Esta tese tem como objeto investigar, no pensamento republicano, como as categorias políticas conflito e interesse foram tratadas. Foram analisadas as obras Os Discursos sobre a Primeira Década de Tito Lívio, de Maquiavel, Oceana, de Harrington, O Contrato Social de Rousseau, Que é o Terceiro Estado?, de Sieyes, O Espírito das Leis, de Montesquieu, Os Artigos Federalistas, de Madison, Hamilton e Jay, e Da Revolução, de Hannah Arendt. Nessa análise, verificou-se que o conflito e o interesse estiveram juntos, no interior da política, no caso de Maquiavel, e fora dela, no caso de Harrington, Rousseau, Sieyes e Montesquieu. Com os Federalistas, conflito e interesse se dissociaram, com o interesse permanecendo no interior da república e o conflito dando lugar à pluralidade. Hannah Arendt preservou a pluralidade, mas retirando novamente o interesse da política. Com isso, verificamos que o conflito deixou de ser uma categoria relevante no pensamento político republicano, enquanto a pluralidade ocupou um lugar definitivo.

This dissertation's subject is to research, in the republican thought, how the cathegories conflict and interest have been considered. The work was focused on the following classical books: Discorsi,Oceana, The Social Contract, Rousseau, What is the Third State?,The Spirit of Laws, The Federalist Papers, On Revolution. Analysing them, it was verified that conflict and interest have had been together and in the politics with Machiavelli, an out of politics with Harrington, Rousseau, Sieyes and Montesquieu. With Hamilton, Madison and Jay, conflict and interest were divorced: interest stood in the politics and conflict was left out of it, being replaced by plurality, which become the central political cathegory. Hannah Arendt confirmed it, but her politics is without interests. Despite of this, the final result is conflict as a less relevant cathegory in republican political thought, and plurality as the most important one.