Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
114<br />
DEMOCRACY TODAY<br />
which makes it all the more surprising that the vast application and<br />
recognised importance for a democracy is not matched by equal concern<br />
about what its central features are. For example, “The Encyclopedia<br />
of <strong>Democracy</strong>” (1995) <strong>do</strong>es not even list the term. [3]<br />
When trying to find a definition, the first hurdle to overcome is<br />
the widespread use of different expressions: Everything from “public<br />
sphere” and “public space” to “public realm” and even simply “public”<br />
is employed, as well as the closely related term “public opinion”. From<br />
now on, the expression “public realm” shall be a<strong>do</strong>pted, following<br />
Hannah Arendt in her seminal work “The Human Condition” (1973).<br />
This is not only justified because she is perhaps the most consequent<br />
theorist of the public realm in relation to antiquity, but also because<br />
it demarcates the concept from the public sphere whose meaning is<br />
usually strongly linked to Jürgen Habermas’ influential study “The<br />
Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” (1991). In his work, the<br />
public sphere refers to a space between state and society in which civil<br />
society debates and reflects upon public concerns in an open, mostly<br />
unstructured environment. As will be shown, this notion is different<br />
from its meaning in the context of ancient Athens, where the public<br />
realm formed the focal point of the community and was structured in<br />
several ways. [4] The political reality there, 2’500 years ago, is now to be<br />
described in order to highlight the central features of a public realm (if<br />
not indicated differently, the description follows Bleicken 1995).<br />
For some 150 years, Athenian democracy was characterised by<br />
an outstanding amount of participation by its citizens. The two main<br />
democratic institutions were the plenary assembly and the courts.<br />
Both were ascribed detailed proceedings and competences and also a<br />
corresponding site where meetings were held and which was physically<br />
defined. [5] To prevent a single person or a faction from <strong>do</strong>minating<br />
3<br />
A glance at various encyclopaedias of democracy or political science in general reveals<br />
that the term ‘public sphere’, or a close correlate, is usually granted minor attention – if<br />
listed at all – with respect to the more <strong>do</strong>minant expression of ‘public opinion’.<br />
4<br />
It is remarkable that this difference in conclusion is contrasted by a great deal of agreement<br />
regarding the analysis of the problem, especially that the public sphere has increasingly<br />
been invaded by intimate and economic elements which in antiquity were ascribed<br />
to the private realm (oikos) (e.g. Habermas 1991: 57/76/262, Arendt 2002: 39/60/88/157).<br />
5<br />
The plenary assembly originally met at the agora but had to change site, because it became<br />
too small as more people were enabled to participate. They moved to the Pnyx that allowed