World As Global Sin: Deliberative Democracy As The Only Way Out – Essay


Public discussion within the form of deliberative democracy has a central position within the process of justifying the laws and principles upon which communities rely.

Let us make a point that everything lies on interest, from individual up to a common, general one. So, that interest, within democracy, unlike in non-democratic societies, should be met for the purposes to satisfy the common good. Why then do we have almost similar outcomes in democratic and non-democratic society? On both sides we have rulers and the ruled ones. On both sides we have a rich minority and a poor majority and as contradictio in adiecto, all have been conducted by the will of the people. The difference between “the will” on both sides is just which kind of means we are using to get there.

Why then is there a problem of using deliberative democracy at least in a democratic society? A huge issue will arises. Namely, in a democratic way somebody has been elected. In a democratic way, the laws have been adopted and passed. In a democratic way we are suffering all around the World, for the sake of democracy.

As mentioned, huge issues arise: The question of integrity of the chosen ones; The question of the majority in power; The question of questioning decisions of democratically elected ones. Regardless that they are conducting their jobs and missions within the democracy as part of the procedure. Of course, I cannot agree more with that, but what if that kind of democracy does not work and just goes down to the execution of the will of the few for the good of few. Would it be much better to have the execution of the will of all for the good of all?

Utopia? Not, if we just put on a pedestal basic ethics and codes of conduct: respect, balance, accuracy, honesty and truth.

Utopia? Not, if we just allow, as democracy should do, by all means, to discuss, in a much broader sense (we have a God given social media for that, don’’t we) all important current and future acts of the government.

Utopia? Not, if we openly discuss, for example, given promises within election period and execution of the given promises within first nine months of the ruling. If they failed to comply with at least 40% of given promises, let us choose another ones. Elections are expensive? Not if we compare them to the loss during the period of having them in power.

Utopia? Not, if we make consensual point of view, i.e. compromise, on the main standing point of the future of our state – good for all no matter what. To have independent bodies (led by volunteers) who will control every nine months all executed activities and recommend to the public future activities to improve the status of planned actions.

Utopia? Not, if we choose that somebody cannot be elected on power more than ones, if he fail to accomplish at least 40 % of given promises from the last elections. In that case, 95 % of elected officials will not be able to run for the office again.

Utopia? Not, if discussion within deliberative democracy will provide different point of view on similar issues, and as outcome we have compromise that will not satisfy fully all, but will satisfy jointly establish compromise of all.

Utopia? Not, if we use deliberative democracy as helping mean to get to the point of making proper social decisions.

Utopia? Not, if we establish the meaning “of another one” as somebody who conduct a pressure on elected ones, and focus on trying to imagine imagination of others for the sense of understanding of common good.

Utopia? Not, if we have presence of the motivation (through the satisfaction that we are doing general good for the sake of good of the individual) to assume how somebody who think differently would felt within my point of view. And from it to find a proper, joint way out.

Utopia? Not, if we try to establish a starting point for conversation, based on the mutual interest for the benefit of all.

Somebody will blame me that this is communism, socialism and whatever….No, communism never existed, socialism in a sense of eastern point of view failed, and this is more humanism – to define it properly.

We just need to find a way out. Deliberative democracy might be. If we, at least, are going to follow basic human ethics, as mentioned above.

How we will do it? Very difficult, of course, but, what else can we lose, at least us, 99% of the population in every country in the World.

Prof. Dr. Sabahudin Hadzialic

Prof. Dr. Sabahudin Hadzialic was born in 1960, in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since 1964 he lives in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. He is a professor (two doctoral degrees), scientist, writer & poet (distinguished artist by state), journalist, and editor. He wrote 26 books (textbooks for the Universities in BiH and abroad, books of poetry, prose, essays as well as) and his art and scientific work is translated in 25 world languages. He published books in BiH, Serbia, France, Switzerland, USA and Italy. He wrote more than 100 scientific papers. He is certified peer-reviewer (his citations appear in books and papers of scientists from all continents) for several European scientific journals. He participates within EU project funds and he is a member of scientific boards of Journals in Poland, India and the USA. He is a member of the Board of directors of IFSPD ( Also, he is a regular columnists & essayist and member of the Editorial board, since 2014, of Eurasia Review, think tank and journal of news & analysis from the USA. Since 2009 he is co-owner and Editor in chief of DIOGEN pro culture - magazine for culture, art, education and science from the USA. He is a member of major associations of writers in BiH, Serbia and Montenegro as well as Foundations (scientific and non-governmental) Associations worldwide. As professor he was/is teaching at the Universities in BiH, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and India. Detailed info:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *