This thesis investigates democratisation in South Korea. Unlike what structure- and process-oriented accounts of democratisation claim, democracy in South Korea was achieved through sustained popular action. The late-late development led by the authoritarian developmental state did not allow bourgeois or institutional politics to take the leading role for democracy. Social movements replaced them by making political opportunities and developing collective identity, their mobilising structures, and by using various discourses, repertoires, and framing. The structural context, movements' interaction with the state, and their strategies produced democracy with paradoxical results. Not only did they fail to achieve social democracy as their objective, but also the “founding election” for the transition to democracy in 1987 was exploited by elites. The paradoxical process of democratisation suppressed the reverse transition to reauthoritarianism on the one hand and constrained the popular sovereignty expressed through constitutionally legitimate massive collective action on the other hand. Though democratisation through collective action did not end “happily ever after,” it brought about democracy not only in institutional politics but also in noninstitutional politics. / Graduate

What are the possible bases for the authority of the Australian Constitution? Why should people and judges ever obey the text of the Constitution? The developing tools of analytical jurisprudence assist in answering these questions. Despite its currency, the concept of "sovereignty" provides little assistance in understanding how law provides reasons for action. The concept of authority is more useful. The text of the Australian Constitution has authority in that it provides presumptive reasons for action, overruled when they appear sufficiently erroneous on a cursory examination. The Constitution is part of the Australian legal system. A legal system is normally identified partly by moral norms. These moral norms themselves require that legal systems also be identified where possible by reference to the directives of a previous de facto authority - even when that previous authority no longer has power to make new legal norms. A legal system will be "legitimate" if any improvement to be achieved by revolution would be outweighed by the uncertainty revolution creates. Against this theoretical background, various theories about the Constitution's authority can be assessed. Although the enactment of the Constitution by the Imperial Parliament provides the Constitution with legal authority, it does not confer moral legitimacy. Contrary to a growing judicial and academic consensus in Australia, the Constitution's legitimate authority is not derived from the "will of the people". Nor is it derived from the Constitution's Founders. The will of the people cannot be identified reliably, and wound not provide sufficient reasons for action. The Constitution does embody a federal compact between the colonies. Because it is worthwhile to keep political promises, the polities of the States should fulfil this compact, even though the compact only imposes weak obligations on the Commonwealth. Other possible bases for the Constitution's authority are also inadequate. These include claims that judges are bound to apply the Constitution because their authority is based upon it; that the Constitution embodies "associate obligations", and that the Constitution isa commitment to protect individual rights and democracy. Instead the Constitution has legitimate authority principally because it coordinates individual action towards desirable goals. The Australian Constitution settles the location of authority by authority.

Pache, maire de la Commune de Paris du 14 février 1793 au 21 floréal an II – 10 mai 1794, a mené une politique visant à garantir les droits naturels de l'homme et du citoyen. Ces droits furent formulés par le peuple parisien, principalement réuni en assemblées générales de sections et théorisés par des Montagnards. Suite à la Révolution des 31 mai - 2 juin 1793, qui aboutit au rappel des députés girondins considérés comme « infidèles » au peuple, la Convention nationale déclara et adopta une législation pour réaliser ces droits. L'application de cette législation fut confiée aux communes. Pache et la Commune de Paris agirent assidûment pour la mettre en place. / The policy conducted by Pache, the mayor of the Paris Commune from 14 February 1793 to 10 May 1794 (21 Floreal Year II), aimed to guarantee the natural rights of man and of the citizen. These rights were formulated by the people at the general assemblies of the Parisian sections, and then theorised by members of the Mountain (Montagnard) faction. Following the insurrection of 31 May -2 June 1793, which resulted in the expulsion of the « unfaithful » Girondin deputies who were considered to have betrayed the people, the National Convention announced and implemented legislation to enact these rights. The communes were entrusted with enforcing this legislation, with Pache and the Paris Commune working hard to ensure its success.

