Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | cristian-catalin |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 31
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
1/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
DEMOCRAIA - MIT I
REALITATE
Prof. uni v. dr., Adrian Gorun1
Abstract: Esena democraiei este
nelegerea ei ca i stare social caracterizat prin
egalitatea condiiilor i nu prin ansamblul de
instituii politice. Scopul acestui studiu este acela
de a ntreprinde o incursiune prin istoria
conceptului de democraie aa cum a fost neles
de filosofi i istorici de-a lungul timpului. Ne vom
referi cu precdere asupra aspectelor sale
teoretice, dar i asupra modului n care este
neleas ea astzi.
Cuvinte cheie: democraie, stare social,
fenomen, resorturi, form politic
Preocupat de descoperirea naturii
democraiei, ntre 1831-1832 Alexis deTocqueville mpreun cu Gustave deBeaumont realizeaz o cltoare oficial decercetare a regimului penitenciar din statele
unite, ocazie cu care constat, cum afirmprimul, c aici democraia i-a atins limitelenaturale2. De altfel, Tocqueville este uimitde cele dou modaliti contrastante n care se
prezint democraia: o micare social plinde convulsii, cum este cazul rii sale Frana i un ansamblu armonios deobiceiuri i instituii, aa cum o descoper nAmerica.
Rdcina acestor contraste se afl nnsi esena democraiei, n nelegerea ei n
primul rnd ca stare social, caracterizatprin egalitatea condiiilor i nu ca ansamblude instituii politice. Prin urmare, dintr-o staresocial cu aceleai caracteristici, popoarele
pot ajunge cum constat Tocqueville laconsecine politice extraordinar de diferite.
DEMOCRACY - MITH END
REALITY
Prof. Ph D., Adri an Gorun
Abstract: The essence of democracy refers
to understanding it as social status characterized
by equality of conditions not by the corpus of
pol itical institutions. The aim of this paper is to
undertake a foray through the history of the
concept of democracy as it was grasped by
phi losophers and historians throughout the time.
We shall specifically refer to its theoretical aspects
and also on the way it is understood nowadays.
Key-words: democracy, social status,
phenomenon, competence, political form
Concerned with tracing the nature of
democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville together
with Gustave de Beaumont, in 1831-1832,
carried out a formal journey to do research on
the penitentiary regime in the United States;on that occasion they found a democracy
which reached its natural boundaries, as theformer of the two scholars, asserts. As a
matter of fact, Tocqueville was amazed by
the two competing ways which democracy
displayed: a social movement shattered by
upheavals, as it was the case of his native
country, France and on the other hand, a well-
orchestrated entirety of customs and
traditions, as they could see in USA.
The root of these contrasts lied in the
substance of democracy itself, in grasping it
first as a social condition, characterized by
equality of conditions, not as an entirety of
political institutions. It follows that from the
same social condition bearing the same
1
Preedintele Senatului Universitii Constantin Brncui din Tg-Jiu2 A. de Tocqueville ,Despre democraie n America, vol. I, p. II (Introduction)
7
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
2/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
Dar, originea strii sociale este diferit laamericani, care s-au nscuti nu au devenitegali (s.n.)3. i cum starea social deegalitate are origini diferite (dei instituiilesunt consecin a acestei stri), din originilediferite izvorsc influenele diferite asupra
instituiilor politice. Fin i profund analist,Pierre Manent4 explic aceast fecund ideelansat de Alexis de Tocqueville: Aceastcontradicie sau aceast dificultate seestompeaz dac lum n considerare c, pede o parte, starea social democraticdetermin foarte riguros ce nu pot fiinstituiile ele nu pot fi aristocraticei c,
pe de alt parte, ea nu lmurete, i deci laspe seama discernmntului popoarelor ce potfi ele: tiranizate sau libere. Atunci cndAlexis de Tocqueville afirm c democraiase definete mai nti printr-o stare social elnu sugereaz c aceasta ar fi n esen oinfrastructur social distinct n drept i nfapt de o suprastructur politic n definitivsecundar, el definete momentul negativ al
democraiei: excluderea aristocraiei, ainegalitii condiiilor.Starea social de egalitate la francezi
este dobndit, i, prin urmare, democraianelege s se manifeste ca negare saudistrugere a aristocraiei, n timp ce nAmerica, caracterul nnscut al egalitii (
fiecare s-a nscut egal, deci, n egalitate cuceilali), asigur realitatea dogmeisuveranitii poporului. n Statele Unite constat Tocqueville - dogma suveranitii
poporului nu este deloc o doctrin izolatcare s nu inseama de obiceiurile, nici deansamblul ideilor dominante; putem,
dimpotriv, s o imaginm pe ultima verig aunui lan de opinii care nvluie ntreaga lumeanglo-american. Providena a dat fiecrui
attributes, the peoples may reach asTocqueville notes to extremely different
political consequences. Yet, the origin of the
social condition is different for the
Americans, which were born free, they didnot become equal (s.n); and since the equalsocial condition had different origins
(although the institutions are consequences of
the same condition), from the different
origins, different influences upon political
institutions aroused. A subtle and deep
observer, Pierre Manent explains this prolific
idea launched by Alexis de Tocqueville:
This contradiction or difficulty grows
blurred whether we consider on the one hand
that democratic social condition rigorously
establishes what the institutions cannot be they cannot be aristocratic and that on theother hand, it does not make clear, so leaves
it on peoples decision what they can be:bullied or free. When Alexis de Tocqueville
ascertains that democracy is first and
foremost defined by a social condition, he
does not suggest that this would be in essencea distinct social as to fact
and law from a political
eventually secondary, he defines the negative
moment of democracy: exclusion of
aristocracy and of unequal conditions.Equal social condition for French
people was gained and therefore democracy
understood to be manifest in the denial andabolish of aristocracy, while in USA, the
native feature of equality (everyone was born
equals, so as equal as the others), established
the reality of peoples sovereignty dogma. InUSA, Tocqueville ascertains the dogma of
peoples sovereignty is not at all an isolateddoctrine that takes into account neither the
traditions, nor the entirety of dominant ideas;
3
Idem, vol III, p. 1084 Pierre Manent,Istoria intelectual a liberalismului, Editura Humanitas, Bucureti, 1992,p. 152
8
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
3/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
individ, oricare ar fi el, gradul de raiunenecesar s se poat conduce el nsui, nlucrurile care l intereseaz exclusiv. Aceastaeste marea maxim pe care, n Statele Unite,se sprijin societatea civil i politic: tatl defamilie o aplic copiilor si, stpnul servitorilor, localitatea administraiilor,
provincia localitilor, statul provinciilor,Uniuneastatelor. Extinse la nivelul naiunii,ea devine dogma suveranitii poporului.Astfel, n Statele Unite, principiul generatoral republicii este acelai care regleazmajoritatea aciunilor umane5.
Preocupat de resorturile i mecanismele
democraiei, la un moment dat GiovaniSartori a exprimat un punct de vedere extrem
de controversat, pe care muli autori auconsiderat c i-ar fi compromis opera. Iat-l :Democraie! Numele propus al unui lucrucare nu exist. Eu spun c aceastexclamaie cu valoare conclusiv nu este nicisuperficial, nici iresponsabil cum ocalific J. Baudouin. Dimpotriv, ea este
semnificativ i responsabilizatoare dac nudorim s limitm nepermis nelegereademocraiei azi.
Voi explica n cele ce urmeaz. naintede a exista elaborri sistematice, ideea dedemocraie, ca i metodele de punere a ei naplicare, au aprut n prima jumtate asecolului al V-lea .H. la greci, ei exercitndo influen deosebit n istoria universal.Grecii, ndeosebi atenienii constat RobertA. Dahl au fost primii care au produs ceeace a numi prima transformare democratic:de la ideea i practica guvernrii de ctre cei
puini la ideea i practica guvernrii de ctrecei muli. Pentru greci supremul loc propicedemocraiei era, desigur, statulcetate6.
Derularea evenimentelor n istoria
on the contrary, we can imagine it as the last
link of a chain of opinions which wraps the
whole American world. Providence has given
to each individual, no matter his identity, the
degree of necessary raison d'tre to lead hisbeing in the world, surrounded exclusively by
the things he is interested in. This is the great
maxima which uphold the civil and political
society in USA: the father of the family
applies to his children, the master to his
attendants, local authorities to their
administrative services, the state to its cities,
towns and villages, the state to its governors,
the Union to its states. By extending them at
the level of the whole nation, it becomes the
dogma of peoples sovereignty. Accordingly,in USA, the principle generating the republic
is the same that regulates most of the human
acts.Here, some emphases are necessary,
particularly regarding the dogma of peoplessovereignty, taking into consideration the
recent theories on democracy. Accordingly,
many authors have considered that one idealaunched by Giovanni Sartori would have
compromised his work. Preoccupied by the
resorts and mechanisms of democracy, at a
given moment he expressed an extremely
controversial view. Here it is: Democracy!The name proposed for a subject matter that
does not exist.I would contend that this conclusive
exclamation is neither superficial norirresponsible as J. Baudouin characterizesit. On the contrary it is both significant and
responsible unless we desire to forbiddingly
limit the understanding of democracy today.
