The democratic aspiration and the republican ideal in Latin America

• Introduction

• Chapter I: "From the democratic aspirations and the republican ideal?

• Chapter II: "Of the institutions of classical political models?

• Chapter III: "Of the Latin fathers of the nation?

• Conclusions

• Bibliography

Introduction

"The future does not need to predict, we must make it possible."

Antoine de Saint

"As in every society there is the visionary and the unbeliever, the poet and the vulgar, the Messiah and the Jews, who announces the future and he that believeth not visible but what has happened in America that are dedicated to preaching understandings of democracy illustrious peaceful, drowned and confused between the strong arms and a rebel race proud and special.?

José Martí

Democracy is a paradigm for all modern political systems. All state regimes, whether right, left or center proclaim democracy, however if the Greeks? Gora come a time in our time, without a doubt say that the modern conception of democracy is very undemocratic.

With this research (worth clarifying that I make the first issue from a theoretical standpoint - methodological) transpolar intend, if possible, some mechanisms of those who founded the concept and definition ancient Athens to the actuality of my continent.

Latin America was a continent thought. It happened as the European nations who were born in the march of time, but foreign colonization of their lands catalyzed its historical and implanted in a few decades a society that was forged in centuries. But when I thought that was because a group of men who did not feel European, but natives of these lands in the mid-eighteenth century decided to create their homeland, a homeland of their own and not Spanish but it was born two centuries later, another man called Our America.

These men, non-homogeneous, no doubt discussed the political regime that was to have America, and though opinions were very diverse, and at the time was coming acquired a strong taste for the word "democracy?. English, French and American rearrange the political order, and all turned their eyes to the model implemented by the classics of antiquity. Our founding fathers rejected these ideas and not the Enlightenment and also reached Latin America with its new redefinitions of old concepts.

Since the independence of South America, the political systems in place were so inspired by the Liberal Republic and almost copied to tracing your American side, but our region has not been in recent decades, what might be called a model of civic virtue . Military dictatorships, state terror and demagogy are links that follow and blend in the Latin American political chain.

It is very difficult to realize that liberal democracy has not been very effective in our America, far from building consensus and participation, creates alienation and chaos. Two positions are taken, one would devalue democracy as a regime, another devalue liberalism and seek a new political dimension to democracy.

While I respect those who hold the first, and I sided with the latter. Democracy is not the problem, it is a fallacy to talk about it, is simply that you should take another direction.

In architecture, there is a very eloquent idiom that says, behind every constructive crisis is a Greek column. I think politics should be taken very seriously and analyze that phrase seriously what the Greeks and Romans tell us from their lofty timelessness.

This paper seeks primarily to analyze democracy in its foundations, the Greek column look to save the American governmental crisis. Pericles seeks to unite Bolivar as an attempt to save our great country through traditional political models.

When we refer to classical political models are hinting at those forms of government that were established in the Greco - Roman.

According to the above these models would range from an elective monarchy, to a timocracy up an empire. But in this paper addresses only two of them, considered paradigms of political history and illustrious models for the modern state of Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic.

The democratic aspiration is a name to designate a modern model of government based or copied in ancient Greek democracy, which is (especially in our times) as an admirable model for active citizenship and popular institutions.

Greek democracy can be located mainly in Athens since the reforms of Cleisthenes around 510 BC until the suppression of democratic institutions because of the Macedonian hegemony in 322 BC

The most amazing thing for the modern world that democracy is, without doubt, the concept of citizenship who held the Athenians. As a matter of Aristotle "in ancient Athens a citizen was someone who was involved" in the administration of justice and government?

In ancient Greece there was a distinction between state and society or between the political and social. The policy was not a professional activity was the activity that distinguished citizen of the polis. This therefore implied a direct and active, not passive rights.

For the Greeks, being a citizen was what characterized the human being. Recall that Aristotle defined man as a zoon politikon (political animal).

As a way to differentiate the later Greek regime of republican Rome, to the second is given the name of the republican ideal. For though it is also a direct democracy, The Roman Republic had a certain representative form of government.

In republican Rome the Senate was for the legislature and the executive was made up of magistrates, Questors, praetors and consuls among other charges, which were elected by the citizens with rights, the patricians initially and later also the common people, in real campaigns in which were renewed by direct election, many public offices. Over time the system was degenerating. The senators were elected, more had a great power. With the Republic's territorial expansion became difficult to govern and degenerated in the triumvirate. Finally, Empire became Julius Caesar's hands, especially of Augustus.

