Extract
[...] Lefort wants to \"fight an interpretation that reduces the rights of" l'man of man to individual rights and at the same time brings democracy back to the sole relationship whatentertain these two terms, the State and theindividual, notably through three remarks. The first is on the notion of freedom, which would constitute, according to Marx, a retreat of theindividual and a 'bourgeois egoism' but on the contrary, this notion implies the freedom of movement that would allow 'the multiplication of relations between men, the decloisonnement of the social system', each person is free to move throughout the national territory as well as ofaccess to leagues formerly privileged. [...]
[...] Finally, the third inscribes the principle of security. While for Marx, security is the 'transcription d'a 'concept of police' in service of the protection of the bourgeois', it guarantees an independent justice from all the world and detached from power. At to this, is added the idea of 'separation of man from man', that Marx demonstrates by comparing feudal societies (where the relationships political and socio-economic relationships would be intertwined) and the bourgeois society. However, as Lefort points out, 'the Ancien Régime monarchy [had] already largely destroyed the political system of the feudal society.' After seeing how the declaration of human rights and the growth of democracy are closely linked, we will see how democracy is maintained through law. [...]
[...] In fact, the intervention of the people within the public space has extended the right in society and, by extension, has also extended natural freedoms. For this reason, Lefort takes the example of the condition of Women. While there have been many debates in France on contraception and / or abortion, these have made it possible to reveal 'an idea of freedom [ . ] which touches on the essence of the individual, interpersonal relationships and social life', here, women (who represent half of the population) who until then had no rights over their own bodies. [...]
[...] This would have the function of 'guaranteeing the rights of individuals and citizens and leaving full autonomy to civil society'. As each citizen has the freedom to exercise political participation and competition, theState is considered as a 'political association'. In addition, Lefort we explain that the rights of" theThe man said 'natural rights' have been built and formulated in opposition to the monarchy absolute, « to theI found ofa regime where the power denies these subjects the ability to itselfoppose an 'opposition' to what the 'Constituants' deemed illegitimate. [...]
[...] However, we must not forget the importance of public space. Lefort tells us that it 'is not enough that such or such a demand has met with complacent ears at the top of the state' but rather, we must first have the agreement of a good part of public opinion, if not the majority, for these new rights to be put in place. In addition, these new rights have the obligation to be in conformity with the freedoms granted by human rights, otherwise they will not be adopted since they touch on freedoms that have become fundamental, 'The new rights retrospectively proved to be in line with what had been judged constitutive of public freedoms.' For this, it is necessary to affirm a speech that is found in the public space. [...]