Allow me to explain myself. Before
systematic enacting, the idea of democracy as
well as its method to apply it emerged in the
5
A. de Tocqueville, op. cit. p. 4146Robert A. Dahl,Democraia i criticii ei, Iai, Institutul European, 2002, p.9
9
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
4/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
universal demonstreaz c democraia esteun fenomen extrem de complex, a creianaliz a provocat pe cei mai muli gnditori,dar i oameni simpli, care din vremuristrvechi i-au imaginat un model deorganizare a sistemului politic n care membricomunitari s fie egali din punct de vedere
politic, s guverneze mpreun i s dispunde caliti proprii, resurse i instituii necesare
pentru a se autoguverna. Problema raportului
dintre cercetarea empiric i reflecianormativ n teoria democratic, a constituitmult vreme subiect de dezbatere, iar Dahleste contient c tiina politic nu poate fi
una exclusiv empiric (opera sa poate ficonsiderat un proiect de mbinare a celordou dimensiuni)7
Democraia este studiat, deopotriv, defilosofi, care propun chiar modele ideale de
democraie, istorici, preocupai deascensiunea i declinul acesteia, politologi,care ncearc s dea o explicaie empiric acondiiilor afirmrii, meninerii, funcionrii,
rspndirii i posibilei sale prbuiri8
. Estecert c existena acestei diversiti deunghiuri de abordare conduce i la unelesuprapuneri, ns diversitatea conduce maitotdeauna la rezultate fecunde n cercetare.Chiar i unele construcii ce mbrac formeutopice ideii ale de democraie pot conduce lambuntirea democraiilor real-funcionale.Totui, n evoluia sa istoric, guvernareamajoritii a fost n multe situaii repudiat,
puini oameni fiind n situaia de a cuta i areui s adapteze realitatea politic, ntr-omsur semnificativ, la cerinele eiimperioase9.
Mai mult, democraia este formapolitic ce i-a dovedit n timpurindelungate, o nou capacitate de adaptare la
second half of 5t century with the Greeks
and they were particularly influential for the
world history. Greek people, especiallyAthenians Robert Dahl ascertains werethe first to yield what I would call the first
democratic transformation: from the idea and
practice of few governors, to the idea and
practice of many governors. With the Greeks,
the supreme place appropriate to democracy
was obviously the state-citadel.The events in the world history
demonstrated that democracy was an
extremely complex phenomenon, whose
analysis challenged most of thinkers and also
common people who as early as ancient times
imagined a model of political system
arrangement where the community members
should be equal politically speaking, should
govern together and should have at their
disposal their qualities, resources and
necessary institutions to exercise self-
governing. The subject matter of the relation
between empirical research and normative
reflection within the democratic theory hasbeen for a long time a debatable issue and
Dahl is aware that the political science may
be exclusively empirical (his work itself may
be considered a draft to intermix the two
dimensions).
Democracy has been studied
concomitantly by philosophers, who even
suggested ideal models of democracy,
historians concerned with its ascent and
decline,political scientists, who endeavour in
giving an empirical explanation to its being in
the world, maintaining, operating,
disseminating and its possible collapse. It is
certain that this diversity of approach
perspectives leads to overlays; still diversity
next to always leads to prolific results in
7 LucianDumitru Drdal,Postfa la cartea lui R.A. Dahl, Democraia i criticii ei, p. 527
8
Vezi i Gianfranco Pasquino, Curs de tiin politic,Institutul European, 2002, p. 3059 R. Dahl, op. cit. p. 9
10
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
5/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
diferite condiii, o mare capacitate de nvarei un interes potenial de transformare10; eas-a manifestat ca idee a guvernrii de ctrecei muli transformnd viaa politiccam naceeai perioad att n Atena (i alte orae state greceti), ct i n statul cetate alRomei.
Germeni ai ideilor referitoare la
democraie se regsesc nc din perioadagruprii denumit de Karl Popper MareaGeneraie care traverseaz colile sofitilorProtagoras i Gorgias, atomistului Democrit,democratului Pericle, generaie, creia, dealtfel, i-au aparinut Alcidamus i Lycopfron.
Prin Oraia funerar a lui Pericle sunt puse
bazele acestei Generaii care i-au afirmatprincipiile egalitarist-liberale iindividualismului i care a trit n Atena ntimpul rzboiului peloponezian. Totodat,Protagoras a elaborat un fundament teoretic al
democraiei participative (conform lui, toioamenii au o contribuie chiar inegaluneori la asigurarea dreptii), el fiind
iniiatorul doctrinei egalitii politice nistoria gndirii politice, doctrin dezvoltatpentru prima oar ca o critic a concepiiloresoterice i etiliste privind statul (concepiifrecvente n Grecia) aa cum observ i G.B.Kerferd n The Sophistic Movement.
Complexitatea problematicii
constrngerii i libertilor, a democraiei ilibertii face i obiectul miniaturalei.Democraia ca violen, atribuit Anonimuluiatenian (cca 450 .H.N.) reprezint, de altfel,cea mai veche critic a democraiei ca sistemdistrugtor i opresiv, dar perfect11. Dardemocraia, nscut ca un cuvnt de rupturi nu de convenien, exprim prevalenaunei pri i nu participarea egal a tuturor,
participare echidistant la viaa cetii (pentru
research. Even some constructions taking
utopia shapes of democracy idea may lead to
improving the real-functioning democracies.
Yet along its historic evolution, majority
governing was many times repudiated, few
people being in the situation to search and
succeed in adapting the political reality in asignificant extent to its imperative
requirements.
Moreover, democracy is the political
form which has proved its new adaptabilityto different circumstances for long time, great
capacity of changing and a potential interest
of transformation; it was manifest as an idea
of governing by the majority, changing
political life roughly in the same period both
in Athens (and other Greek towns-states) and
in the state-citadel Rome.
Seeds of ideas referring to democracy
were to be found as early as the period of the
group named by Karl Popper Great
Generation who ran through the schools of
the sophists Protagoras and Georgias, of the
atomist Democrit, of the democrat Pericles, ageneration to which, in fact, Alcidamus and
Lycopfron belonged. Pericless FuneralOrationlaid the bases of this Generation who
stated their equalitarian-liberal principles
and individualism and who lived in Athens
during the Peloponnesian War. All the more,
Protagoras elaborated a theoretical basis of
participative democracy (according to him,
everybody has a contribution sometimesunequal to furnish justice); he was theinitiator of political equality doctrine within
the history of political thought, a doctrine
which was first developed as a critique of
esoteric and elitist conceptions regarding the
state (frequent in Greece) as G.B. Kerferd
notices in The Sophist Movement.
10
G. Pasquino, op. cit. p. 30511 Anonimo ateniese:La democrazia come violenza
11
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
6/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
aceasta, mai apropiat n coninut ar fiinsonomia). Aa cum observa nc Platon,democraia se nate ca un act de violen nmomentul n care ctig sracii, ucignd peciva dintre bogai, alungndu-i pe alii.Aceast instauraie violent se realizeaz fie
prin fora armelor, fie prin extinderea priiadverse care se retrage prin team12.
De altfel, n accepiunea lui J. Gray,Platon i Aristotel se opun germenilorliberalismului exprimai de MareaGeneraie. Astfel, citndu-i pe E. A.Havelock i K. Popper, Gray consemneaz:n operele lui Platon i Aristotel, nu vom
descoperi o dezvoltare a concepiei MariiGeneraii, ci o reacie mpotriva acesteia, oefeminare a liberalismului grec, sau o
contrarevoluie ndreptat spre societateadeschis din Atena lui Pericle13. n acestsens, Gray susine c:
Perspectiva sceptic i empiric asofitilor i a lui Democrit este nlocuit, nscrierile lui Platon i Aristotel, de un tip de
raionalism metafizic; Platon repudiaz etica libertii i
egalitii filosofilor Marii Generaii n modradical ;Aristotel procedeaz n aceeai
problem ceva mai moderat, dar nu maipuin substanial;
Platon repudiaz n Republica oadevrat utopie antiliberal,nerecunoscnd cerinele individualiste,respingnd egalitatea moral ntre oameni,repudiind critica instituiilor care, o datstabilite, devin imuabile.
Noi atragem, ns, atenia asuprafaptului c Platon, preocupat de ntrireastatului grec n faa pericolului iminent aldecderii, de statul ideal, (ca necesitateabsolut i realizare suprem), a lsat n
The issue complexity of constraints and
freedoms, of democracy and freedoms is also
the subject matter of miniaturization.
