The Republic as an Old-New Idea
The Republic as an Old-New Idea
A Dialogue with the Philosopher and Republican Theorist Philip Pettit
By Amir Kanaan
Introduction
The aspirations for freedom in the Arab world were on the verge of realization, but “the bread was on the lips,” as the saying goes. Nevertheless, a mysterious force thwarted our dreams. It seemed that the tides turned against the boat of salvation, and drowning was extremely painful. Today, it appears that tyranny has returned as the standard and default system. That mysterious force seemed to align itself with the oppressors to the extent that some resorted to metaphysical, Sufi, or existential explanations for it.
However, returning to heritage may help us better understand our circumstances. Here, we refer to the heritage of the Italian Renaissance, where political science as we know it was born. The New Zealand historian of ideas, John Pocock, discusses the role of luck and fortune in political life in his pivotal work, “The Machiavellian Moment.” The mysterious force is named Fortuna, the Roman goddess of luck and opportunity, depicted holding the wheel of fortune in her hand, blessing us today and cursing us tomorrow with complete randomness. What do we do? Can we control it or at least tame it?
This is where one of the oldest human answers comes in: the Republic, a political entity led by individuals who impose order on the chaotic and shapeless character of Fortuna. It is a serious attempt to control collective destiny away from luck and arbitrariness and to live a life that ensures the maximum freedom of choice. It is a study of Fortuna and an endeavor to collectively tame it. The Republican toolbox is broad and diverse, including the development of specific personal traits capable of restraining Fortuna, which could be called a society of “civil virtues,” constitutional awareness, understanding the significant role of the law in shaping societies, social capital to promote trust and communal bonds, harmony between social customs and state behavior, investment in public and civic spaces, and the establishment of a balance between duties and rights.
The Republic can be summarized as “the political entity that seeks to achieve the maximum freedom.” In other words, the Republic does not mean maximizing happiness, justice, equality, or wealth, as other utilitarian theories suggest. Instead, the benefit that Republicans seek to maximize is freedom, and they view other matters as natural side effects resulting from the application of this model.
From the ancient Roman thinker Cicero (106 BCE – 43 BCE) to the prominent Renaissance philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) to the Enlightenment French philosopher Montesquieu (1689-1755), the Republican intellectual trend played a fundamental role in influencing reformist politicians with ideas and actions. After a long hiatus in the past two centuries, both John Pocock (1924-2023) and the British Quentin Skinner (1940), along with our contemporary Irish friend Philip Pettit (1945), revived this trend within the contemporary political science movement known as updated Republicanism. Below is a summary of a lengthy interview with Philip Pettit.
Pettit is a philosopher, political theorist, and one of the contemporary renewers of Republican thought. He held the position of Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Public Affairs at Princeton University in the United States, and published numerous articles and books on freedom, democracy, and the role of political institutions. His book “Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government” is considered a fundamental reference in contemporary Republican thought. In the interview, we covered several issues, including Pettit’s opinion on the Arab Spring, the Turkish experience, and his unique concept of Republicanism. We also delved into theoretical questions about the philosophical foundations of the Republic, the roles of individuals, state, and religion in the Republic. Since the interview extended for two and a half hours, we have condensed and summarized the points raised, arranging the written text to connect related ideas.
Freedom is Non-Domination, Not Non-Interference
Freedom is the most important political value, according to Philip Pettit. This may be somewhat surprising from a leftist philosopher, in an era where theorizing about freedom has become the domain of conservative right-wing ideologies.
Freedom is not merely the absence of submission to the interference of others, but rather the absence of others having the capacity to interfere with you fundamentally. The mere potential for authority to interfere with you, even if it does not intervene, means you lack freedom. You are not truly free when there is an authoritative person who decides not to interfere with you – perhaps because they love you or because you succeeded in flattering them and neutralizing their harm. True freedom is when you are protected and secure from the interventions of others.
Advocates of the Republican idea define this freedom as the “absence of domination.” This makes Pettit a supporter of the negative concept of freedom, where freedom is seen as the absence of something. This contradicts the positive conception of freedom, which sees freedom as empowering individuals to achieve their goals. It also contrasts with some competing negative conceptions, namely freedom as “absence of interference,” a meaning associated with liberal thought.
