Ochlocratie

The ochlocratie (in Greek: οχλοκρατια, in Latin: ochlocratia) is a Forme of government in which the mass has all the capacities and can impose all its desires.

If the term “ochlocratie” nowadays somewhat fell in disuse, the reality which it recovers was always discussed in the works of political philosophy. To define it, one can first of all refer about it to the definition that to the dictionary the Robert gives some, who specifies:

“ Ochlocratie : 1568. Borrowed from the Greek okhlocratia , of okhlos, crowd and - cratia, to be able . Uncommon. Government by crowd, the multitude, the rabble”.

History of the concept of ochlocratie

Okhlos and demonstrations

This government by the Foule has as a pejorative connotation the reign of vulgarity, of the mediocrity. In 1584, the English writer John Stockwood describes the ochlocratie as a State in which the coarse people decide on any thing according to their own interest. For the Greeks, the okhlos, it is what is lower than the demonstrations. The ochlocratie is characterized by a decomposition of the law and manners. It is when the democracy degenerates into political chaos, daily fight between the individuals and reigns of the force. It concerns a historical configuration that one could call the “prépolitique one”, in opposition to the “policy”, who is characterized by the existence of the State and the law, making it possible to the men to cohabit.

Polybe

The ochlocratie is, in the theory of the Anacyclose - cyclic theory of the succession of the political regimes - formulated by the Greek historian Polybe (allowed by Cicéron in the De Republica , and taken again by Machiavel), worst of all the political regimes. It is the ultimate stage of the degeneration of the capacity. Polybe does not describe a cycle in six phases which makes rock the Monarchie in the Tyrannie, to which makes continuation the Aristocratie which is degraded in Oligarchie, then again the Démocratie intends to cure oligarchy, but sinks, in the sixth phase, worst of the modes which is the ochlocratie, where it but does not remain any more to await the providential man who will take back with monarchy.

Rousseau

In the social Contract , Jean-Jacques Rousseau defines the ochlocratie as the degeneration of the Démocratie: “While distinguishing, the democracy degenerates into Ochlocratie ” (delivers III, chapter 10, p. 423 of volume III in the edition of the Pleiad). The origin of this degeneration is a denaturation of the “general will”, which ceases being general as soon as it starts to incarnate the interests of some, of part of the population, and not of the very whole population (cf II, 3); it can be a question, with the limit, of a “will of all”, not of a “general will”.

James Mackintosh

In 1791, the Scottish philosopher James Mackintosh (1765 - 1832) considers, in its Vindiciae Gallicae , that “the authority of a rabble corrupted and tumultuous must rather be regarded a ochlocratie that a democracy, as the despotism of the mob, and not the government of the people”.

Today

This term is used little today; it is it primarily by the " Libertariens ".

Ochlocratie and democracy

In political philosophy, this concept can indicate a limit making it possible to think the democracy. The ochlocratie, negative of the democracy, makes it possible to think it and define it positively.

1. Is the democracy absolutely free from ochlocratie, or the ochlos is the demonstration extreme of the one of dimensions, inevitable, of the democracy? When strikes or demonstrations make return a democratic government on one of its decisions, some show crowd ( ochlos ), others see a democratic progress there ( demonstrations ).

For example, in France, the demonstrations against the Contrat first engages caused that Jacques Chirac request so that it is not used. According to the political point of view, one saw there an expression of the democracy or ochlocratie:

the majority of the parties of the left, opposed to the CPE, saw in these demonstrations a democratic expression with whole share: the people expressed themselves on a law on which he was not consulted, and proclamation thus its sovereignty against those which would alienate it to him;
Philippe de Villiers, favorable to the CPE, saw in these demonstrations and their consequences a tyranny of the street on the Parliament, “the victory of violence, the government of the riot and the contempt of the vote for all”.

The same popular movement can thus be interpreted, according to the political point of view, like demonstrations , and consequently democratic means of expression, or ochlos , and consequently negation of the democracy. It is thus difficult to decide objectively, for determined events, which principle they concern.

2. How to preserve the democracy of the ochlocratie? A reinforcement of the political power, for example of that of the government, poses certainly a limit with the ochlocratie; but up to what point doesn't one also deviate from the democracy, if the capacity can impose any decision on the population? Which is the limit between the reasonable one and the arbitrary one? Which are the limits of this reinforcement of the authority? It is one of the basic principles of the democracy which to have a capacity able to resist crowd; but the question is to know within which limits that is possible without passing to a form of tyranny.

For example, if the government makes pass the law on the CPE in spite of the importance of the demonstrations which are opposed to it, one can consider this intransigence under two radically opposite points of view:

or it is the proof of the strength of the government to the pressure of crowd, therefore force of the democracy against the popular pressures;
or it is an alienation of popular sovereignty and a contempt of the government with regard to the people.

3. How does one pass of the democracy to the ochlocratie? According to Rousseau, the democracy degenerates into ochlocratie when the general will yields in front of particular wills, for example those of “aspire to”, of “partial associations” ( social Contract , II, 3). But in the facts, it is often difficult to determine when one passes from the one to the others. Perhaps even as the general will is impossible to realize, and can represent only one ideal (cf concept of “veil of ignorance” at Rawls).

It is very difficult to present historical cases of ochlocratie; but this concept is not sterile for all that. It indeed makes it possible to think the democracy, by confronting it with one of its possible evolutions or tendencies; and thus, more precisely to determine the specificity of the democracy.

See too

Conflict
Social conflict

Random links: