Select your language

author: Yevheniya Ryabeka


Urgency of the research. Civilization progress in the 21st century is expanding within the trends of globalization and informatization, forming a new social architecture. At the same time, this new architecture challenges the future of humanity if its axiological foundations are dominated by technocratic and other values and humanistic ideals are marginalized. This situation actualizes the exploration of a concept such as democracy.

Target setting. The concept of democracy is one of the most debated in the history of socio- humanitarian thought and needs research attention. In the history of philosophy, there is a rich theoretical inheritance in the study of democracy since the Antiquity. Historical and philosophical reconstruction of views on democracy in world and national philosophy must be carried out and conceptual approaches to its understanding should be outlined.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. Problematics of democracy is an integral part of classical philosophical teachings, sponsored by J.-J. Rousseau, Plato, K. Popper, K. Jaspers and others. Contemporary concepts of democracy are suggested in their work by L. Diamond, K. McPherson, Y. Habermas, J. Schumpeter, and others. Among the national authors who conceptually researched the problem of democracy, it is worth noting M. Boychuk, N. Latigina, T. Panchenko and others.

The research objective. The article sets out the task of reconstructing the historical and philosophical reconstruction of views on democracy in world and domestic philosophy, trying to distinguish conceptual approaches to its understanding, to trace the genesis of the concept of "democracy" in the history of philosophy.

The statement of basic materials. An analysis of the approaches to defining the content and basic parameters of democracy should obviously begin with Aristotle's eminent ancient thinker. Analyzing Aristotle's work, we come to the conclusion that democracy is based on the middle class and a free market economy. A new stage in the understanding of democracy has to do with the achievements of modern-day philosophers. J.-J. Rousseau writes in the paper “On the Social Treaty” that democracy is an instrument of ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens and protecting minorities. Representatives of German classical philosophy made a fundamental contribution to the development of theories of democracy. In particular, in the writings of I. Kant we find the justification of the republican monarchy as a model of democracy in which the monarch obeys the will of the citizens. Ideally, these citizens should ideally be carriers of a disengaged mind, capable of philosophically formulating progressive ideas and demands for incumbent power. J. Fichte substantiated the approach according to which the people should take part in the state processes, and the authorities should ensure the implementation of the people's decisions: according to this approach, the will of the people is given a dominant importance, and the authorities are only trying to implement it. In Hegel's theoretical inheritance, an alternative view of democracy is upheld: the people are interpreted by the philosopher rather as a formless mass, and the fullness of power must belong to the monarch.

Conclusions from this study and prospects for further research. The author traced the theoretical evolution in the understanding of democracy as a continuation (or denial) of its original conceptions, presented in ancient literature, summarized the modern understanding of democracy as a democracy, the benefits and contradictions of democracy in the modern world. It has been demonstrated that the philosophical reflection of democracy as a manifestation of popular sovereignty is based on a number of values, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of the citizen, freedom, equality, justice, the rule of law, etc.

Key words: people, culture, politics, democracy, worldview.

 

References:

  1. Boychuk, MA., 2012. ‘Demokratychnyy protses v Ukrayini : problema vyboru i mekhanizmiv realizatsiyi : avtoref. dys. d-ra filos. nauk za spetsialʹnistyu 00.03 – sotsialʹna filosofiya ta filosofiya istoriyi (The Democratic Process in Ukraine : The Problem of Choice and Implementation Mechanisms : Thesis for a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Specialty 09.00.03 - Social Philosophy and Philosophy of History)’, Kyyiv, 32 s.
  2. Bratasyuk, MH., 2012. ‘Ideya narodovladdya yak zasada utverdzhennya pravovladdya v pratsyakh ukrayinsʹkykh myslyteliv klasychnoyi doby (The Idea of People's Rule as a Basis for Establishing Rule of Law in the Works of Ukrainian Thinkers of the Classical Age)’, Yurydychnyy chasopys Natsionalʹnoyi akademiyi vnutrishnikh sprav, № 1(3), S. 3-10.
  3. Hanzhurov, YU., 2011. ‘Predstavnytsʹka demokratiya chy pryame narodovladdya : kryteriyi otsinky (Representative Democracy or Direct Democracy : Evaluation Criteria)’, Politychnyy menedzhment, № 5, S. 13- 18.
  4. Dal', R., 2000. ‘O demokratii (On Democracy)’, M. : Aspekt Press, 208 s.
  5. Dolzhenkov, OO., 2015. ‘Suchasna demokratiya : problemy ta perspektyvy (Modern Democracy : Problems and Prospects)’, Aktualʹni problemy polityky, Vyp. 54, S. 221-229.
  6. Latyhina, NA., 2008. ‘Ukrayinsʹka demokratiya sʹohodni : sproby i pomylky (Ukrainian Democracy Today : Trials and Mistakes)’, Humanitarnyy visnyk Zaporizʹkoyi derzhavnoyi inzhenernoyi akademiyi, Vyp. 34, S. 53-62.
  7. Panchenko, ТВ., 2011. ‘Pryntsyp subsydiarnosti v suchasnomu demokratychnomu rozvytku: monohrafiya (The principle of subsidiarity in modern democratic development : A Monograph)’, Kh. : Maydan, 368 s.
  8. Platon, 1971. ‘Sostoyaniye: rabotayet v 3 tonny po itogu. redaktor A.F. Loseva, V.F. Asmus (State: works in 3 tons under the total. ed. A.F. Loseva, V.F. Asmus)’ M. : Mysl', t. 3. p. 1. S. 89-454.
  9. Popper, K., 1994. ‘Vidkryte suspilʹstvo ta yoho vorohy (Open Society and Its Enemies)’, U 2 t. T. 1, K. : Osnovy, 444 s.
  10. Russo, ZHZH., 2000. ‘Ob Obshchestvennom dogovore : Traktaty (On the Social Contract : Treatises)’, M. : TERRA, 510 s.
  11. Fisun, AA., 2006. ‘Demokratiya, neopatrimonializm i global'nyye transformatsii : monografiya (Democracy, Neopatrimonialism and Global Transformations : A Monograph)’, Kh. : Konstanta, 351 s.
  12. Yaspers, K., 1969. ‘Kudy rukhayetʹsya FRN? (Where Does Germany Go?)’. Dostupno : www.klex.ru/e9n [Data zvernennya 11 Hrudnya 2019].
  13. Shumpeter, JA., 1962. ‘Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’, Third edition, New York : Harper Torchbook, 316 р.
  14. Svyrydenko D., Yatsenko O., 2018. ‘Dialectics of Nominal and Real Power in the Ukrainian and World Politics’, Ukrainian Policymaker, Vol. 2, pp. 33- 40.