Capi carismatici. I Pericle e i Cleone
Political premiership, as a form of government admissible in a democratic context, has an illustrious archetype in Pericles, ruler of the political scene in Athens for the long time in which the polis was an emblem of democracy and a teacher of culture in the Greek world, although tyrannical in the...
Enregistré dans:
| Dans: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/tp, |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Langue: | Italien |
| Publié: |
Teoria politica
2026
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Résumé: | Political premiership, as a form of government admissible in a democratic context, has an illustrious archetype in Pericles, ruler of the political scene in Athens for the long time in which the polis was an emblem of democracy and a teacher of culture in the Greek world, although tyrannical in the exercise of its hegemony. The image of Pericles as a charismatic leader emerges from the representation and judgment of Thucydides, who highlights his ability to lead the people and to dominate their moods in every circumstance, so much so as to produce a sort of unnoticed constitutional metamorphosis: «There was thus in Athens a democracy in name, but in fact a power exercised by the first citizen». The formula used by Thucydides leads to a fundamental question: is Pericles (or the model of power that his figure represents) the emblem of democracy or the mask of an autocracy? Rather than seeking an answer, this paper aims to delve deeper into the investigation of the «Pericles case», recalling the reasons of various origins for which the figure of the great statesman was exalted, feared or denigrated by contemporaries and then by the multifaceted interpretative tradition. In the ancient context, the variation in judgment stems from the ambiguity of the criteria used to make Pericles’ action a model of political effectiveness or a potential threat. An anti-democratic undertone links Thucydides to other contemporary observers, hostile to a form of government that placed power in the hands of the people; but criticisms and suspicions of the opposite nature were raised against Pericles, as against other overly influential personalities, in a city pervaded by anti-tyrannical phobia and actually threatened by civil war. Thus, Thucydides’ distrust of democracy explains the praise of Pericles’ independence from the favors of the people, together with the harsh judgment on the «demagogues» who came after him; but popular distrust of an uncontrolled power explains Pericles’ caution and the accidents he incurred, as witnessed by various sources. The compatibility of his political action with the rules of democracy remains in question. In the interpretative tradition, the variety of projections that have led to seeking in the figure of the Athenian strategist a myth to be spent is striking. The point of view that interests us here is perhaps the least investigated: the placement of the figure of the political leader, more or less charismatic, in the context of democracy. Reread in this perspective, the model offered by Pericles shows above all what a democratic leader does not do. By occupying public offices, Pericles uses all the available tools to promote objectives that meet with the people’s favor and renew his political investiture, but to do so he never seems to have needed to ask for full powers, or to strengthen in some way the mandate received. The Pericles case therefore does not provide arguments to support the opportunity to strengthen the decision-making power of a political leader, removing his actions from the control of other democratic power structures, but suggests taking into maximum account the risk represented by a form of political primacy not balanced by an institutional network that sanctions the duty of accountability in itinere. |
|---|