Esta dissertação se dedica a uma comparação entre as interpretações da Revolução Francesa formuladas por dois autores e personagens políticos da França do século XIX: François Guizot (1787 1874) e Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Ambas as interpretações têm em comum o esforço intelectual de inscrever a Revolução Francesa na História de longo prazo da França e da Europa, em ruptura com a compreensão que tiveram da Revolução tanto revolucionários como contrarrevolucionários. Essa inscrição da Revolução na História implicava uma aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária como um produto irreversível de muitos séculos e não apenas de um ato isolado da vontade. O argumento desta dissertação tem como objetivo demonstrar que, para além dessa aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária a qual manteve Guizot e Tocqueville à distância tanto do discurso contrarrevolucionário, com seu projeto de restaurar na França a antiga sociedade pré-revolucionária, como do discurso socialista, com seu projeto de continuar a Revolução Francesa para levar a humanidade a uma sociedade diferente da que saiu diretamente da Revolução , os dois autores estudados legaram para a posteridade duas atitudes divergentes ou mesmo opostas diante da Revolução Francesa: Guizot celebrou o papel da Revolução na História como uma vitória das classes médias sobre o poder absoluto e o privilégio, ao mesmo tempo em que criticou suas bandeiras explícitas, com destaque para a da soberania do povo; Tocqueville, ao contrário, lamentou a obra da Revolução Francesa como uma realização inconsciente da cultura política centralizadora do Antigo Regime, mas, em vez de criticar a doutrina da soberania do povo, procurou reformulá-la em novas bases, inspirado pelo modelo americano. Para o autor de O Antigo Regime e a Revolução, a crítica à Revolução Francesa deve passar, portanto, de suas doutrinas explícitas para seu caráter implícito. Para construir essa hipótese, a dissertação faz o seguinte percurso: no Capítulo 1, são contrapostas a filosofia da História de Guizot, baseada no conceito de civilização, e a filosofia da História de Tocqueville, baseada no conceito de democracia. No Capítulo 2, compara-se o lugar que cada autor atribuía à Revolução Francesa em uma História francesa e europeia lida a partir das relações entre centro político e liberdades locais. O Capítulo 3, por fim, compara a recepção de cada autor aos chamados princípios de 1789, com destaque para o princípio da soberania do povo. / This dissertation is dedicated to a comparison between the interpretations of the French Revolution made by two authors and political figures of nineteenth-century France: François Guizot (1787 1874) and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Both interpretations have in common the intellectual effort to inscribe the Revolution in France and Europes long term History, breaking with the understanding that both revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries had about the Revolution. This inscription of the Revolution in History implied an acceptance of post-revolutionary society as an irreversible product of many centuries and not only of an isolated act of the will. As a result, Guizot and Tocqueville were critics both of the counterrevolutionaries, whose project was to restore in France the old pre-revolutionary society, and the socialists, whose project was to continue the French Revolution in order to lead humanity into a society deeply different from the one that emerged from the Revolution. Against this background, this dissertation aims at demonstrating that, beyond the acceptance of post-revolutionary society, Guizot and Tocqueville bequeathed to posterity two divergent or even opposite attitudes toward the French Revolution: Guizot celebrated the role played by the Revolution in History, as a victory of the middle classes against both absolute power and privilege, but at the same time he opposed its explicit flags, especially the sovereignty of the people; Tocqueville, on the other hand, deplored the Revolutions work as an unconscious realization of the centralizing political culture of the Ancient Regime, but, instead of criticizing the doctrine of popular sovereignty, he sought to reformulate it on new bases, inspired in the American model. According to the author of The Ancient Regime and the Revolution, thus, the criticism of the French Revolution should pass from its explicit doctrines to its implicit character. In order to build that hypothesis, this dissertation takes the following path: In Chapter 1, we will compare Guizots philosophy of History, based on the concept of civilization, with Tocquevilles philosophy of History, based on the concept of democracy. In Chapter 2, we will compare the place each author attributed to the French Revolution in French and European History, interpreted in the light of relations between political center and local freedoms. Chapter 3, lastly, compares each authors reception to what was called the principles of 1789, especially the sovereignty of the people.