One example that Pettit cites is a famous play by Henrik Ibsen called “A Doll’s House.” It tells the story of a man named Torvald who works as a bank employee in Norway, and his wife Nora. By law, Torvald has all the power; he can order and dictate what his wife wears, whether she will go to the theater or not, whom she will meet, and which church she will attend. She is essentially his slave under the law. However, Torvald loves Nora, and while he dominates her because he has legal authority over her, he does not exercise this power. In fact, he wishes he did not have this power and grants Nora the freedom to act as she wishes. Therefore, Nora is not subject to interference, she is free in the liberal sense, but she is certainly subject to domination, to the possibility of arbitrary intervention, and she is not free in the Republican sense.
In essence, the Republican view of freedom is that it is the absence of domination, ensuring individuals are not subject to the arbitrary power of others.
The Republican Trend is Part of Human Nature
Bettet argues that the legacy of Republican thought is significant, and history continues to testify to its relevance. Republicanism reached its peak in the late eighteenth century with the American (1765-1783) and French (1789-1799) revolutions. The American Revolution, in particular, was a deeply republican revolution, as Americans fundamentally opposed the imposition of taxes by the British colonial parliament. These taxes were not burdensome, but the mere presence of authority from across the seas, capable of imposing taxes on them – even to their last penny, if they so wished – was enough for Americans to perceive it as a deprivation of freedom. Unfortunately, this idea began to recede immediately after these revolutions in favor of another intellectual trend called “classical liberalism,” which eventually dominated over the republican inclination.
Philip emphasizes the natural inclination for republicanism. He diverges from the left-wing avant-garde, which leads society towards salvation, or the enlightened intellectual elite capable of solving problems and achieving goals. He sees republicanism as a complete popular state, a biological necessity for the human species regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, or geography. The commonality among humans, transcending cultures, is their desire to choose within a range of options that allows them sovereignty over their choices. In the depths of our souls and transcending cultures, we feel uneasy about the idea of individuals above us thinking they have the right to determine our actions and tell us what we should or should not do in our personal lives. This is the natural carrier that must be emphasized.
When asked about his negative definition of freedom, Bettet explains that society can only provide individuals with protection – safety from the aggression of others and personal space without being suffocated by overbearing pressures. In this way, each of us has personal space that enables cooperation and proximity from a position of strength. However, individuals, not groups, must use the absence of domination to achieve their personal goals and enjoy their personal freedoms. Challenges such as combating addiction or promoting values like loyalty, fellowship, and friendship are desirable aspects of positive freedom, but they remain personal achievements. Bettet is concerned with collective challenges related to law, political formation, and the answer to these challenges is ensuring that each individual has sufficient protection and security to pursue their positive freedom individually. Keeping political and social norms negative in this way eliminates the government’s argument for intervening in an individual’s personal life, exempting Bettet from the logic of pure “rejecting dominance.” Matters such as mandatory education for children are acceptable if not dogmatic, provided it is not indoctrination, as it arms the individual against dominance.
Bettet, present in various universities and conferences worldwide, found unanimous agreement on the importance of individuals having personal space and the need for legal protection – and in better cases, social customs as well.
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance
To complete the republican model from Bettet’s perspective, the government must be designed so that the people drive it to work better. The tension between arbitrary government will and the demand for the absence of domination over individuals requires each of us to be an active citizen keeping an eye on the government. This involves joining voluntary or non-profit organizations, playing a role in disseminating ideas, or challenging and opposing the government in matters worthy of opposition, etc. Every ordinary citizen must be active to secure their freedom.
For example, workers – even in advanced democracies – suffer from arbitrariness and abuse in treatment. To ensure people enjoy the absence of domination at the workplace, Bettet believes that dismissed employees should have the right to appear before an independent arbitration committee in a hearing session. The arbitration committee could consist of colleagues and various managers, allowing the challenge of an employer’s decision to dismiss employees if it is arbitrary. They might deserve dismissal, and it might be possible to fire them under any circumstances, but no employer should dismiss them as they please. Some restrictive clauses in employment contracts, such as prohibiting the transition to another job in the same sector after leaving the job, should not be accepted. It is not realistic to leave the matter to the goodwill of the manager. Therefore, in any democracy, workers must form their unions and have the power to discuss with their employers and create good conditions for employees.
Such demands will penetrate the electorate, influence court decisions, and create several pressure sources on the government, pushing it ultimately to adhere to establishing rights under the shadow of the law. Bettet believes that the ruler’s inclination towards corruption is a law of nature, but the other law states that vigilance is the way to escape the corruption of a corrupt ruler. Whoever desires freedom must not sit comfortably and wait for it to come to him; it will not. They must be active and play a political and civil role that will secure their freedom. Since people fear walking this path alone, they always need a “community” of those willing to work together. Therefore, citizens must take a public course to enjoy privacy freedoms.
