Democracia nos pormenores

+ Ver comentários

Nos últimos tempos tenho refletido bastante na aplicação da democracia nos pormenores do nosso cotidiano, afinal, a convivência democrática nos implica a isso - e não é fácil.

Os princípios que constituem essa convivência democrática é o apreço pela liberdade de expressão em todas as suas formas (especialmente aquelas que não te agradam), o respeito a diversidade, a compreensão necessária pelo debate democrático e seu espectro de persuasão... Enfim! São inúmeros pequenos detalhes que devemos inserir em nossas posturas para prezarmos por uma sociedade democrática. Sendo assim, concluo com um vídeo muito interessante que mostra essa discussão, bem como trechos de análises dos grandes filósofos no âmbito da democracia e da cidadania.

Aristotle believed that citizenship was the responsibility of every member of a polity to both submit to rule and be willing to rule. Everyone participated in deliberation, decision making, and governing. When Aristotle first developed his theory of citizenship, he very much believed that human beings had a human nature that dictated our political relationships. The Aristotelian city-state presupposed that humans were bound to a causal determinism. The public life was in our DNA. Those who acted outside of the greater good were acting against nature.

Centuries have passed since Aristotle lived and Athenians tried to govern themselves through collective self-rule. Still more centuries have passed since Rousseau wrote that “obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is freedom.” The modern man lives under a different model of citizenship. Passive participation in political life and even apathy and indifference is not only normal but often encouraged. Public spaces are rare and public discourse even rarer. Free will and liberty are ideals that Americans hold dear and see as absolute truths, but are rarely exercised.

The philosopher Hannah Arendt, in her own theories of citizenship, rejected determinism. She believed that modern political relationships were artificial constructs, not our human nature. However she also saw in that artificiality something wonderful: the exercise of human free will. She believed that an irrational actor was necessary to preserve liberty. Revolutionaries and rebellions were necessary to remind us that our political relationships were not predetermined and that it was within our power to change the world. Most importantly she believed that this kind of irrational action should not lead us toward violence, but rather towards more cooperation.

-- Ron Artest: Citizen, by David Hill -