DOCSLIB.ORG

In Search of Democracy 4.0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Search of Democracy 4.0 Brook Manville and Josiah Ober here are plenty of indicators of doom: Donald Trump rid- ing roughshod over U.S. con- stitutional norms; the rise of high-handed strongmen across Europe supported by ethno-centric crowds; free press and free voting under attack by cyber ma- Tnipulation. Add mass migration threatening bor- ders and national identities; rising wealth in- equality; politics gridlocked by strife about rights, benefits, and duties, amidst growing re- sentment of “global elites” and new would-be cit- izens; and evolving confusion about the nature of the “common good” [1] –[5]. But others argue that democracy’s glass is still half-full. Global levels of freedom-embracing governance are at an all-time high [6], and look- ing back several decades, there’s been substan- tial (if uneven) spread of democracy to more parts of the world [7]. Yes, autocrats are rising here and there, but so are movements against In Search of Democracy 4.0 Is Democracy as We Know It Destined to Die? Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2019.2894458 Date of publication: 6 March 2019 32 1932-4529/19©2019IEEE IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE ∕ MARCH 2019 doomed but most versions of it today are indeed struggling to do what citizens expect it to do, and be what it is supposed to be. History suggests that, as an enduring human construct, democracy has a good chance of persisting, but not necessarily in its familiar guise: We will show that democ- racy cycled through several phases of evo- lutionary adaptation; it could be on the brink of another reinvention. Instead of debating “life or death?” we ask: given what we know from history, if democracy were to survive into the future, how might that happen and what might the new incarnation look like? Since human systems rise and fall through decisions and actions taken by humans, we also ask: what can leaders do to help shape democ- racy’s next phase? Analogizing the Thought Experiment We frame our analysis with an analogy: democracy can be thought of as a sort of software for human self-governance that has been advancing — and can continue to advance — if its “engineers” improve its future “releases.” ISTOCK/LINGBEEK Consider how software is developed and commercialized. A concept, which address- es certain problems, is turned into code; if successful, the code creates new value for a them. Surveys show that significant majorities in demo- group of users. As users engage with the technology, they cratic nations remain broadly positive about their repre- provide feedback to the developers, who then iteratively sentative systems [8]. In the United States, though trust rewrite the code to make the software better. In the best in government is declining, polling suggests 86 percent cases, energetic developers improve the innovative but still endorse representative democracy [9]. Meanwhile, “buggy” “Release 1.0,” stabilizing it and expanding its green shoots of reform are sprouting: experiments in market acceptance with new enhancements. more participative civic engagement (referenda, elec- tronic polling, citizen deliberative assemblies, open- style budgeting, sortition for certain officials) [10]; there is rising advocacy to resist corruption and disengage- ment, the influence of big money in politics, gerryman- dered election districting, and public and private conflicts of interest [2, p. 33]. Imagining the Means of Renewal So what can we say about democracy’s future? Making specific projections about complex human systems is IKHANBD foolhardy — but we offer a middle course between pessi- M mists and optimists. Neither the flourishing nor the demise of democracy is inevitable. Democracy is not WIKIMEDIA/ MARCH 2019 ∕ IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE 33 To keep ahead, the new versions of the software motivated by efficiency or fear, instead agree to follow a must also beat back competitors trying to capitalize on supreme ruler or small set of rulers? Release 1.0’s innovation. If the developers succeed, Aristotle saw that if members of a group do choose they’ll keep shipping new releases — 2.0, 3.0, and so to share decisions, there must be general agreement on — each better handling the demands of the growing on critical elements: the civic community, the meaning market, and staying ahead of competitive offerings. of citizenship, and civic rules and norms: “politeia.” Yet the core purpose and essential nature of the soft- These three elements are the essence of every demo- ware remains the same: there’s a commonality to the cratic system. class of problems that each release addresses. Take, as an example, the Excel spreadsheet — after devising the Community, Citizens, and Politeia core functionality, Microsoft has issued multiple releas- In Politics (book 3) Aristotle concluded that the state is es, steadily making it better, and beating back competi- a “community of citizens” organized according to a tors. Though many new features have been added “politeia.” For Aristotle, “community” meant a defined through the years, Excel remains