This wisdom reflects classical republican wisdom: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance,” meaning vigilance in public spaces and readiness to take actions that challenge the government and criticize it when it fails in its duties. This wisdom complements another negative formula: “All power is corrupt,” and both formulas should be read together.
The Republic is part of human nature, says Pettit. He argues that the legacy of republican thought is significant, and history continues to bear witness to its relevance. Republicanism reached its peak in the late 18th century with the American (1765-1783) and French (1789-1799) revolutions. The American Revolution, in particular, was deeply republican, as Americans opposed the imposition of taxes by the British colonial parliament. While these taxes were not heavy or burdensome, the mere presence of distant authority’s power to impose taxes on them was enough for Americans to see it as a deprivation of freedom.
Pettit emphasizes the natural carrier of the republican cause. He moves away from the leftist vanguard that leads society towards salvation or the enlightened intellectual elite capable of solving problems and achieving goals. He sees the republic as a complete popular condition, a biological necessity for humanity regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, or geography. The commonality among humans, their desire to choose within the range of options allowing them sovereignty over their choices, is a universal concern that transcends cultures. There is a discomfort with the idea of people above us dictating our actions and telling us what we should or should not do in our personal lives.
When asked about his negative definition of freedom, Pettit states that everything society can offer us as individuals through its customs and laws is protection—protection from the aggression of others and a personal space where we can exist without being suffocated by external pressures. He argues that each individual has personal space to collaborate and bond from a position of strength. Pettit focuses on collective challenges related to legal and political structures, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that individuals have sufficient protection and security to pursue their positive freedom. He distinguishes positive achievements like combating addiction or promoting values like loyalty and friendship, which are desirable aspects of genuine freedom, from personal accomplishments. He insists that individuals should use the given lack of dominance to achieve their personal goals and enjoy personal freedoms, making political and social norms negative to prevent government interference in personal lives.
Pettit has been present in various universities and conferences worldwide, east and west, finding unanimous agreement on the importance of individuals having personal space protected by the law and, in better cases, by social norms as well.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
To complete the republican model from Pettit’s perspective, the government must be designed so that the people drive it to function better. There should be tension between arbitrary governmental will and the demand for the absence of dominance over individuals, requiring each person to actively keep an eye on the government. Citizens should join voluntary or non-profit organizations, play a role in spreading ideas, challenge and oppose the government on issues worthy of opposition, etc. Ordinary citizens must be active in securing their freedom.
For example, workers, even in advanced democracies, suffer from arbitrary and abusive treatment. Pettit believes that for people to enjoy the absence of dominance in the workplace, dismissed employees should have the right to represent themselves before an independent arbitration panel. The arbitration panel could consist of colleagues and different managers, allowing a challenge to the employer’s decision if it is arbitrary. Pettit emphasizes the importance of workers forming unions and having the power to discuss with their employers and create good conditions for employees. Such demands will penetrate the electorate, influence court decisions, and become sources of pressure on the government to eventually establish rights under the law.
Pettit believes that the ruler’s inclination towards corruption is a law of nature, but the other law says that vigilance is the way to escape the corruption of the ruler. To enjoy freedom, one should not sit comfortably and wait for it to come. Instead, individuals should be active and play a political and civic role that secures their freedom. Since people fear to walk this path alone, they always need a “community” of those willing to work together. Therefore, citizens must adopt a public behavior to enjoy personal freedoms.
This reflects classical republican wisdom: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance,” meaning vigilance in public spaces and readiness to take actions that challenge the government and criticize it when it fails in its duties. This wisdom contrasts with a negative formulation: “All power is corrupt,” and both formulations should be read together.
Separation of powers in the mixed constitution
“All power is corrupt”; this is the oldest warning in the republican legacy. Pettit traces his political understanding back to the first classical Roman republican thought and adopts the updated republican idea, or what can be called “new republicanism.”
When asked about the Turkish experience, Pettit acknowledges that Turkey is indeed a democracy, but he expresses concern about the Turkish democracy providing power to a centralized force controlled by a specific group or individual, such as a powerful party or president. This idea has been present since ancient Rome, where the Roman Republic did not allow a single person or group to hold power exclusively. There was a clear separation between the Senate, where legislative power was concentrated, and the assemblies of the people, which included ordinary Roman citizens. Power changed annually, permeating all levels of functional hierarchy,
reaching the Roman consul, the highest executive authority that rivals today’s head of state.
