Democracy and serious participation in Internet 
Santiago, September 13, 2006
Certainly our interconnected global world, far from the cabin of Henry David Thoreau, that old precursor of civil disobedience. Today we recognize ourselves in this global village global, diverse, multicultural, cosmopolitan. In this recognition of diversity is implicit respect for the human person, which is essentially equal in their human value but different in their origin. Just in how different is the richness of cultural diversity, hence arises the respect that we have as individuals who demonstrate participation of the different cultural expressions in the context of a heterogeneous society.
We live in a society today in politics, marketing and communications, full of different people whose fates are sometimes played by the flight of a butterfly. A complex and fragile, more real and transparent, more open and spacious, but cruel at the time of competition, a world with diverse culture, multiple ...
On this I agree with Heath and Potter Canadian sociologists, who say that "We do not live in 'Parent', or in the spectacle. The truth is that the world we live in is much more prosaic. It consists of billions of human beings, each with its own concept of well-trying to cooperate more or less success. There is no single, comprehensive all-encompassing. Unable to lock the culture because 'culture' and 'system' does not exist as isolated events. What you need is a potpourri of social institutions, mostly grouped tentatively divided the advantages and disadvantages of social cooperation in a fair sometimes, but usually very unfair "
This justice is when we are talking about aim to recognize the participation of people in democracy.
These days it has raised considerable controversy (not the same discussion) on these or not President Bachelet said the city government. Such artificial and not very conducive controversy, is given by the gap in understanding what is democracy in its nature and origin.
The current democracy is representative democracy we understand and therefore do not fit any other names, call delegative, participatory citizenship, etc. Democracy is about the minimum is and respects civil liberties and civil rights that is required of him. But democracy is essentially a government the people who are participating in the civic or citizens.
On democracy, whether the concept or practice, has been discussed since at least 2500 years, since the middle of the sixth century BC was inaugurated in Chios, Greece. While Chios was the first city-state that experienced these changes, evolving into a democracy form of government, will be at Athens where democracy does its best at that time. By the year 507 BC the Athenians adopted a popular government that would last almost two centuries until it was conquered by the Macedonians, around 321 BC, before being submitted to the Romans. For the Greeks el termino democracia o demokratia, venía de las palabras griegas demos, que es pueblo, y kratos que significa gobierno. Es interesante observar como indistintamente el termino demos se utilizaba para señalar a la gente corriente, incluido los pobres, sin embargo cuando se hacía referencia a la palabra democracia, se estaba indicando peyorativamente a la gente común, por parte de la aristocracia, a quien se había despojado del gobierno. En todo caso para los atenienses y para muchas ciudades-estados griegos, la palabra democracia significaba el gobierno que permitía la participación más amplia de los denominados ciudadanos, vale decir el gobierno ciudadano.
La democracia ateniense, ha sido generalmente expuesta in different ways, and even depending on the source, have highlighted one or another feature, however the clear source for the operation and organic it can be found in the funeral oration, which is attributed to Pericles, the speech written Tucides probably highlights the political power of Athens. In this eulogy described citizens as parts and components for the creation of a common life. Citizens should not be differentiated by rank or wealth. The demos, it was what was meant by the sovereign power, or the authority having legislative and judicial powers. Therefore, the citizen can and should take direct roles in administration of the city-state.
Athenian democracy was characterized by commitment, which they called, civic virtue, which was occupied by the state of the polis, subordinating the private affairs of public issue, public affairs or the thing was about Private. Civic virtue could only happen in the polls, because only then ethics and politics could combine to embody civic virtue.
Another source describes the ancient Greek democracy notably is the work of Aristotle, Politics (conducted between 335 and 323 BC), exposes and explains the functioning of that system of government, This does not mean a defense of it.
Democracy, as described, is characterized by combining with equal freedom, in other words, classical democracy necessarily implies freedom and this in turn requires equality will develop to full, this was one of the arguments of Aristotle , which led him to question this type of government.
opens at this time Homo Politicus, whose ideal was a citizen in possession of civic virtue, which was achieved through political action. Political action took place in the city and its fullness was the participation of homo politicus or Kratos or citizen in the government.
