くだらねえ
の一言で終わらせてはいけません。
民主主義の歴史と民主主義の思想史がこれ一冊で概観できます。（もちろん、著者の考えで書かれているので、正しいかどうかではありません。）
私は全然本を読んでいないんだなあ、とまた痛感しました。でも、本は量じゃなくて、出会いだから。いい本にいい時期に出会えれば、それが最高。量はそれほど関係ない。もちろん、量を読めばいい本に出会える確率は高くなるんだろうけど、何億、何兆と本はあるので、10冊も100冊もあまり関係ないともいえます。
まず著者は「はじめに」で３つの問を掲げます。Ａ，Ｂ，Ｃ、それぞれが相反するような２つの文でできています。民主主義の定義に関することです。その回答は最後の章です。
序 民主主義の危機
「民主主義の四つの危機」が挙げられます。「ポピュリズムの台頭」「独裁的指導者の増加」「第四次産業革命の影響」「コロナ危機と民主主義」です。それぞれも最後の章で総括されます。
「第四次産業革命」とはAIのことのようです。「民主主義にとってみれば、一人ひとりの人間を平等な判断主体とみなすという前提が揺らぐことが深刻です。」（P.30）この前提がどのように作られたのかは、ここでは説明されません。「アルゴリズムのメカニズムにより、人々は自分が欲する情報に優先的に接することになります。」（同）その届いた情報は、本当に個々人が欲した情報なのでしょうか。その情報がなぜ送られてくるのかをチョッと考えればわかります。それは、その商品を売りたいからですよね。そして、もしその情報（広告という）に従って商品を買ったとしても、その殆どはその情報がなければ買わなかったものです。買わなかったにしても、その情報が届くことによって「ああ、私はこの商品が欲しかったんだ」と「気づく」ことがしょっちゅうありませんか。スーパーのチラシを見て、これ食べたい、と思うことは当たり前ですし、私はビールのCMを見るたびにビールが飲みたくなります（笑）。でも、それは本当に私の欲望でしょうか。本当は誰の欲望でしょうか。[1]
一度発生した（自覚した？）欲望は、満たされるまで「不満」として残ることが多いです。忘れても、心のどこか（潜在意識？）に溜まっていく気がします。私たちは「慢性的な（そして肥大化する）不満」の中で生きています。物があればあるほど、不満と欠乏が募るのです。[2]
第一章 民主主義の誕生
古代ギリシャにおける民主主義です。
古代ギリシャについては橋場弦『民主主義の源流 古代アテネの実験』（2016年、講談社学術文庫）をとりあげています。「具体的には、寡頭派市民と和解し、報復の連鎖を断ったこと、民会や民衆裁判所で議論を行い、あらためて民主主義の原則の維持を確認したこと、さらには法（ノモス）の地位を高めるべく、通常の民会の決議と法を明確に区別したことが挙げられます。」（宇野、P.77）
”Commonwealth”が「共和国」や「英連邦」「アメリカの州」であることを初めて知りました。単純に「公的な富」だと思ってました。"wealse"はギリシャ語の「富・本質・実在（"οὺσια"）、あるいは、有益・利益（"ὼφελια"）、善（"ἀγαθός"）」にあたるんですね、多分。
第二章 ヨーロッパへの「継承」
民主主義は継承されたんではなく、ヨーロッパで「再生された」と私は読みました。
「封建社会において、王権は存在しましたが、実質的な権力は各地に散らばる封建領主の間で分割されていました。それぞれの領主は自前の軍事力を持ち、司法を行い、秩序を維持しました。領主たちは国王に対して奉仕義務をもち、戦時には自ら軍を率いるなど貢献を求められました。とはいえ、平時における国王の歳入のほとんどは、自らの直営地から得たものでした。当然、大規模な常備軍や官僚制をもつことは不可能です。」（P.90）
「十八世紀に英国」「では議会主権が確立し、議員内内閣制も始まります。その上で十九世紀以降に選挙権が拡大し、労働者の政治参加が拡大しました。議会主権をまず確立し、その後に政治参加の枠を広げていったのが、英国の道と言えるでしょう。」（P.94）
「フランスに置いては、中央集権化によって貴族たちは土地との結びつきを弱めます。行政を担ったのは、王が派遣した官僚たちでした。結果として、貴族たちは地域の実力者としての役割を失います。にもかかわらず、貴族たちは特権を享受し続けることで、平民たちの憎悪を買うことになりました。英国とは異なり、貴族と地主、中産階級と農民とが連帯することがなかったのは、そのためでした。」（P.95）
「完全に隷属した人々は、自らの隷属に不満を感じることすらありません。むしろ、自分もまた一人の人間であることを自覚した人々が、それゆえに残された不平等に不満を持つのです。トクヴィルはこのことを、アメリカでの経験も踏まえて平等化の趨勢として理解しました。トクヴィルは、平等化の趨勢が、フランスにおいては適切な政治的枠組みを与えられなかったがゆえに、革命として暴発したと考えました。」（P.117）「完全に・・」が著者の考えかトクヴィルの考えかはわかりませんが、微妙ですね。
第三章 自由主義との「結合」
「古代の民主主義と近代の民主主義を隔てるポイントの一つは、政党の承認にあります。党派を嫌った古代の民主主義に対し、近代の民主主義はむしろ、その本質の一つとして政党を受け入れたのです。」（P.133）私には意図がうまく伝わりません。
「実際、その後の力士において、執行権の力は拡大する一方であり、二〇世紀においては、国家が幅広く社会の諸問題に取り組む行政国家が加速します。」（P.136）なるほど。