a widely used financial body of persons, inhabiting a territory, sharing certain management tool, solving an enduring class of prob- values, and pursuing certain common goals. Among lems — how to analyze and manipulate the numbers of democracy’s core values is the conviction that citizens running a business. must be free to voice their opinions and to associate Now consider democracy’s progress with this with others as they wish. They must be roughly equal in frame. Instead of seeing the complex history of their access to public forums and in their chance to human systems of self-governance as a series of iso- influence public decisions. And they must treat one lated revolutions (as many historians do), imagine another with dignity, respecting one another and recog- democracy instead as an enduring conceptual con- nizing one another’s presence in public spaces. These struct, a continuum of different “releases,” evolving civic values (freedom, equality, dignity) are imperative through cycles of innovation and development, period- because citizens must participate in public affairs and ic challenge by competitors’ offerings, and then decision making. Citizens enjoy certain privileges but reemergence driven by further innovation. As we’ll also take on substantial responsibilities: citizens who sketch, each of the major releases changed and shirk their duties (in public service or defense) can improved earlier versions — but always around a con- expect to be called out by their fellows. “Politeia” (often sistent essential core, and always evolving to meet an translated as “constitution”) is not limited just to written enduring set of problems: how can people govern rules. It also includes the social and cultural norms of themselves, operating freely, and in some way as public behavior of the community: “How we do things equals, without answering to a “boss?” around here… and why.” Through their politeia, citizens of a democratic com- A Preliminary Summary of the Essence munity aim at three basic ends. First is security from Before turning to democracy’s “major historical releas- external threats and internal threats to the person, es,” we seek to capture its essence: What is democracy property, and dignity of members. Second is welfare: in the most fundamental sense? What must it continue citizens must be able to live at a level of economic well- to be, even as it continues evolving and adapting? being sufficient to have ample opportunity to pursue To define democracy’s core, we turn to the Greek projects that matter to them. While each of those ends philosopher Aristotle (primarily his Ethics and Politics) may be pursued by people living under autocracies, the [11]. Aristotle did not invent democracy, but he was the third end, self-government by citizens, is distinctively first thinker to step back from the specific democratic democratic: Democracy means the rejection of autocra- practices of his time and to develop a paradigm of cy, the refusal to be mere subjects of a supreme ruler or active, civic self-government. We must, of course, nec- a small junta of rulers. essarily abstract his ideas from the particularities of his The citizens of a democracy are collective rulers. time and place, which included male-only citizenship They govern their community by their own decisions, and an economy based partly on slave labor. distributing official duties in ways that are consistent Aristotle’s model builds on basic premises about with norms of political liberty, civic equality, and dignity. human society: Living in a cooperative group provides A democratic politeia consists of both the formal rules far greater security and human affirmation than living and the informal behavioral norms that make citizen- alone. We are, Aristotle insists, “social animals.” Yet ship into an active practice, in Aristotle’s terms: “ruling whenever groups form, fundamental decisions about [as citizens] and being ruled over [by other citizens] in organization must be made: will group members share turns.” To do that well, and to meet internal and exter- in decisions about acting collectively? Or will most us, nal challenges, citizens must also be capable of 34 IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE ∕ MARCH 2019 practical reasoning. They must be willing to bear the ers or factions achieve a near monopoly of influence, costs of governing themselves. Aristotle thought that vote-share, or control of decision making adequate democratic citizens should and would do that. to suppress competition and dissent, the system may For Aristotle, collective self-government by citizens fail. In modern times, internal scale threats are exac- was the best form of government because, as he assert- erbated by excessive money flowing into politics and ed for the first time in western history, it was the best manipulation of information (“fake news”; encourage- way for humans to achieve their natural potential: living, ment of “mob hate speech”) that hinders the truthful not only as social animals, but as “the most political of and civil exchange of ideas on which democracy animals.” It meant living well through exercising the thrives.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Aristotle's Concept of the State
