This thesis critically analyzes the concepts of deliberative democracy and demarchy. Both theories are described from many different viewpoints, including criticisms aimed at elections in democratic political systems, the issue of legitimacy and representativeness. The analysis of the theory of deliberative democracy is based on the works of Bernard Manin, John Dryzek, Joshua Cohen etc. The analysis of the theory of demarchy is based on the works of John Burnheim. Both theoretical concepts are also confronted with criticisms aimed at their theoretical and practical imperfections. The thesis also deals with examples and possibilities of practical use of some elements from both theories. Finally, this thesis attempts to answer the question of whether both analyzed concepts could be satisfactory alternatives to representative democracy.

Although a local policy is a necessary issue for a functioning of a democratic political system, it usually does not stand in the center of common interests. This paper deals with its functioning in Prague 16 where the Civic Democratic Party has won the municipal elections since 1994. The aim of this paper is to find the main factors which led to its winning in the municipal elections in 2014. The main text is divided into three chapters. The first theoretical one concerns with a theory of democracy, civil society and elite theory. The second one describes a creation of a local policy in Prague 16 - namely results of municipal elections since 1994, a way in which local political institutions have been created as well as political parties run for the last municipal elections in 2014. The third chapter deals with an analysis of election results and interviews made with local representatives and councilors.

Democracy has been encountering an increasing number of critics. Whether it comes from a sympathy for autocrats, free-markets, or the more knowledgeable, this increasing democratic scepticism often takes an epistemic form. Democracy's critics argue that democratic procedures and institutions are unlikely to make good decisions or produce good outcomes in terms of justice or the common good, and should, therefore, be restricted if not completely rejected in favour of its more able alternatives. In the face of such scepticism, this thesis develops an epistemic theory of deliberative democracy. This theory has two principal aims. The first is to analyse and define the epistemic properties of deliberative democracy, and the second is to clarify the possible role epistemic values can play in a wider justification of democratic rule. In accordance with the first, the thesis analyses the ability of deliberative democratic institutions to make good or correct decisions in comparison to a broad range of prominent alternatives. These include traditional rivals such as autocracy and aristocracy, but also more modern and less considered alternatives such as free-markets, limited epistocracy and forms of technical calculation. Through these comparisons, it is argued that we have no good or clear epistemic reason to reject democracy. Deliberative democracy is found to be epistemically superior to many of its alternatives and epistemically equivalent to even its best competitors. The thesis, therefore, mounts a strong reply to democracy's epistemic sceptics. The analysis, however, also helps clarify which form of deliberative democracy is epistemically most valuable, pointing to the value systems approaches which give a prominent role to direct citizen deliberation. The epistemic theory of deliberative democracy also aims to clarify what role epistemic values can play in a wider justification of democratic rule. The thesis argues that deliberative democracy is epistemically superior to many of its rivals and no worse epistemically than even its best alternatives. This suggests that although epistemic values cannot mount a stand-alone defence of democracy, democrats would only be required to defend very weak non-epistemic values to produce a mixed justification. Far from being 'rule by the incompetent many' and therefore highly reliant on procedural values, the thesis will demonstrate that epistemic values can carry significant weight in an argument for democratic rule.

The purpose of my study is to investigate how working with ABC (All Children at the Centre) can be interpreted based on a democratic education in preschool. ABC is a socioemotional course provided by an external agency which is subsequently available to teachers and parents within certain councils, throughout the country. Through semi-structured qualitative interviews with four teachers I have explored how they describe their work on choosing battles - based on ABC methodology. This has subsequently been analyzed in the results section based on my interpretation of Gert Biestas (2006, 2011) theories of democracy. Results indicate that routine situations emerge as restrictive and can hamper children's potential actions. However, through the ABC methodology - choose battles, teachers claim to see a decrease in conflicts, due to an approach characterized by an awareness of the restrictive conditions the children face. My conclusion from the interviews is that the ABC-choosing battles methodology appears to contribute to a democratic education in preschool, however it seems in the interviews that it could also lead to an over-generalized perspective where children's actions are seen only as a strategy for attention. This could subsequently lead to a situation where an appreciation of Biestas definition of plurality is sorely lacking. / Syftet med min studie är att undersöka hur arbetet med ABC (Alla Barn i Centrum) kan förstås utifrån en demokratisk fostran i förskolan. ABC är ett socioemotionellt program från en extern agent, som vissa kommuner erbjuder till pedagoger och föräldrar runtom i landet. Genom semistrukturerade kvalitativa intervjuer med fyra pedagoger har jag undersökt hur de beskriver sitt arbete med att välja strider - utifrån ABC. Beskrivningarna har sedan analyserats i resultatdelen utifrån min tolkning av Gert Biestas (2006, 2011) teorier om demokrati. Resultatet visar att rutinsituationer framkommer som begränsande för barns möjlighet till handlande. Men genom ABC - välja strider anser pedagogerna att konflikter minskar, genom att pedagogerna reflekterar över vilka motstånd barnen möts av, och hur. Min slutsats utifrån ABC-pedagogernas beskrivningar är att det tycks vara möjligt att ABC - välja strider kan bidra till en demokratisk fostran i förskolan. Men det kan samtidigt finnas en risk att en syn där barns handlande förstås som endast en strategi för att få uppmärksamhet, kan leda till en stor generalisering. Det kan i sin tur medföra att det Biesta ser som pluralitet inte värdesätts tillräckligt mycket.

The United States of America and the institutions of the European Union are the most prominent democracy assistance donors in third countries. Over the last two decades, they have spent tens of billions of dollars to support the formation and consolidation of democratic regimes around the world. In this sense, the US and the EU have seemingly shared interests - i.e. seeking to build democratic institutions in target countries so that these become part of the community of democracies and contribute to the stability of the world's economic and political system. However, if we look at the approaches and strategies used by the US and the EU to support democracy, we find that they are often quite different and, in some respects, clashing. Why are the approaches of both actors different if they strive to reach the same goal? Or - upon closer examination - are their goals indeed somewhat different? The key problem is that democracy as such is a contested concept, so it is necessary to ask the question: if we are promoting democracy, what kind of democracy do we mean? If we finance the development of one or the other institution, what model of democratic establishment will be created? The thesis takes a constructivist view of this issue and demonstrates how the different democratic identities of the two...

This thesis re-evaluates a positive reply given by the majority of existing secondary literature on the question of whether J. L. Fischer was a democrat and a theorist of democracy. On the other hand, some features of the author's work can cast doubts on his political orientation, and the existing secondary literature does not provide a clear disapproval of these doubts. The core of this thesis then lies in forging a newly designed interpretation of the author's compositional philosophy foregoing the Second World War. We are using the existential "bloody disjunction" of the author as our interpretational key with the hope that it can allow us to explain even the most difficult parts of J. L. Fischer's work constructively to the "uninformed reader". We are recognizing the specificity of this work as an author's-actor's creative expression. Therefore its internal expressional structure should not be reduced solely to the theoretical component without attention paid to the strong philosophical, artistic, and charismatic ambitions of the creator. This thesis interprets indicated components of Fischer's philosophy and his existential fight, which, even though manifested through breaches of argumentation, is at the same time giving to the compositional philosophy a whole new level of coherency. The...