Democracy as violenceassigned to Athenian
Anonymous (roughly 450 BC) represented in
fact the oldest critique of democracy as
destructive and oppressive system, still
perfect. Yet democracy arising as a word of
breach not of convenience, expressed the
prevalence of one part, not the equal
participation of all, equidistant participation
to citadels life (for this more close to thesubject matter would be isonomia). As Plato
himself noticed, democracy was given rise as
violent acts the very moment when the poorpeople win, killing some of the rich people,
banishing others. This violent instauration
was accomplished either by the weapons
force or through extension of the opposite
part that fearful withdraws.As a matter of fact, in J. Grays
opinion, Plato and Aristotle were against theseeds of liberalism expressed by the Great
Generation. By quoting E.A. Havelock andK. Popper, Gray writes: In Plato andAristotles works, we shall not find anenlargement on Great Generation concept,
but a reaction against it, an unmanly of Greek
liberalism or a counter-revolution against the
society open in Pericless Athens. In thissense, Gray ascertains that:
The sceptical and empirical
perspective of sophists and Democrit was
replaced with akind of metaphysical rationalism in
Plato and Aristotles writings;Plato radically repudiated the
ethics of Great Generation philosophersfreedom and equality; Aristotle proceeds
more moderately still not much less
12
Platon,Republica, Cartea a VIII-a, n Opere, V, Bucureti, Editura tiinific i Enciclopedic, 198613 John Gray,Liberalismul, Editura Du Style, Bucureti, 1998, p.29
12
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
7/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
umbr semnificaia valorii intrinseci alibertii individuale. Demersul su privindelaborarea unei teorii organice asupra
statului i legilor este unul finalist. Apoi,
trebuie precizat i c opera lui Platon nu esteabsolut omogen i nu este reprezentat doarde Republica i alte cteva dialoguri. Prinurmare, transferul de la punctul de vedere
sceptic i empirist ctre raionalismulmetafizic de care vorbete J. Gray, trebuie
privit cu o anumit rezerv i, mai ales,contextual. Invocm doar faptul c, n operatrzie, de exemplu, n Legile, Platon prezinto ncercare de prescriere exhaustiv a sferei
de aciune individual sub forma unor legiatotcuprinztoare care pot fi garantulaciunilor libere ale individului,constrngerea limitndu-se la acele aciunicare nu sunt prescrise de lege. Iar cum legile
pot s acopere o arie extrem de mic din sferaaciunilor umane, este cert c aciuneaaparine n spe libertii, voinei libere.
n privina lui Aristotel, Gray se
manifest cu mai mult ngduin,remarcnd ns faptul c sentimentulantiliberal dei nu este la fel de virulent cacel care anim operele lui Platon, rmneriguros i ptrunztor14. n acest sens, elconstat c, cei mai muli gnditori au ajunsla concluzia c n opera lui Aristotel nu segsete nicio concesie a libertii individualesau a drepturilor omului, ns, asumpiaacestora c orice ncercare de a atribuielemente ale concepiei liberale unui gnditor
premodern este anacronica nu este deacceptat. Motivul respingerii acestui punct de
vedere de ctre Gray este reprezentat detrsturile evidente ale individualismului cese regsesc n concepia sofitilor, trsturi pecare el le-a surprins sub denumirea de
germeni de gndire liberal existent n
substantially on the same issue;In the Republic, Plato repudiated a
true anti-liberal utopia withoutacknowledging the individualistrequirements, rejecting the moral equalityamong people, repudiating the institutions
critique, which one they were established,
become immutable.
Nonetheless we draw the attention upon
the fact that Plato concerned with reinforcing
the Greek state in the early stage of collapse
as imminent danger, concerned with the ideal
state (as an absolute necessity and supreme
achievement), left behind the significance of
intrinsic value on individual freedom. His
approach towards framing an organic theory
on state and laws is a final one. Then we
have to specify that Platos work was not atall homogeneous and was not represented
only by the Republicand other few dialogues.
It follows that, the transfer from sceptical and
empirical point of view towards metaphysical
rationalism J. Gray speaks about, has to be
regarded somehow reservedly and above allwithin a context. We only mention the fact
that in his later work, Laws, for instance,
Plato presented an endeavour of exhaustive
prescription of individual activity domain as
self-encompassing laws which may be the
warrant of the individuals free activities, theconstraint being limited only to those
activities which were not under the law. And
as the laws may cover an extremely small
area of human actions, it is certain that in
substance the action belonged to freedom as
free will.
Regarding Aristotle, Gray manifests
himself more tolerantly, yet remarking the
fact that the anti-liberal feeling, though not as
vehement as the one that breathes fromPlatos works, remains rigorous and
14 Ibidem
13
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
8/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
lumea antic i la care am fcut i noireferiri mai sus.
Aprofundnd analiza operei luiAristotel prin raportare la sofitii cu careacesta a fost contemporan, dar i la
precursorii gndirii moderne (Hobbes,Locke), Gray ajunge la concluzia c deinicieri n opera acestuia nu exist vreosugestie referitoare la drepturile negative ale
libertii individuale, etica Stagirituluiconine ntr-o form rudimentar, o anumitconcepie a drepturilor naturale ale omuluiadic a acelor drepturi pe care toi oamenii ledein n virtutea apartenenei lor la specia
uman15. De altfel, Gray, referindu-se laEtica Nicomahic, dezvolt argumentaiaprivind caracterul rudimentar al concepieiaristotdice a drepturilor naturale ale omului,
ca drepturi universale fondate pe apartenenala specia uman, gsind chiar i o asemnarentre afirmarea drepturilor naturale la Stagiriti concepia lui Toma dAquino referitoare lantemeierea n dreptatea natural a acestor
drepturi. n acest sens trebuie neleasrespingerea radicalismului lui MacIntyre care
susine c ideea de drept natural este stringndirii antice i apropierea lui Gray de
poziia moderat a lui Strauss conform creiaideea esenial a dreptului natural al anticilorera ntemeiat pe ideea de datorie. ntr-adevr remarc J. Gray la Aristotel existo concepie aproape funcional a drepturilor,unde acestea apreau datorit rolurilordiferite pe care indivizii le ndeplineau ncadrul polisului. n viziunea lui Aristotel,aceste funcii erau ataate n mod clar unordrepturi extrem de inegale, fr a genera nicimcar dreptul la noninterferen sauindependen personal. Respingereaconsecvent a egalitii politice de ctreAristotel trebuie neleas ca fcnd parte din
pervasive. In the same sense he notices thatmost thinkers reached the conclusion that in
Aristotles work, any concession ofindividual freedom or human rights is not to
be found, yet their assumption that anyattempt to assign elements of liberal
conception to a pre-modern thinker is an
anachronism is unacceptable. The reasonsfor Gray to reject this standpoint is
represented by the obvious features of
individualism that are to be found in the
sophists conceptions, features that he
established under the seeds of liberalthinking in ancient world to which we also
referred above.
Considering thoroughly Aristotleswork by relating it to the sophists whom he
was contemporary with, and also to the
precursors of modern thought (Hobbes,
Locke), Gray reaches the conclusion that
even though nowhere in the work of thisthinker there is any suggestion referring to
the negative rights of individual freedom;
the ethics of Stagirite includes in arudimentary form a certain conception on
natural human rights, namely on those rights
which everybody enjoys under their
belonging to human species. Furthermore,referring to Ethica Nichomachica, Gray
enlarge on the debate concerning the
rudimentary character of Aristotelian
conception about natural human rights, as
universal rights based on belonging to human
species and even finds a similarity between
statement of natural rights in Stagirite and
Tomas dAquinos conception regardingestablishing these rights in natural justice.
MacIntyres rejection of radicalism has to beunderstood in this sense; MacIntyre asserts
that the idea of natural right is far from
ancient thinking, whereas Grays approaching
15 Idem, p. 30
14
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
9/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
reacia sa conservatoare mpotrivaliberalismului incipient la Atena16.
Este tiut c, pentru greci, democraianseamn guvernarea de ctre oameniobinuii, oameni care n cea mai mare parteerau sraci, fr experien i needucati. Lageneral vorbind, demosul reprezenta
categoria oarecum majoritar, guvernarearealizndu-se, n primul rnd, n beneficiulsu, prin opoziie la aristrocaie care
presupune conducerea de ctre aristoi, ceimai buni, cei despre care muli gnditorigreci afirmau c erau cei mai n msur sguverneze. Descentralizarea vieii politice
presupunea autogenerarea la nivelul oraului stat (polis-ului), iar n perioada numit avrstei de Aur a Atenei, locuitorii siconsiderau polisul o democraie.
Forma noastr de guvernare rosteaPericle nu rivalizeaz cu instituiile altora.
Nu i copiem pe vecinii notri, ci suntem unexemplu pentru ei. Este adevrat c suntemnumii o democraie, deoarece administraia
se afl n minile celor muli, i nu a celorpuini. Dar n timp ce legea asigur dreptateegal tuturor n disputele lor particulare, esterecunoscut i cerina de a fi cei mai buni, iatunci cnd un cetean se distinge n oricefel, el este preferat pentru funcii publice nuca un privilegiu, ci ca o rsplat a merituluisu. Srcia nu este o piedic, dimpotriv, unom poate aduce beneficii rii sale [polis],orict de obscur ar fi condiia sa17.
Oraia Funerar a lui Pericle sugereaz,pe lng distincia democrai-aristocrai i oalt distincie de mare nsemntate pentruatenieni, aceea ntre cetenii interesai detreburile publice (polites) i persoanele carei urmreau doar propriul interes (ideotes):Un cetean atenian afirma el nu
to moderate interference position of Straussaccording to whom the essential idea of
natural right pertaining to ancient thinkers
was based on the idea of duty. Indeed Gray remarks with Aristotle, there is analmost functional conception of rights which
emerged due to different roles undertaken by
individuals within the polis. In Aristotlesview, these functions were clearly attached to
some extremely unequal rights, without
engendering at least the right to non-
interference or personal independence.