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-10T10:47:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DEAULAS HENRIQUE MOREIRA CAETANO DA COSTA.pdf: 1596452 bytes, checksum: ea7afd164169616e7a03f291bad930c1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-10-16 / Before pose a template of government acts, democracy is a historical, long, tortuous and conflicting process, with developments and setbacks, forming the State positions of power to the popular will and human fundamental rights recognition as existential reason of state organization. During the development of this democratic process in the world, they were many events that marked the evolution of human relations at inequalities combating and freedoms ensuring. Recently, we can highlight the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which, following the second great world war, increased the droit to a new post-positivist level, which enables a much more active role of society. In this scenario, the class actions, especially in Brazil, has been an important method of expression of the popular will and realization of fundamental rights not satisfied by public policies, setting a new instrumental dimension of Brazilian democracy: the jurisdictional democracy. / Antes de representar um modelo pronto e acabado de formação de atos de governo, a democracia é um processo histórico, longo, tortuoso e conflituoso, com evoluções e retrocessos, de conformação das instâncias estatais de poder à vontade popular e de reconhecimento dos direitos fundamentais do homem como razão existencial da organização estatal. Durante o desenvolvimento desse processo democrático no mundo, muitas foram as ocorrências que marcaram uma evolução das relações humanas pelo combate às desigualdades e garantia de liberdades. Recentemente, pode-se destacar a Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, de 1948, qual, logo após à segunda grande guerra mundial, soergueu o Direito a um novo nível, póspositivista e principiológico, que possibilita uma postura muito mais ativa da sociedade em relação aos seus direitos. Nesse cenário, o processo civil coletivo, especialmente no Brasil, tem se mostrado um importante método de expressão da vontade popular e de efetivação de direitos fundamentais não satisfeitos por políticas públicas, configurando uma nova dimensão instrumental da democracia brasileira: a democracia jurisdicional.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Lucas Gieron Fonseca e Silva.pdf: 993896 bytes, checksum: f42b179fb78c4fc8a9879e2e3bd9deb7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-09-21 / The right to vote is, in the Brazilian legal system, the main instrument of popular sovereignty and constitutional democracy. It is through this right that citizens express their opinion in a decision-making process. However, in order to the vote configure effectively a right, certain assumptions must be observed: obedience to popular sovereignty and a constitutional democracy. Not enough, the Constitution should provide - and ensure - that the vote has all its necessary elements, as the universality, immediacy, equality and secrecy. So, at first it will be analyzed the conditions for the development of the right to vote. Two distinct concepts of popular sovereignty will be presented, so we can build a current concept of it. Still, possible concepts of democracy will be analyzed, and especially of constitutional democracy. The second phase, will be dedicated to the study of conformation of the vote as a fundamental political right and its essential elements. Thus, it will be shown that vote, in the Brazilian legal system, is an instrument of popular sovereignty and, at the same time, fundamental right. With respect to its essential elements, the goal is to demonstrate that the Federal Constitution provides them (universality, immediacy, equality and secrecy) and at the same time, sets impediments to legislator, which should always act to prestigiate them / O direito ao voto é, no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, o principal instrumento da soberania popular e democracia constitucional. É através deste que os cidadãos manifestam sua opinião em um processo decisório. Contudo, para que o voto configure, efetivamente, um direito, algumas premissas devem ser observadas: a previsão de obediência à soberania popular e a constitucionalização da democracia. Não bastante, a Constituição deve prever e assegurar que o voto possua todos os seus elementos necessários, ou seja, universalidade, imediaticidade, igualdade e o sigilo. Assim, em um primeiro momento serão analisadas os pressupostos para o desenvolvimento do direito ao voto. Serão apresentados dois conceitos distintos de soberania popular, para que possamos construir um conceito atual desta. Ainda, serão analisados os possíveis conceitos de democracia e, especialmente, da democracia constitucional. Em um segundo momento, dedicar-se-á ao estudo da conformação do voto enquanto um direito político fundamental e de seus elementos essenciais. Assim, será demonstrado que o voto, no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, é instrumento da soberania popular e, ao mesmo tempo, direito fundamental. Com relação aos seus elementos essenciais, o objetivo é demonstrar que a Constituição Federal prevê todos (universalidade, imediaticidade, igualdade e sigilo) e, ao mesmo tempo, configura verdadeiros impedimentos ao legislador constituído, que deverá, sempre, atuar no sentido de prestigiá-los