In the republican era, there were always two consuls in Rome, balancing and regulating each other. Seeking to achieve such a balance is a dominant feature in the republican legacy, requiring vigilance to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of one person or one group. It also involves creating internal controls and balances and activating a democracy that gives people a real and influential voice in government actions.
Therefore, Pettit expresses disappointment with the decline of the democratic experience, not only in Turkey but also in Hungary, Russia, and India. In these countries, power is concentrated in the hands of one man and the surrounding group. Governmental institutions like courts are subject to this power rather than controlling it. Non-governmental organizations are hindered and accused of dealing with foreigners rather than being embraced as part of the people.
Non-governmental organizations, which Pettit calls groups of public interest, are of vital importance. They monitor government activities, ensure the broadcast of important news and information, and challenge the behavior of the ruling class to ensure its integrity and discipline. Pettit sees the need for balancing executive power with legislative opposition, the presence of an ombudsman, an auditor general, and an independent statistical office that provides objective information to compare with the information imposed and controlled by the government.
Democracy, essentially, means having multiple centers of power and various channels to influence rulers. Republicans call this system the “mixed constitution,” a mixture of power centers that regulate and balance each other, succeeding in reflecting public opinion before government bodies without relying on a single party or person in power. The mixed constitution is specifically designed to protect people from the dominance of public institutions, meaning the dominance of those in power who can enact laws and internal and international policies that the people will be subject to.
Returning to the concept of freedom, the importance of the mixed constitution lies in protecting people from arbitrary actions and unrestrained power, the “arbitrary force” exercised by government officials whenever possible.
Continuous ownership of speech to prevent tyranny
When asked about feminism and the weak voice of feminism in republican circles, Pettit does not see a significant and open gap between the two ideas. Instead, he has always found intersections. Feminists are “unknown republicans,” according to Pettit. He believes that achieving republican goals is more important than claiming republican identity, as there is no significance to the banners of belonging.
One example of intersection is the British thinker Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797). Her contemporaries in the 18th century focused more on her personal life and relationships than her writings, keeping her obscured for a long time. Now, her writings on women’s issues and rights have come back into focus. It is clear today that Wollstonecraft used republican ideas existing in her time to support women. Her idea was that women, like men, should not accept living under arbitrary control by others, such as husbands, fathers, or anyone else. Women should be equal citizens in public spaces.
Pettit mentions another historical example from his home country, Ireland. The Irish people engaged in a republican revolution in the late 18th century, coinciding with the French Revolution, against British colonization. Although that revolution failed, Ireland entered a dark century filled with injustice, suffering from famines, impoverishment, land seizures, and more. Perhaps one of the main reasons for the failure was the marginalization suffered by the Irish. Despite the grim picture, the lesson remained. The lesson is that any economy, no matter how tyrannical the government is, needs a basic level of education, meaning a general ability to read and write. This ultimately encourages communication within the people through printing, publishing, newspapers, and various media technologies. Ireland in the 18th century lacked forums or gatherings that allowed the creation of networks for communication and idea exchange. Therefore, it remained in its dark age for extended periods.
The existence of forums and gatherings means a constant possibility of turning ideas into background whispers, leading to a moment or opportunity where those ideas jump to the forefront and herald change. The Arab Spring was a sign of that possibility, happening perhaps romantically and benevolently, instead of thinking about the progression and accumulation of achievements step by step. There was no specific idea about democratic control of the government and how to achieve it. Most likely, there was only one idea: all you need is elections. This is the point that populists seized and played on. Therefore, Pettit believes that the focus should be on other matters needed for democracy, so it does not become a mere game: matters like the rule of law, protection against corruption and favoritism, separation of powers, participation in a mixed constitution, and the presence of a free press and independent sources of information. The assumption that freedom will come overnight after elections was a wrong and costly assumption.
Philip Pettit also sees two tyrannical tendencies threatening republics.
1. **Populism:** This tendency reduces democracy to elections and advocates placing a single person at the helm of power to represent the people. This is dangerous because it necessitates dominance, undermining freedom.
2. **Neoliberalism:** This tendency argues that all we need in an ideal situation is the absence of any intervention, regardless of the force enforcing the intervention. For example, if there is a free market and people willingly sign employment and service contracts, everything that happens afterward between the employee and the employer, or the service provider and the recipient, is accepted as part of the agreed-upon contract, even if it involves actual enslavement. This is not acceptable to any republican.