Consistent rejection of political equality by
Aristotle has to be understood as part of his
conservative reaction against incipient
liberalism in Athens.It is well known the fact that for
Greeks, democracy meant governing by
common people, people who were mostly
poor, inexperienced and uneducated.
Generally speaking, demos represented the
majority category, governing was
accomplished, in the first place, to their
benefit, competing with aristocracysupposing leadership by aristot people
(aristocrats), the best, those about whommost thinkers stated they were in the position
to govern. De-centralizing the political life
supposed self-generating at the level of city-
state (polis), and in the period called Golden
Era of Athens, its inhabitants considered their
polis a democracy.
Our government form Periclesuttered does not rival the institutions ofothers. We do not imitate our neighbours, but
we are an example for them. It is true they
call us a democracy, since the more and
common people are in charge with
administration, not the few and aristocrats.
Yet, while law enforce equal justice for
16
Idem, pp. 30-3117 Pericles,Funerar Oration, n Tucidide, History of the Peloponnesian War, vol.4, pp. 127-128
15
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
10/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
neglijeaz statul polis deoarece el are grijde propria sa gospodrie; i chiar aceia dintrenoi care sunt implicai n afaceri au o foarte
bun idee despre politic. Numai noi privimun brbat care nu este interesat n problemele
publice, nu ca fiind un caracter duntor, ciunul fr folos; i dac puini dintre noiiniiaz o politic, noi cu toii o judecmtemeinic18.
La atenieni, noiunea de cetenieindic i un anumit sens al libertii; pentru afi cetean, individul trebuia s fie liber,adult, brbat atenian. Ct de inclusiv erademocraia atenian rezult exact din faptul
c femeile, strinii rezideni i sclavii, carealctuiau, prin urmare, majoritatea populaiei,erau exclui. Practic, doar unul din zecelocuitori ai Atenei era cetean (deci liber).
Participarea la viaa publicpresupunea:
calitatea de cetean major al Atenei(la nivelul ceteniei, interdiciile vizaufemeile);
calitatea de om liber, derivat dincalitatea de cetean; o responsabilitate public ce nu
exclude cetenii implicai n afaceri(dimpotriv, acetia sunt considerai a aveao foarte bun idee despre politic);
remunerarea activitilor departicipare la viaa public, asigurndu-se,astfel, cointeresarea celor implicai (fie eisraci sau bogai) s participe la adunri i sdecid politica prin vot direct;
ocuparea unor posturi politice
(urmare a ncrederii n demos) nu prin vot, cipe baza tragerii la sori. Unele dintre acestepractici, la care se adaug protecia redus adrepturilor minoritilor, limitele libertii deexprimare, practica ostracizrii (ostakon scoica sau ciobul pe care cetenii Atenei
everyone in their particular disputes, the
requirement to be the best is also granted and
when a citizen is different in any kind, he is
in favour for public service not as a privilege,
but as a reward for his merits. Poverty is not
an obstacle; on the contrary, a man can bring
benefits to his polis, no matter how obscure
his condition.Apart from the distinction between
democrats and aristocrats, Pericles FuneralOration suggests another distinction of an
utmost importance for Athenians: that
referring to the citizens interested in public
matters (polities, Gr.) and the self-interested
persons (idiotes, Gr.): An Athenian citizen he stated does not neglect the state because he takes care of his own
household; and even those among us implied
in business are good in politics. With the only
difference that we regard a man who is not
interested in political matters, not as a
harmful character, but a useless one; and
whether few of us initiate a politics, we all
judge it thoroughly.With the Athenians, the notion of
citizenship indicates a certain sense of
freedom; in order to be a citizen the
individual had to be free, adult, man and
Athenian. How comprehensive wasAthenian democracy flowed from the fact
that the women, foreigner residents and the
slaves who consisted most of the population
were excluded. In practice, one of ten
inhabitants of Athens was a citizen (therefore
free).
Participation to public life supposed:
The adult citizenship of Athens (at
the level of citizenship, interdiction referred
to women;
The quality of free man derived from
the citizenship;
18 Idem, p. 129
16
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
11/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
scriau numele celor pe care doreau s-indeprteze fr proces i fr a li se aduceacuzaii legale); fac din democraia atenian oform de guvernare inacceptabil pentru a filuat ca model. Asemenea aspecte ridicmulte ntrebri legate de caracteruldemocratic al oraului stat Atena. De altfel,Atena prima democraie a creat primulmartir al libertii de gndire i de exprimare
Socrate.n acest context trebuie privite criticile
lui Platon i Aristotel la adresa democraieiateniene, form de guvernare considerat deei ca instabil i, prin urmare, periculoas.
Astfel, Platon insist pe ideea c, plasndputerea politic n minile poporului ignoranti mcinat de invidie, n Cartea a VIII-a alucrrii saleRepublicadecreteaz democraia
periculoas ntruct:-ignorana oamenilor de rnd
genereaz imposibilitatea utilizrii puteriipolitice pentru binele comun;
-invidia produce discriminri ntre
promovarea binelui comun, i bineluipropriu, poporul fiind nclinat s-i acoperepropriile interese (o privilegiere a binelui
propriu);
-renunarea la binele comun n
favoarea binelui propriu conduce la jefuirea ideposedarea celor mai nstrii;
-ignorana i invidia fac din demos omas de manevr pentru liderii si (lideriidemosului, prin demagogie i flatare vorspecula invidia i vor strni oamenii, uniimpotriva altora);
-starea de lupt din interiorul cetii,caracteristic democraiei, evolueaz ctrerzboi civil i anarhie, ctre distrugereaoraului stat;
-anarhia generat va face ca oamenii s
cear lege i ordine, apelnd la persoanedornice de putere (i suficient de puternice),
care s conduc prin mijloace despotice
A public responsibility which did
not leave out the citizens engaged in business
(on the contrary, they were considered to
have a very good idea on politics);Remunerating the activities of
participation in public life, thus ensuring the
interest of those involved (either poor or rich)
to participate in meetings and decide the
policy by direct vote;
Taking hold of some political
positions (as a follow up of trust in demos)
not by direct vote but by balloting for a place.
Some of these practises to which reduced
protection of minorities rights was added,
the limits of freedom of expression, the
practice of ostracize (ostrakon the shell orshiver on which the citizens of Athens wrote
the name of those who they wanted removed
without a trial and without legal accusation);
make Athenian democracy a form of
government unacceptable to be taken as a
model. Such aspects pose many questions
related to democratic character of the city-
state Athens. To state precisely, Athens thefirst democracy created the first martyr offreedom of thought and expression Socrates.
It is in this context that Plato and
Aristotles critiques have to be regarded onAthenian democracy, a form of governing
considered by them unstable and
consequently dangerous. Thus, Plato insists
upon the idea, that placing the political power
in the hands of an ignorant people, red with
envy, in Book VIII of his work Republic says
about democracy it is dangerous because:
-Common peoples ignorancegenerates the impossibility of utilizing
political power for the common benefit;
-
Envy engenders discriminations
between promoting the common benefit and
self-benefit, the people being inclined to
cover its own interest (privilege of self-
17
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
12/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
(tiranului nu-i sunt specifice nici interesele
polisului, nici cele ale poporului, ci doar
puterea exercitat n numepropriu).n esen, democraia, conducerea
poporului, la Platon nu reprezint altcevadect o serie de pai mruni ctre despotism.
i pentru Aristotel democraia era rea ide nedorit, el preciznd c aceasta reprezintunul din cele ase tipuri principale de regim
politic (constituii).Puterea de guvernare susine
Stagiritul n Politica trebuie s fieexercitat de ctre o persoan, de un gruprestrns de persoane sau de un grup larg de
oameni. Aceast putere se exercit potenial fie spre binele ntregii comuniti caz ncare ea este bun, adevrat, fie numai
pentru binele conductorilor caz n care estepervertit. Realiznd o combinare a acestorcaracteristici, lund ca referin interesul lacare se raporteaz exercitarea puterii,Aristotel consider c exist trei formeadevrate (puterea este exercitat n interes
public): monarhia (conduce o persoan),aristocraia (conduc civa) i politeia(conduc muli) forme crora li se contrapunalte trei, pervertite (n interes propriu):tirania (conduce o persoan), oligarhia(conduc civa) i democraia(conduc muli).
Prin urmare, nu numrul celor careexercit puterea este esenial n calificareadrept adevrate sau pervertite a formelorde guvernare, ci tipul interesului urmrit nexercitarea puterii.
Ca i Platon, Aristotel susine cdemocraia este o form de conducerecorupt, ntruct demosul tinde ctre intereseegoiste, urmare a vederilor sale nguste.Oamenii simpli nu sunt interesai de pacea istabilitatea polisului (deci, nu susininteresele de durat), ci se orienteaz nfuncie de propriile interese pe termen scurt,
nsuindu-i proprieti, bogii i putere de la
benefit);
-
Giving up common benefit in favour
of self-benefit leads to plundering and
dispossession of wealthy people;
-
The ignorance and envy transform
demos into a manoeuvre mass for its leaders
(the demos leaders through demagogy andflattering will speculate the envy and provoke
people against one another);
-
The fight condition inside the citadel,
characteristic to democracy evolves towards
civil war and anarchy, ultimately to
destruction of the city-state;
-
The generated anarchy will cause
people ask for law and order, by appealing to
individuals willing to be in power (powerful
enough) to lead by despotic means (the polisinterests, the peoples interests are notspecific to the tyrant, but only power
exercised on his own behalf).