Le Tea Party entre en scène en février 2009 aux États-Unis. C’est notamment la tirade d’un journaliste qui s’insurge contre les plans de sauvetage de l’économie votés par le Président Barack Obama, en direct sur la chaîne CNBC le 19 février, et invite à organiser une « Tea Party » dans le port de Chicago, qui déclenche ce phénomène sans précédent. S’ensuivent de nombreux rassemblements protestataires de masse à travers le pays, puis la création de dizaines, puis de centaines de groupes Tea Party locaux. La rapidité et l’ampleur de ce mouvement surprennent les spécialistes. D’autant que dès 2010, le Tea Party affirme des objectifs politiques et une volonté d’institutionnalisation, se révélant une menace pour l’establishment républicain. Mais en 2012, la réélection du Président Obama peut être lue comme une défaite colossale pour le mouvement, et des chroniques de mort annoncée sont publiées par la presse libérale (au sens américain). Des résultats peu spectaculaires aux élections de mi-mandat en 2014 semblent confirmer ce pronostic, surtout que le Parti républicain réussit à tenir le mouvement en respect jusqu’aux primaires pour l’investiture présidentielle en 2015. C’est alors qu’on assiste à un retournement de situation ; la radicalisation du Grand Old Party est nette, visible entre autres dans la plate-forme très conservatrice des candidats républicains. En novembre 2016, l’élection de l’outsider Donald Trump à la présidence, conjonction de nombreux facteurs électoraux, est également le résultat d’efforts organisationnels de la Droite auxquels le Tea Party a largement contribué. Pour appréhender ce mouvement, il faut comprendre qu’il combine des forces top-down et bottom-up. Certes, le Tea Party bénéficie depuis son émergence de ressources inestimables de la part de groupes de pression et de think tanks comme FreedomWorks, American Majority, Americans for Prosperity ou Heritage Foundation, ainsi que des médias conservateurs. De nature organisationnelle ou rhétorique, ces ressources sont fondamentales car elles permettent au mouvement de s’organiser et de mener ses actions militantes. Il n’en reste pas moins qu’à la base se trouvent des acteurs bénévoles, qui consacrent leur temps et leur énergie au Tea Party, et revendiquent leur caractère grassroots. Des organisations nationales comme Tea Party Patriots s’imposent pour fédérer les groupes qui leur sont affiliés, cependant certains groupes locaux cherchent à protéger leur indépendance. Autour des groupes Tea Party gravitent des organisations libertariennes et conservatrices, l’ensemble formant une nébuleuse complexe, qui fonctionne par réseaux à différents niveaux et selon diverses configurations. L’objet de cette étude de terrain est donc d’apporter un éclairage de l’intérieur du mouvement Tea Party, par l’observation en immersion de groupes locaux situés dans les régions de Philadelphie en Pennsylvanie, et de Boston dans le Massachusetts. Il s’agit d’abord de comprendre les motivations et l’idéologie des militants, principalement d’orientation conservatrice, libertarienne et populiste. Ce sont les notions de souveraineté individuelle, d’anti-fédéralisme, et de respect de la Constitution qui dictent toute lecture des Tea Partiers. Ensuite, l’analyse des modes opératoires des groupes permet de clarifier le fonctionnement de l’ensemble. Le Tea Party se démarque en tant que mouvement de droite recourant à des stratégies organisationnelles jusqu’ici plutôt réservées aux mouvements progressistes - la façon dont il applique les principes de l’organisation communautaire est l’une de ses forces indéniables, en particulier à l’ère des nouvelles technologies, et des réseaux sociaux. Son utilisation de ressources Web et d’outils concrets pour l’action militante est remarquable. Enfin, il est essentiel de saisir que le Tea Party veut s’implanter dans le tissu décisionnel local. Pour y parvenir, l’une de ses tactiques consiste à infiltrer progressivement le Parti républicain / The Tea Party enters the scene in February 2009 in the United States. On February 19, a CNBC journalist protests on-air against the economic bailout plans voted by President Barack Obama, and invites viewers to organize a « Tea Party » in the Chicago harbor. This contributes to trigger an unprecedented phenomenon, as numerous mass protest rallies soon organize throughout the country, followed by the creation of dozens, then hundreds of local Tea Party groups. Experts are astonished at the swiftness and magnitude of the movement. All the more so in 2010, when the Tea Party starts claiming political objectives and shows intent of institutionalizing, proving a threat to the Republican Establishment. However, President Obama is reelected in 2012 and this is interpreted as a devastating loss for the movement, for which obituaries are published in several liberal media. Lackluster results in the 2014 mid-term elections seem to confirm this forecast, especially since the Republican Party succeeds at keeping the movement at bay until the primaries for the presidential candidate nomination in 2015. But then there is a reversal; the Grand Old Party clearly radicalizes, as the extremely conservative Republican platform notably shows. And the election of outsider Donald Trump to the presidency in November 2016, a conjunction of numerous electoral factors, is also the result of organizational efforts on the right side of the political spectrum, to which the Tea Party largely contributed. To better apprehend this movement, it is necessary to understand that it combines top-down and bottom-up forces. From its appearance, the Tea Party has indisputably benefitted from colossal resources from interest groups and think tanks such as FreedomWorks, American Majority, Americans for Prosperity or The Heritage Foundation, but also from conservative media. Either organizational or rhetorical, these resources are primeval for the movement’s organization and activism. Nevertheless, there are voluntary activists working at the basis of the movement, who devote their time and energy to the Tea Party, and claim its grassroots nature. National organizations such as Tea Party Patriots try to establish themselves as federations for the groups affiliated to them, while some local groups seek to remain independent. Libertarian and conservative organizations gravitate around Tea Party groups, the whole forming a complex cluster that operates at different levels and following diverse configurations. Thus the object of this field study is to shed light on the Tea Party movement from the