「ルソーは厳密に主権と政府を区別しています。主権者である人民は一般意志に基づいて法を作りますが、それを個別の対象に執行するのは政府の役割です。法を作る人間が、自らそれを執行することは、権力の乱用を招きがちだからです。」ルソーはちゃんと読んだことがありませんが、大事なことですね。
「トクヴィルは、つねに物事の両面をみます。たしかに、人々に一定の思考や価値を強いるような権威は存在しなくなりました。しかし、そのことは、人々にとって思考の基準がなくなったことも意味します。」（P.150）
「他者との関係を改めて再構築しない限り、人々は孤独に陥りがちなのです。やがて多くの個人は、自分と自分の身の回りの狭い世界に閉じこもるでしょう。トクヴィルはこれを「個人主義」と呼びました。」（P.151）
「トクヴィルはさらに、「デモクラシー」の社会において、人々の関心が、「いま・ここ」に集中しがちであることを指摘しています。かつて人々にとって、家の伝統が重い意味をもった時代がありました。そのような時代において、人々は、自ずと長い時間軸で自分を捉えました。これに対し、家の伝統と切り離されるようになると、人々は自分の人生をより短期間に捉えるようになります。やがて、人々の関心は「いま・ここ」に集中するのです。」（P.152）鋭い指摘ですね。刹那主義は伝統から切り離された民主主義に原因があると考えてみたいです。
第四章 民主主義の「実現」
「ウェーバーは選挙権の拡大により大衆民主主義が実現したものの、その結果として政党の官僚化が進み、政治家の職業化がするんだことに危機意識をもちました。」「かつて政治家になるのは、名望家と呼ばれる地域の有力者たちが中心でした。これに対し、現在では選挙権が拡大し、選挙で勝利するためには全国的な政党組織が不可欠です。そのためには資金も必要ですし、党務を担う人々の数も増えていきます。大衆民主主義の時代において、政党もまた官僚化していかざるをえなかったのです。」（P.182）
「福祉国家化が進む中、現実には行政権の役割が拡大し、むしろ大統領や首相など政治的リーダーの影響力が拡大していったのです。（LF）このような状況を前提に、なんとか自由主義と民主主義の危ういバランスを回復しようと努めたのが、第二次世界大戦後の民主主義論です。違憲立法審査権が多くの国々で採用されたのはその一例でしょう。このような立憲的枠組みを前提に、多党制を安定させ、実行的な執行権を制度化しようという意図が、共通してみられました。「安定」時代のキーワードになったのです。」（P.191）でも、100%の「安定・安全・安心」というのはありえないんですよね。切りがないのです。つねに不確定要素があるから。でも、その逆の「不安・危険」には限界があります。個人なら「死」、政党なら「解散・消滅」です。
「資本家・富裕層と労働者階級のそれぞれを代表していた保守・社会民主主義による二大政党は、福祉国家をめぐる歩み寄りを前提に、相互の利益調整を図ってきましたが、財政の悪化によりそれも難しくなっています。何より、アリストテレス以来、民主主義わ支えるとされた中間層の没落は、政治の分極化を招いて民主主義の運営をより困難なものとしました。（LF）結果として、自由民主主義と市場経済とが、相互に支え合い、発展していくという「常識」が揺らぐようになります。」（P.207）
第五章 日本の民主主義
何をどういいたいのか全然わかりません。西洋のことはかけるけど、日本のことを書くのは色々と障害があるのでしょうか。「大人の事情」ってやつです。また、近代までは詳しく書いても現代、特に戦後のことについて書くときに著者の言葉に力がなくなるのも「おとなの事情」でしょうか。
結び 民主主義の未来
これが本論のはずです。「民主主義が未だ制度化の途上にあることについても、指摘しておかなければなりません。」（P.254）これは、進化論的な考え方ですね。「民主主義」という「理念」があって、その理念が「実現した制度」が「未来」に「ある」。「だから、いまは我慢して理念の実現に向けて努力しなくっちゃ」ということになるのでしょう。まるでイデア論であり、歴史の目的論、発展論です。未来に理想の民主主義がることを「信じて」それに向けて努力しなければならないわけです。
「執行権が強化される中で、政党や議会はそれを十分にチェックすることができず、民主主義の力が十分に及ばなくなっている点も深刻です。」「この隘路を、強力な大統領によって打破しようとしたウェーバーの挫折を繰り返すわけには生きません。」そうなんだけど、著者は執行権の民主化について有効な手段、理論を提示していないように思います。「この執行権を直接的に民主的な統制のもとに置かない限り、民主主義は実質化しないとするロザンヴァロンの問題提起は重要です。」（P.256）とだけ言っています。また、
「代議制民主主義への不信については、選挙や政党のあり方についての刷新が不可欠でしょう。」といいますが、変えても意味がないと思います。代議制民主主義そのものを問わなくてはならないのではないでしょうか。
「AIによって人間の仕事が奪われ、無用となった多くの人々はデジタル専制に屈するのではないたという暗鬱な未来予想が語られる中、あらためて「人間とは何か」が問い直されるべきでしょう。」（P.260）美しい言葉ですね。でも無意味です。「人間とは何か」に答えがありますか。それを人間が答えることはできないでしょう。AIを絶対的なもの、人類の発展の結果として捉えるから、おかしなことになるのです。むしろ問うべきは「AIとはなにか」「AIが生まれるのはなぜか」ではないでしょうか。”How"から”What","Why"への視点の変換が必要だと思います。