The implementation of such models in our America has the serious drawback of successive government crises and political ignorance. The Latin American problem has been the term used in this paper to designate those inconveniences that our continent has faced since independence until now.

Taking as a starting point briefly set forth the analytical framework we believe that Latin America is a region where more has been thought and written about the "possible society" understood as a social project where solidarity and citizenship, justice and equality can be fully realized, but also as a project of "nation" in its two aspects, the particular nation (the homeland) and the Latin American nation (the largest country). Speaking in Latin America's political, social and cultural history in its various historical phases, we must consider these social projects or "possible partnerships" that emerge one way or another, with particular force since the late eighteenth century but exclusively on the thoughts and actions of both individuals and communities, both thinkers and groups of citizens.

Thus, when speaking in the first decades of the nineteenth century "republican" or when after the Second World War the emphasis in the construction of the "democratic society", we face horizons of possibility, or rather of what which can be opposed to a state of things is insufficient, incomplete or unwanted.

Colonialism, economic dependence, economic imbalances, oppression, injustice, poverty, corruption, cultural imposition, any of these situations are brought together in a state of things that serve as a starting point for thinking about the immediate future, about what in connection with the existing.

This research revolves around a particular scientific problem, are the classical political models can respond to the political crisis of contemporary Latin America? in response to that question the hypothesis outlined prays, although both models were in response to specific historical circumstances - social individuals, some of the institutions and mechanisms of these systems can contribute to solving the "Latin American problem?. As a way to test this thesis this research consists of three parts. The first is an analysis of the institutions of classical political models, the second an analysis of the political history of democracy in Latin America and the third a proposal to incorporate some mechanisms of the above models to contemporary reality of our continent.

This paper is a summary of the first part of it because of my academic training does not yet know-how required to develop the other two and I've put off for later years. It responds to a general objective: To analyze the classical political models from a theoretical framework - historical to search for items that they can bequeath to contemporary politics.

To develop this goal this paper is divided into three chapters. The first examines the democracy of the ancients and was compared to modern versions. In the second examines some of the main institutions and mechanisms of classical political models. The third examines the effect of classical models in the thinking of the heroes of the Americas through the analysis of some illustrious documents.

Structuring of the chapters of this work are derived from the following specific objectives:

1. Analyze from a historical context - logical proposals submitted to it by classical political models to contemporary political science.

2. Shown theoretically that apply to some institutions and mechanisms of these models.

3. Browse through the exegetical method of fundamental documents of American political history to elucidate the intrinsic nature of the classical models in them.

In this first part of the premises will research the development of the two backs and a whole expects to be a proposal to the governments and peoples of Latin America for a solution to the historic "Latin American problem?.

Finally I would like to dedicate it to José Martí for having elucidated as anyone these postulates.

Chapter I

"From the democratic aspirations and the republican ideal?

Theoretical analysis - historical classical political models as a counterpart to the liberal model.

"The defenders of every kind of regime like to say that theirs is a democracy"

George Orwell

"So powerful is the appeal of the word democracy, any government or party wants to exist without placing this word in its flag."

François Guizot

As defined by Aristotle as "government of many?, Democracy is the political paradigm of contemporary excellence. In the most comprehensive of the term, is a form of social life where all members participate in decisions and also respects and accepts the decision of the majority. Not far from this definition, but in a narrower sense, democracy is defined today as a state or political regime in which sovereignty resides in the public and is therefore involved in making policy decisions, directly or through of elected representatives.

The concept of democracy (from the Greek demos and kratos) has served to define various forms of government throughout history, from the Greek polis to the liberal republic and parliamentary monarchy.

The conceptual definition of democracy for contemporary political science is somewhat hard. T.S. Eliot said: "When a word acquires a universally sacred character (...) and today we have the word democracy, I begin to wonder, if, for all that you intended to signify, still means something" on the other side says Bertrand de Jouvenel " the discussion on democracy, the arguments for or against them, often show a degree of intellectual vacuum, because it is not clear on what is being discussed. " Giovanni Sartori added: "Democracy may be defined as a grand name for something that does not exist."