inside, thanks to the observation of local groups from an embedded position. These groups are located in the Philadelphia and Boston areas, respectively in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. First, it is necessary to understand activists’ motivations and ideologies, which are mainly conservative, libertarian and populist; and that Tea Partiers interpret everything though the lens of individual sovereignty, anti-Federalism, and respect of the Constitution. Then, analyzing the modi operandi of the groups allows to illuminate how the whole system works. The Tea Party distinguishes itself as a right-wing movement that recurs to organizational strategies that were predominantly used by progressive movements until recently – the way the movement applies the principles of community organizing is undeniably one of its strengths, particularly considering the new media revolution, and social networks. Its use of Web resources and concrete tools to encourage activism is impressive. Lastly, it is indispensable to grasp that the Tea Party aims for local decision-making positions. To this end, one of its tactics consists in progressively infiltrating the Republican Party

ABSTRACT UNEASY COEXISTENCE: &ldquo / ISLAMISM VS. REPUBLICANISM&rdquo / DEBATE IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN Arikan, Pinar M. Sc., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Meliha AltuniSik December 2006, 170 pages The objective of this thesis is to analyze the Islamist and republican features of the political regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It aims to identify the relationship between Islamism and republicanism in terms of institutional and practical means throughout the period since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. It seeks an answer to the question of how the Islamist and republican orientations that built up the political regime and the system of governance in the Islamic Republic of Iran have affected the domestic political and ideological developments. For this aim, firstly, the history of ulama-state relations as well as the history of constitutional tradition in Iran is discussed. Then, the impact of Islamism and republicanism in the process of establishment of the new regime in Iran is examined. Afterwards, the emergence of Islamism and republicanism as indigenous ideological currents and the political groups that appealed to these two orientations are analyzed with special emphasis to the role of Khomeini in this process. In the remaining part, the institutional and practical implications of the coexistence of Islamist and republican orientations are scrutinized during the presidencies of Rafsanjani and Khatami respectively. Finally, this thesis is concluded with an overall assessment of Islamism vs. republicanism debate with reference to the 2005 presidential elections.

Made available in DSpace on 2009-11-18T18:56:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 GECILDA.pdf: 1142558 bytes, checksum: 22d6ac530279f1269cd8a32c4d42bf41 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 / The aim of this dissertation is to study the contribution given by the Brazilian court of accounts, with the creation of the ombudsman on those institutions, to the exercise of the social control made by its citizens. Being considered one of the key inventions in the field of the external control of the public management, the ombudsman of the court of accounts is the most important means of control the society may use over the public management, as well as the place where the society and court of accounts might debate and get to an agreement concerning on how to spend the public asset in a way that will benefit the citizens. In order to fulfill the aim of the dissertation, the concepts of citizenship, particularly the deliberative citizenship, were recaptured, as well as the means of control in the public management and the role of the court of accounts as a participant in the external control of the public accounts. Lastly, some of the 18 ombudsman linked to Brazilian courts of account are presented in the dissertation. The Ombudsman of the Courts of Accounts of the states of Paraná and Pernambuco are emphasized once it is understood that they are in the path of transcending the concept of popular participation to the popular sovereignty, in which the debate with the society might, in a near future, decide possibly the course of the audits of those entities. / Esta dissertação objetivou estudar a contribuição dos tribunais de contas brasileiros para o exercício do controle social pelo cidadão, com a criação de ouvidorias naquelas instituições. Considerada uma das grandes inovações na área de controle externo da de ouvidoria nos tribunais de contas representa uma das principais vias de controle direto da sociedade sobre a gestão pública, bem como um espaço para o debate e o consenso em torno do objetivo comum dos tribunais e da sociedade: a boa aplicação dos recursos públicos em prol do cidadão. Para tanto, retomamos os conceitos de cidadania, em especial aquele denominado de cidadania deliberativa, de formas de controle na administração pública e o papel dos Tribunais de Contas como elementos que exercem o Controle Externo das contas públicas. Por fim, apresentamos algumas das dezoito ouvidorias existentes vinculadas a Tribunais de Contas no Brasil e destacamos a experiência das ouvidorias dos tribunais de contas do Paraná e de Pernambuco por entender que elas caminham para a transcendência do conceito de participação popular para soberania popular, no qual o debate com a sociedade poderá, num futuro próximo, estabelecer, possivelmente, os rumos das auditorias realizadas por aquelas entidades.

