APA 6th Edition Rodin, D. (1993). Znanstvena transkripcija parlamentarizma. Politička misao, 30 (4), 105-117. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/111131
MLA 8th Edition Rodin, Davor. "Znanstvena transkripcija parlamentarizma." Politička misao, vol. 30, br. 4, 1993, str. 105-117. https://hrcak.srce.hr/111131. Citirano 25.01.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition Rodin, Davor. "Znanstvena transkripcija parlamentarizma." Politička misao 30, br. 4 (1993): 105-117. https://hrcak.srce.hr/111131
Harvard Rodin, D. (1993). 'Znanstvena transkripcija parlamentarizma', Politička misao, 30(4), str. 105-117. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/111131 (Datum pristupa: 25.01.2020.)
Vancouver Rodin D. Znanstvena transkripcija parlamentarizma. Politička misao [Internet]. 1993 [pristupljeno 25.01.2020.];30(4):105-117. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/111131
IEEE D. Rodin, "Znanstvena transkripcija parlamentarizma", Politička misao, vol.30, br. 4, str. 105-117, 1993. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/111131. [Citirano: 25.01.2020.]
Sažetak According to Carl Schmitt, liberal parliamentarism and democracy are founded on conflicting principles. The first is founded upon the principle of rational deliberation, that is, upon the idea that political will in a modern country is formed through rational discussion, the latter is based upon power as an instrument of political activity which homogenizes the national majority and eliminates divergent minorities. Schmitt considers that the princple of power is taking over deliberation in modern countries, and thus abandones the conditions for liberal parliamentarism. On another level, Schmitt argues that the contrast of deliberation and power is repeated within liberal-democratic institutions as division of powers between the multi-party parliament which fosters rational discussion, and executive power which is the instrument of political activity and must be legitimized in parliament. The weakness of liberal democracies is the empowering of those political forces (fascism, communism) that reject political dialogue in a process of competition between various platforms in front of the electorate, but they rather, see it as a means of imposing a single, self-serving truth.
The author concludes that Schmitt has missed the key dimension of liberal democracy, because his critique is based upon an outdated Neokantian methodological position. As the analog to Rickert's nomothetic science, Schmitt in his political theory opposes rational generalizations and irrational content. However, the main point is that liberal political science as a constituent part of the political process operates between two political media, speech and action, without destroying plurality of political positions.