「民主主義を基軸に人類の歴史を振り返ってきた本書の視座からすれば、平等化のメカニズムは停滞したり、一時的に逆行したりすることがあっても、最終的には平等化を隔てる様々な障壁を破壊して前進していくはずだ、という前提がまず基本になるべきです。」（同）「べき」の意味がわかりません。さらに、
「多くの人々は、それと自覚することなしに、平等化に貢献してしまうのです。火器や戦争もまた、これまでの社会のあり方を突き崩すことで、社会の変化を加速させました。」（P.261）まるで、個人の自覚は不要で、戦争は必要だといっているように思えます。(^_^;)
「より多くの人々が情報やデータにアクセスするのみならず、自ら発信することを可能にするSNSの技術は、文字通り、人々を「デモクラタイズ（民主化）します。」（P.261）冒頭で、提示されるデータはアルゴリズムのメカニズムによるといっていたのに、それを全面的に肯定ですか。AIを信頼しているというか、知らないというか。一般的に流通している知識で現代社会を考えようというのは、Wikipediaで何でもわかってしまう、ということでしょうね。それなら別に「古代ギリシャ」なんか考えなくてもいい。本書もいらない。Wikipediaで間に合うということになってしまうのではないでしょうか。私もSNSの可能性を全面否定する気はありません。事実、SNSで「オキュパイ・ウォールストリート」などの運動が起こったと考えています。今必要なのは、SNSよりも（SNSだけじゃなく）「生（なま）の声」「生（なま）の話し合い」なんじゃないでしょうか。新型コロナウィルス問題を乗り越えるのも、その他の三つの危機を乗り越えるのも、最終的にはSNSではなく、人と人とのふれあいだと思うのです。
「危機が長期化するとともに経済活動の停滞による影響も深刻化してきました。」（P.263）私はむしろ、この１年半で、経済が破綻しないどころか、株価は最高値を更新し、最上層部にいるごく少数の人の資産が記録的に伸びていることに注目しています。それは、私たちの仕事の多くの部分が『ブルシット・ジョブ』であることを実証したのではないでしょうか。
「最終的に問われるのは、私たちの信念ではないでしょうか。厳しい時代においてこそ、人間は何を信じるかを問われるのです。」（P.264）ほとんど宗教ですね。（笑）
読み終わって
最後は「信じる者は救われる」的な終わり方です。著者はファシズムと社会主義を同列に置きます。その軽薄さが残念です。社会主義はむしろ著者の考えに近いんではないでしょうか。「未来に良い社会がある。人類はそこに向かっているんだ。だから、今は努力しよう。努力するべきだ。」それは、「極楽・天国」あるいは「来世」を説く宗教と同じなのではないでしょうか。
著者は軽く見ていますが、私たちは「いま・ここ」に生きているのです。100年後、200年後の幸せな社会を信じても天国や来世を信じても、そこに「わたし」はいないのです。
もし、やるべきことがあるとすれば、「いま・ここ」にいる「わたし」の存在、その”How"ではなく”What","Why"をとことん突き詰めて考えることだと思います。
⟨impressions⟩
crap
Don't end with one word.
You can get an overview of the history of democracy and the history of democracy's thought in this one book. (Of course, it's written in the author's mind, so it's not correct.)
I realized again that I hadn't read a book at all. But books aren't quantities, they're encounters. If you can meet a good book at a good time, that is the best. The amount doesn't really matter. Of course, if you read the amount, you will have a higher chance of encountering a book, but since there are hundreds of millions and trillions of books, it can be said that 10 or 100 books are not so relevant.
First, the author raises three questions in "Introduction". A, B, and C are made up of two contradictory sentences. It's about the definition of democracy. The answer is the last chapter.
Introduction to the crisis of democracy
"Four crises of democracy" can be mentioned. "The rise of populism," "increasing dictatorship," "impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution," "corona crisis and democracy." Each is also summarized in the last chapter.