In essence, with Plato leading the
people represents nothing other than a series
of small steps towards despotism.
With Aristotle too, democracy was eviland undesired, he himself specifying that this
is one of the six main types of political
regime (constitutions).
The governing powerStagirite claimsin Politicshas to be exercised by a person,a small group of persons or a large group of
people. This power is potentially exercised either to the benefit of whole
community which is well, true, or to theleaders benefit which is perverted. Bycombining the two characteristics and taking
the interest to which exercising the power is
related to as a reference point, Aristotle
considers that there are three real forms
(power is exercised in the public interest):
monarchy (one person leads), aristocracy (a
small group of persons leads) andpoliteia (a
large group leads); to these other three
perverted counterpoise (in self interest):
18
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
13/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
cei puini. Aceast nclinaie a demersului areaceleai consecine cu cele descrise de Platon:instaurarea haosului i, n final, adespotismului n ntreg polisul.
O caracteristic desprins dinclasificarea aristotelic este aceea c prin
prisma unor judeci normative includepoliteia ca form buna a guvernrii de ctrecei muli. Pentru Aristotel politeia difer dedemocraieprin aceea c ea mbin elementeale guvernrii de ctre cei muli rezultnd oconstituie mixtce const n faptul c fiecaregrup l poate supraveghea pe cellalt, cei
puini pe cei muli, cei muli pe cei puini,
astfel nct nici una din clase nu-i poateurmri propriul interes n detrimentul bineluicomun.
O alt deosebire, sugerat de Stagirit,ntre politeia i democraie izvorte dinmodul de distribuie a bogiei i a
proprietii. ntr-o democraie, n condiiiaproape cvasitotale, inevitabile (acesta este
modul n care decurg lucrurile i el nu poate
fi schimbat), cei muli sunt cei sraci. Numain condiiile extrem de rare, cei mai mulioameni nu sunt nici bogai, nici sraci, ci auo proprietate (bogie) moderat isuficient19, existnd posibilitatea ca ei sconduc de o manier prudent. Este vorba de
permanent invocata clas de mijloc idevenirea ei ca majoritar, situaieconsiderat de natur a evita exceselecaracteristice sracilor invidioi i
bogtailor arogani. Aceast clas demijloc vede binele polisului ca propriul su
bine, i astfel, va pleda i aciona pentru a semenine pacea i stabilitatea oraului stat.Ct de actual este aceast apreciere aStagiritului se poate observa i numaianaliznd fenomenalizrile democraiei
formalei democraiei substaniale, distincii
tyranny(one person leads), oligarchy(a small
group leads) and democracy (a large group
leads).
It follows that it is not the number of
those exercising the power that is essential in
characterizing the governing forms as realor perverted, but the type of the interest
pursued in exercising power.
Just like Plato, Aristotle too, claimed
that democracy was a corrupt form of
governing, since the demos tended to selfish
interests as a follow up of its narrow views.
Common people were not interested in the
polis peace and stability (so they did not
foster interests in long term), but they
directed themselves depending on their
interests in short term, by taking possession
of properties, wealth and power from the few.
This approach had the same consequences as
the ones described by Plato: instauration of
chaos and ultimately despotism in the whole
polis.
One characteristic flowing from
Aristotelian classification is that throughnormative judgement he encompasses
politeia as a good form of governing by a
large group. For Aristotle, politeia differs
from democracy in that it intermixes the
elements of governing by a large group, a
mixed constitution following, consisting in
that each group can oversee the other, the few
oversee the many and the many oversee the
few, so that none of the classes can pursue its
own interest to the detriment of the common
benefit.
Yet Stagirite suggests another
difference between politeia and democracy,
under quasi overall conditions, though
inevitable (this is the way in which things
flow and it cannot be altered), the many are
the poor people. Only under very rare
19 Aristotel,Politica, Editura Antet, Bucureti, 1996, p. 192
19
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
14/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
nuanate de mine n numeroase studii.Aristotel considera, deci, politeia drept
cel mai bun dintre cele ase regimuri, n timpce democraia era considerat rea.
Totui, ntr-o ierarhizare (fondat tot nnormativ), el argumenteaz c democraiaeste mai bun dect tirania i oligarhia (ocomparaie gradual n interiorul formelor
pervertite), ntruct judecata colectiv estemai bun dect aceea a oricrui individ saugrup restrns, inclusiv a unui grup de oameni
pricepui (nici un om obinuit nu arecapacitatea de a judeca bine ceea ce este drept
sau nedrept, bun sau ru, urt sau frumos).
Acest lucru este adevrat la fel cum un ospla care contribuie muli este mai bun dect ocin bazat pe o singur pung20.
Cel de-al doilea element care face din
democraie un ru mai mic dect tirania sauoligarhia este acela c cea dinti ofer
posibilitatea mai multor brbai de a participala viaa activ de cetean, de aconduce i dea fi condus.
Este tiut c libertatea politic greacapare ca un dat istoric, cu precdere, ca unrezultat al rzboaielor. Chiar n perioadaformrii ideii libertii politice clasice seconstat o difereniere ntre libertateacaracterizat prin adeziunea la sophrosyne(respect pentru tradiie i existen, pentruviaa social, disciplin i ordine) pe de o
parte i libertatea democratic neleas calibertinism, desfru, akolasia, pe de alt
parte. Aceasta de pe urm este cauzatoare dearogan i hybris, disoluie i instabilitate ni pentru viaa comunitii. De altfel, nTestamentul su, Pericle atrgea ateniaasupra pericolului pentru stat a celei de a
doua form a libertii, subliniind clibertatea fr legalitate (fr supunere n faaautoritilor nvestite) nu exist, iar dac
circumstances, the many are neither rich, not
poor, but they possess a property which isboth moderate and self-sufficient; there is apossibility for them to lead cautiously. In this
case, this the permanently invoked middleclass and it becoming a majority, a situationmeant to avoid the excesses proper to
envious poor people and arrogant richpeople. This middle class regards the poleiswell as its well and thus it will always plead
for and act to maintain the city-states peaceand stability. How contemporary is Stagiritescharacterization it can be implied by
analyzing the formal democracy and
substantial democracy phenomenology,
distinctions emphasized by me in numerous
studies.
Thus Aristotle considered politeia as
the best of the six regimes, while democracy
was considered evil.
However, in a hierarchy (also based on
normative judgement) he brings arguments to
demonstrate that democracy is better than
tyrannyand oligarchy(a gradual comparisonwithin perverted forms), since the collective
judgement is better than that of an individual
or small group, including a group of people
with expertise (no common people does not
have the ability to judge well what is right or
not, good or bad, ugly or beautiful). This is as
true as a feast to which more than one basedon a single purse contribute.
The second element which makes
democracy a smaller evil than tyranny oroligarchy is that the former furnish the
possibility for many men to participate in the
active life of citizen, to lead and to be lead.
It is well-known the fact that Greek
politics emerges as a historic given fact,
especially as an outcome of wars. As early as
the period when the idea of classic political
20 Idem, p. 146
20
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
15/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
exist, desemneaz deviere fundamental dela elentherie (comunitate) spre un demos
dominat de frdelege, anarhie.Este cunoscut i recunoscut c
guvernmntul popular a supravieuit nlumea antic sub forma republicii maidegrab dect sub forma democraiei(republica deriv din latinescul res publica,lucrul public, treburi publice). De altfel, cei
mai muli cercettori consider cfundamentele individualismului se gsesc ndreptul roman ntructLegea celor XII Table(care are, se pare, ca model legile lui Solon),
coninea importante garanii ale libertii
individuale. Prima dintre legile publice
stipuleaz c nici un privilegiu sau statut nuva fi decretat n favoarea unei persoane
private, dacacesta reprezint o nedreptate ie contrar legii comune tuturor cetenilor,lege de care indivizii, independent de rang,
pot face uz. Pe aceast baz s-a dezvoltat laRoma un drept privat puternic, de facturindividual i s-a impus o tradiie legislativ
care, dei a deczut n timpul domniilor luiIustinian i Constantin, a influenatmodernitatea, ndeosebi prin intermediulRenaterii latine din secolul al XVII-lea.Operele istoricilor i oratorilor Titus Livius,Tacit i Cicero exprim spiritul liber al legilorromane n perioada considerat a reprezentafundamentarea individualismului.
Vorbind despre Cicero, Fr. A. Hayek
consemneaz:Lui i se datoreaz concepia referitoare
la regulile generale leges legum, caregenereaz dreptul, concepie dup care, noidm ascultare legii pentru a ne protejalibertatea i concepia conform creia
judectorul nu trebuie s fie dect gura prinintermediul creia vorbete legea21.
O remarcabil analiz a republicii
freedom crystallization, a differentiation
between the freedoms characterized through
joining the sophrosyne (respect for tradition
and being in the world, for social life,
discipline and order) on the one hand and
democratic freedom understood as
libertinism, debauchery, akolasia, on the
other. The last one causes arrogance and
hubris, dissolution and instability within and
for the community life. In fact in his Last
Will, Pericles drew the attention upon the
danger that the second form of freedom
incurred upon the state, emphasizing that
freedom without legal bases (obeying the
appointed authorities) does not exist, and if it
does means fundamental deviation from
Eleutherie (community) towards a demos
dominated by unlawfulness and anarchy.
