从赋权型到保障型——吉登斯应对气候变化的国家思想研究

吉登斯认为,国家是应对气候变化的主要行为者,要在民主体制内进行政治变革——由赋权型国家向保障型国家过渡。赋权型国家更多的是发挥民众和社会团体等的社会自治作用,保障型国家则着重强调国家和政府的主导地位。赋权型国家虽然具有一定的优势,但是在应对气候变化问题上显得力不从心;保障型国家在应对气候变化中发挥着主导作用,气候变化要求政府在自由民主的政治框架内加强管制和监督。保障型国家必须实现多方合作,包括民主政府和威权政府之间的合作,保障型国家与民众、非政府组织合作,凝聚各方力量,积极应对气候变化。     

操作性党内民主：中国式的民主政治发展道路

操作性党内民主主要是指党员定期选出党的领导人的一种制度安排,通过这样一种制度安排某些党员可以通过争取其他党员的选票而获得党的领导职位。这样一个概念强调的是党内民主的切实可行性。这一实践路径是由中国政治民主化的性质和模式及中国的社会现实所决定的：首先,中国政治民主化的性质在于它是由中国共产党所领导和推动的;其次,中国民主化的模式是一种不同于西方的体制内模式;再次,从中国的社会现实来看,历史上的中国缺乏政治民主传统,就现阶段而言,也没有发育出作为民主政治土壤的公民文化,而且政治发展极不平衡。这些都决定了中国的政治民主化只能先从中国共产党内部开始,走一条从党内到党外、从高层到基层、从精英到大众的渐进模式。操作性党内民主主要应体现为差额选举,以差额选举为主要内容的操作性党内民主符合现代民主政治的原则,是有效整合党内不同政策取向和思想分歧的有效途径,是实现党内民主和中国政治民主化的突破。     

协商民主、社区治理与社会融合——中山市社区建设协调委员会个案分析

公共领域的协商在现代社会的公民政治生活中起着越来越重要的作用。在社区治理领域,多元共治已经逐步成为政府及社会各界的共识,中山市社区建设协调委员会便是这一理念的产物。社区协调组织的产生,使得基层协商民主从理论变为现实,并达到协调社区利益和整合社区资源的目的,最终促进社区的社会融合。目前中山市社区建设协调委员会仍处于初级阶段,尚需要构建更加成熟的协商民主过程和机制。     

论马克思主义的创造性转换

文章探讨发展出一种民主的马克思主义的可能性。民主在此意味着“由人民做主”,即人民真正地参与影响其生活的社会—政治—经济—文化的决策。这可能采取任何可能形式的代议制民主或者直选式民主。民主也意味着对于公民自由——信仰自由、言论自由、集会自由、私人权利以及选举自由的保护。民主涉及到过程,但它也是一种生活方式——在生活的每个领域中所实践的生活方式。     

温岭基层民主建设规律探要

温岭民主恳谈会在实践中取得了很大成功 ,“温岭模式”已成为我国社会主义基层民主建设的重要途径。本文认为 :温岭民主恳谈会深植于温岭的经济、政治、文化实际 ,具有内生性根源 ;它蹈循中国特色社会主义民主政治的本质 ,把党的领导、人民当家作主和依法治国有机地统一在其基层民主政治的实践过程中 ;它依椐民主政治建构和运行的基本要求 ,把治理和自治有机统一在一起。认真总结和深入探索温岭基层民主建设的经验和规律 ,对于中国特色社会主义的民主政治建设是有重要的理论和实践意义。     

中国政治现代化两次变迁的特点和启示

一个世纪以来,中国政治现代化发生了两次变迁,第一次是铲除封建专制,基本确立起社会主义民主政治制度的变迁;第二次是在社会主义制度的框架内,恢复被歪曲了的民主原则,发展社会主义民主政治,创造一种取代传统社会主义模式的新模式。因此,两次变迁都有其不同的特点,给予我们的启示是深刻的。     

从“民主”外交视角对“民主和平论”的再审视

"民主和平论"是冷战后西方自由主义国际政治理论对世界秩序的一种话语表述,它从民主制与和平的逻辑联结上为我们描述了实现世界和平的进路:民主国家间彼此没有战争,因而普遍的民主能够带来普遍的和平。这一推论的依据是民主制国家更具有制度和道德上的优势,然而面对国际政治的现实,"民主和平论"在理论和逻辑上仍是一个不能完全得到验证的命题。不过,作为对世界和平问题的探索,我们在对这一理论进行质疑和批判的同时,也不应忽略其中所包含的建设性观点。     

