Promises and challenges of deliberative and participatory innovations in hybride regimes: The case of two citizens’ assemblies in Serbia

Abstract

A worrying trend of autocratization that has been spreading globally in recent years, has thrust forward a new wave of appeals for deliberative and participatory democracy as a remedy for the crisis. With a few exceptions, the majority of participatory and deliberative institutions were implemented in stable democracies. The efforts to institutionalize participatory and deliberative models are almost completely absent in Serbia and other Western Balkan countries. Yet, there has been a trend of citizen mobilization in the form of social movements and local civic initiatives, which are both a symptom of unresponsive and quite openly authoritarian institutions, as well as a potential pathway to democratization. The pace and scope of these developments in the undemocratic societies of the Western Balkan region, in terms of both bottom up and top-down democratic experimentation, call for a better understanding of their internal dynamics, and their social and political impact. Responding to this need, the articles in the special issue focus on social movement mobilizations and deliberative experimentation. To begin with, our introductory article focuses particularly on understanding the possible role deliberative institutions could have in hybrid regimes. It looks at the first two cases of deliberative mini publics (DMPs) ever organized in Serbia, analyzing their rationale, specific design, implementation, as well as considering the possible role deliberative institutions could play in the hybrid regime of Serbia.

Open Society Unresolved

“…These socially committed experts may be various social actors and come from different layers of society. 6 In a recent study of deliberative process through a citizens' assembly in Serbia (Fiket and Đorđević 2022), and a study of trust-building through social movements (Fiket et al forthcoming), the role of experts was widened to include all those who gained knowledge through practice and engagement. They are considered as equal to, if not more important, than mere academics and intellectuals possessing theoretical expertise.…”

Turnout in Serbian parliamentary elections during the two decades after the end of Milošević’s rule

“…One could rather talk about the redistribution of relative power among the parties that overthrew Milošević (Todosijević and Pavlović, 2020). From the point of view of regime typology, this period is qualified as democratic by some theorists (Ostojić, 2011; Vejvoda, 2004), while the majority still speak of semi-consolidated (Fiket and Đorđević, 2022), sub-consolidated (Jovanović, 2012), non-consolidated (Pavlović, 2004), or low-quality (Bursać and Vučićević, 2021) democracy.…”

“…This event marked the entry into the second phase of political life after Milošević in which the SNS only strengthened its position as the most massive party on the Serbian political scene (Todosijević and Pavlović, 2020). From the aspect of regime typology, most theorists (Bieber, 2018; Keil, 2018; Pavlović, 2020; Castaldo, 2020; Maerz et al, 2020; Vladisavljević, 2020; Bursać and Vučićević, 2021) and relevant institutions (Freedom House, 2020; V-Dem Institute, 2019) qualify the latter part of this time interval as a hybrid regime dominance, while some even consider the period after 2020 to be autocratic (Fiket and Đorđević, 2022; Alizada et al, 2021). According to Levitsky and Way’s (2002) systematization, Vučić's regime could be categorized as a post-democratic hybrid regime.…”