It is well-known and acknowledged the
fact that the popular governing outlived in
ancient world rather as a republic than as a
democracy (the word republic derives fromthe Latin res public, public thing, and
public business). As a matter of fact, most ofthe researchers considers that the bases of
individualism are to be found in the Roman
law since Law of the Twelve Tables (which it
seems has as a model Solons laws) includedimportant warranties of individual freedom.
The first of the public laws stipulates that any
privilege or statute will not be favour a
private person if he represents an injustice
and is contrary to the laws common to all
citizens, a law which all the citizens
irrespective of their rank will utilize. Based
on it, a powerful private law developed in
Rome, of individual kind and a legislative
tradition imposed which, though it fell into
decay during Justinian and Constantin,
influenced modernity especially via Latin
Renaissance of 17th century. The works of
21Fr. A. Hazek, The Constition of Liberty, The University of Chicago Press , Chicago, 1978, p. 166
21
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
16/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
romane se regsete la istoricul grec Polybius(cca 200 .Hr. cca 118 .Hr.), ostatic laRoma aproximativ 17 ani. Acesta, analizndciclicitatea ascensiunii i decderii marilor
puteri (deci, i a Romei) a dat termenului derepublic o conotaie specific prin reportarela guvernmntul mixt. Explicndde ce uniidein puterea mai mult dect alii, lundexemplul Romei, Polybius analizeaz
guvernmntul mixt al acesteia, nuannddiscuiile lui Platon i Aristotel asupra
politeiei. Republica Roman e unguvernmnt mixt n opinia lui Poybius,ntruct puterea nu este deinut exclusiv nici
de o singur persoan sau de un grup, nici dectre cei muli. Republica amesteca(guvernmntul mixt) aceste trei regimuri pe
baza selectrii elementelor pozitive irespingerii aspectelor negative ale acestora.
Republica Roman nu a acordat ntreagaputere unei singure persoane sau oamenilor
simpli, ci a mprit puterea ntre ei. Poporul(de regul, constituit din brbaii liberi i
aduli), ca ntreg, exercita un anumit control,prin adunri, asupra deciziilor politice, iararistocraii controlau senatul. Pentrurealizarea politicilor, Republica nu se bizuia
pe un monarh, ci pe consuli.
Guvernmntul mixt asigur, nconcepia lui Polybius, o asemenea stare,nct nici un grup nu-i putea urmri i realiza
propriul interes, n detrimentul binelui public,fiecare controlndu-l pe cellalt, rezultatulfiind o form de guvernmnt liber, stabili durabil.
Trebuie spus c, dei republica era oform popular de guvernmnt, aprtorii eiau insistat s nu fie confundat cudemocraia, ntruct prima promova virtutea,iar cea de-a doua viciul conducerea egoista oamenilor obinuii. Virtutea republicanconsta n puterea de a depi interesul
personal sau de grup, de a plasa binele
historians and orators Titus Livius, Tacitus
and Cicero express the free spirit of Roman
laws in the period considered to represent
substantiation of individualism.
Speaking about Cicero, Fr. A. Hayek
notes:
The conception referring to generalrules generating the law is
owed to him, a conception which generates
the law, a conception which urges us to obey
the law in order to protect our freedom, a
conception according to which the judge
should only be the mouth via which the law
speaks.
A remarkable analysis of Roman
republic is to be found in the Greek historian
Polybius (roughly 200 B.C.) who was a
hostage in Rome for 17 years. He, by
analyzing the ascent and decay of great
powers as cycles (Rome included) gave to the
term of republic a specific connotation by
relating it to mixed government. By
explaining why some held the power longer
than others, taking Romes example, Polybiusanalyzed its mixed government, emphasizing
Platos and Aristotles discussions onpoliteia. Roman republic is a mixed
government in Polybius conception, sincethe power is not within the exclusive power
of any one person or a small group or a large
group. The republic mixed (mixedgovernment) these three regimes based on
selecting both their positive and negative
aspects. Roman republic did not assigned
power to one person or common people, but
dividedpower between them. The people (as
a rule constituted of free, adult men) as a
whole exercised a certain control through
meetings, upon political decisions, while the
aristocrats controlled the senate. In order to
achieve the policies, the Republic was not
based on the monarch but on the consuls.
Mixed governing ensures, in Polybius
22
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
17/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
comunitii ca primordialitate i ea aparinecetenilor activi, dornici s-i exercitelibertatea i vigilena n a o apra.
Guvernmntul mixt ntrunea ambelecoordonate: ncuraja participarea popular laguvernare i ncuraja obinerea de ctre o
persoan sau un grup a unei puteri suficientde mare, care s amenine libertatea i binelecomun. Poate c aa se explic i faptulistoric c, la 100 de ani de la moartea luiPolybius, Republica Roman a creat ImperiulRoman.
Am fcut aceast succint incursiunespre a evidenia ct de mari sunt diferenele n
abordarea democraiei la antici comparativ cumodernii. De aceea mindul american nu
trebuie s surprind pe cei ce-i caut tainele.Azi, pe lng marea diversitate de
structuri i modaliti de funcionare aregimurilor democratice (deci, pe lngdiversitatea manifestrii in actu, n planexistenial), exist o ntreag problematicistorico-filosofic referitoare la democraie,
problematic imposibil de redus la realitateapolitic.n nelegerea complexitii
democraiei, R. Dahl previne pe cei interesaide proces asupra coordonatei istorice. Astfel,
el etaleaz ideea persistenei modeluluiinstituiilor politice ale republicii romane ndou situaii istorice, ambele reprezentnd oreflectare a acestui model printr-un produs
identic: matricea micului ora-cetate. Este
vorba de reflectarea modelului respectiv, sub
forma matricei invocate, mult timp dup ceromanii au depit limitele cetii lor i aucucerit Peninsula Italic, o parte a Europei izona mediteranean, precum i de reapariiaguvernrii populare printre statele ceti aleItaliei medievale i renascentiste, adic la mai
bine de o mie de ani dup ce Cezar iAugustus nlturaser guvernarea
conception, such a condition that any group
could not pursue and achieve its own interest
to the detriment of public well, each being in
control o the other, the outcome being a form
o government free, stable and lasting.
It is worth mentioning thus that, though
the republic was a popular form of
government, its defenders insisted it should
not be taken for democracy, since the first
promoted virtue, while the second the bad
habit the selfish leadership of commonpeople. The republican virtue lied in the
power to overcome the personal or group
interest, to place the community well in the
forefront and it pertained to the active
citizens, willing to exercise freedom and
vigilance to protect it.
Mixed government fulfilled both
coordinates: encouraged the popular
participation to governing and also
encouraged obtaining a high enough power
by one person or group of persons, to threaten
the common liberty and well. Maybe this is
the explanation o the historical fact that, 100years after Polybius death, the Romanrepublic created the Roman Empire.
The aim of this short outline was to
emphasize how big are the differences in
approaching democracy in ancient times
comparatively to modern times. Therefore
American mind should not be a surprise or
those who search for its secrets.
Today, apart from the great variety of
operating structures and modalities in the
democratic regimes (so, apart from the
diversity of in actu manifestation, in
existential plan), an entire historical-
philosophical problematic referring to
democracy exists, a problematic impossible
to reduce to political reality.
In understanding the complexity o
democracy, R. Dahl warns those interested in
23
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
18/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
republican .Trecerea de la statul cetate la statul
naiune a condus la cea de-a douatransformare democratic, transformare ce a
avut ca rezultat un transfer al ideii de
democraie. Transferul lrgete sfera ideii dedemocraie de la statul-cetate, la scaramult mai mare a statului-naiune, iartransformarea democratic produs a generatun sistem de instituii politice complet noi:Tocmai acest nou complex de instituii, luatempreun, poart numele generic dedemocraie23constat Dahl.
Acceptarea democraiei ca regimul cel
mai dezirabil nu trebuie s ne conduc latrecerea sub tcere a limitelor i criticilor ei.Analiznd transformrile democratice statul-cetate, statul-naiune i transformareaspre care se nzuiete azi R Dahl insist i
pe confuzia creat n jurul semnificaieidemocraiei. Aceast confuzie i are cauzatocmai n evoluia istoric de-a lungulctorva mii de ani a democraiei, precum i
n originile sale multiple: Ceea ce nelegemnoi prin democraie nu este ceea ce nelegeaun atenian n timpul lui Pericle. Noiunigreceti, romane, medievale i renascentistese mbin cu noiuni de secole mai apropiate,
pentru a produce un amestec adesea extrem
de incontient de teorie i metode24.De altfel, constatm odat cu R. Dahl,
c abordarea atent a ideilor legate dedemocraie i a metodelor ei evideniazexistena multor probleme pentru care nuexist soluii definitive, nsi noiunea dedemonstratic oferind un teren propice
criticilor ei.
Insistnd asupra criticilor, Dahl observtrei categorii n care ei se pot ncadra:
cei ce se opun n mod fundamental
the process on historical coordinate. Thus he
displays the idea of pattern persistence of
political institutions in Roman republic in two
historical situations, both representing a
reflection of this pattern into an identical
outcome: the matrix of the small city-citadel.
