Horatiu Tiberiu Gorun O Teorie a Democraţiei

8/11/2019 Horatiu Tiberiu Gorun O Teorie a Democraiei

1/8

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, Nr. 2/2008

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Series Letters and Social Sciences, No. 2/2008

67

O teorie a democraiei

reinterpretat

Conf.univ.dr. Horaiu Tiberiu

GORUN

1. Consideraii generale

Teoria democraiei nu reprezint unsistem de axiome, principii i concluzii cuprivire la un produs definitiv i perfectfuncional, ci ea include o serie de ipotezeteoretice cu privire la un proces ndesfurare, inclusiv cu privire la extindereanormelor i instituiilor declarate cademocratice.

Pornind de la premisa c teoriiledemocratizrii sunt o subclas a teoriilormodernizrii, se poate nelege:

a)

ce anume a favorizat dezvoltareademocraiei n contexte istorice igeopolitice diverse;

b) rolul celor 27 de variabileindependente (Huntington) nidentificarea elementelor care aufavorizat (frnat) democratizareasocietii romneti.Abordrile lui Huntington referitoare

la modernitate i modernizare presupunieirea din spaiul limitat al timpului ce se

circumscrie unei epoci anume. Modernitateareprezintun nivel de dezvoltare instituionali condiie uman atins ntr-o perioad largde timp, un reper de raportare n baza cruiase evalueaz gradul de civilizaie alcomunitilor. Modernitatea este vectorulmodernizrii, aceasta de pe urmreprezentnd

procesul-tendin dezirabil sau nu, darobiectiv (cu sensul de necesar i universal) alcomunitilor rmase n urm sau, tendenialntr-un decalaj.

A reinterpreted theory of

democracy

University Assistant Dr. Horaiu

Tiberiu GORUN

1. General views

The theory of democracy is not asystem of axioms, principles, and conclusionsregarding a definitive and perfectly functional

product, but in includes a series of theoreticalhypotheses regarding a developing process,including regarding the extension ofregulations and institutions declared asdemocratic.

Starting from the premises that thetheories of democratization are a subclass ofthe theories of modernization, we can

understand:c) What has favoured the developmentof democracy in different historicaland geopolitical contexts;

d) The role of 27 independent variables(Huntington) in identifying theelements favouring (prevented) thedemocratization of Romanian society.Huntingtons approaches regarding

modernity and modernization suppose the exitfrom the limited space of time which

represents a certain age. Modernity is a levelof institutional development and humancondition reached within a large period oftime, a report reference for assessing thedegree of communities civilisation.Modernity is the modernization vector, thelatter being the desirable or not tendency-

process, but objective (in the meaning ofnecessary and universal) of the communitiesleft behind or in a discrepancy.

Modernity is the fruit of multi-


2/8



68

Modernitatea e rodul progresuluimultifactorial: economic, politic, cultural,tehnic etc., ea reprezentnd civilizaiaoriginat ntr-un sistem de valori universale,asumate i acceptate de ctre cei mai

performani din acest punct de vedere. Larndul ei, modernizarea este calea spremodernitate, recunoscut, acceptat iasumat de cei care procedural au aderat lacriteriile competiiei, contientizndu-idecalajele prin raportare la cei performani.Rmne un martor de control n evaluarea

procesului (modernizare) i produsului(gradului de modernitate): condiia uman.Acest martor de control va ilustra, prinintermediul unui barometru:

- influena opiniei publice asupracomportamentului (individual, dar mai ales degrup, social), care va fi unul proactiv sau

pasiv, unul participativ-pozitiv, participativ-contestatar sau, dimpotriv unul deneimplicare.

Dintre condiiile democraiei, cea maipuin amintit este aceea c ideile greitedespre democraie, conduc la o funcionaregreit a democraiei. Modul nostru de autiliza termenii de democraie i guvernaredemocratic - scrie Tocqueville creeazcea mai mare confuzie. Dactermenii nu suntdefinii n mod clar i dac nu convenimasupra lor, oamenii vor tri ntr-o inevitabilconfuzie a ideilor, favorabil demagogilor idespoilor.

Ceea ce este de remarcat azi este faptulcdeficitul de modernitate creeazdeficit dedemocraie i, prin urmare, un proces demodernizare extrem de dificil.