The "Fourth Industrial Revolution" seems to be AI. "For democracy, it is serious that the premise that each person is regarded as an equal judge is shaken." (P.30) How this premise was made is not explained here. .. "The mechanism of the algorithm gives people priority to the information they want." (Same as above) Is the information really what each individual wants? You can understand why the information is sent. That's because you want to sell that product. And even if you buy a product according to that information (called an advertisement), most of it would not have been bought without that information. Even if you don't buy it, do you often "know" that "Oh, I wanted this product" when you receive the information? It's natural to see a supermarket leaflet and want to eat this, and every time I see a beer commercial, I want to drink beer (laughs). But is that really my desire? Whose desire is it really? [1]
Once a desire (awareness?) Occurs, it often remains as "dissatisfaction" until it is satisfied. Even if I forget it, I feel that it will accumulate somewhere in my heart (subconscious?). We live in "chronic (and bloated) dissatisfaction." The more things you have, the more dissatisfied and deficient you will be. [2]
Chapter 1 Birth of Democracy
Democracy in ancient Greece.
As for ancient Greece, Yuzuru Hashiba's "The Source of Democracy: Experiments in Ancient Athens" (2016, Kodansha Academic Bunko) is taken up. "Specifically, we reconciled with oligarchy citizens, broke the chain of retaliation, held discussions in the private assembly and the people's courts, and reconfirmed the maintenance of the principles of democracy. In order to raise the status, there is a clear distinction between the resolutions of ordinary private assembly and the law. ”(Uno, p.77)
For the first time, I learned that "Commonwealth" is a "republic," "Commonwealth of Nations," and "American state." I simply thought it was "public wealth." "Wealse" is the Greek word for "wealth, essence, reality (& quot; οὺσια"), or usefulness / profit (& quot; ὼφελια & quot;), good (& quot; ἀγαθός & quot;), isn't it?
Chapter 2 "Inheritance" to Europe
I read that democracy was not inherited, but was "regenerated" in Europe.
"In a feudal society, kingship existed, but substantive power was divided among feudal lords scattered around. Each lord had his own military power, judiciary, and maintenance of order. The lords were obliged to serve the king and were asked to contribute, such as leading their own army during the war. However, most of the king's income during normal times came from his own land. Of course, it is impossible to have a large standing army or bureaucracy. "(P.90)
In "UK in the 18th century", parliamentary sovereignty was established and the parliamentary cabinet system began. On top of that, the right to vote expanded after the nineteenth century, and the political participation of workers expanded. Parliamentary sovereignty It can be said that the British way was to establish it first and then expand the scope of political participation. ”(P.94)
"In France, centralization weakens the aristocrats' ties to the land. It was the bureaucrats dispatched by the king who took charge of the administration. As a result, the aristocrats became the influential people of the region. Despite losing their role, the aristocrats continued to enjoy their privileges, which led to the hatred of the commoners. Unlike Britain, the aristocrats and landlords, the middle class and the farmers were in solidarity. That's why I didn't do it. ”(P.95)
"People who are completely enslaved do not even feel dissatisfied with their enslavement. Rather, those who realize that they are also humans are dissatisfied with the inequality that remains. Tocqueville understood this as a trend of equalization, based on his experience in the United States. Tocqueville broke out as a revolution because the trend of equalization was not given an appropriate political framework in France. I thought I did it. ”(P.117) I don't know if“ completely ... ”is the author's idea or Tocqueville's idea, but it's subtle.
Chapter 3 "Union" with Liberalism
"One of the points that separates ancient democracy from modern democracy is the approval of political parties. In contrast to ancient democracy, which disliked factions, modern democracy rather considers political parties as one of its essences. I accepted it. "(P.133) I can't convey my intentions well.
"In fact, in the wrestlers that followed, the power of executive power continued to expand, and in the 20th century, the administrative nations in which the nation tackles a wide range of social issues will accelerate."
"Rousseau strictly distinguishes between sovereignty and government. The people who are sovereigns make the law on the basis of general will, but it is the role of the government to enforce it on individual objects. But doing it yourself tends to lead to abuse of power. "Rousseau hasn't read it properly, but it's important.
"Tocqueville always looks at both sides of things. Certainly, there is no authority to force people to think or value, but that also means that there are no standards of thought for people. I will do it. ”(P.150)
"People tend to fall into loneliness unless they re-establish their relationships with others. Over time, many individuals will be trapped in the narrow world of themselves and their surroundings. Tocqueville calls this" individualism. " I called. (P.151)
"Tocqueville further points out that in a" democracy "society, people's interests tend to be focused on" now and here. " There used to be a time when the tradition of the house had a heavy meaning to people. In such an era, people naturally captured themselves over a long period of time. On the other hand, when they are separated from the tradition of the house, people will be able to grasp their life in a shorter period of time. Eventually, people's interests will focus on "now and here." (P.152) That's a sharp point. I would like to think that momentaryism is caused by democracy, which is separated from tradition.
