The efficiency of processes of democratisation and de-democratisation in the context of postdemocracy, according to the concept devised by C. Tilly

As more and more political systems acquire signs of hybridity, and as the cycle of accountability and decision making for society becomes narrower, processes of de-democratisation emerge in democracies. Also, the result of the connection between processes of democratisation and de-democratisation becomes even more unclear. The analytical construction of post-democracy has appeared in the scientific discourse. In this article, the connection between democratisation and de-democratisation in a post-democratic environment is analysed through the concept of C. Tilly’s methodologically presumed analysis of democracy. For the purpose of theoretical statement operationalisation, an analysis of the Ukrainian practice is used. Methods: scientific literature and publication analysis, statistical analysis, case study. Research results: The theorisation of the connection between processes of democratisation and dedemocratisation which was highlighted and updated in C. Tilly’s democracy research is an effective analytical tool for the development of democracy. The famous analytical triad formulated by C. Tilly (an increase or decrease in integration between interpersonal networks of trust and public politics; an increase or decrease in the insulation from public politics of the main categorical inequalities; an increase or decrease in the autonomy of major power centres) allows us to reveal the many nuances of democracy. Despite this, Tilly stresses the processes of democratisation and de-democratisation as negating each other, and multiple political hybrids unfold under post-democratic conditions. We respond to Tilly’s call for those who want the worldwide establishment of democracy not to waste their time preaching about the benefits of democracy, creating constitutions and NGOs, or even expressing sympathy for undemocratic countries; but instead, to make a significant effort at integrating politics into networks of trust, insulating the main categorical inequalities from public politics, and fighting against autonomous power centres. In a world full of processes of democratisation and de-democratisation, the number of undemocratic political regimes and undemocratic tendencies does not decrease, even in old democracies. Different cases of trust network insulation from politics or the relationship between politics and categorical inequalities, power centres autonomous from the state, still exist. The inclusion of trust networks in public hearings and other public processes is a welcome and necessary ingredient for sustaining democracy, or at least for the beginning of its consolidation. Despite this, the process still does not guarantee democratisation, because fundamental democratic principles, such as government control, equivalence of representation and participation, are not guaranteed by formally democratic institutions themselves. This is partly because democracies cannot significantly reduce social and economic inequality. The inability to limit the growth of social inequality has evolved into mass protest movements. They do not necessarily propose violent conflict, but rather raise doubts about the potential of democracy to solve current problems in people’s daily lives. Moreover, it means that the configuration of processes of democratisation and dedemoratisation remains a complex issue. The latter significantly complements autonomous power centres, which occurs both in a globalised, post-democratic world and in free and partly free countries. They have the potential to continue to get stronger and limit state power and authority even more. A partial analysis of recent processes in Ukraine using C. Tilly’s concept of the connection between democratisation and de-democratisation showed that democratisation and de-democratisation in this country take place in parallel, they coexist, and do not contradict each other in principle. More detailed research and comparative studies are needed in order to find out whether it is a random situation, or a universal current situation. The study conducted of processes of democratisation and de-democratisation shows that it is meaningful to continue research not only into the radical opposition of these processes, but also their parallel opposition, when they do not contradict each other, but rather hybridise; and also to test the assumption of simultaneous, one-directional processes of democratisation and de-democratisation