Abstract
Existe una relación entre diferentes clases de discusión y losroles que ésta juega en las instituciones del gobierno representativo. Esposible distinguir tres tipos de discusión, que caen en una escaladecreciente según su afinidad con estándares racionales de toma dedecisiones. El argumento es que mientras más se ajuste una discusión aestándares racionales, menos democrática será. Esta tensión entredemocracia y discusión racional es en realidad la tensión entredemocracia y aristocracia, y sugiere un camino para reintroducir laaristocracia como concepto significativo hoy. Sólo admitiendo lanaturaleza aristocrática de la discusión racional es posible preservar elcarácter democrático de una institución.
Highlights
Most modern conceptions of democratic political systems are linked with the idea of representative government, such that what is said to characterize a democratic regime is that it contains in its center an organ of power composed of a group of people who have been elected by the populace at large to be their voice and to exercise their will for them in the business of government
In this picture there are two key elements that I want to stress: first, that representative democracy implies the existence of an assembly, a group of representatives, in which the main political powers are vested; and second, that representation is ascertained through an electoral process, whereby the people select from among themselves those who, in representing them, will exercise their lawmaking powers
Representative democracy can be understood as a system of government in which political decisions are made by means of a process that includes, at some key point, discussion, debate, or deliberation2
Summary
Most modern conceptions of democratic political systems are linked with the idea of representative government, such that what is said to characterize a democratic regime is that it contains in its center an organ of power composed of a group of people who have been elected by the populace at large to be their voice and to exercise their will for them in the business of government. The point of Platonic dialectic is that the sole criterion of validity of any statement made is its rationality, excluding, as Socrates says, any “emotional speeches” or appeals to other authorities besides that of reason aspiring to truth The usefulness of this view of discussion for politics is made somewhat fragile by Aristotle’s distinction between theoretical and practical reasoning, for Platonic dialectic can be extremely useful in ascertaining or better understanding the contours and content of issues, but not really so when it comes to making judgments about what is to be done about them. Nicomachean Ethics, VI, 8), where the discussion is dialectical in nature and has a final reasonbased objective This objective, whether for the individual or for the political decision-making body, is not identified with a universal truth as in Platonic dialectic, rather, it is in the form of a judgment regarding the best course of action in the view of existing practical exigencies. I will argue that this brings new light on the relationship between democracy and representative government, suggesting that it establishes the basis for an argument in favor of aristocracy within that government
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