Chapter 4 "Realization" of democracy
"Weber was aware of the fact that popular democracy was achieved by expanding the right to vote, but as a result, political parties became more bureaucratic and politicians became professionals." It was centered around the influential people in the region, called bureaucrats, whereas now the right to vote has expanded and a national political party organization is essential to win the election. And the number of people in charge of party affairs will increase. In the era of popular democracy, political parties had to become bureaucrats as well. ”(P.182)
"As the welfare state progressed, the role of administrative authority actually expanded, and rather the influence of political leaders such as the president and the prime minister expanded. (LF) Given this situation, It was the post-WWII democracy theory that tried to restore the dangerous balance between liberalism and democracy. One example is the adoption of unconstitutional jurisdiction in many countries. On the premise of such a constitutional framework, the common intention was to stabilize the multi-party system and institutionalize the executive branch. It became the keyword of the "stability" era. "(P.191) But 100%" stability, safety, and security "is impossible, isn't it? There is no cut. Because there are always uncertainties. However, there is a limit to the opposite "anxiety / danger". For individuals, it is "death," and for political parties, it is "dissolution / disappearance."
"The two major conservative and social democratic parties that represented the capitalist / wealthy class and the working class have been trying to adjust their mutual interests on the premise of a compromise over the welfare state, but the financial situation has deteriorated. Above all, the downfall of the middle class, which has been considered to support democracy since Aristotelis, has led to political polarization and made it more difficult to manage democracy (LF). , The "common sense" that free democracy and market economy will support each other and develop will be shaken. (P.207)
Chapter 5 Japan's Democracy
I have no idea what I want to say. I'm talking about the West, but are there various obstacles to writing about Japan? It's an "adult situation". Also, even if I write in detail until modern times, is it "adult circumstances" that the author's words lose power when writing about modern times, especially after the war?
Conclusion: The future of democracy
This should be the main topic. “I must also point out that democracy is still in the process of being institutionalized.” (P.254) This is an evolutionary idea, isn't it? There is an "idea" called "democracy," and there is a "system" that "realizes" that idea in the "future." "That's why I have to put up with it now and make an effort to realize the idea." It's like an idea theory, a teleology of history, and a development theory. We must "believe" that there is an ideal democracy in the future and work toward it.
"As executive powers are strengthened, political parties and parliaments are not able to fully check it, and it is also serious that the power of democracy is not fully reached." "This bottleneck is a powerful president. I can't live to repeat Weber's frustration in trying to break it down. ”Yes, I don't think the author offers any effective means or theory for democratizing executive power. "It is important to raise the issue of Rozan Vallon that democracy will not materialize unless this enforcement power is placed directly under democratic control" (P.256). Also,
"For distrust of representative democracy, it will be essential to renew the elections and political parties," he says, but I don't think there is any point in changing it. I think we have to ask for representative democracy itself.
"Amid the gloomy future predictions that AI has robbed humans of their jobs and made many useless people not succumb to digital tyranny," what is humans "should be re-questioned. Let's do it. (P.260) It's a beautiful word. But it's meaningless. Is there an answer to "what is a human being"? Humans will not be able to answer that. It's strange because we see AI as an absolute thing, as a result of human development. Rather, the question should be "what is AI" and "why is AI born?" I think it is necessary to change the viewpoint from "How" to "What", "Why".
"From the perspective of this book, which looks back on the history of humankind based on democracy, even if the mechanism of equalization stagnates or temporarily reverses, it will eventually separate equalization. The premise that we should break down various barriers and move forward should be the basis first. ”(Same as above) I don't understand the meaning of“ should ”. further,
"Many people, without realizing it, contribute to equality. Firearms and wars have also accelerated social change by breaking down the way society has been. (P.261) It seems as if individual awareness is not necessary and war is necessary. (^ _ ^;)
"SNS technology that allows more people to not only access information and data but also send it out by themselves literally" democratizes "people" (P.261). So, you said that the data presented is due to the mechanism of the algorithm, but are you totally affirming it? Do you trust or don't know AI? Thinking about modern society with the knowledge that is generally distributed means that you can understand anything on Wikipedia. Then you don't have to think about "Ancient Greece". I don't need this book either. I think Wikipedia will be in time. I have no intention of completely denying the possibility of SNS. In fact, I think that movements such as "Okupai Wall Street" have occurred on SNS. What is needed now is "raw voice" and "raw discussion" rather than SNS (not just SNS). I think that overcoming the new coronavirus problem and overcoming the other three crises is ultimately not about SNS, but about people-to-people contact.
“As the crisis prolongs, the effects of the stagnation of economic activity have become more serious.” (P.263) I rather, in the past year and a half, the economy has not collapsed, and stock prices have hit new highs. We note that the wealth of the very few people at the top is growing record-breaking. It didn't prove that much of our work was "Bullshit Jobs]". Is it?
"Isn't it our belief that is ultimately asked? In difficult times, humans are asked what they believe." (P.264) Mostly religion. (Lol)
After reading
The end is a way of ending that "believers are saved." The author puts fascism and socialism in line. I'm sorry for its frivolity. Isn't socialism more like the author's idea? "There is a good society in the future. Mankind is heading there. So let's make an effort now. We should make an effort **." It is a religion that preaches "paradise / heaven" or "afterlife." Isn't it the same?