Esta dissertação se dedica a uma comparação entre as interpretações da Revolução Francesa formuladas por dois autores e personagens políticos da França do século XIX: François Guizot (1787 1874) e Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Ambas as interpretações têm em comum o esforço intelectual de inscrever a Revolução Francesa na História de longo prazo da França e da Europa, em ruptura com a compreensão que tiveram da Revolução tanto revolucionários como contrarrevolucionários. Essa inscrição da Revolução na História implicava uma aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária como um produto irreversível de muitos séculos e não apenas de um ato isolado da vontade. O argumento desta dissertação tem como objetivo demonstrar que, para além dessa aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária a qual manteve Guizot e Tocqueville à distância tanto do discurso contrarrevolucionário, com seu projeto de restaurar na França a antiga sociedade pré-revolucionária, como do discurso socialista, com seu projeto de continuar a Revolução Francesa para levar a humanidade a uma sociedade diferente da que saiu diretamente da Revolução , os dois autores estudados legaram para a posteridade duas atitudes divergentes ou mesmo opostas diante da Revolução Francesa: Guizot celebrou o papel da Revolução na História como uma vitória das classes médias sobre o poder absoluto e o privilégio, ao mesmo tempo em que criticou suas bandeiras explícitas, com destaque para a da soberania do povo; Tocqueville, ao contrário, lamentou a obra da Revolução Francesa como uma realização inconsciente da cultura política centralizadora do Antigo Regime, mas, em vez de criticar a doutrina da soberania do povo, procurou reformulá-la em novas bases, inspirado pelo modelo americano. Para o autor de O Antigo Regime e a Revolução, a crítica à Revolução Francesa deve passar, portanto, de suas doutrinas explícitas para seu caráter implícito. Para construir essa hipótese, a dissertação faz o seguinte percurso: no Capítulo 1, são contrapostas a filosofia da História de Guizot, baseada no conceito de civilização, e a filosofia da História de Tocqueville, baseada no conceito de democracia. No Capítulo 2, compara-se o lugar que cada autor atribuía à Revolução Francesa em uma História francesa e europeia lida a partir das relações entre centro político e liberdades locais. O Capítulo 3, por fim, compara a recepção de cada autor aos chamados princípios de 1789, com destaque para o princípio da soberania do povo. / This dissertation is dedicated to a comparison between the interpretations of the French Revolution made by two authors and political figures of nineteenth-century France: François Guizot (1787 1874) and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Both interpretations have in common the intellectual effort to inscribe the Revolution in France and Europes long term History, breaking with the understanding that both revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries had about the Revolution. This inscription of the Revolution in History implied an acceptance of post-revolutionary society as an irreversible product of many centuries and not only of an isolated act of the will. As a result, Guizot and Tocqueville were critics both of the counterrevolutionaries, whose project was to restore in France the old pre-revolutionary society, and the socialists, whose project was to continue the French Revolution in order to lead humanity into a society deeply different from the one that emerged from the Revolution. Against this background, this dissertation aims at demonstrating that, beyond the acceptance of post-revolutionary society, Guizot and Tocqueville bequeathed to posterity two divergent or even opposite attitudes toward the French Revolution: Guizot celebrated the role played by the Revolution in History, as a victory of the middle classes against both absolute power and privilege, but at the same time he opposed its explicit flags, especially the sovereignty of the people; Tocqueville, on the other hand, deplored the Revolutions work as an unconscious realization of the centralizing political culture of the Ancient Regime, but, instead of criticizing the doctrine of popular sovereignty, he sought to reformulate it on new bases, inspired in the American model. According to the author of The Ancient Regime and the Revolution, thus, the criticism of the French Revolution should pass from its explicit doctrines to its implicit character. In order to build that hypothesis, this dissertation takes the following path: In Chapter 1, we will compare Guizots philosophy of History, based on the concept of civilization, with Tocquevilles philosophy of History, based on the concept of democracy. In Chapter 2, we will compare the place each author attributed to the French Revolution in French and European History, interpreted in the light of relations between political center and local freedoms. Chapter 3, lastly, compares each authors reception to what was called the principles of 1789, especially the sovereignty of the people.