This article puts in the centre the increasingly notable discrepancy between constitutional democracy as a form and its actual practice in Central Europe, with a particular focus on Slovenia. It does so by following Martin Krygier who has long insisted with regard to the rule of law that “we would do well to explore […] the sociology of the rule of law.” As he has noted, “this is a social science that does not quite yet exist”. As a result, especially lawyers have satisfied themselves with studying the rule of law in conceptual terms, limiting themselves to drawing a laundry list of formal requirements that an ideal concept of the rule of law should meet here and there, indeed everywhere. What has been too often neglected, however, by academics and institutional actors alike, is a social dimension of the rule of law. The formal legal-institutional architecture of the rule of law has too often ignored the broader social context, wherein, rather than in the legal institutions themselves, lies “a great deal that matters most to whether law can rule.” The same conclusion as to the rule of law can be applied to a wider notion of constitutional democracy. Lest we are left with a partial, superficial or even flawed understanding of the concept, our focus must be centred on the constitutive social considerations of constitutional democracy. The latter’s sociological dimension shall not remain outside legal theory, as it has been too often the case so far. To prevent that this article explores the following question: what is it in the Central European societies, such as Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, that inhibits the formal infrastructure of constitutional democracy to deliver its intended effects in practice? In pursuit of the answers, the article will be broken down into three parts. First, we are going to explain the concept of constitutional democracy as it has developed both in the Slovenian constitutional practice and in theory. Having passed the conceptual threshold, the next part will outline the main elements of the sociology of constitutional democracy, as applied to the Slovenian case. Of course, due to the space constraints the discussion will be necessarily schematic and will be used to respond to the main research question of this article, which boils to the identification of the main social factors that hinder the actual emergence of constitutional democracy in Slovenia. Finally, the article will close down with some normative proposals for improving the state of constitutional democracy in Central Europe in the not so distant future.

中文翻译：

---

（斯洛文尼亚）宪政民主的社会学

本文将宪法民主作为一种形式与其在中欧的实际实践之间日益明显的差异置于中心位置，特别侧重于斯洛文尼亚。通过遵循长期坚持法治的马丁·克莱吉尔（Martin Krygier）的话，“我们将很好地探索法治的社会学……” 。正如他指出的那样：“这是一门尚不存在的社会科学”。结果，特别是律师对从概念上研究法治感到满意，将自己限制在列出正式要求的洗礼清单上，理想的法治概念应该在这里和那里，甚至在任何地方都应满足。但是，无论是学者还是机构参与者，都经常忽视法治的社会层面。法治的正式法律制度架构常常忽略了更广泛的社会背景，其中，“而不是法律制度本身中，存在着“对法律是否可以统治最重要的事情”。关于法治的同样结论可以适用于更广泛的宪政民主概念。为了使我们对这一概念没有部分，表面的，甚至是错误的理解，我们的重点必须集中在宪政民主的构成性社会考虑上。后者的社会学意义不应超出法律理论的范围，因为到目前为止，情况经常如此。为了防止这一点，本文探讨了以下问题：在匈牙利，波兰和斯洛文尼亚等中欧社会中，有什么抑制宪政民主的正式基础设施在实践中发挥预期作用的呢？为了寻求答案，本文将分为三个部分。第一，我们将解释斯洛文尼亚宪政实践和理论上发展的宪政民主概念。通过概念上的门槛后，下一部分将概述适用于斯洛文尼亚案件的宪政民主社会学的主要内容。当然，由于篇幅所限，讨论必定是示意性的，将用于回答本文的主要研究问题，这将有助于确定阻碍斯洛文尼亚宪政民主实际出现的主要社会因素。最后，本文将以一些规范性建议作为结尾，以在不远的将来改善中欧的宪政民主状况。下一部分将概述适用于斯洛文尼亚案的宪政民主社会学的主要内容。当然，由于篇幅所限，讨论必定是示意性的，将用于回答本文的主要研究问题，这将有助于确定阻碍斯洛文尼亚宪政民主实际出现的主要社会因素。最后，本文将以一些规范性建议作为结尾，以在不远的将来改善中欧的宪政民主状况。下一部分将概述适用于斯洛文尼亚案的宪政民主社会学的主要内容。当然，由于篇幅所限，讨论必定是示意性的，将用于回答本文的主要研究问题，这将有助于确定阻碍斯洛文尼亚宪政民主实际出现的主要社会因素。最后，本文将以一些规范性建议作为结尾，以在不远的将来改善中欧的宪政民主状况。这有助于找出阻碍斯洛文尼亚宪政民主实际出现的主要社会因素。最后，本文将以一些规范性建议作为结尾，以在不远的将来改善中欧的宪政民主状况。这有助于找出阻碍斯洛文尼亚宪政民主实际出现的主要社会因素。最后，本文将以一些规范性建议作为结尾，以在不远的将来改善中欧的宪政民主状况。