One of the biggest problems that face today disquisition is the definition of the term demos, often translated as a people, and being subject to multiple interpretations inaccurate and ambiguous. In ancient times, let us defined the class consisting of merchants (demiurge) and peasants (geo), but in modern society, especially from the bourgeois revolutions, this term has been extended to apply to the entire society, to a particular class or social group or stratum.

David Held in his Models of Democracy, systematizes this conceptual problem about democracy in four critical viewpoints, ranging from the radical concept of direct participation to detached a simple representation of popular will:

1. everyone should rule: everyone should participate in the enactment of legislation, decision-making and government administration;

2. rulers should be accountable to the governed;

3. rulers should act in the interests of the governed;

4. governors should be elected by the governed.

This classification reflects the great dichotomy of the classical and the liberal conception. It is the struggle to determine if democracy means some kind of popular power (a form of life in which citizens participate to "govern? And" self-regulation?) A contribution to decision making (half of legitimizing the decisions of those elected by vote from time to time) or a way to choose representatives (who will decide to vote for the political life of society).

In the formula of Lincoln: "government of the people, by the people and for the people? We can see the idea of ​​popular power as a fundamental element of democracy. This element implies the idea of ​​popular participation in public affairs and the exercise of political power. The dilemma of this formula, it is clearly on the interplay ruler - ruled. Democracy requires a direct dependence of the former to the latter, ie the ruler must report to the governor, as this (if not the same) it allows you to choose and make their voice.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, democracy will give way to representation. The bourgeoisie began to use the term Representative Democracy, coined by Tocqueville. In this way gives the vote and the electoral system in general, the essential role within the democratic exercise and relegated to the background of citizen participation in decision-making and the exercise of power.

It is important to say that in ancient times was quite popular sovereignty because there was no separation between rulers and ruled. The peculiar modern distinctions between state and society, technical experts and citizens, people and government, which first emerged, with Machiavelli and Hobbes, not part of the political philosophy of the Athenian city-state.

But even Hobbes in his Leviathan, referring to the sovereignty, emphasizes the role of the very popular and enhances the idea that this character is to be legitimate, in this connection says: "In spite of sovereignty must be indivisible, absolute and should be primarily to perpetuate itself, is established by the authority under the town.?

With the emergence of the modern state, the political system has become a technocracy: are the bureaucrats and professional politicians to take over the running state, Max Weber, when he defines political power explains this phenomenon today: "Power means the likelihood of imposing own will, within a social relationship, even against all resistance and whatever the basis of that probability? .

This phenomenon results in narrowing the field of political activity, the social exclusion of broad sectors of political activity and declining participation. In turn, the construction and expansion of a widespread perception on social and political policy as an area of ​​compromise, negotiation, transaction (at best) in the absence of corruption and lies. This modern conception of the state we find it almost completely refuted the Greek model where first is the idea that the purpose of politics is the happiness of citizens.

There is no doubt that the political organization of modernity can not respond to old patterns, especially if we analyze historical conditions - social realities are different, but in no way seeks to recreate this research Athenian Polis and the Roman Republic in our societies, but to take some of the mechanisms and institutions in these political models, questioning its institutional membership in the reality and adapt to the current policy, this is what we call democratic aspiration (referring to the Greek model) and the Republican Ideal (referred the Latin model).

A clear explanation of these institutions and mechanisms of the Greek model bequeathed to us Thucydides Pericles' Funeral Oration:

"We have a political system that does not envy the laws of the neighbors and we are rather than imitators model for some of the others. Get the name of democracy, because it is governed by the majority and not a few, according to law, all have equal rights in private litigation and, for the honors, when someone has a good reputation in any aspect, you honor to the community for their merits and not by social class, and not poverty, with the dark mind that it brings, is a hindrance to anyone, if you give some benefit to the city. We practice generosity in both public affairs and in the mutual distrust from the daily treatment and were not irritated with the neighbor, if he does something to your liking, or anyone afflicted with punishments that do not cause physical harm, but they are painful to the view. And just as we do not bother private coexistence, nor transgress the law in public affairs, especially fear, with respect to public office on each occasion and the laws and, among these, particularly, which are placed on benefit of victims of injustice and those not yet written a sanction involving a shame commonly admitted.

(...)

A person can deal with private matters and at the time, audiences, and those engaged in business preferably not understand why poor policy, since we are the only ones who did not participate in these activities as useless , not idle; judge ourselves or we do matters a clear idea of ​​them, and we do not impair the action words, but the damage is rather not previously heard through the word before getting to do what is necessary.?

