Can a democratic Global Society become the alternative to Empire and bring order into present international anarchy? One hundred percent sovereignty in nation states gives “security” to each but creates “anarchy” in relations between states. To bring order into international relations some sovereignty has to be surrendered. Empire, which does bring an order of sorts, is imposed from outside, is undemocratic and aggrandising. Global Society can be conceptualised as its alternative. Sharply contrasting Global Society to Empire tends to pose the (...) former as a panacea, but it is important to know its potential faults. Global Society can be envisioned at the constitutive stage and as continuing to exert influence within the institutions it creates. At the difficult constitutive stage, it will be fragile and of unwieldy size and ought only be called into play at critical junctures. The institutions it creates will be a democratic federal regime of regional blocks of states. To resolve issues, Global Society presumes effective consocial dialogue and participation rather than violent contention. Classical and Hellenistic Greece provide examples where vision and honour battled with the ambitions and greed of Empire and remarkably sometimes won. All the Greek city-states were under some sort of regional federal alliance at different times and drew strength from shared religious sanctuaries and their attached Games. The various interchanges between democratic Federalism and Empire in ancient Greece offers a microcosm of today's interregnum between modern and postmodern international relations. For as democratic political theorists at the start of the twenty first century, we do not seem to be able to do without the legitimizing idea of the People, but we do not know what to do with it. —Margaret Canovan, “The People, the Masses, and the Mobilization of Power: The Paradox of Hannah Arendt's ‘Populism’” Lysistrata: Don't you share a cup at common altars, for common gods, like brothers, at the Olympic games, Thermophylai and Delphi? —Aristophanes, Lysistrata. (shrink)

El artículo propone una lectura de Los orígenes del totalitarismo (1951) de H. Arendt que entiende esta obra como análisis de las causas que condujeron a la crisis y decadencia del Estado-nación moderno y propiciaron el experimento más destructivo de la condición política del hombre, el fenómeno totalitario. Comenzaremos señalando las razones de la displicencia de Arendt hacia las reglas del método sociológico, al considerar que sólo las acciones humanas pueden iluminar retrospectivamente cuáles son los elementos que han cristalizado en (...) los acontecimientos históricos. En segundo lugar, nos detendremos en la incompatibilidad que Arendt encuentra entre poder político y enriquecimiento económico, de la mano de la crítica que realiza del Leviatán de Hobbes, por haber proporcionado una legitimación teórica a las necesidades de una clase en ascenso, la burguesía. El imperialismo sería, así, la consecuencia lógica del olvido del principio que ordena a los hombres volver la tierra un lugar habitable, introduciendo en ella un sistema de mediaciones legales. Finalmente, nos ocuparemos de la crítica que Arendt dirige a los derechos humanos, estrechamente ligada a la destinada al nacionalismo latente en toda forma estatal, que reduce drásticamente su contenido a la exigencia de pertenecer a una efectiva comunidad política, explorando a este respecto las posibilidades de un diálogo con la Doctrina del derecho de Kant, que también hace de la formación de una unión civil una condición fundamental para la defensa efectiva de los derechos del hombre. (shrink)

This essay argues that fulfilling the promise of participatory democratic theory requires ways for citizens to reconstruct the world, not simply to improve its governance processes. The concept of public work, expressing civic agency, or the capacity of diverse citizens to build a democratic way of life, embodies this shift. It posits citizens as co-creators of the world, not simply deliberators and decision-makers about the world. Public work is a normative, democratizing ideal of citizenship generalized from communal labors of creating (...) the commons, with roots in diverse cultures. Shaped through contention with forces which threaten shared ways of life and their commons, grounded in an understanding of human plurality, public work has political qualities that unmask sentimentalized civic discourses of modern elites. Public work places citizens, not markets or states, as the foundational agents of democracy. It opens a path beyond the political crisis. (shrink)

Hannah Arendt's early writings, focused on Jewish politics in the 1930s and 1940s, are in many ways her most directly political work. Yet certain problematic concepts in these texts, notably the idea of the “Jewish nation,” have led many to disregard it. A shift in the themes of Arendt's work following the publication ofThe Origins of Totalitarianismin 1951 has resulted in further divisions being drawn between the pre- and post-Originswork. This essay opposes both these positions. By mapping out the causes (...) and development of Arendt's thought on the “Jewish nation,” in particular through her critical engagement with Zionism and her support of a binational or federal political solution in Israel and Palestine, the influence of Arendt's early thought on Jewish politics is shown to form the basis of a more general theory of politics, further developed in her later work on the nature of the political. (shrink)