Freedom and Gradual Change after the Arab Spring
The Arab Spring was a moment of great hope for Pettit and his friends, but he acknowledges that the results were tragic for many. What consoles him is that it serves as a vivid memory for people, making them realize that they can change circumstances, and life is not set in stone like cement. The Arab Spring provided fertile ground for ideas, even though it did not bring about the expected changes overnight. It allowed various ideas to penetrate the region, opening up the minds of some Middle Eastern youth to new visions for restructuring their societies. They became more open to questioning the rights of government officials clinging to power without heeding the demands of the people. They intuitively believe in the rotation of power emanating from elections.
Pettit advocates for a type of change that comes through progress and accumulation, primarily through the growth of civil organizations. These organizations, such as non-profit institutions and various voluntary and civic associations, build the necessary strength. In an ideal democracy, they start gaining ground in politics and emerge as credible opposition. This kind of change opens up possibilities for stability in the gains resulting from the transformation.
Electoral Legitimacy Alone is Insufficient
Philip Pettit reminds us that the earliest form of democracy, as seen in 5th-century Athens, meant ordinary people having a significant share in power, preventing anyone from subduing another. The Greeks did not believe in elections per se, as Pettit points out; they were unfamiliar with elections worth mentioning.
In our era, elections seem to be a partial answer to the crucial question: how to empower ordinary people and give them a sense of not being subject to dominance or government arbitrariness. While elections are an essential part of democracy and a control mechanism over those in power, they are not the be-all and end-all, the ultimate hope and dream, or the final means to give power to the people and the ordinary.
This thinking gives the people a solitary chance, at distant times, to exercise their power over their rulers during the election season. However, this popular power should remain standing during and outside the election season. This means activating public interest groups capable of discussing the government’s performance, monitoring its work, and challenging positions that do not seem to serve the public interest. Pettit speaks of the dialogical process as the second most important institution in mixed constitutional democracies. It involves people capable and willing to monitor and follow the government, equipped to broadcast news when things go awry and ready to keep the government constantly alert and cautious so that it remains wary of them.
Hence, there are conditions for real democracy and political empowerment:
1. **Accurate information:** Reliable sources of news and professional media, independent statistical offices, and trustworthy economic reports are essential. Without these, people become disarmed and vulnerable to those in power.
2. **Right to assemble:** This allows them to declare their opposition and engage in public discourse with the authorities.
3. **Independent courts:** These must be separate from government influence, interpreting and applying the law without bias. This allows people to bring cases against those in power, giving them the opportunity to win and achieve justice if they present a coherent argument.
This variety of pressure on the government activates the role of the people and public interest groups.
*Unseen Values and Social Capital*
Revolutions and republican changes in history witnessed different factions forming a broad spectrum. On one pole, there were religious republicans, even religious extremists, like the leader of the British parliamentary army, Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658). On the opposite pole, there were secular republicans with an anti-religious view, as famously seen in the French Revolution. Petit believes that contemporary Britain might be one of the most beneficial republican experiments for the Middle East, where a strong and diverse religious legacy prevails.
In Britain, there is an official state religion, specifically Anglican Christianity. This means that the British monarch must abdicate if they convert to another faith. However, Britain ensures complete religious freedom under the law, despite some popular opposition to Jews or devout Muslims. When laws are effective, religious opposition does not become problematic.
Republicans, including Petit, argue that laws should harmonize with local unseen values, meaning customs, traditions, and social bonds. In a dynamic relationship, republicanism leads to higher social trust, and the existence of a foundation of trust leads to republicanism. Petit cites Niccolò Machiavelli, the famous Renaissance republican thinker, who stated that good laws need good customs and vice versa, as both evolve together. Good laws contribute to the development of good customs, and good customs contribute to the development of good laws.
Certainly, the law here is imposed by a government shared in control by the people through two systems: an electoral system and a deliberative system. People have equal shares in this system, increasing as they participate more in deliberation and elections. They can all vote or engage in deliberation, trial the government, join public interest groups, or access published information about the government. In this republican space, people are grateful for what they enjoy under the law and aware that their fate is interconnected with others, living free from general and private dominance.
The more challenging issue is when trust and law are both absent. How do we build a solid ground from scratch? The republican tradition talks about what is called “opportunity,” a moment or occasion that some, with keen awareness and leadership ability, can recognize. This moment is seen as great and significant, a unique opportunity to transition to a better state despite the current adversity. This exceptional moment, where a political idea takes shape, creates a favorable opportunity. The insightful leader mobilizes local customs and traditions that can be harnessed in the transition process. The answer to our tough question is a complex dynamic combining the ability to mobilize customs and traditions, possess specific and select goals, and the emergence of opportunities to help achieve these goals.