人性论与人治法治的关系

中国的人性论与专制人治没有任何关系 ,不管中国古代的思想家对人性有什么看法 ,他们都主张专制人治。性恶论也不是西方民主法治的理论前提 ,它实际上抽去了实行民主法治的可能性 ,在为专制人治张目。民主法治的人性基础是人性善恶二元论。人性中有恶的成分 ,决定法治是必需的 ;人性也有善的方面 ,所以民主法治是可能的     

现代政治文明的结晶:政党与民主

政党与民主是现代政治文明的结晶 ,现代政治就是围绕这两个轴心而展开。政党是不完全政治民主的产物 ,它的存在就是为节约政治交易费用 ,推进民主进程 ,实现人民的意愿。政治体系通过政党的过滤作用 ,将大众民主转换成精英民主。由于各国人民民主与政党发展的历史顺序的差异 ,各国在借助政党实现人民民主的道路选择上有不同的特色。     

党的群众路线与中国特色社会主义民主政治

党的群众路线与中国特色社会主义民主政治具有内在的逻辑一致性。党的群众路线与社会主义民主政治本质上是一致的,群众路线实质就是社会主义民主路线;党的群众路线与中国特色社会主义民主政治都是以马克思主义唯物史观和中国传统民本思想为理论基础;中国特色社会主义民主政治是党的群众路线历史逻辑的必然结果;建设中国特色社会主义民主政治是坚持和落实党的群众路线的根本保证。     

协商民主视阈中的中国共产党党内民主建设

协商民主与党内民主都是学术界研究的热点问题。党内协商民主对当前党内民主建设具有重大的理论意义与实践价值。虽然协商民主并非是发展党内民主的惟一路径,但党内民主的推进无疑可以借鉴协商民主的若干合理之处。具体而言,就是在中国共产党的领导下,坚持民主集中制原则,以人民利益为最高价值追求,从协商民主中汲取符合国情和党情并对社会主义民主政治发展有益的元素,以改革创新精神推进党的建设。     

自由主义民主与社会主义民主之比较分析

自由主义民主与社会主义民主无论是在理论上还是在实践上都经历了一个相当长的发展历程,尽管每一种民主形态都发生了一些变化,但其内核仍然延续下来,并形成了鲜明的特征。自由主义民主与社会主义民主表现出比较明显的冲突和对立,是完全不同类型的两种民主模式,其哲学基础、价值追求和实现形式等方面都有很大的差异。     

The democratic challenges and potential of localism: insights from deliberative democracy

This article considers the democratic challenges and potential of localism by drawing on insights from the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. On a conceptual level, the ideas embedded in localism and deliberative democracy share much in common, particularly the democratic goal of engaging citizens in decisions that affect them. Despite such commonalities, however, there has been limited conversation between relevant literatures. The article considers four democratic challenges facing localism and offers a response from a systems perspective of deliberative democracy. It argues that, for localism to realise its democratic potential, new participatory spaces are required and the design of these spaces matters. Beyond structured participatory forums, local democracy also needs an active and vibrant public sphere that promotes multiple forms of democratic expression. This requires taking seriously the democratic contributions of local associations and social movements. Finally, the article argues that, to fulfil its democratic potential, localism needs to encourage greater democratic and political connectivity between participatory forums and the broader public sphere.     

Thick populism: democracy-enhancing popular participation

ABSTRACT

This article posits that some forms of popular participation offer important resources for democratic renewal. It develops a conceptual distinction between thin and thick varieties of populism. Thin populist movements mobilize popular support to replace elite leaders by undermining or corroding the deliberative and inclusionary principles of representative government. In contrast, thick populist movements seek to modify or alter the practices and conventions of representative government by offering democracy-enhancing and trust-building organizational forms and political practices. This distinction between thin and thick populism helps identify a swath of normative and practical common-ground occupied by populists and deliberative democratic reformers and innovators, who have also held deeply critical views of representative democracy. The article discusses four contemporary examples of democratic innovation (broadly understood) to illustrate how thick populism can take root in organizations, institutions, campaigns, and in the efforts of everyday citizens. Consideration is given to the lessons that contemporary forms of thick populism offer for advocates of participatory and deliberative democratic innovation.     