Romnia, ca de altfel toate statele dinfosta Europ de Est, a pornit cu un potenialde deficit de democraie. Acest potenial dedeficit este, ns, gradual diferit; state precumPolonia, Ungaria, Cehoslovacia au nceput

procesul (o relativliberalizare), cu mult maidevreme, reflexe ale contestrii regimuluitotalitar existnd nc din 1956 (Ungaria),1968 (Cehoslovacia), anii 80 (Polonia). Maimult, n unele din fostele regimurinedemocratice, pluralismul politic limitat s-a

manifestat pe toatdurata regimului comunist.

factorial progress: economic, political,cultural, technical etc, representing thecivilisation originating in a system ofuniversal values, taken and accepted by thetop ones from this point of view. In its turn,

modernization is the way to modernity,admitted, accepted and assumed by the onesthat have procedurally adhered to the criteriaof competition, being aware of thediscrepancies by reporting to the top ones.There remains a control witness in assessingthe process (modernization) and product(degree of modernity): human condition. Thiscontrol witness shall illustrate, through a

barometer:- the influence of public opinion upon

behaviour (individual, but especially group,social), that shall be proactive and passive,

participative-positive, participative-contestatary or on the contrary non-involvement one.

Of the conditions of democracy, theless reminded is that wrong ideas ondemocracy, lead to a democracys wrongworking. Our way of using the terms ofdemocracy and democratic government says Tocqueville creates the biggestconfusion. If the terms are not clearly definedand if we do not agree on them, people shallleave into an inevitable confusion of ideas,favourable to demagogues and despots.

What we have to notice today is thefact that the discrepancy of modernity createsdiscrepancy of democracy and consequentlyan extremely difficult modernization process.

Romania, like all the state in the ex-East Europe started with a potential of

democracy discrepancy. This discrepancypotential is gradually different; states likePoland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia started the

process (a relative liberalization) much earlier,reflexes of contesting the totalitarian systemexisting from 1956 (Hungary), 1968(Czechoslovakia), 80 (Poland). Moreover, insome non-democratic ex-systems, limited

political pluralism occurred for the entireduration of the communist system.

Romania a paradox of recent history

started with the highest potential of


3/8



69

Romnia un paradox al istorieirecente a pornit cu cel mai ridicat potenialde deficit de democraie, aspect care, alturide ali factori a generat o tranziiendelungat, cu fluxuri i refluxuri, cu

ncercri i poticneli, cu susineri largi, dar icu multe elemente frenatorii. Aa se face creformele (modernizarea) au ntrziat,crescnd decalajul nu doar fa de statelerecunoscute ca democratice, ci i fa de

partenerii celui de-al treilea val dedemocratizare.

2. De ce se comunic n paradigmediferite?

Dac termenul democraie poate fi

utilizat pentru a defini diverse entiti nmulte situaii antitetice, atunci el devine untermen lipsit de semnificaie.

ntmpltor, democraia este un termentransparent, un cuvnt ce se leag facil desensul originar. Etimologic, democraiasemnific puterea poporului. Dar aceasta nueste nimic mai mult dect o definire mot mot, ce descrie, ntr-un limbaj actual, sensulgrecesc al termenului. Dar conotaiatermenului democraie trebuie s exprimeceva, trebuie s acopere o realitate. Concis:dei democraia are un sens literal exact, nusuntem sprijinii n nelegerea corect ademocraiei reale. Am n vedere faptul c, nlumea real, n opinia lui R. Dahl,democraiile sunt poliarhii. Dar, urmnd linialui Giavani Sartori, ntrebarea: Ce estedemocraia?, nu poate fi separat dentrebarea: Cum ar trebui s fie democraia?1Prin urmare, termenul cu toate inconsistenele,

trebuie utilizat. Comunicareaintraparadigmatic presupune un cadruconceptual de comunicare ntre contemporani.De aici nevoia unei nelegeri a democraiei deazi, de ctre cei ce utilizeaz termenul nanalizele lor cu acelai neles, asemntor saudiferit de nelegerea termenului n Grecia sauRoma Antic. Transformrile la niveluldemocraiei ca stare de fapt, ca realitate, augenerat transferul ideii de democraie. iacesta este un lucru normal. Anormal este

situaia n care, n interiorul aceleiai

democracy discrepancy, which together withother factors has generated a long transition,with flows and backflows, with trials andstumbling, with large supports but with many

preventing elements. This is why reforms

(modernizations) have been delayed,increasing the discrepancy not just towardsthe states admitted as democratic, but towardsthe partners of the third wave ofdemocratization.

2. Why do we communicate in

different paradigms?

If the term democracy can be usedto define different entities in differentantithetic situations, it becomes a termwithout meaning.

As a coincidence, democracy is atransparent term, a word easily connected toits original meaning. Etymologically,democracy is the power of people. But this isnothing more than a mot mot definition,describing in a current language, the Greekmeaning of the term. But the connotation ofthe term democracy has to express something,has to cover a reality. More precisely:although democracy has an exact literalmeaning, we are not supported in the correctunderstanding of the real democracy. I takeinto consideration the fact that, in the realworld, in R. Dahls view, democracies are

polyarchies. But, following Giavani Sartorisline, the question: What is democracy?,cannot be separated from the question: Howshould democracy be?6Consequently, in spiteof all inconsistencies, the term has to be used.Intra-pragmatic communication supposes aconceptual framework of communication

between contemporary people. This leads tothe need for understanding todays democracyby those who use the term in their analyseswith the same meaning or with a similar ordifferent meaning of the understanding of theterm in Greece or Ancient Rome.Transformations at the level of democracy asstate of fact, as reality, have generated thetransfer of the idea of democracy. And this isnormal. Not normal is the situation in which,inside the same community the meaning of

the term democracy is different, especially to


4/8



70

comuniti semnificaia termenului dedemocraie este divers, ndeosebi n msuran care, aducndu-se n realitate termenulgrec, democraia exprim pe mai departeputerea poporului. Adic o perpetuare a

teoriei fantom, nscu scopuri i nelesuridiferite pentru popor i guvernani (poporulcrede c guverneaz, avnd iluzia participriila decizie, guvernanii cultiv ideea creprezint poporul). Iluzia autoguvernriisuprapuspeste iluzia reprezentrii.

Dar cine constituie poporul i censeamn a guverna? Prima ambiguitate seafl cum susine corect R. Dahl chiar nconinutul noiunii de popor: cine face partedin popor pentru a guverna democratic? La

greci, atenienii, corintienii, spartanii constituiau fiecare, n parte, poporul,ndreptit la propria autonomie politic. Prinurmare, democraia greac constat Dahl nu a fost n fapt democraia greac; a fostatenian, corintian etc. Aceasta, ntructvechii greci elenii se autopercepeau ca un

popor distinct, cu limb i istorie proprie, nuse considerau un popor n sensul politic alunui grup de persoane, ndreptite a seautoguverna ntr-o singur unitatedemocratic. O premis, devenit axiom ateoriei fantom a democraiei este cea legatde popor: se pornete de la prezumia c

poporul deja exist; existena poporului esteperceputca un fapt, ca o creaie a istoriei.

n aceste condiii, de ce nu seautoguverneaz ntr-o singur unitatedemocratic i exist o grani politic ntreelveienii de expresie francez i francezii deexpresie francez, moldovenii de expresie

romn i romnii de expresie romn,maghiarii de expresie romni maghiarii deexpresie maghiar? Rspunsul este invariabil

persistena mentalitii statului-cetate chiar iazi.

Dacprima ambiguitate se aflchiar nnoiunea se popor, cea de-a doua esteconinut chiar de prima. Ea vizeazexcluderea, ntruct, n cadrul unui popornumai o subcategorie limitatde persoane estendreptit s participe la guvernare. Aadar,

persoanele respective constituie poporul din

the extent where, bringing to reality the Greekterm, democracy forward expresses the

power of people. This means a perpetuationof the phantom theory, but with different

purposes and meanings for the people and for

governors (the people believe they govern,with the illusion of taking part in the decision,governors issue the idea that they representthe people). The illusion of self-government is

placed over the illusion of representation.But who is the people and what does

governing mean? The first ambiguity is ascorrectly says R. Dahl within the content ofthe term people: who is part of the people togovern democratically? In the case of Greeks,Athenians, Corinthians, Spartans each of

them were the people, who had the right to itsown political autonomy. Consequently, Greekdemocracy says Dahl - was not actually theGreek democracy: it was Athenian,Corinthian, etc. this because old Greeks sawthemselves as a distinct people, with theirown language and history, they did not seemthemselves as a people in the politicalmeaning of a group of persons, with the rightto self-govern within one democratic union.An axiom turned premise of democracys

phantom theory is the one connected to thepeople: we start from the assumption that thepeople already exists; peoples existence as afact, as a creation of history.

In these circumstances why dont self-governing in just one democratic unit andthere is a political border between Swiss

people of French expression and Frenchpeople of French expression, Moldavians ofRomanian expression and Romanian of

Romanian expression, Hungarians ofRomanian expression and Hungarians ofHungarian expression? The answer isinvariably the persistence of town-statementality even today.

If the first ambiguity is within thenotion of people itself, the second one inincluded by the first. It focuses on exclusion,

because within a people only a limitedcategory of persons is entitled to take place ingovernment. Therefore, those persons are the

people from another point of view. We are


5/8



71

alt punct de vedere. Este vorba de ceteniiunui stat (cetenia reprezentnd o relaie

juridic dublu asumat: de ctre individ i dectre statul cruia aparine individul). Dar nutoi cetenii constituie poporul: apatrizii,

persoanele cu alt cetenie (tot mai muli nepoca globalizrii) sunt exclui. Cum excluisunt (dei juridic, cu consecine politice)cetenii cu vrsta sub vrsta minimacceptat ca standard, persoanele lipsite dediscernmnt (ambele categorii nu aucapacitate electoral) sau persoanele aflate ninterdicie juridic (cele care au avutcapacitate electoral, ns temporar i-au

pierdut-o).Aadar, sfera noiunii politice de popor

este mai restrns dect poporul naccepiunea sa de form de comunitateuman. Conotaia politic a poporului estedemosul.

Analizele istorice l conduc pe Dahlspre concluzia corect privind concreteeademosului: chiar i la apogeul democraieiateniene, demosul n-a inclus niciodat maimult de o minoritate redus din populaiaadult a Atenei2. Experiena istoric conferconcretee chestiunii abstracte a demosului:Se poate ca democraia atenian s fi fostextremprin exclusivismul ei, unicnsnu afost n nici un fel. Din Grecia antic pn ntimpurile moderne, unele persoane au fostinvariabil excluse ca fiind nereprezentative i,

pnn acest secol, cnd femeile i-au ctigatdreptul de a vota (secolul al XX-lea n.n),numrul persoanelor excluse a depit uneori cu mult, la fel ca n Atena numrulcelor acceptate. Ca i n cazul primei

democraii moderne, Statele Unite, care auexclus nu numai femeile i, desigur, copiii, cii majoritatea negrilor i amerindienilor3.

Prin urmare, excluderile suntconsiderate, invariabil, justificate decaracterul concret al demosului: demosul iinclude nu pe toi, ci pe toi cei ndreptii s

participe la guvernare. Apare, deci, o altsupoziie voalat a teoriei fantom ademocraiei aceea cnumai anumii oamenisunt competeni sguverneze. Iatun element

care alimenteaz ideea protectoratului, idee

talking about the citizens of a state(citizenship being a double-assumed juridicalrelation: by the individual and the state it

belongs to). But not all the citizens are thepeople: stateless persons, persons with a

different citizenship (more and more in theage of globalization) citizens with the agebelow the minimum age accepted as standard,persons without judgement (both categorieshave electoral ability) or persons being in

juridical interdiction (who have had electoralcapacity, but have temporarily lost it).

Therefore, the political meaning ofpeople is more restricted that the people in itsmeaning of human community form. The

political connotation of people is the demos.

Historical analyses lead Dahl to thecorrect conclusion regarding the demosconcreteness: even at the top of Atheniandemocracy, demos has never included morethan a reduced minority of Athens adult

population7. Historical experience offersconcreteness to the abstract notion of demos:Athenian democracy might have beenextreme through its exclusivism, but it hasnever been unique in any kind. From theAncient Greece to the modern times, some

persons have been invariably excluded as notrepresentative and, up to this century, whenwomen earned their right to vote (20thcentury), the number of excluded persons hassometimes overcome, just like in Athens thenumber of accepted ones. Just like in the caseof the first modern democracy, the UnitedStates, that have excluded not just women, butchildren of course, and the majority of Negrosand Amerindians8.