The author takes a light look, but we are living "here and now". Whether you believe in a happy society 100 or 200 years from now, or in heaven or the afterlife, there is no "I" there.
If there is something to do , think about the existence of "I" in "now and here", not "How" but "What", "Why". think.
crap
Don't end with one word.
You can get an overview of the history of democracy and the history of democracy's thought in this one book. (Of course, it's written in the author's mind, so it's not correct.)
I realized again that I hadn't read a book at all. But books aren't quantities, they're encounters. If you can meet a good book at a good time, that is the best. The amount doesn't really matter. Of course, if you read the amount, you will have a higher chance of encountering a book, but since there are hundreds of millions and trillions of books, it can be said that 10 or 100 books are not so relevant.
First, the author raises three questions in "Introduction". A, B, and C are made up of two contradictory sentences. It's about the definition of democracy. The answer is the last chapter.
Introduction to the crisis of democracy
"Four crises of democracy" can be mentioned. "The rise of populism," "increasing dictatorship," "impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution," "corona crisis and democracy." Each is also summarized in the last chapter.
The "Fourth Industrial Revolution" seems to be AI. "For democracy, it is serious that the premise that each person is regarded as an equal judge is shaken." (P.30) How this premise was made is not explained here. .. "The mechanism of the algorithm gives people priority to the information they want." (Same as above) Is the information really what each individual wants? You can understand why the information is sent. That's because you want to sell that product. And even if you buy a product according to that information (called an advertisement), most of it would not have been bought without that information. Even if you don't buy it, do you often "know" that "Oh, I wanted this product" when you receive the information? It's natural to see a supermarket leaflet and want to eat this, and every time I see a beer commercial, I want to drink beer (laughs). But is that really my desire? Whose desire is it really? [1]
Once a desire (awareness?) Occurs, it often remains as "dissatisfaction" until it is satisfied. Even if I forget it, I feel that it will accumulate somewhere in my heart (subconscious?). We live in "chronic (and bloated) dissatisfaction." The more things you have, the more dissatisfied and deficient you will be. [2]
Chapter 1 Birth of Democracy
Democracy in ancient Greece.
As for ancient Greece, Yuzuru Hashiba's "The Source of Democracy: Experiments in Ancient Athens" (2016, Kodansha Academic Bunko) is taken up. "Specifically, we reconciled with oligarchy citizens, broke the chain of retaliation, held discussions in the private assembly and the people's courts, and reconfirmed the maintenance of the principles of democracy. In order to raise the status, there is a clear distinction between the resolutions of ordinary private assembly and the law. ”(Uno, p.77)
For the first time, I learned that "Commonwealth" is a "republic," "Commonwealth of Nations," and "American state." I simply thought it was "public wealth." "Wealse" is the Greek word for "wealth, essence, reality (& quot; οὺσια"), or usefulness / profit (& quot; ὼφελια & quot;), good (& quot; ἀγαθός & quot;), isn't it?
Chapter 2 "Inheritance" to Europe
I read that democracy was not inherited, but was "regenerated" in Europe.
"In a feudal society, kingship existed, but substantive power was divided among feudal lords scattered around. Each lord had his own military power, judiciary, and maintenance of order. The lords were obliged to serve the king and were asked to contribute, such as leading their own army during the war. However, most of the king's income during normal times came from his own land. Of course, it is impossible to have a large standing army or bureaucracy. "(P.90)
In "UK in the 18th century", parliamentary sovereignty was established and the parliamentary cabinet system began. On top of that, the right to vote expanded after the nineteenth century, and the political participation of workers expanded. Parliamentary sovereignty It can be said that the British way was to establish it first and then expand the scope of political participation. ”(P.94)
"In France, centralization weakens the aristocrats' ties to the land. It was the bureaucrats dispatched by the king who took charge of the administration. As a result, the aristocrats became the influential people of the region. Despite losing their role, the aristocrats continued to enjoy their privileges, which led to the hatred of the commoners. Unlike Britain, the aristocrats and landlords, the middle class and the farmers were in solidarity. That's why I didn't do it. ”(P.95)
"People who are completely enslaved do not even feel dissatisfied with their enslavement. Rather, those who realize that they are also humans are dissatisfied with the inequality that remains. Tocqueville understood this as a trend of equalization, based on his experience in the United States. Tocqueville broke out as a revolution because the trend of equalization was not given an appropriate political framework in France. I thought I did it. ”(P.117) I don't know if“ completely ... ”is the author's idea or Tocqueville's idea, but it's subtle.
Chapter 3 "Union" with Liberalism
"One of the points that separates ancient democracy from modern democracy is the approval of political parties. In contrast to ancient democracy, which disliked factions, modern democracy rather considers political parties as one of its essences. I accepted it. "(P.133) I can't convey my intentions well.
"In fact, in the wrestlers that followed, the power of executive power continued to expand, and in the 20th century, the administrative nations in which the nation tackles a wide range of social issues will accelerate."
"Rousseau strictly distinguishes between sovereignty and government. The people who are sovereigns make the law on the basis of general will, but it is the role of the government to enforce it on individual objects. But doing it yourself tends to lead to abuse of power. "Rousseau hasn't read it properly, but it's important.
