" It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tested so far .
(W. Churchill)
The other night an interesting discussion arose around the concept of democracy. This post tries to answer the various questions raised during the debate and that, beyond the views and personal guidance, they offered me the opportunity to compare with other points of (s) of view and draw some valuable ideas about the desirability democracy and its actual (or suspected?) ability to promote the welfare and social development. In this regard I take this opportunity per ringraziare Jacopo e gli altri ragazzi presenti (dai quali, ahimè, non ricordo il nome), auspicando il proseguimento della discussione su questo blog.
Letteralmente, democrazia significa “governo del popolo”: un sistema politico in cui i governanti coincidono con i governati sul modello della antica Atene, primo vero esempio storico di democrazia diretta. Nel corso della storia il concetto di democrazia ha però allargato i propri orizzonti. L'attuale concezione di democrazia è derivazione diretta delle rivoluzioni di fine '700: la rivoluzione francese, che ha posto l'accento sui diritti umani e politico-civili e la rivoluzione americana, che ha applicato per la prima volta il concetto di sovranità popolare. Benjamin Franklin, one of the main founding fathers of the United States of America, as well as people's government, sees democracy as a government for the people and derived from the people, thus introducing the concept of popular sovereignty (government arising from the people, his direct emanation ) operating through the delegation of responsibilities to so-called "rulers" (required to govern for the people).
The concept of popular sovereignty, central to understanding the nature and essence of democracy, can refute the paradox that is one of the most frequent criticisms of democracy: the possibility that the majority, democratically votes for the transition to a regime not democratico. L'errore fondamentale del paradosso risiede nella mancata considerazione di come una delle caratteristiche fondanti delle moderne democrazie sia la tutela delle minoranze. La sovranità è infatti prerogativa del popolo tutto, mai di una sua sola parte, neppure se maggioritaria. La volontà della maggioranza non può dunque prevaricare i diritti della minoranza: può decidere, ma solo nei limiti previsti dalla legge (e/o dalla costituzione). Nella nostra Costituzione, ad esempio, la natura repubblicana del nostro stato non è modificabile (art. 119). E' bene ricordarsi questo “dettaglio” quando sentiamo una (o più) parte politica arrogarsi il diritto di cambiare le regole del vivere civile, di sottrarsi the law, etc. .. by virtue of (illegal) popular legitimacy.
The presence and health of the state of law is therefore at the same time guarantee and the essential requirement of any democracy. At the same time, however, reduces the range of activities of citizens, as it distinguishes between lawful actions (agreed to the law) and illegal (contrary to the law). Since there is no democracy without rule of law, and this is the second "accusation" to democracy, it would not be a desirable political system because, inevitably, have a restrictive on freedom of its citizens. And this is a true fact. But I would add, inevitable. Leaving aside considerations philosophical about what freedom is and on what evidence it is based (such as liberty or freedom as anarchy mutual respect?), not (only) a pessimistic anthropology, but history testifies to the nature and proves anything but peaceful and conscientious man. The return to the state of nature, a stateless society, would result in a man against man, in the 'homo homini lupus "(man is wolf to man) taken in the thought of Thomas Hobbes. Surrender part of their freedom in favor of a state that simultaneously represents and enforce the law, appears, in my view, a waiver is essential because it is aimed at avoiding the chaos social and the inevitable (again, in my view) man against man allegedly a stateless society.
Given this, there is a political system "ideal" of all: the degree of virtue and desirability of a policy will depend directly by individuals and political-philosophical subjects oriented individual. Who considers as fundamental values \u200b\u200bof the social order, discipline, etc. .. biased for authoritarian regimes classics: he regards as the fundamental value of substantive equality, social solidarity, etc. .. biased systems for collectivist communist type.
The strength and greatness of democracy, or rather of how democracy should be ideal, is, in my opinion, in leaving the man completely free self-determination in its economic, social and political life (our Constitution states in Article 3, "is for the Republic to remove those obstacles of social and economic and social [. .] impede the full development of the human [..]).
Aware of the diversity (and legality) of each individual guidelines (who, for example, considers the most important value a fundamental equality of self-determination does not agree with me on the previous point), I will only respond to a couple of points raised during debate.
1) substantial equality sets, artificial intelligence, is no less discriminatory than it is social inequality in capitalist societies. Changing only the parties concerned. In capitalist societies, the "weak" will prevent the process of social ascent, in societies based on equality, substantial, all citizens will be prevented from any form of social climbing. Will be guaranteed freedom from want will be canceled but the freedom of self-determination, especially economic. Here again, a matter of taste.
2) The "dictatorship of the proletariat" advocated by Marx, does not resemble the "government of the people" referred to by democratic systems. Flying on the differences between the terms and dictatorship government, which can sometimes overlap, there is a substantial difference: in the first case explicitly refers to the oppression of the people (the proletariat) against another part of the people (the bourgeoisie). In the second case, however, refer you to all the citizens (the people), the depositories of sovereignty and therefore, at least formally, is viewed as a political entity equal.
I also would like to live in an equal society where "everyone gives according to their ability and receives according to his needs."
But I am pessimistic. And, therefore, democratic.
0 comments:
Post a Comment