It refers to reflecting the respective pattern,
under the shape of invoked matrix, much time
after the Romans surpassed the borders o
their citadel and conquered Italic Peninsula,
part o Europe and Mediterranean area as well
the re-emergence of popular governing
among the states-citadels of Medieval and
Renaissance Italy, namely more than 1000
after Caesar and Augustus removed the
republican governing.
Passing from the state-citadel to state-
nation led to the second democratic
transformation, a transformation which
resulted in a transfer into the idea of
democracy. The transfer widens the area of
democracy idea from the state-citadel to awider scale of state-nation, while
democratic transformation generated a systemof completely new political institutions: Thisis the reason why this new complex of
institutions, taken together is called
generically Dahl notices.Accepting democracy as the most
desirable regime does not have to lead us to
pass its limits and critics over in silence.
Analyzing the democratic transformation the state-citadel, the state-nation and the
transformation which is hoped today R.Dahl insists on the confusion created around
the significance of democracy. This
confusion is rooted precisely in the historical
evolutionalong few thousands of yearsofdemocracy, as well as in its myriad origins:
What we understand in democracy is not
22 R. Dahl, op. cit. pp. 9-10
23
Ibidem24Idem, p. 10
24
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
19/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
democraiei, considernd-o (n linia luiPlaton), ca inerent indezirabil;
cei ce se opun n mod fundamentaldemocraiei, dar nu pentru c ea ar fi n modinerent indezirabil, ci pentru c, asemenealui Roberto Michels, sunt de prere c,deidemocraia ar putea fi dezirabil dac ar fi
posibil, n realitate este inerent imposibil; cei ce sunt n favoarea democraiei,
doresc s o susin, dar o privesc cu ochifoarte critic.
Numindu-i pe cei din primele doucategorii critici ostili ai democraiei i pecei din ultima critici favorabili, R. Dahl
constat c mai toate criticile se concentreazasupra unor probleme pe care susintoriidemocraiei fie au tendina de a le neglija, fie,mai grav, de a le escamota. Astfel, ceea ce nsens larg este numit teoria democratic termen asupra cruia i Dahl i exprimrezervele depinde de supoziiiipremisepecare susintorii nerezervai fie au evitat s leanalizeze, fie nici mcar nu le-au recunoscut.
Astfel, Robert Dahl menioneazctevadintre aceste probleme vitale ascunse nteoriile explicite, aspecte ce contureazteoria fantoma democraiei. El identificn acest sens problematica pe care o ridicideea de notorietate a guvernrii de ctre
popor, problematic ce genereaz multeinadvertene. Aici teoreticianul americanindic i disec originea ideii, demonstrndc grecii, pentru a denumi noua lor concepiedespre viaa politic i practicile create nstatele-ceti (mijlocul secolului al V-lea.Hr.) au nceput s utilizeze termenuldemokratia (demos, popor, kratia, guvernare,
autoritate, guvernarea de ctre popor).Dar chiar rdcinile termenului ridic,
dup cum constat corect Dahl, unele semnede ntrebare referitoare la cine constituie
poporul i ce nseamn a guverna?
Constituenii poporului care sunt ei?
what an Athenian understood in Periclestime. Greek, Roman, medieval and
Renaissance notions intermix with recent
notions to produce a mixture often extremely
unconscious of theories and methods.As a matter of fact we notice together
with R. Dahl that the attentive approach of
the ideas related to democracy and its
methods emphasizes the existence, of many
problems to which there are no definite
solutions, the notion of democracy itself
being a favourable ground to its critiques.
Insisting upon critics, Dahl finds out
three categories in which they can be
included:
Those who fundamentally oppose to
democracy, considering it (along the line of
Plato) as inherent undesirable;
Those who fundamentally oppose to
democracy, not because it would be inherent
undesirable, but because, just like Roberto
Michels opinionated that though democracycould be desirable on condition it were
possible, in reality it is inherently impossible;Those who are in favour of
democracy, wish to foster it, yet regard it
very critically.
By calling the critics in the first two
categories hostile critics of democracy andthose in the last category favourable critics,R. Dahl observes that almost all the critiques
are focused upon problems which the
upholders of democracy either tend to
neglect, or even more serious, to conceal.
Thus that which in a broad sense is called
democratic theory a term on which Dahlhimself expresses his reserves depends onsuppositions and premises which the
unreserved upholders either avoid analyzing
or fail to recognize.
Accordingly Robert Dahl mentions
some of these vital problems hidden in the
explicit theories, aspects which outline the
25
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
20/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
genereaz i ambiguitate i multiplecontroverse. Prima ambiguitate remarcat deR. Dahl se afl chiar n coninutul acesteinoiuni: cine face parte din popor pentru aguverna democratic? Aici, autorul crii
Democraia i criticii si, pe baza analizei de
contrast, simte nevoia s nuaneze: la greci,atenienii, corintienii, spartanii i locuitoriialtor state-ceti greceti constituiau, fiecaren parte, poporul ndreptit la propriaautonomie politic.Prin contrast, deii vechiigreci elenii se autopercepeau ca popordistinct, cu limb i istorie proprie, nu seconsiderau un popor n sensul politic al
unui grup de persoane care ar trebui, cu
ndreptire s se autoguverneze ntr-osingur unitate democratic. Democraiagreac nu a fost, de fapt, democraie greac: afost atenian, corintian sau orice altceva25.Ceea ce trebuie remarcat n analizantreprins de R. Dahl este constatarea sa
privind persistena mentalitii statului-cetatei n zilele noastre: De ce ar trebui se
ntreba el ca americanii s constituie unpopor iar vecinii lor, canadienii i mexicanii,popoare separate? De ce s existe o granipolitic ntre, s spunem, Norvegia i Suedia,Belgia i Olanda, elveienii de expresiefrancez i francezii de expresie francez?Sau formulat altfel: membrii comunitilorlocale dintr-un stat-naiune sunt oarendreptii la un anumit grad deautoguvernare? i dac da, care persoane, nce domenii?26.
Robert Dahl demonstreaz c acestentrebri transcend teoria democratic,filosofii politici pornind de la ipoteza cpoporul deja exist, existena nsi a
poporului fiind perceput ca un fapt, ca ocreaie a istoriei.
ghost-theory o democracy. In this sense he
identifies the problematic arisen by the idea
of notoriety for peoples governing, a
problematic generating many inconsistencies.
Here the American theoretician indicates and
explores the origin of the idea, showing that
the Greeks, in order to call their new
conception upon political life and practices
created in the states-citadels (middle of 5
century B C) started to utilize the term
demokratia(demos, people, kratia, governing,
authority, peoples governing).Yet even the roots of the term arise
some question marks referring to who the
people are and what governing means, as R.
Dahl correctly notices.
The peoples constituents who arethey generate both ambiguity and multiplecontroversies. The first ambiguity remarked
by R. Dahl is within this notion: who is part
of this people for a democratic governing?
Here, the author of the book Democracy and
its critics, based on the contrast analysis, feels
the need to emphasize: with the Greeks,Athenians, Corinthians, Spartans and the
inhabitants of other Greek states-citadels
constituted each of them entitled to its own political autonomy. By
contrast, though the ancient Greeks Helens perceived themselves as a distinct people,with its own language and history, did not
consider itself as in the
political sense of a group of persons, which
would be entitled to self-governing in one
democratic unity. Greek democracy was not,
in fact, Greek democracy: it was Athenian,
Corinthian or something else. What is to beremarked in Dahls analysis is its findingconcerning the persistence of state-citadelsmentality which is also to be found
25
Ibidem, p. 1226 Ibidem
26
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
21/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
Caracterul faptic al acestui fapt estenu doar discutabil, ci chiar pus sub semnul
ntrebrii, exemplul Statelor Unite la 1861fiind edificator, demonstrndu-se c disputan-a putut fi aplanat nici prin acceptare, nici
prin consens, ci prin violen. Aceasta ldetermin pe R. Dahl s susin c attipoteza existenei unui popor, ct i
presupunerile ce rezult din aceast ipotezreprezint o parte a teoriei-fantom ademocraiei.
Dac prima ambiguitate se afl nnoiunea de popor cea de-a doua esteconinut chiar de prima: n cadrul unui
popor, numai o subcategorie limitat depersoane este ndreptit s participe laguvernare. Persoanele respective alctuiesc
poporul dintr-un alt punct de vedere. Cu alte
cuvinte, ele constituie cetenii sau grupul deceteni aa, cum i voi numi deseori de acumncolo demosul27.
Susintorii democraiei s-au confruntatcu o alt ntrebare: Cine se cuvine s fie un
membru al demosului? John Locke i Jean-Jaque Rousseau au propus chiar teorii publice
explicite ale demosului, teorii aflate n marediscordan cu supoziiile lor semivoalate sau,uneori, complet voalate care stau ascunse,
neasumate, n teoria fantom, din care sunttotui smulse de criticii externi ai democraiei
pentru a le servi drept martori la aa-ziseleautocontradicii din ideea de democraie28.
Analizele istorice l ajut pe Dahl sformuleze o concluzie corect privindconcreteea demosului, anume aceea c, nicila apogeul democraiei ateniene, demosul n-ainclus mai mult de o minoritate restrns din
populaia adult a Atenei. Ideea esenial cese poate extrage este aceea c experienaistoric confer concretee naturii abstracte a
nowadays: Why should the Americansconstitute a people and their neighbours,
Canadians and Mexicans, separate peoples?