Well, here comes the question as city government, that although it was in its time the so-called direct democracy and which today is known as representative, in spirit and nature of democracy is the city government, which exists when expresses the full democracy, as is the case of Chile.
Since we unveiled what it means democracy, which is nothing more nor less than city government, let me go into the question of participation and expressions of social unrest we have seen in recent months, especially after we saw as a bomb Molotov was fastened to the Currency and explains why this phenomenon ...
So when was the phrase of several passers-by which I passed by the Alameda the night of 11 September and that, unable to take the buses that would take them home, walking outraged and resigned to a non-violent group allowed to arrive soon to your home. Then the next morning, all was desolation where hordes of vandals had passed.
The image we have designed these days to the world and ourselves, is that of a broken country, where modernity and its profits have not reached everyone. Therefore, this currency to be more open, transparent our differences and shortcomings.
Del Chile provincial regions incommunicado and a number we Chile globalized trade agreements with Internet, TV reality shows and trash programs Jetset Creole pathetic. From Chile
isolated and held incommunicado from the 80s we moved to the country that grows more than any in Latin America, BMWs, Porches, Mercedes on the streets, but also tricycles pickers. The
authoritarian Chile, we moved to Chile of freedom, where expression is not a crime. From Chile
anonymous, we move to a Chile that is observed and is traversed by yellow buses and the delayed Transantiago.
Chile Modernization brought a more prosperous, but that prosperity you can see from the windows in plasma TVs, does not reach the areas or the suburbs of cities in Chile, especially Santiago and that of course it's frustrating. In short we have freedom, but as noted by Gerald Allan Cohen, this is not real and fully when social differences are extreme in certain sectors of the population, ie, lack of resources is against the possibility of having degrees of freedom growing. In this sense, poverty, defined as absence or lack of money, constitutes a threat to freedom, however, even though this approach seems to be valid it might be asked, yes, lack of money, lack of freedom, as Cohen argues vehemently, then I wonder, how much money it takes to be truly free? What is the minimum to start being a bit off? However, I am certain that the total lack of means and minimum means for living, undermine the freedom of individuals. However, as more general lack of freedom is the difference that gives respect of access to goods that people have. That is, the familiar discussion of the distribution of income in Chile is outrageously unjust nations of the world. Therefore, we have a modern, free in their institutions but unfair in terms of access.
This is no justification for vandalism 11 September, as expressed in violence that day was due to different circumstances. There is disaffection from social sectors to the current system, despite this, their protest is peaceful and democratic ways to give, which is related to the organization and participation in intermediate bodies. This showed us some residents of Peñalolen, that same September 11 all night defended his office, so that the masked not destroyed. About
out to destroy and shoot, do not for the deficiency of freedom they possess, or to defend the poor in Chile, do so because their behavior unstructured and without obligation ideas or movements allows them to destroy the knowledge that the social penalty is diluted, that the courts do not constrain freedom and collective consciousness quickly forget this horde of attackers, but above all, your reaction is a validation in its group , your group, your urban tribe, who condemns these actions, validate and even justified, as some leftist movements. In short, this action becomes a cool activity and low social sanction, even family, as indicated by Canadian sociologists Heath and Potter, today, "revealed sells."
One way to address urban terrorism, we saw that day, is supporting those who, despite having been excluded from important degrees of freedom, as the inhabitants of Peñalolén who defended his office, part of the bright side of modernity and do not want to see Chile with a Molotov at La Moneda.
The first part I explained about democracy as an expression of city government, saying the second concerning the causes of violent participation in democracy. If you have listened carefully to both arguments, we realize that democracy in this country the necessary conditions for citizens to participate and express themselves, but it depends on us to use participation as a way of deepening democracy improve in terms of quality and intensity.
Participation is not theoretical, but it is the soul of democracy and without this scheme can not exist. In this regard, I take the words of German philosopher Hannah Arendt, who said precisely on this point, that: "Democracy must provide opportunities for people to settle as citizens or as participants in democracy.
V. Andres Jouannet
Doctor of Political Science University of Heidelberg