The nightmare of dictatorship and the nightmare of chaos
In our world today, governments wield tremendous power in terms of knowing the personal lives of their citizens, thanks to surveillance, modern technology, and the consolidation of ruling classes worldwide. In such a world, things may seem very stagnant and escaping from it may appear exceedingly difficult.
There are two extreme scenarios, as politics often teaches us:
1. The first is the extremism of chaos, which terrified Emmanuel Kant. Each person lives for themselves, and “every man for himself.” This is a world where everything becomes a matter of “life or death,” perhaps due to the complete collapse of the government or the proliferation of warring factions and warlords.
2. The other extreme is the total dictatorship, where there is one source of power with no room for any rational dealings.
**The Dilemma in Both Cases is the Difficulty of Getting Rid of Them Once They Occur.**
It is extremely challenging to escape chaos, meaning building a centralized leadership, and extremely challenging to escape dictatorship, i.e., overcoming the high level of power that authority possesses, whether it’s security, military, financial power, or cognitive power such as information and intelligence. Petit rejects the idea of foreign military intervention in general but mentions an important criterion for evaluating the performance of such intervention. He believes that intervention can be beneficial in a state of chaos, as seen in Kosovo, but in the case of dictatorship, it exacerbates the problem, as seen in Iraq. In the latter case, Petit prefers a more grassroots and civilian experience for change.
Philip cites his experience with his Russian academic friends, who are trying to deal with the situation of Russia characterized by dominance and restrictions on freedoms. They believe that the current situation will not last because they experienced something different in the 1990s and early 2000s. They have many ideas and communication between opposition groups. This limited encounter might lead to the spread of ideas, growing discontent, and eventually creating a significant political breach. Petit repeatedly emphasizes the importance of communication, maintaining a network of encounters that enable people to prepare for seizing opportunities when they arise, and keeping the collective spirit alive.
There is evidence that as countries transition to true democracy, a republican democracy allowing various channels for people to control and monitor the government, the likelihood of war decreases. Because ordinary citizens will have a significant impact on their governments, most ordinary citizens will reject war, and only a minority will be willing to expose their lives or the lives of their children to the risk of death on the war fronts. Hence, republican ideas contribute to long-term peace.
**Public Opinion in the Face of Media and the Internet**
Petit is particularly concerned about the scattering of political terms and the lack of discipline in language in today’s world. For example, the term “liberalism” in the United States has come to reflect the left’s perspective against the right associated with the Republican Party. According to Petit, this party is far from the republican understanding of politics. Therefore, Petit promotes the term “updated republicanism” (neo-republicanism) to avoid confusion with ideas and currents like the American Republican Party.
Petit sees that the issue of public opinion and public spaces will be the most difficult issue in the next fifty years. The rise of social media, the spread of anonymous expression or speech, makes speech cheap, irresponsible, abundant, and massive. This is unlike speech in ancient times when people had to struggle to own it. Today, no one knows exactly who they are talking to, and no one bears responsibility for their speech and its effects. People do not know where to look for information; they cannot evaluate all opinions simultaneously due to their abundance online. Therefore, they gravitate towards voices that resemble them and are directly close to their hearts, forming “echo chambers,” bubbles of opinions that do not know each other.
This division in opinions across social media is reflected in traditional media platforms that now target a specific polarized audience rather than a general public audience. Petit’s real concern and fear are that the media world is evolving in a way that makes the idea of public opinion itself, a shared opinion supported by political will and a desire for knowledge, begin to thin and contract. People have become divided into “categories” in a state of “fragmentation,” driven towards contradiction and conflict. This is, of course, one of the main reasons for the rise of Donald Trump and the UK’s exit from the European Union, both being catastrophic popular decisions.
The only way Petit sees to solve the crisis, or at least mitigate its impact, is to introduce more institutions and measures to monitor online writing. For example, he suggests forcing internet sites to request the real name of users, allowing people to know who they are talking to and removing the anonymity from the speaker’s face. He also calls for restricting likes if they come without comments or explanations.
Finally, Petit sees great hope in the European Union because it, at least, aspires to regulate mitigating interventions to keep the idea of public opinion alive and well, as the essence of public opinion is one of the most important republican ideas.