Why should a political border exist among
lets say Norway and Sweden, Belgium andNetherlands, the French in Switzerland and
the French in France? Put in other words: are
the members of local communities in a state-
nation entitled to a certain degree of self-
governing? And if the answer is yes, which
persons and in which areas are entitled?Robert Dahl demonstrates that these
questions transcend the democratic theory,
the political philosophers starting from the
hypothesis that the people already exists,the peoples being in the world itself being
perceived as a fact, a creation of history.
The factual character is not only
debatable, but also questionable, the example
of the United States being edifying showingthat the dispute could be appeased neither by
acceptance, nor by consensus, but by
violence. This determines Dahl claim that
both the hypothesis of existence of a peopleand the suppositions resulting from this
hypothesis represent part of ghost-theory of
democracy.
Whether the first ambiguity lies within
the notion ofpeople, the second is within the
first notion: Within , only alimited subcategory of persons is entitled to
participate to governing. The respective
persons form the people from another
standpoint. In other words, they are the
citizens or the group of citizens, as I will
often call them from now ondemos.The defenders of democracy have been
confronted with yet another question: Who
ought to be a member of demos?John Locke
and Jean-Jacques Rousseau even proposed
27
Ibidem, pp. 11-1228 Idem, p. 13
27
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
22/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
demosului: Se poate c democraia atenians fi fost extrem prin exclusivismul ei, unicns nu a fost n nici un fel. Din Grecia antic
pn n timpurile moderne, unele persoane aufost invariabil excluse ca fiind
nereprezentative i, pn n acest secol, cndfemeile i-au ctigat dreptul de a vota(secolul al XX-lea, n.n.), numrul persoanelorexcluse a depit uneori cu mult, la fel can Atena numrul celor acceptate. Ca i ncazul primeidemocraii moderne, StateleUnite, care a exclus nu numai femeile i,desigur, copiii, ci i majoritatea negrilor iamerindienilor29.
Aici se pune o ntrebare legitim: careeste supoziia voalat a teoriei fantom ademocraiei din moment ce excluderile suntconsiderate, invariabil, justificate de
caracterul concret al demosului? Sau:
demosul i include pe toi sau doar pe toi ceindreptii s participe la guvernare?Supoziia voalat constat R. Dashl esteaceea ca numai anumii oameni sunt
competeni s guverneze.Iar criticii ostili ai democraiei nu doarc denun aceast supoziie voalat, ci o iconvertescntr-un argument explicit n cadrulteoriei antidemocratice a protectoratului:
Ideea protectoratului scrie Dahl, care esteprobabil cea mai ademenitoare viziune creatvreodat de adversarii democraiei, nu numaic a fost adoptat de Platon n Atenademocratic, dar a i aprut pretutindeni nlume, ntr-o varietate de forme disparate,dintre care confucianismul i leninismul,orict ar fi de diferite, au influenat, dedeparte, cel mai mare numr de oameni.Criticii ostili ne oblig s examinm cumaxim minuiozitate asumpiile privindcompetena politic ascunse n teoria
explicit public theories of demos, theories
which in fact are conflicting with their semi-veiled suppositions or at times completely
veiled, lying hidden, non-assumed inside the
ghost-theory, of which the external critics of
democracy tear them away in order to make
use of them as witnesses of the so-called self-
contractions of democracy idea.Historical analyses help Dahl formulate
an accurate conclusion concerning the reality
of demos, namely that not even at the height
of Athenian democracy, the demos could not
include more than a small minority of
Athenss adult population. Theessential idea
that can be inferred is that the historical
experience gives the reality to the abstract
nature of demos: Athenian democracy may
have been extreme by its exclusive character,
yet it has never been unique. From ancient
Greece to modern times, some individuals
have been invariably excluded as non-
representative and until this century, when
women have gained the right to vote (20 th
century, n.n.), the number of the excludedpersons exceededsometimes more, just likein Athens the number of those accepted.Just as it happened with , the United States not only
excluded women and of course children, but
also excluded the black people (Afro-
Americans) and Amerindians.At this point a legitimate question
arises: which is the veiled supposition of the
ghost-theory of democracy seeing that
exclusions were considered invariably
justified by the real character of demos? Or:
do demos include everybody or only the ones
entitled to take part in governing? The veiled
supposition R. Dahl notices is that onlycertain people have the expertise to govern.
29 Ibidem
28
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
23/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
fantom .Un alt aspect circumscris teoriei-
fantom a democraiei este cel referitor ladimensiunile ei. Astfel, dac pentru grecidimensiunile unei democraii se limitau la unnumr extrem de redus doar cteva zeci demii de persoane, la sfritul secolului alXVIII-lea, susintorii democraiei i-audelimitat cadrul firesc la nivelul statului-
naiune, adic n general, la ar. Prinadoptarea acestei asumpii, scrie Dahl, ceeace de multe ori nu se recunoate este ct de
profund a afectat limitele i posibilitiledemocraiei trecerea istoriei de la statul-cetate
la statul-naiune. Transformarea este att deprofund nct, dac un cetean atenian dinsecolul al V-lea ar aprea brusc n mijloculnostru (fiind atenian, ar trebui s fie neapratun brbat) probabil ar considera c ceea cenumim noi democraie este ceva cu totulstrin, neatrgtor i nedemocratic. Unuiatenian din vremea lui Pericle democraianoastr i s-ar prea departe de a fi
democraie, n primul rnd din cauzaconsecinelor asupra vieii politice i ainstituiilor politice, ale trecerii de la nivelulstat-cetate, mai intim i mai participativ, lagiganticele forme de guvernmnt, maiimpersonale i mai indirecte, din ziua deazi31.
Mai precizm c, tot o consecin aschimbrilor intervenite la niveluldimensiunilor unei democraii este, n opinialui Dahl, i amplificarea caracterului utopic alidealului democratic, teoria publicconsidernd c democraia actual poate
pstra n totalitate att avantajele dimensiuniimari, dar i virtuile i posibilitiledemocraiei la scar redus: Astfel, teoria
public tinde s neglijeze limitele
Whereas the critics hostile to
democracy not only denounce this veiled
supposition, but they convert it into an
explicit argument inside the anti-democratic
theory of protectorate: The idea ofprotectorate Dahl writes which isprobably the most attractive vision that has
ever been created by the democracy
opponents, was not only adopted by Plato in
democratic Athens, but it also emerged
everywhere in the world, in a variety of
disparate shapes, of which, Confucianism and
Leninism, no matter how different, by far
influenced the greatest number of people.
Nonetheless the hostile critics compel us to
examine extremely thorough the assumptions
concerning the political expertise hidden
inside the ghost-theory.Another aspect circumscribed to
democracy is that referring to its dimensions.
Thus, whether with Greeks, the dimensions of
a democracy limited to a small numberonlyfew thousands of persons - at the end of 18 th
century, the defenders of democracydelineated its natural setting at the level of
state-nation that is generally, in the country-
side. By adopting this assumption, Dahlwrites, what many times one does not
recognize is how profoundly the limits and
possibilities of democracy affected the of
passing history from state-citadel to state-
nation. The transformation is so profound
that, whether an Athenian citizen of 5th
century appeared suddenly among us (as an
Athenian it should necessarily be a man) he
would probably consider that what we call
democracy is as a matter of fact something
completely strange, unattractive and non-
democratic. Moreover to an Athenian from
Pericles times, our democracy would seem
30
Ibidem31 Ibidem
29
8/10/2019 1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf
24/31
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 1/2012
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, Issue 1/2012
amndurora, problema domeniilor fiind lsatn seama teoriei - fantom32. i pentru adovedi schimbrile intervenite n nelegereademocraiei R. Dahl exemplific, deasemenea, prin modalitile diferite n careaceast consecin ca o entitate real sauaparinnd lumii reale a fost perceput nevoluia istoriei:
un grup distinct de instituii ipractici politice;
un sistem de drepturi;
o ordine social i economic; un sistem ce asigur anumite
rezultate dezirabile; un proces unic de luare a
unor decizii colective obligatorii33.
Am fcut aceast nuanare pentru ailustra prin argumente logico-istorice c, deidemocraia este azi apreciat n majoritateaabordrilor ca inerent dezirabil, ea estedeparte n a se manifesta prin forme i
practici politice unanim acceptate. Ca de la
matricea micuului ora-cetate la matriceagenerat de forme i structuri transnaionale
dogma suveranitii poporului a suferittransformri enorme, chiar dac i matriceamicuului ora-cetate i aceast dogm
persist nc n gndirea uman. Cci, odatcu transferul ideii de democraie-suprapuscoordonatei istorice a procesului s-autransferat i modalitile de percepie ademocraiei nsi, obinndu-se un tip dehibridare teoretic ce ascunde o serie desupoziii care au dobndit valene axiomatice.
Revenim la concluzia lui Alexis de
Tocqueville referitoare la aspectul c, nStatele Unite, democraia este ostare socialcare transcende orice individ i, prin esenasa, reprezint dogma politic a suveranitii
poporului. n linia lui P. Manent trebuie sobservm compatibilitat