지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Democracy was born in ancient Greece. Only recently several studies were announced that such order already appeared in Mesopotamia. But it is undeniable that the case of Athens was the most primary and fundamental example that should be examined in the history of democracy.
Yet today, the democracy we have and enjoy and also operate nowadays, is a very different version compared to the democracy of ancient Greece. The two versions are even conflictive. It is clear that we have two ideological visions of democracy. One is "ancient democracy," and one is "modern democracy." The former refers to ‘the people"s direct control of themselves," while the latter refers to "democracy operated by representatives." These two visions are very different from each other.
Why did this happen? This representative system is a totally different system from democracy, and hails back to the Feudalist days. At the times of the American and French revolutions in the latter half of the 18th century, the time of birth for modern democracy, a representative system was mainly an opposite concept of democracy, and was rather a huddle for the people to reach the state of democracy.
I do not believe that this "representative democracy" system was embraced because modern states have larger territories and larger populations. The new leadership born with the revolutions were facing a different social situation, and were in need of seizing a new kind of Hegemony. So, democracy and the representative system was merged with each other in a very odd way, and that became the root of the so-called "crisis of democracy" we are witnessing today. The two democratic revolutions mentioned above were the birth of ‘modern democracy’ and the efforts to overcome it. The lessons learned back then shall prove useful in our efforts of resolving our own "crisis of democracy."
Yet today, the democracy we have and enjoy and also operate nowadays, is a very different version compared to the democracy of ancient Greece. The two versions are even conflictive. It is clear that we have two ideological visions of democracy. One is "ancient democracy," and one is "modern democracy." The former refers to ‘the people"s direct control of themselves," while the latter refers to "democracy operated by representatives." These two visions are very different from each other.
Why did this happen? This representative system is a totally different system from democracy, and hails back to the Feudalist days. At the times of the American and French revolutions in the latter half of the 18th century, the time of birth for modern democracy, a representative system was mainly an opposite concept of democracy, and was rather a huddle for the people to reach the state of democracy.
I do not believe that this "representative democracy" system was embraced because modern states have larger territories and larger populations. The new leadership born with the revolutions were facing a different social situation, and were in need of seizing a new kind of Hegemony. So, democracy and the representative system was merged with each other in a very odd way, and that became the root of the so-called "crisis of democracy" we are witnessing today. The two democratic revolutions mentioned above were the birth of ‘modern democracy’ and the efforts to overcome it. The lessons learned back then shall prove useful in our efforts of resolving our own "crisis of democracy."
목차
1. 고대 민주주의
2. 2000년간의 침묵과 새로운 출발
3. 근대 민주주의의 탄생과 민주주의의 변용
4. 민주주의의 진전과 역설적 승리
5. 민주주의의 활력과 전망
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (51)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-910-003124189