    Page No.13 2. Aristotle's concept of the state Olivera Z. Mijuskovic Full Member International Association of Greek Philosophy University of Athens, Greece ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5950-7146 URL: http://worldphilosophynetwork.weebly.com E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract: In contrast to a little bit utopian standpoint offered by Plato in his teachings about the state or politeia where rulers aren`t “in love with power but in virtue”, Aristotle's teaching on the same subject seems very realistic and pragmatic. In his most important writing in this field called "Politics", Aristotle classified authority in the form of two main parts: the correct authority and moose authority. In this sense, correct forms of government are 1.basileus, 2.aristocracy and 3.politeia. These forms of government are based on the common good. Bad or moose forms of government are those that are based on the property of an individual or small governmental structures and they are: 1.tiranny, 2.oligarchy and 3.democracy. Also, Aristotle's political thinking is not separate from the ethical principles so he states that the government should be reflected in the true virtue that is "law" or the "golden mean". Keywords: Government; stat; , virtue; democracy; authority; politeia; golden mean. Vol. 4 No. 4 (2016) Issue- December ISSN 2347-6869 (E) & ISSN 2347-2146 (P) Aristotle's concept of the state by Olivera Z. Mijuskovic Page no. 13-20 Page No.14 Aristotle's concept of the state 1.1. Aristotle`s “Politics” Politics in its defined form becomes affirmed by the ancient Greek world.
    [Show full text]
  • “On Plato's Πολιτεία,” by Stephen Menn, Pp. 1- 55, in Proceedings of the Bosto
    CORRIGENDA Corrigenda belonging to “On Plato’s Πολιτεία,” by Stephen Menn, pp. 1- 55, in Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, Volume XXI, 2005 (eds. J.J. Cleary and G.M. Gurtler, S.J.). 2006. ISBN 90 04 15353 5 (Pbk), ISBN 90 04 15391 8 (Bound). Due to a series of failures of regular and electronic mail, Stephen Menn’s contribution was printed without his having seen either first proofs or page proofs, and without the comments of Professor Sara Monoson (Northwest- ern). Menn refers to Monoson’s comments in his final footnote, on the assumption that they would be in the same volume. The editors apologize to Professor Menn and especially to Professor Monoson for these failures. Corrections: p.2 n2, “Proclus In rem publicam v.1 p.8. Kroll, citing unnamed earlier writers …” should be “Proclus In rem publicam v.1 p.8 Kroll, citing unnamed earlier writers …” p.4 line 13, “καλῶς ἔξειν” should be “καλῶς ἔχειν” p.4 line 24, after “περὶ πολιτείας” delete the quotation mark. p.4 line 27, after “περὶ πολιτείας” delete the quotation mark. p.5 n4 next to last line, “Πολιτείαι” should be “Πολιτεῖαι” p.5 n5 line 4, “πολιτεῖα” should be “πολιτεία” p.6 n8 first line, “τὸ βίβλιον” should be “τὸ βιβλίον” p.7 line 1, “ἤ” should be “ἢ” p.7 n10 line 4, “Θεόδορος” should be “Θεόδωρος” p.14 n21 line 5, “περὶ τῆς ἐν ἀρχῆς καταστάσεως” should be “περὶ τῆς ἐν ἀρχῇ καταστάσεως” p.18 line 5, after “πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας” delete the quotation mark.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Economic Thought, Volume 1
    ANCIENT ECONOMIC THOUGHT This collection explores the interrelationship between economic practice and intellectual constructs in a number of ancient cultures. Each chapter presents a new, richer understanding of the preoccupation of the ancients with specific economic problems including distribution, civic pride, management and uncertainty and how they were trying to resolve them. The research is based around the different artifacts and texts of the ancient East Indian, Hebraic, Greek, Hellenistic, Roman and emerging European cultures which remain for our consideration today: religious works, instruction manuals, literary and historical writings, epigrapha and legal documents. In looking at such items it becomes clear what a different exercise it is to look forward, from the earliest texts and artifacts of any culture, to measure the achievements of thinking in the areas of economics, than it is to take the more frequent route and look backward, beginning with the modern conception of economic systems and theory creation. Presenting fascinating insights into the economic thinking of ancient cultures, this volume will enhance the reawakening of interest in ancient economic history and thought. It will be of great interest to scholars of economic thought and the history of ideas. B.B.Price is Professor of Ancient and Medieval History at York University, Toronto, and is currently doing research and teaching as visiting professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ROUTLEDGE STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ECONOMICS 1 Economics as Literature
    [Show full text]
  • Athenaion Politeia and Aristotle’S Political Theory
