Rethinking democracy today

Résumé du document

In this small essay, I will concentrate on the notion of democracy as a universal value according to two authors, Amartya Sen in one of his major works headed "The democracy of the others" and David Graeber in his book headed "Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire" .

The first author, A. Sen, Indian economist, humanist and philosopher, he's been teaching philosophy and economy at Harvard University, Nobel Prize of economy in 1998 for his studies in the starvation, the justice and the human development theory, as the second intellectual, D. Graeber (born 12 February, 1961) is an American anthropologist and anarchist who is reader in social anthropology at goldsmiths, university of London. He was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, and he's a member of the labor union industrial workers of the world.

Democracy it was always a pejorative term since the time Athenian, according to Platoon, it is the reign of disturbance because there are seven title to govern, three of birth and four of nature, but there maybe people who have no character of birth or nature, that's what makes the superiority of the majority over the minority, thereafter it will dissent occurs, this conception continued until 1820 where it became something of ideal democratic who had been hijacked by the state.

Extraits

[...] David Graeber, op., cit, p 331. Amartya Sen, la démocratie des autres, op. cit, p 73. Amartya Sen, l'idée de la justice, op. cit, p 398. David Graeber, op., cit, p 332. [...]

[...] In this essay, I'll concentrate over the definition of democracy and her notion as a universal value, and show that it's not typically a Western conception, insofar as they claim that democracy belongs to them, and then I'll show the contradictions than it carry in itself. So, what is this broad conception or interpretation of democracy that both authors require? There exists a contradiction in the practice of democracy in Western states? And how to see the problem of today's crisis? What exactly is democracy? [...]

[...] Rawls In reality, the problem of the democratic model is far more complex. Without a doubt, it is worth asking here, like the nations reluctant to this model, if the democratic model is not a barrier to development. Indeed here comes the idea that, better than a democratic government, an authoritarian government may be preferable to protect the most vulnerable social strata. Democracy has complex demands, which certainly include voting and respect for election results, but it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements, and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news and fair comment. [...]

[...] Democracy is a global heritage, not just a Western concept. To show this, there is support for the Arabian case where the Middle East and Muslims population had an honorable past, in the twelfth century, and under the Saladin's vizierate, Cairo was a city where reigned the tolerance, this evidenced by the fact that the thinker Maimonides could find refuge, fleeing Europe so intolerant towards the Jews. The Maimonides experience is not the only, the Mongol Empire of Akbar in the end of sixtieth century who believed in political pluralism and on constructive role in public discussions, where was still alive peacefully Chretien's, Parsis and Jews, all this examples are successful practice of political tolerance outside the Western world.[7] Conclusion Democracy is not an ideal but a practice that has developed in places of meeting of cultures and civilizations policies, like in Indian tribes of indigenous peoples, source in various interstitial spaces. [...]

[...] He was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, and he's a member of the labor union industrial workers of the world.[3] Democracy it was always a pejorative term since the time Athenian, according to Platoon, it is the reign of disturbance because there are seven title to govern, three of birth and four of nature, but there maybe people who have no character of birth or nature, that's what makes the superiority of the majority over the minority, thereafter it will dissent occurs, this conception continued until 1820 where it became something of ideal democratic who had been hijacked by the state. Democracy was pejorative, because it reproduces the image of passion, acting with bodies, not with heads, like the popular riots. According to A. Sen, the democracy is only a means to allow the public discussion that is ultimately the essence of democracy, and we mustn't identify democracy with majority rule. [...]