Consequently, exclusions areinvariably considered, justified by the actualcharacter of demos: demos does not includeall but all the entitled ones to take part ingoverning. It therefore appears a veiledsupposition of the democracy phantom theory

that only certain people are competent togovern. This is an element that feeds the ideaof protectorate, which is commonly used bythe democracy critics, promoted by Plato inAthens, Confucianism and in the

contemporary times by the devastating


6/8



72

uzitat frecvent de criticii democraiei,promovat de Platon n Atena, deconfucianism, iar n epoca contemporan deleninismul devastator.

Teoria fantom a democraiei include

nc un aspect ce schimb fondulparadigmatic: dimensiunile democraiei. Estevorba de transferul ideii de democraie: dac

pentru greci dimensiunile unei democraii selimitau la un numr extrem de redus doarcteva zeci de mii de persoane, la sfritulsecolului al XVIII-lea, susintoriidemocraiei i-au limitat cadrul firesc la nivelulstatului-naiune, adic, n general la ar. Azi,mindul american (crezul c S.U.A. aremenirea harul de a instaura democraia n

lume), adaug la dimensiunea numericdimensiunea spaial., un alt tip dereconsiderare a paradigmei susinut deetimologia termenului demokratia.

Paradigma actual asupra democraieiizvorte dintr-un principiu: instituiiletranscend indivizii. Iar democraia esteneleas, succint drept sistem de instituii i

proceduri care asigur ordinea (intern,internaional). Aici se origineaz inclusivideea compatibilizrii instituiilor dintr-o arcu instituiile democratice ale statelormoderne, idee justificat doar pn la unnivel. Nivelul democraiei identitare pentru ocomunitate (sintagm prin care desemneztradiia democratic, memoria procedural,instituiile tradiionale funcionale, regulilespecifice, tradiia constituional sistemul devalori identitare, care eliminuniformizarea),este unul ce trebuie luat n consideraie.Astfel, nivelul democraiei identitare extins

la nivelul unor zone geopolitice reddiversitatea (a nu se nelege originalitatea).Democraia la intrare i democraia la ieire,despre care vorbete G. Pasquino, reprezint

percepia acestei diversiti.O consecina schimbrilor intervenite

la nivelul dimensiunilor unei democraii este,n opinia lui R. Dahl, amplificareacaracterului utopic la idealului democratic.Este vorba despre faptul c teoria publicconsider c democraia actual poate pstra,

n totalitate, att avantajele dimensiunii mari,

Leninism.Democracys phantom theory includes

another aspect that changes the paradigmaticbackground : the sizes of democract. It isabout the transfer of the idea of democracy: if

for Greeks the sizes of democracy werelimited to an extremely reduced number only few ten thousands of people, at the endof the 18th century, democracy supporterslimited its natural background to the commonlevel of nation-state, generally the country.Today, the American mind (the belief theUSA has the gift to establish democracy in theworld) adds to the numerical size the spatialone, another type of reconsidering the

paradigm supported by the term etymology -

demokratia.The current paradigm upon

democracy comes from one principle:institutions transcend individuals. Anddemocracy is understood as a system ofinstitutions and procedures that provide order(internal, international). This is whereoriginates the idea of accommodating theinstitutions in one country with thedemocratic institutions of modern states,which is justified only up to a certain level.The level of identity democracy for acommunity (meaning democratic tradition,

procedural memory, functional traditionalinstitutions, specific rules, constitutionaltradition the system of identity values whicheliminates uniformization), is one that have to

be taken into consideration. Therefore, thelevel of identity democracy extended to thelevel of some geopolitical areas gives thediversity (not to be understood originality).

Exist democracy and entry democracy that G.Pasquino talks about, represents theperception of this diversity.

A consequence of the changesoccurred at the level of a democracy sizes is,in R. Dahls view, the amplification of theutopia character of the democratic ideal. Weare talking about the fact that public theoryconsiders that current democracy can totallykeep both the advantages of the great size andthe virtues of democracy at reduced scale9.

