في الديمقراطية تاريخ النفوذ من شرعنة الخطاب إلى تنميط الشرعية

Abstract EN

We would like to point out that, by virtue of the presence of democratic action, a person regains what despotism has wasted of his memory, dignity, freedom and humanity.

But the joy and the dance to the tones of this achievement should not forget us that every revolution and every democratic achievement have enemies lying in wait, and the fear is all fear that the system will be able to reproduce itself, from an authoritarian regime to a soft authoritarian regime.

We want here to stop here in this particular place with "Jacques Rensiard" who criticizes "this form of representative democracy, which in the end is nothing but minority rule, which was elected by a majority that gave the Fund its votes, and then withdrew to public life, awaiting the fulfillment of promises and dates".

This is because it is certain that the confrontation of totalitarianism can only be achieved through the continuous creativity of democracy.

This is guaranteed by the continuation and embrace of protests and revolutions and their continuity.

It is appropriate for us to return to the "Laboy" question: "How can all these groups of people and cities endure a monolithic tyrant, who has no power but the power that is given to him?" We see him achieve a slide outside of history, and there appears to be an urgent need to understand the transition from desire to love of slavery in terms of what is not rational, and what comes to mind is that every relationship with power is an oppressive relationship.

At that time, a question arises about a non-coercive policy to a coercive one.

That is why we are revealing the strictness that these inquiries store, since we can see clearly that the European concentration tendency is shaking.

These questions have broken with what history has been so far represented in it.

Knowledgeable people have found that it is merely a case specific to "Western" societies.

It is thus evident that it is, and what needs to be considered, is that the "Resiar" thesis is not represented in defending a new governmental utopia, nor in proposing a plan of action contrary to popular struggles, nor even in revitalizing a post-Marxist machine against the legitimacy of democracy.

Technocrats about technocrats who are professional in making the future.

Not even in a coup against what is happening, and with regard to the future, "there is no future waiting for us", there is just a lot of work and struggle "for everyone who wants not to die stupid."