This text may be the perfect base for adaptation to modern society. Describes a community where all citizens can and even must, participate in creating and sustaining a common life. It presents an active citizenship in political life, immersed in public affairs and possessing absolute sovereignty.

The really important Greek model is without doubt the importance of citizen participation. In ancient Athens, a citizen was someone who was involved "in the administration of justice and government? . Citizenship meant participation in public affairs. The above suggests that the ancient Greeks would have had trouble finding people in modern democracies. The limited field of active participation in contemporary politics would be considered by those as very undemocratic. The Greeks knew no representations whatsoever (not even the weak representation of the Roman Republic): democracy in Greece was one hundred percent popular.

The problem facing the world today would be the scope of the concept of citizenship, as the Greek exclusiveness define this concept to a very limited class in which large masses of people were excluded. The modern world, especially after the claim of universal suffrage has a broad (albeit passive) concept of citizenship. For many modern analysts this would be a great inconvenience to the establishment of the Greek model because according to them, the domestic slave labor and women were absolutely necessary for citizens of workloads were loose and could devote time to political activities without This will affect the economic life of the polis. On the other hand, one wonders to what extent is adaptable to modern conditions such absolute involvement.

Another element of note in the above passage is that formally, the citizens had to face any obstacles based on social status or wealth to participate in public affairs. The demos is the sovereign power, for them the principle of civic virtue is dedication to the city - Republican state and the subordination of private life to public affairs and the general good, this is one of the most attacked by the bourgeois liberalism and was cited as an example for the rearrangement of the democratic model of liberal states. In About the liberty of the ancients compared to that of the moderns, famous speech in 1819 by Benjamin Constant de Rebecque, freedom is opposed to citizen involvement in politics and participation in public affairs: "Freedom is not other than that which society has the right to make and the state has no right to prevent.?

As a successful response to this postulate of Constant could go to Aristotle in his Politics Aristotle shows us the absolute convergence between Greek freedom and democracy:

"The principle of democratic government is freedom. Hearing repeat this axiom, one might think that only she can find freedom, because it is said, is the constant aim of every democracy. The first character of liberty is the alternative in the command and obedience (...) It is from this that in democracy the citizen is not obliged to obey anyone, or if the condition is due to send him to turn, and here's how this system is reconciled liberty with equality.?

In this text Aristotle freedom and equality are inextricably linked. In Greek democracy, there are two criteria of freedom, being governed and ruled by turns, and living as one wishes. Likewise, the numerical equality is possible because the share is paid in a way that individuals are not harmed as a result of political participation, and that all votes have equal weight in principle, all have the same opportunities for access to public office. Equality is in the Greek model, practical foundation of freedom.

One thing to note in the text of Thucydides, in my opinion, is the concatenation between the Greek model and modern categories of legality and rule of law. The Greek state law was the law of the citizen, all were equal before the law, which governed the relations between individuals. The law is opposed to tyranny, and freedom, therefore, implies respect for the law. If the law is properly formulated in the framework of the common life legitimately impose obedience. In this sense, the notion of "rule of law? through the process and constitutional government, finds its first expression in the policy of the city-state.

Another test of this idea is the Greek ideal of isonomy, a state of equality before the law, much praised by Herodotus in his Nine Books of History.

Aristotle, who defends the property, is inclined to believe in the power base of all social organization. The Stagirite, describing constitutions of 158 Greek polis in his Politics, argues that good governance forms should prevent the selfish use of power: the government must serve the whole society:

"They say, no doubt, that the issues that the law seems unable to decide not know a man could. But the education law expressly provides that these rulers and judge and administered with a criterion that falls just out of reach?.

The Graph to Nomon, is a proof of principle of legality as a control mechanism of democracy in the Greek polis was a Athenian law of the classical Greek era, whose aim was the protection of democracy, making each responsible citizen of the laws that appear before the ekklesia. Was that, if a citizen proposed a new law to the ekklesia and it's approved, if the law harmed the interests of the polis or went to their advantage, giving every citizen the right to denounce the law and freeze until the ekklesia opinion as to whether it was true or not the prosecution. If so, who had presented the law should be responsible for the damage caused by it, just as the accuser should respond if the claim was rejected.

