Autor se bavi shvaćanjima demokracije u časopisu Politička misao. Analize objavljivane u gotovo šezdeset godina postojanja časopisa u prvom su se redu bavile dvama temeljnim shvaćanjima: samoupravnom demokracijom i inačicama liberalne demokracije. Autor ne inzistira na strukturnoj razlici između samoupravne i liberalne demokracije, nego drži da imaju nešto zajedničko. Obje su, naime, mišljene kao “posljednji politički oblici” (Đorđević), odnosno oblici kojima završava povijest (Fukuyama). Drugo, obje su se razvijale kao svojevrsne konsenzusne demokracije, što se u tekstu istražuje na osnovi uvida Rancièrea (i Badioua). Kao “konsenzusne demokracije” pokazuju nemalu restriktivnost u pogledu tipova interesa koji imaju pravo javnosti. U samoupravnoj demokraciji naglasak je na interesu radničke klase, a u inačicama liberalne demokracije prednost imaju “sociologizirani” interesi, koji dolaze iz onoga što Rancière zove “redistribucija osjetilnog”. Treće, obje vrste demokracije zapravo nastoje rastvoriti političko u društvenom. Autor teksta tvrdi da je aktualna vrsta liberalne demokracije zapravo postdemokracija koja, kako pokazuju tekstovi u Političkoj misli, iako je i sama problem, i dalje zapravo brani važeći liberalni konsenzus. Taj se konsenzus, kao puno pragmatičniji i realniji, brani primarno od političke alternative koja bi bila mistično-revolucionarna. The author considers the concept of democracy in the articles published in the journal Politička misao (Political Thought). It seems that there are two fundamental concepts of democracy that have been analysed in the journal in almost sixty years of its activity: self-management democracy and liberal democracy. The author also takes into account different versions of liberal democracy which have been presented in the articles. Both main concepts of democracy are not treated as structurally different, but as quite similar. Namely, they share the idea that history should end with them, or that they are ‘the last political forms’ (Đorđević). Both have been developed as a kind of consensus democracy, which is explored in the text based on Rancière’s (and Badiou’s) thesis. As ‘consensus democracies’, they show significant selectivity considering the type of interests they promote as public interests. In the concept of self-management democracy, priority belongs to the working class, while versions of liberal democracy support ‘sociologicalized’ interests which are derived from what Rancière calls ‘redistribution of senses’. Thirdly, both concepts of democracy try, each in its own way, to dissolve the political into the social. The author believes that the actual variant of liberal democracy is post-democracy, which, although problematic in itself, still defends, as proven by the articles in Politička misao, the current (liberal) consensus. This consensus is defended as more pragmatic and realistic than its alternative, which would be mystical-revolutionary.