1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf

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


2/31



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


3/31



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


4/31



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


5/31



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


6/31



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


7/31



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


8/31



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


9/31



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


10/31



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


11/31



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


12/31



(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


13/31



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


14/31



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


15/31



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


16/31



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


17/31



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


18/31



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


19/31



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


20/31



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


21/31



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


22/31



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


23/31



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


24/31



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

Documents

1_ADRIAN_GORUN.pdf