    4. The Athenaion Politeia and Aristotle’s Political Theory Lucio Bertelli DOI – http://dx.doi.org/10.7359/852-2018-bert ABSTRACT – This contribution addresses the issue of the mutual influence between the Athenaion Politeia and Aristotle’s political theory as developed in the Politics and elsewhere. It surveys previous approaches to this issue, analysing problems both with deterministic approaches and with those approaches that deny any influence of theory on the historical treatment of the Ath. Pol. It focuses in particular on the theory of the metabole and on the constitutional transitions in the Ath. Pol., and examines in detail the various metabolai of Athens vis-à-vis the treatment of Politics V and VI. It argues that the influence of Aristotle’s political theory in the Ath. Pol. is clear and detectable, but not deterministic. Theory is used as a key aid to understanding the logic of events. KEYWORDS – Aristotle’s political theory; Athens; metabole; stasis – Atene; metabole; sta­ sis; teoria politica di Aristotele. 1. SUMMARY OF THE IssUE The issue has been partially created by Aristotle himself when, in the sketchy outline of the Politics in EN X 9 (1181b 16-20), he announced: «First, then, if there is anything that has been correctly said by our pre- decessors on some part of the subject, let us try to go through it and then, on the basis of the collection of constitutions, try to get a theoretical grasp on what sorts of things preserve and destroy cities, what sorts of things preserve or destroy each sort of constitution, and what causes some cities to be well governed and others the opposite.
    [Show full text]
  • Giorgio Agamben: Introductory Note on the Concept of Democracy
    Giorgio Agamben: Introductory Note on the Concept of Democracy From Theory & Event. Vol. 13, No. 1, 2010. Any discussion of the term “democracy” today is distorted by a preliminary ambiguity that condemns those who use it to misunderstanding. Of what do we speak when we speak about democracy? To what form of rationality does this term actually pertain? A slightly more attentive observation would show that those who discuss democracy today understand this term sometimes as a form of the body politic’s constitution, sometimes as a technique of government. The term thus refers both to the conceptuality of public law and to that of administrative practice: it designates power’s form of legitimation as well as the modalities of its exercise. Since it is obvious to everybody that, in contemporary political discourse, this term is more often related to a technique of government – which, as such, has nothing especially reassuring about it – one understands the malaise of those who continue to use it in the first sense in entirely good faith. That the interlacing of these two conceptualities – juridico- political on the one hand, economico-managerial on the other – has deep roots and is not easily disentangled will appear clearly in the following example. When we find the word politeia in the classics of Greek political thought (often within the context of a discussion about the different forms of politeia : monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, as well as their parekbaseis or deviations), we see the translators render this word sometimes as “constitution,”
    [Show full text]
  • THE KRATOS in DÊMOKRATIA* Daniela Cammack Yale University Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 2018 Meeting of the American
    THE KRATOS IN DÊMOKRATIA* Daniela Cammack Yale University Paper prepared for presentation at the 2018 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston MA Dêmokratia is at the same time one of the simplest words in the ancient Greek lexicon to translate and one of the most difficult to understand.1 It suggests ‘democracy’, but what did that imply two and a half thousand years ago? As is often observed, dêmos meant ‘people’, kratos ‘power’ or ‘rule’, leading to the conventional glosses ‘rule by the people’ or ‘people- power’.2 But these glosses raise further questions. ‘People’ defined how? ‘Ruling’ or ‘exercising power’ in what way? In previous work, I have tackled the first question, arguing— against the prevailing view that dêmos in this context denoted ‘people’ in the sense of the entire citizen body—that the dêmos in dêmokratia indicated, first and foremost, the common people formally constituted as a political body, that is to say, a popular assembly.3 Dêmokratia, on this interpretation, indicated rule by, or the power of, the assembly, in contradisinction from that of a council or single man. In this paper I turn to the second question. What did, and did not, kratos imply in the classical democratic context? I focus here on our most important source, the Aristotelian Athênaiôn Politeia or ‘Constitution of the Athenians’, rediscovered only in 1890 and whose full impact on the interpretation of Athenian democracy has arguably not yet been felt.4 Establishing the meaning of kratos requires distinguishing it from two proximate ‘power’ terms: archê, usually translated ‘rule’, ‘government’ or ‘empire’, and to kuros, ‘authority’ or ‘sovereignty’ (adjective kurios, ‘authoritative’ or ‘sovereign’), and one advantage of the Athênaiôn Politeia is that it contains these and cognate terms in abundance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia As 'Poor History'?