Finley added that in Greece, "freedom meant the supremacy of law and participation in decision-making process and not necessarily the enjoyment of inalienable rights." The law was identified with the spirit of the city. "Obey the law meant to follow the will of the community," notes Paul Veyne. As Cicero wrote, freedom can only open the way to the law, "Legum ... ut liberi Sumu services possimus esse" ("We are servants of the law in order to be free,"

This analysis shows that the principle of legality does not belong to the bourgeois revolutions, or liberalism. At the same time maintains the argument of interdependence of the categories legality and democracy, both intrinsically depend for their survival: democracy without law would be anarchy, the law would not exist without democracy.

In the revival of democracy after the fall of the ancien regime, one could say that the Roman Republic had more adherents than Greek democracy. It is noteworthy that even for the thinking of American heroes, is the Republic rather than the inspiration Polis.

In Models of Democracy, David Held explains this basis that in the opinion of the liberal democracies of ancient Greece, were prone to instability, civil strife and internal weakness. However, Rome established a governance model that not only links freedom with virtue, but also the freedom to civic glory and military power. Rome offered a conception of politics that concentrated political participation, honor and conquest, and therefore, could call into question the monarchical principle that only a king, to enjoy personal authority over his subjects, would ensure compliance law, security and the effective projection of power.

Held, later citing Canovas, explains that in this context for many Republicans, "Freedom? meant freedom from arbitrary power of rulers, along with the right of citizens to manage their own common issues involved in government. "Virtue? meant patriotism and public spirit, a heroic willingness to seek the common good above the interests of oneself or one's family.

These arguments were a direct response to the absolutists who argued that only under the power of an absolute monarchy, it was possible the order and stability.

A vital element for the understanding of the Republic, just as it was for Democracy, is the role of citizens in state activity. Both in Rome and Athens, the populus was a sovereign force of active participation in political decision making.

Cicero defines us:

"The public affairs (res publica) is a matter of people (res populi), and the town is not every group of men associated in any way, but a large body of men united by a common agreement about the law and rights and the desire to participate in mutual benefits?

The Roman populus and the Greek demos were, in their respective systems, the center of sovereignty emanating from political power. The difference is that in the Roman Republic itself was a kind of representation (not at all comparable to the liberal representation) which answered directly to the populus met in elections.

Once abolished the monarchy, the curious, consisting of patricians and plebeians (ie those who had Roman citizenship and those who did not, to the exclusion of slaves and foreigners) held its legislative power. From 493 B.C. the populace, assembled, could cast a regular ballot, losing importance Curia Assemblies where the patricians and plebeians gathered together.

However, initially, the Elections curial retained their importance to the monarchy. But the powers lost curial Elections for the new division by citizens subject to military service or Centuries. So there was a division of the functions of the Assembly Elections and curia in favor of the Centuries.

The Assembly Elections and curial retained the following functions:

• formal Acts of interest only to individuals.

• Receive allegiances of consuls and dictators.

• Authorizations for testing (Adrogación).

Elections to assemblies or corresponded Centuries:

• The election of consuls and senators and later also other judges (although some time later, the choice of Questors, mayors and other inferior magistrates step up to the election by tribes)

• The declaration of war and peace accords approval.

• The admission or rejection of legislation.

• Appeals in criminal cases.

The entry of the commoners (ie non-citizens) in the Curia were granted certain rights of citizenship, but were not eligible for civil or priestly functions, and were entitled to the pasture lands. Commoners were allowed to assume military positions, and, as we shall see, are reserved seats in the Senate, and allows their vote in the elections curial (vote lost its importance, losing these elections authority).

Voters in the Assemblies of Tribe and Assemblies for centuries were basically the same: every resident in every tribe, patrician or plebeian, voted by tribes, and of them unfit for military service in the Centuries. But in voting by tribes disappeared the distinction between large and small landowners. In addition, the Assembly directed the tribunes and votes.

These assemblies by tribes were officially recognized as valid by the Law Icilio (492 BC) although their voting (Plebiscite = what pleases the people) had no force of law over time, however, voting ended tribune become law .

In the Roman Republic the populus as a whole should retain the sovereign authority (called potestas), assigning different judges or attorneys. Such "leaders? should ensure the effective enforcement of laws enacted by the community to promote their own welfare, they are not sovereign, but agents or administrators of justice.

These magistrates arise in response to new political and economic conditions of Rome during its development as a nation, which made it impossible for citizen participation was so intense and absolute.















. .

































































































.