"Tocqueville always looks at both sides of things. Certainly, there is no authority to force people to think or value, but that also means that there are no standards of thought for people. I will do it. ”(P.150)
"People tend to fall into loneliness unless they re-establish their relationships with others. Over time, many individuals will be trapped in the narrow world of themselves and their surroundings. Tocqueville calls this" individualism. " I called. (P.151)
"Tocqueville further points out that in a" democracy "society, people's interests tend to be focused on" now and here. " There used to be a time when the tradition of the house had a heavy meaning to people. In such an era, people naturally captured themselves over a long period of time. On the other hand, when they are separated from the tradition of the house, people will be able to grasp their life in a shorter period of time. Eventually, people's interests will focus on "now and here." (P.152) That's a sharp point. I would like to think that momentaryism is caused by democracy, which is separated from tradition.
Chapter 4 "Realization" of democracy
"Weber was aware of the fact that popular democracy was achieved by expanding the right to vote, but as a result, political parties became more bureaucratic and politicians became professionals." It was centered around the influential people in the region, called bureaucrats, whereas now the right to vote has expanded and a national political party organization is essential to win the election. And the number of people in charge of party affairs will increase. In the era of popular democracy, political parties had to become bureaucrats as well. ”(P.182)
"As the welfare state progressed, the role of administrative authority actually expanded, and rather the influence of political leaders such as the president and the prime minister expanded. (LF) Given this situation, It was the post-WWII democracy theory that tried to restore the dangerous balance between liberalism and democracy. One example is the adoption of unconstitutional jurisdiction in many countries. On the premise of such a constitutional framework, the common intention was to stabilize the multi-party system and institutionalize the executive branch. It became the keyword of the "stability" era. "(P.191) But 100%" stability, safety, and security "is impossible, isn't it? There is no cut. Because there are always uncertainties. However, there is a limit to the opposite "anxiety / danger". For individuals, it is "death," and for political parties, it is "dissolution / disappearance."
"The two major conservative and social democratic parties that represented the capitalist / wealthy class and the working class have been trying to adjust their mutual interests on the premise of a compromise over the welfare state, but the financial situation has deteriorated. Above all, the downfall of the middle class, which has been considered to support democracy since Aristotelis, has led to political polarization and made it more difficult to manage democracy (LF). , The "common sense" that free democracy and market economy will support each other and develop will be shaken. (P.207)
Chapter 5 Japan's Democracy
I have no idea what I want to say. I'm talking about the West, but are there various obstacles to writing about Japan? It's an "adult situation". Also, even if I write in detail until modern times, is it "adult circumstances" that the author's words lose power when writing about modern times, especially after the war?
Conclusion: The future of democracy
This should be the main topic. “I must also point out that democracy is still in the process of being institutionalized.” (P.254) This is an evolutionary idea, isn't it? There is an "idea" called "democracy," and there is a "system" that "realizes" that idea in the "future." "That's why I have to put up with it now and make an effort to realize the idea." It's like an idea theory, a teleology of history, and a development theory. We must "believe" that there is an ideal democracy in the future and work toward it.
"As executive powers are strengthened, political parties and parliaments are not able to fully check it, and it is also serious that the power of democracy is not fully reached." "This bottleneck is a powerful president. I can't live to repeat Weber's frustration in trying to break it down. ”Yes, I don't think the author offers any effective means or theory for democratizing executive power. "It is important to raise the issue of Rozan Vallon that democracy will not materialize unless this enforcement power is placed directly under democratic control" (P.256). Also,
"For distrust of representative democracy, it will be essential to renew the elections and political parties," he says, but I don't think there is any point in changing it. I think we have to ask for representative democracy itself.
"Amid the gloomy future predictions that AI has robbed humans of their jobs and made many useless people not succumb to digital tyranny," what is humans "should be re-questioned. Let's do it. (P.260) It's a beautiful word. But it's meaningless. Is there an answer to "what is a human being"? Humans will not be able to answer that. It's strange because we see AI as an absolute thing, as a result of human development. Rather, the question should be "what is AI" and "why is AI born?" I think it is necessary to change the viewpoint from "How" to "What", "Why".
"From the perspective of this book, which looks back on the history of humankind based on democracy, even if the mechanism of equalization stagnates or temporarily reverses, it will eventually separate equalization. The premise that we should break down various barriers and move forward should be the basis first. ”(Same as above) I don't understand the meaning of“ should ”. further,
"Many people, without realizing it, contribute to equality. Firearms and wars have also accelerated social change by breaking down the way society has been. (P.261) It seems as if individual awareness is not necessary and war is necessary. (^ _ ^;)
"SNS technology that allows more people to not only access information and data but also send it out by themselves literally" democratizes "people" (P.261). So, you said that the data presented is due to the mechanism of the algorithm, but are you totally affirming it? Do you trust or don't know AI? Thinking about modern society with the knowledge that is generally distributed means that you can understand anything on Wikipedia. Then you don't have to think about "Ancient Greece". I don't need this book either. I think Wikipedia will be in time. I have no intention of completely denying the possibility of SNS. In fact, I think that movements such as "Okupai Wall Street" have occurred on SNS. What is needed now is "raw voice" and "raw discussion" rather than SNS (not just SNS). I think that overcoming the new coronavirus problem and overcoming the other three crises is ultimately not about SNS, but about people-to-people contact.