    Histos 13 (2019) 129–45 THE ARISTOTELIAN ATHENAION POLITEIA AS ‘POOR HISTORY’? HISTORIOGRAPHY, RHETORIC, AND THE CONTROVERSIES ABOUT SOLON IN THE FOURTH CENTURY* Abstract: This article examines the kind of historiographical thought that the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia reveals in its use of sources, especially in chapters 2–17, which deal with Solon’s political activity. It confronts the scholarly view of the Athenaion Politeia as poor history and argues that its historical reasoning employs the same kind of rhetorical argumentation that would have been acceptable in the intellectual context of fourth-century Greek historiography. Keywords: ancient historiography, rhetoric, Solon, Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 1. Introduction he historical thought and methodology of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia have received some attention over the years in studies often T linked to the debate over its authorship.1 For those who ascribed the Ath. Pol. to Aristotle, his ideas about history as less philosophical and serious than poetry (Poetics 1451b),2 as well as presumed contradictions within the text or with other works,3 reaffirmed the absence in the work of historical accuracy and original research.4 Even when scholars thought otherwise and the value of Aristotle’s history was acknowledged, the Ath. Pol. was often dismissed as not being a proper historiographical work. I include here the explicit beliefs of * I am grateful to Francisco Marshall, Jose Carlos Baracat Junior, and Delfim Ferreira Leão for their help at different stages of this investigation, and to the institutions which supported it: CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), UFRGS (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul), and UFRB (Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia).
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle on Money and on Economy
    Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 3, 2017 Aristotle on Money and on Economy: First remarks1 Catherine BRÉGIANNI PhD on Modern History, Research Director Modern Greek History Research Centre, Hellenic Academy of Science [Academy of Athens] Associated Member (external), LaDéHis/CRH-EHESS [email protected] Abstract. This proposed paper (being a part of a work in progress on money and on monetary/ economic crises’ conceptualization) examines the institutional facet and the symbolic function of money as its diachronical qualities; this global perception of money and of monetary phenomena is integrated, thus, in the assumption that objective functions inheres in them, corresponding to respective historical conjuncture. The obvious outcome is that each historical period accentuates the different economic concepts—and their philosophical representation or their synthesis—according to the existing stage of the market’s evolution. In this methodological framework, in the first part will be examined the variable historical phases in the process of monetary integration, as far as the different characteristics of monetary globalization—in historical perspective—are specified. It is then useless to state that the “global” concept is referred not only to an interdisciplinary approach of money but equally to the diversified levels of globalization, the latest perceived as historical phases in market’s evolution. The past experience of monetary “integration” being briefly presented, in the second part of the article are depicted Aristotle’s notions on institutional characteristics and social/symbolic functions of money. Secondly, Plato’s Politeia offers to the research a systemic differentiation on parallel monetary units, i. e. the simultaneous function of local and global monetary systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric As Deliberation Or Manipulation? About Aristotle's
    Rhetoric as Deliberation or Manipulation? About Aristotle’s Rhetoric and its Misuse in Recent Literature Dirk Jörke, Technical University of Darmstadt Abstract In contrast to some recent articles, which try to bridge the gap between Aristotle’s Rhetoric and contemporary concepts of deliberative democracy, it is argued that Aris- totle in this work does not plead for a rational and unemotional way of political deci- sion making. On the contrary, his Rhetoric should be read as a manual for strategically oriented actors if not for demagogues. Th e well-known tension between the more ethical and the political parts of Rhetoric can be resolved if a distinction is made be- tween a form of rhetoric, which has its place in an ideal polis, and the kind of rhetoric that is necessary in a corrupt regime. For Aristotle the democratic regime of Athens is such a corrupt regime. In the last part of this paper, it is demonstrated that Aristo- tle in his Rhetoric highlights the non-cognitive