Antik Atina Doğrudan Demokrasisi: Liberal Demokratik Bir Potansiyele Sahip miydi?

Abstract

Bu çalışma, antik Atina doğrudan demokrasisinin bir liberal demokrasi olarak görülüp görülemeyeceği veya liberal bir siyasal rejime evrilme potansiyeline sahip olup olmadığı yönündeki iddiaları değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu maksatla, önce liberalizmin bireycilik, sınırlı devlet, negatif özgürlük ve haklar gibi temel niteliklerine odaklanarak kısa bir analizi sunulmuştur. Daha sonra antik Atina doğrudan demokrasisinin temel prensipleri ve idealleri onun liberal demokratik potansiyelini ortaya çıkarmak amacıyla kısaca analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada ortaya konulan ana argüman, Atina doğrudan demokrasisinin bireyi devlet müdahalesinden koruma ve vatandaşların negatif özgürlüklerini korumak için sahip olduğu çeşitli bağışıklıklar gibi bazı temel karakteristikleri bir nevi liberal değerlerdir ve Atina politik rejiminin liberal bir potansiyel taşıdığının göstergeleridir. Ayrıca çalışmada, antik Atina doğrudan demokrasisinin temel özgürlükleri genişletmeyi sağladığı için liberal demokratik bir potansiyele sahip olduğunu iddia etmenin, eğer tarihsel koşullar farklı olsaydı Atina demokrasisi daha liberal demokratik bir siyasal rejime evrilebilirdi savından daha ikna edici bir argüman olduğu savunulmuştur. Metodolojik olarak bu çalışma, analitik ve normatif siyaset felsefesi teorisi içerisinde bir nitel çalışmadır.

Keywords

• Doğrudan Demokrasi
• Antik Atina Demokrasisi
• Liberal Demokrasi
• Liberalizm

Ancient Athenian Direct Democracy: Any Liberal Democratic Potential?

Abstract

This study aims to assess the claims whether or not the direct democracy in ancient Athens can be properly regarded as a liberal democracy or had the potentials to evolve into a liberal democratic regime. For this purpose, firstly, a brief examination of liberal democracy is provided focusing on the basic tenets of liberalism; namely individualism, the limited conceptualisation of the state, negative freedom, and rights. Then, the basic principles and ideals of ancient Athenian direct democracy are briefly analysed to unveil its liberal democratic potential. The main argument raised in this study is that some essential characteristics of the Athenian version of direct democracy, viz. protecting the individual from the state interference and having several immunities to protect the negative liberties of citizens, were like liberal values and the indicators of the political regime’s liberal potential. It is also argued that it is much more persuasive to argue that ancient Athenian direct democracy had liberal democratic potentials because it facilitated the extension of core liberties than the claim that Athenian democracy could have evolved into a more liberal democratic political regime if historical conditions had been different. Methodologically, this is a qualitative study in analytic and normative political-philosophical theory.

Keywords

• Direct Democracy
• Ancient Athenian Democracy
• Liberal Democracy
• Liberalism

References

1. Archibugi, D. (2005). The language of democracy: Vernacular or esperanto? A comparison between the multiculturalist and cosmopolitan perspectives. Political Studies, 53(3), 537-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00543.x
2. Axtmann, R. (1996). Liberal democracy into the twenty-first century: Globalization, integration and the nation-state. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
3. Bellamy R. and Castiglione, D. (1997). Constitutionalism and democracy - The political theory and the American constitution. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 595-618. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123497000288
4. Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 67-94). Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
5. Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00061
6. Bonanno, A. (2000). The crisis of representation: The limits of liberal democracy in the global era. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 305-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00064-9
7. Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Karp, J. A. (2007). Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907304108
8. Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