“As the crisis prolongs, the effects of the stagnation of economic activity have become more serious.” (P.263) I rather, in the past year and a half, the economy has not collapsed, and stock prices have hit new highs. We note that the wealth of the very few people at the top is growing record-breaking. It didn't prove that much of our work was "Bullshit Jobs]". Is it?
"Isn't it our belief that is ultimately asked? In difficult times, humans are asked what they believe." (P.264) Mostly religion. (Lol)
After reading
The end is a way of ending that "believers are saved." The author puts fascism and socialism in line. I'm sorry for its frivolity. Isn't socialism more like the author's idea? "There is a good society in the future. Mankind is heading there. So let's make an effort now. We should make an effort **." It is a religion that preaches "paradise / heaven" or "afterlife." Isn't it the same?
The author takes a light look, but we are living "here and now". Whether you believe in a happy society 100 or 200 years from now, or in heaven or the afterlife, there is no "I" there.
If there is something to do , think about the existence of "I" in "now and here", not "How" but "What", "Why". think.
[著者等(プロフィール)]
宇野重規(うの しげき)
一九六七年、東京都生まれ。東京大学法学部卒業。同大学大学院法学政治学研究科博士課程修了。博士(法学)。現在、東京大学社会科学研究所教授。専攻は政治思想史、政治哲学。主な著書に『政治哲学へ 現代フランスとの対話』(二〇〇四年渋沢・クローデル賞LVJ特別賞受賞)、『未来をはじめる 「人と一緒にいること」の政治学』(以上、東京大学出版会)、『トクヴィル 平等と不平等の理論家』(講談社学術文庫、二〇〇七年サントリー学芸賞受賞)、『保守主義とは何か 反フランス革命から現代日本まで』(中公新書)などがある。
トランプ大統領をはじめとする「ポピュリスト」の跋扈、旧社会主義諸国および中国など権威主義国家の台頭など、近年の世界の政治状況は、民主主義という制度の根幹を揺るがすかのような観を呈しています。日本の状況を見てみても、現行の政権が「民意」の正確な反映、すなわち「民主主義的な」政権だといわれると、頸をかしげる人も少なくないのではないでしょうか。はたして民主主義はもう時代遅れなのか? それとも、まだ活路はあるのか?
それを議論するためには、まず何よりも、民主主義とは、そもそもどのような制度なのかを「正しく」知らなければならないでしょう。今では自明視されている「民主主義」という制度ですが、人が創ったものである限りそれもまた歴史的な制度として、さまざまな紆余曲折を経て現在のようなものになったのであって、決して「自然」にこのようなになったわけでではないのです。
そこで本書では、ギリシア・アテナイにおける民主主義思想の「誕生」から、現代まで、民主主義という制度・思想の誕生以来、起こった様々な矛盾、それを巡って交わされた様々な思想家達の議論の跡をたどってゆきます。その中で、民主主義という「制度」の利点と弱点が人々にどのように認識され、またどのようにその問題点を「改良」しようとしたのか、あるいはその「改革」はなぜ失敗してしまったのかを辿ることにより、民主主義の「本質」とは何なのか、そしてその未来への可能性を考えてゆきます。
またあわせて、日本の民主主義の特質、その問題点についても分析してゆきます。
それを議論するためには、まず何よりも、民主主義とは、そもそもどのような制度なのかを「正しく」知らなければならないでしょう。今では自明視されている「民主主義」という制度ですが、人が創ったものである限りそれもまた歴史的な制度として、さまざまな紆余曲折を経て現在のようなものになったのであって、決して「自然」にこのようなになったわけでではないのです。
そこで本書では、ギリシア・アテナイにおける民主主義思想の「誕生」から、現代まで、民主主義という制度・思想の誕生以来、起こった様々な矛盾、それを巡って交わされた様々な思想家達の議論の跡をたどってゆきます。その中で、民主主義という「制度」の利点と弱点が人々にどのように認識され、またどのようにその問題点を「改良」しようとしたのか、あるいはその「改革」はなぜ失敗してしまったのかを辿ることにより、民主主義の「本質」とは何なのか、そしてその未来への可能性を考えてゆきます。
またあわせて、日本の民主主義の特質、その問題点についても分析してゆきます。
[1] 「欲望を先取り！」というCMがありました。先取りされた欲望となんなんでしょう。
[2] 「物質的欠乏をなくすため行動するにしても、より大きな課題があるそれは、満足の欠乏との闘いだ・・・われわれはみな、そのために苦しんでいる」（J.F.ケネディ、『これからの「正義」の話をしよう――いまを生き延びるための哲学 マイケル・サンデル著』からの引用）
[拡大] 