and emotional features of deliberative procedures and thereby corrects one of the most serious shortcomings of the theory of deliberative democracy. Keywords: Aristotle, Rhetoric, Emotions, Deliberative democracy Introduction Interest in Aristotle’s Rhetoric has signifi cantly increased in recent years. John M. Cooper (1996) could still complain in 1996 that Rhetoric had been rath- er neglected in the research on Aristotle, this has changed dramatically. Th e growing interest in this work extends not only to the fi eld of classical studies and philosophy but also to political theory.1 In particular, as I show in the fi rst section, several studies published in recent years discuss Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the context of contemporary democratic theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Platonic Economic Theory: the Economics of Moderation
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1983 Platonic Economic Theory: the Economics of Moderation. Kenneth Neal Townsend Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Townsend, Kenneth Neal, "Platonic Economic Theory: the Economics of Moderation." (1983). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3942. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3942 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Democracy and Mixed Constitution in Theory and Practice. Nomophylakia and Fourth-Century Nomothesia in the Aristotelian
    6. Extreme Democracy and Mixed Constitution in Theory and Practice Nomophylakia and Fourth-Century Nomothesia in the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia Mirko Canevaro - Alberto Esu DOI – http://dx.doi.org/10.7359/852-2018-cane ABSTRACT – This essay explores how Aristotle’s normative function of nomophylakia (guardianship of the laws), as described in the Politics, shapes the assessment of the constitutional stages of Athenian history in the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, and espe- cially of the restored democracy after 403 B.C. It argues that the methodological baseline governing the Aristotelian account of Athenian constitutional history in the Ath Pol. is the socio-economic «anatomy of the city» theorised in Politics IV chapter 3, pre-eminent over the institutional taxonomy of chapter 4. Thus, the socio-economic mixing of different «parts of the city» (the wealthy, the mesoi and the demos) represents the key measure for evaluating the adherence of a constitution to the principle of the sovereignty of the laws. As a result, within Aristotle’s framework, the function of nomothesia cannot be exercised by the same part of the city that deliberates in the assembly and appoints the magistrates. This theoretical framework explains the Ath. Pol.’s judgement of the eleventh metabole as an extreme democracy, and the puzzling absence of nomothesia in the account of the fourth-century institutions of Athens. It is the same part of the city, the demos, that controls every institutional function including the nomothesia procedure, which does not constitute an effective form of nomophylakia. The first part of this paper discusses the Aristotelian methodology in Politics IV and his two anatomies of the city (section 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Republic
    1 Plato’s Republic The Republic (Greek: Πολιτεία, Politeia; Latin: Res Publica) is a Socratic dialogue, written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning justice (δικαιοσύνη), the order and character of the just city- state and the just man. It is Plato's Defense of Justice. In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual's interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most pressing issues regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Plato’s Definition of Justice: After criticizing the conventional theories of justice presented differently by Cephalus, Polymarchus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, Plato gives us his own theory of justice according to which, individually, justice is a 'human virtue' that makes a person self-consistent and good; socially. Justice is a sort of specialization. It is simply the will to fulfill the duties of one's station and not to meddle with the duties of another station, and its habitation is, therefore, in the mind of every citizen who does his duties in his appointed place. It is the original principle, laid down at the foundation of the State, "that one man should practice one thing only and that the thing to which his nature was best adopted". True justice to Plato, therefore, consists in the principle of non- interference. The State has been considered by Plato as a perfect whole in which each individual which is its element, functions not for itself but for the health of the whole. Every element fulfils its appropriate function.
    [Show full text]