9. Chaudhuri, M. D. (1985). On the political structure of a liberal democracy. Economic and Political Weekly, 20(22), 958-959. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
10. Christiano, T. (1990). Freedom, consensus, and equality in collective decision making. Ethics 101(1), 151-181. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
11. Craig, S., Kreppel, A. and Kane, J. (2001). Public opinion and support for direct democracy: A grassroots perspective. In M. Mendelsohn and A. Parkin (Ed.), Referendum democracy: Citizens, elites and deliberation in referendum campaigns (pp. 25-46). New York: Palgrave.
12. Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Dalton, R. J., Burklin W. P. and Drummond, A. (2001). Public opinion and direct democracy. Journal of Democracy, 12(4), 141-153. https://doi:10.1353/jod.2001.0066
14. Diamond, L. J. (1990). Three paradoxes of democracy. Journal of Democracy, 1(3), 48-60. https://doi:10.1353/jod.1990.0047
15. Donovan, T. and Karp, J. A. (2006). Popular support for direct democracy. Party Politics, 12(5), 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068806066793
16. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Erdoğan, M. (2011). İnsan hakları teorisi ve hukuku [Theory and law of human rights]. Ankara: Orion.
18. Friedman, M. (1977). The future of capitalism. California: Pepperdine University.
19. Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
20. Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of history. The National Interest, 16, 3-18. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
21. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: The Free Press.
22. Gerret, E. (1997). Who directs direct democracy. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, 4(1), 17-36. Retrieved from https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/
23. Gilljam, M., Pesonen, P. and Listhaug, O. (1998). The referendum in representative democracies. In A. T. Jenssen, P. Pesonen and M. Gilljam (Eds), To join or not to join: Three nordic referendums on membership in the European Union. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
24. Gordon, S. (1999). Controlling the state: Constitutionalism from Ancient Athens to today. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
25. Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
26. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27. Hansen, M. (1996). Ancient Athenian and the modern liberal view of liberty as a democratic ideal. In J. Ober and C. Hendrick (Eds.), Demokratia (pp. 91-104). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
28. Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
29. Hibbing, J. R. and Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Holden, B. (1988). Understanding liberal democracy. New Jersey: Philip Allan.
31. Hutchinson, A. C. and Monahan, P. (2001). Democracy and the rule of law. In D. Dyzenhaus and A. Ripstein (Eds.), Law and morality: Readings in legal philosophy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
32. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
33. Kagan, D. (1991). Pericles of Athens and the birth of democracy. London: Secker & Warburg.
34. Kelsen, H. (1955). Foundations of democracy. Ethics, 66(1), 1-101. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
35. Knopff, R. (1998). Populism and the politics of rights: The dual attack on representative democracy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 683-705. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
36. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
37. Leininger, A. (2015). Popular support for direct democracy in Europe. In ECPR (Ed.), What citizens want from democracy: Popular attitudes to existing political processes and their alternatives. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PaperDetails/23848
38. Levine, A. (1981). Liberal democracy: A critique of its theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
39. Lupia, A. and Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). Direct democracy: New approaches to old questions. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 463-482. https//:doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104730
40. Macedo, S. (1999). Deliberative politics essays on democracy and disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Mack, E. and Gaus, G. F. (2004). Classical liberalism and libertarianism: The liberty tradition. In E. Mack and G. F. Gaus (Eds.), Handbook of political theory (pp. 115-130). London: Sage Publications.
42. Mann, H. and Spinner-Halev, J. (2010). John Stuart Mill’s feminism: On progress, the state, and the path to justice. Polity, 42(2), 244-270. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2009.17
43. Maskivker, J. (2010). Participation and rights in Athenian democracy: A Habermasian approach. The European Legacy, 15(7), 855-870. https://doi.org/10.1080/10848770.2010.528902
44. McDonald, M. (1991). Should communities have rights? Reflections on liberal individualism. Canadian Law of Journal and Jurisprudence, 4(2), 217- 237. https://doi: 10.1017/S0841820900002915
45. Minogue, K. (2000). Democracy as a telos. In E. F. Paul, F. D. Miller and J. F. Paul (Eds.), Democracy (pp. 203-224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66(3), 745-758. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
47. Norris, P. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). From disgust to humanity: Sexual orientation and constitutional law. New York: Oxford University Press.
49. Ober, J. (2000). Quasi-rights: Participatory citizenship and negative liberties in democratic Athens. In E. F. Paul, F. D. Miller and J. Paul (Eds.), Democracy (pp. 27-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Ober, J. (2008). The original meaning of “democracy”: Capacity to do things, not majority rule. Constellations, 15(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2008.00471.x
51. Ober, J. (2017). Demopolis: Democracy before liberalism in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Ober, J. (2019). What did ‘democracy’ mean to Greek democrats? Philosophy and Public Issues/Filosophia E Questioni Pubbliche, 9(2), 73-82. Retrieved from http://fqp.luiss.it/
53. Ober, J. and Hedrick, C. (1996). Demokratia. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
54. Offe, C. (2011). Crisis and innovation of liberal democracy: Can deliberation be institutionalised. Czech Sociological Review, 47(3), 447-472. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
55. Parekh, B. (1993). The cultural particularity of liberal democracy. In D. Held (Ed.), Prospects for democracy: North, south, east, west (pp. 156-175). Cambridge: Polity Press.
56. Pickles, D. (1970), Democracy. London: BT Batsford Ltd.
57. Plattner, M. F. (1998). Liberalism and democracy: Can’t have one without the other. Foreign Affairs, 77(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.2307/20048858
58. Plattner, M. F. (1999). From liberalism to liberal democracy. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 121-134. https//:doi: 10.1353/jod.1999.0053
59. Rogow, A. A. and Lasswell, H. D. (1963). Power, corruption, and rectitude. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
60. Şahin, B. (2008). Liberal demokrasinin temelleri [The foundations of liberal democracy]. Demokrasi Platformu, 3(10). Retrieved from https://www.demokrasiplatformu.com/
61. Sandel, M. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Şener, T. and Çağlar, N. (2020). Genç seçmenlerin siyasete olan ilgileri ve siyasal katılım açısından kümelenmeleri üzerine bir araştırma [A research on young voters’ interest in politics and their clustering in terms of political participation]. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 10(2), 514-531. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.746432
63. Touraine, A. (2011). Demokrasi nedir? [What is democracy ?]. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
64. Waldron, J. (1987). Theoretical foundations of liberalism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(147), 127-150. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
65. Walzer, M. (1990). The communitarian critique of liberalism. Political Theory, 18(1), 6-23. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
66. Warren, M. (1989). Liberal constitutionalism as ideology: Marx and Habermas. Political Theory, 17(4), 511-534. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/