Examples are edifying, when they are


7/8



73

dar i virtuile democraiei la scar redus4.Exemplele sunt edificatoare, atunci cnd suntabordate pentru nelegerea democraiei,modalitile diferite n care democraia,considerat ca o entitate real sau aparinnd

lumii reale a fost perceput (de la grupdistinct de instituii i practici politice, laproces unic de luare a deciziilor colectiveobligatorii)5. Aici se desprind douconcluzii:

- percepia dual a democraiei: caregim ideal i ca regim real;

- nevoia remediilor democraiei.Pentru prima concluzie, sunt necesare

a se evidenia rezultatele studiilorcomparatiste (raportare la regimuri totalitare,autoritare, meritocratice, sultanice etc.) avnd

n vedere unicul martor de control: condiiauman.

Funcie de aceste studii, se impuneluarea n consideraie a unui prag rezonabil nfuncie de care se apreciaz realizarearegimului democratic.

Pentru cea de-a doua concluzie, suntnecesare clarificri privind raportul majoritate- minoritate (chiar dictatura majoritii suprimarea minoritii).

Prin (re)punerea n discuie aparticiprii directe reprezentativitii legitimitii. Prin regndirea mituluiguvernrii de ctre popor i pentru popor.Prin analiza transferului ideii deautoguvernare de la individ (indivizi) lainstituiile ce transcend individul (indivizii).i nu n ultimul rnd, prin revederearaportului dintre universul axiologic alindividului universul axiologic al uneicomuniti universul axiologic al naiunilor

integrate.Ideea de imperiu, ca i ideea de cetate,sunt naturale pentru condiia uman.Globalizarea acoper aria modernizrii catendin. Dar globalizarea presupuneincludere i excludere. Participare lacompetiia de valori sau lsarea n afaracompetiiei.

n loc de concluzie: Globalizarea isocietatea cunoaterii reclam abandonareateoriei fantom a democraiei i nlocuirea ei

cu una tiinific. Care sacopere lumea real.

approached for understanding democracy, thedifferent ways in which democracyconsidered as a real entity or belonging to thereal world has been perceived (from adistinct group of political institutions and

practices, to an unique process of takingcompulsory collective decisions)10. Twoconclusions result here:

- the dual perception of democracy: asan ideal system and as a real system;

- the need to remediate democracy.For the first conclusion it is necessary

to highlight the result of comparative studies(reported to totalitarian, authoritative,meritocratic, sultan systems etc.) taking intoconsideration the sole control witness: human

condition.In accordance with these studies, it is

required to take into consideration areasonable threshold according to which wecan appreciate the achievement of thedemocratic system.

For the second conclusion, it is necessaryto make some clarifications regarding the reportmajority minority (even the dictatorship ofmajority suppressing of minority).

By re-discussing direct participation representativeness - legitimacy. Byrethinking the myth of peoples governingand for the. By analyzing the transfer of theidea of self-government from the individual(individuals) to the institutions transcendingthe individual (individuals). And not last, byrevising the report between the axiologicaluniverse of the individual - the axiologicaluniverse of a community the axiologicaluniverse of integrated nations.

The idea of empire, as the idea offortress, is natural for the human condition.Globalization covers the area ofmodernization as a trend. But globalizationsupposes inclusion and exclusion;

participation at the competition of values orbeing left outside competition.

Instead of conclusion: Globalizationand society of knowledge call for the abandonof the phantom theory of democracy and itsreplacement with a scientific one, that would

cover the real world.


8/8



74

1Vezi Giovani Sartori, Teoria democraiei reinterpretat, Collegium, Polirom, 1999, p. 342Adrian Gorun, Puterea politici regimurile politice, Editura Bibliotheca, 2006, p. 1403R. Dahl, Democraia i criticii ei, Iai, 2002, Institutul European, p. 134Vezi A. Gorun, op. cit. p. 415R. Dahl, op.cit. p. 13-146See Giovani Sartori, Theory of democracy reinterpreted, Collegium, Polirom, 1999, p. 347Adrian Gorun, Puterea politici regimurile politice, Editura Bibliotheca, 2006, p. 1408R. Dahl, Democraia i criticii ei, Iai, 2002, Institutul European, p. 139See A. Gorun, op. cit. p. 4110R. Dahl, op.cit. p. 13-14

Apatrizii

Persoane

cu alte cetenii DEMOSUL

Persoane fr

capacitate electoral

Horatiu Tiberiu Gorun O Teorie a Democraţiei

Documents

Transcript of Horatiu Tiberiu Gorun O Teorie a Democraţiei