitutional and development context, which is why it will be difficult to redeem this lost period of time