民主的两种批评者

在当代政治哲学中,人们主要从以下两个维度来定义民主：一种是以公共利益为基本导向的民主理论;另一种民主理论认为,在现代社会中,随着实质性的共同利益的消失和单一的群体性意志的不可能,民主不可能在以公共利益为基本导向的模式上建立起来,所以,它们认为＂多元＂和＂竞争＂才是民主的本质性特征。在这两种民主理论中,前者往往被认为是一种压迫性的、独裁性的民主理论;而后者则往往被认为有着重陷霍布斯状态的倾向。     

. . .and why there is no simple solution, but reasons for optimism

This article has three objectives. First, to apply the debate concerning deliberative or discursive democracy to the subject of social policy in order to renew and update the long-standing attempt to go beyond the paradigm of welfare-state capitalism. The 'crisis of universalism' is outlined and this is then explained in terms of the traditional welfare state's 'democratic deficit'. Second, to suggest that applying these debates reveals two paradoxes that bear implications not only for social policy but also for the entire project of discursive democracy. The first paradox refers to the need to combine proceduralist and pluralist theories of deliberative democracy, despite the ultimate irreconcilability of these philosophies. The second refers to the problem of social transition and the fact that democratisation and social equalisation require one other. The third objective is therefore to suggest that welfare traditionalists have nothing to fear from what are here called 'post-universalist' critiques.     

Studying democratic innovations: toward a problem-driven approach to case study research

ABSTRACT

Hajer and Wagenaar (2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xiv, 16) advanced a conception of policy analysis – “Deliberative Policy Analysis” – that “rests on three pillars: interpretation, practice and deliberation.” This form of policy analysis, they argued, supports “more direct, participatory forms of democracy” involving “democratic deliberation on concrete issues” (xv, 29). Since their writing, empirical research on such initiatives – “democratic innovations,” for short – has blossomed. However, while deliberative policy analysis is itself post-positivist in orientation, many researchers bring a (quasi-) positivist orientation to their work on democratic innovations. A key challenge for deliberative policy analysts is, then, how to participate in this field of inquiry while maintaining a post-positivist orientation. Pragmatist philosophy, I submit, can help them to meet this challenge. Pragmatism rejects a number of positivist assumptions about the nature of empirical inquiry. Relatedly, it supports the claim that policy analysis should be interpretive, practice-oriented, and deliberative. Indeed, it suggests that policy analysis cannot avoid being so. By way of illustration, I indicate how pragmatism points to an approach to case study research that rests on the three pillars.     

Deliberative policy-making and its limitations: the case of the Charter of Human Rights for Seoul Citizens in South Korea

Recent criticism of representative liberal democracy has spurred democratic experiments involving citizen consultations in deliberative forums. However, more research is needed in order to understand the conditions necessary to make them work. The aim of this paper is to help mitigate this deficiency and at the same time contribute to an informed reflection over the specific conditions for deliberative democracy in Korea. The study focuses on a unique deliberative process organized in order to establish a Charter of Human Rights for Seoul Citizens. Several lessons from this democratic experiment are discussed. While the process worked surprisingly well, its legitimacy was questioned because of controversies over the representativeness of participants and the involvement of external stakeholders. Although a complete consensus was not reached, initially disrespectful attitudes changed within the process to a situation where diverging positions were better acknowledged. How ideas of deliberation can be implemented in real-world public policy-making is discussed based on these findings.     

从陶片放逐法到苏格拉底的审判--雅典民主制理念的历史嬗变

雅典民主制中的放逐制度即陶片放逐法，通常被看作是平民与精英之间对立关系的表现；而苏格拉底的审判更是这种对立关系在事实上的体现。然而，从陶片放逐法的内容与影响来看却并非如此，它通过象征性的作用将上述张力具象化，以此作为对政治领袖与精英的内在约束，实现了内在张力的缓解与平衡。当这种内在约束失去效力时，不仅民主制的理念产生了嬗变，而且进一步使得张力恶化为对立，在历史上造成了苏格拉底之死的事实。反过来，陶片放逐法与苏格拉底的哲学活动实际上都是对民主制理念的维护而非破坏，平民与精英的差异理应得到尊重，这才是正义与善得以实现的基础。