Padrão de Resposta

There has recently been a tendency to view the relationship between citizens and the State, or between citizens and the political establishment or still between citizens and the political activity itself from a Manichean perspective, whereby the State assumes the role of the villain and society that of the helpless victim.
It is (a) well-known (fact) that dichotomies do not generally lend themselves well to the elucidation of phenomena of a social nature. In theory, they separate what should be the two sides of one coin, which are constituent parts of a whole. Manichaeism renders any notion of citizenship unachievable, for one either accepts that the State is a necessary evil, as Augustinians do, or one rejects it categorically, as anarchists do.
In practical terms, Manichaeists ultimately adopt a paternalistic (condescending) attitude, for they regard people as helpless victims of the machinations of the State power or that of dominant groups. What follows is the brutalization of the people.
It seems that this is not quite the case. Except in very rare and short-lived cases when, for example, systems are based entirely on repression, it is more rewarding to conceive of the relations between citizens and the State as a two-way street even if it is not necessarily balanced.
In order for any governing system to survive, it has to develop some sort of legitimacy base even if it is built only on the apathy of citizens.
The occasion when the Empire morphed into the Republic is particularly opportune for the raising of this issue. It was the first major post-independence change of political regime. Furthermore, we were faced with the implementation of a system of government/regime that meant precisely to place the people at the forefront of the political scene/sphere.