Andrei Pleșu: On Democracy. Notes from the New Europe College

In old age, reflection inevitably becomes a form of archiving. For quite some time now, I have therefore been leafing through entire drawers of files, multicolored thematically and chronologically, and I am sometimes tempted to share them with my readers as well. Here, for instance, is a series of notes I used to write diligently at the seminars of the “New Europe” College, listening to the contributions of its fellows. Yesterday I came across notes on democracy discussed by Cristian Preda sometime in 1998–99, when I had the good fortune to have him on our team. Below, I offer a few of those I noted down diligently and admiringly during his presentation.

● We usually seek the sources of democracy among the ancient Greeks, who in reality rather despised it. See Plato’s “aestheticizing civic spirit,” for whom democracy is a kind of “motley mixture” of ideas. The subsequent history of its definitions seems to confirm him. For von Mises, for instance, the term has a libertarian component; for Pierre Manent, a conservative one; for Karl Popper, a social-democratic one... The philosophers’ “enthusiasm” for democracy (Spinoza, its first systematic supporter, according to some) risks diminishing its credibility.

● Democracy is “the road toward everyone.” Tocqueville traces the concept’s path from the learned founding treatise (Machiavelli) to the mere bureaucracy of the ballot paper...

● Democracy also has an “egalitarianism,” a universalization of communal thinking. In matters of public decision-making, everyone is an expert. The basis: the universalization of the will. The increased number of those who are structurally prepared to define and put into practice the principle of the optimal communal order.

● The modern support of liberal democracy: the growing political role of theory. The methodological separation of the text (= ideology) from action, but a coherent transition from “project,” “program,” “principle” to deed, to communal action. Democracy as the transition from the “philosopher citizen” to the responsible citizen...

● Monarchy is the metaphor of the mature man, of the wise old man. Democracy is more coherent with the dynamic, courageous young man, with woman as the setting of earthly paradise, and even with the child as a memory or premonition of heaven...

● Democracy as the immanent solution to a “relatively” imperfect world. It is the public good, insofar as it is possible in a “fallen” world.

● Von Mises, recalling Locke: democracy as an anticipation of the free market. (Humor: choosing rulers as you choose your preferred fruits at the market. Questionable implications: nevertheless, there is no “universality” of taste, digestion, or social and professional needs. It is risky to think of the world as a market... Moreover, philosophy is not about the world, but about Being. Roles should not be confused.)

● Democracy, in its risky version, is what Ortega y Gasset regarded as the prevalence of the “mass man,” the often questionable prestige of quantity over expertise. On the other hand, who and how can guarantee the irrefutable “excellence” of the solitary decision-maker? All in all, however, we prefer the risks of “totalitarian” democracy to the deviations of idolized totalitarianism...

P.S. My esteem for Cristian Preda is non-negotiable. I know his political and hermeneutic accomplishments, and I am delighted whenever I see him present in the public debate. I cannot guarantee that the notes I have reproduced above can be attributed to him one hundred percent. Some of them may be my own parallel reactions or reflections. But, in any case, he is the source. If, under his name, I have cited any deviations of my own, I ask his forgiveness!

https://www.dilema.ro/situatiunea/notite-de-la-colegiul-noua-europa