何谓政治参与——四种当代民主理论的政治参与观比较

政治参与概念取决于民主概念,不同的民主理论有不同的政治参与观.20世纪以来,在反思古典民主理想和现代民主现实差距的基础上,西方学术界先后形成了精英民主理论、多元民主理论、参与民主理论和协商民主理论等四种当代民主理论流派.由于各自的理论视角、价值取向和对公民特征认识的不同,这四种民主理论的政治参与观也存在明显差异,其所赞成和支持的公民政治参与行为分别是参与投票、影响决策、参与决策和政治讨论.四种政治参与观逐步转变的过程既是对西方社会20世纪以来所面临的不同现实问题的理论回应,也在某种程度上契合了公民政治参与的发展历程.     

施韦卡特的经济民主社会主义模式评析

施韦卡特提出了以劳动者管理型企业模式为微观经济组织的经济民主社会主义模式设计,这一模式以工人民主管理、投资的社会化控制以及按劳分配为基本原则,旨在提高劳动者的民主地位,实现公平与效率兼顾,促进社会和谐。后继制度理论是他用来说明向新社会过渡的方案。施韦卡特的学术思想对促进西方马克思主义经济学的发展具有积极意义,也为我们提高了有益的启示。     

全过程人民民主对西方民主的超越与发展北大核心

党的十八大以来,以习近平同志为核心的党中央持续深化对民主政治发展规律的认识,提出了全过程人民民主的重大理念,回答了“民主之问”,廊清了“民主迷思”。从中西比较的视角看,全过程人民民主在民主价值与民主标准、民主方式与民主本质、民主体制与民主功能等六个具象维度上,在民主逻辑运行、民主发展空间等两个抽象维度上实现了对西方民主的超越与发展,推动中国特色社会主义民主理论和实践实现了历史性飞跃。     

马克思主义民主政治理论的现代实践——谈人民政协理论

人民政协是中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商的重要机构,是我国政治生活中发扬社会主义民主的一种重要形式。人民政协理论是对人民政协产生、发展条件及其规律性以及人民政协的性质、地位、职能、主题、工作原则等基本问题的系统而科学的阐释。人民政协理论在权力监督、政治民主向社会民主的回归两个方面继承和发展了马克思主义民主政治理论。     

习近平全过程人民民主理念的守正创新

全过程人民民主理念在深化对民主政治发展规律的认识中提出，是对中国共产党领导人民追求民主、发展民主、实现民主历史经验的理论升华，是中华优秀传统政治文化的创造性转化和创新性发展；全过程人民民主理念赋予人民当家作主以新的时代内涵，丰富和发展了社会主义民主制度建设思想，揭示了社会主义民主的实践特点，是中国共产党社会主义民主理论的守正创新；全过程人民民主理念为中国式民主的发展提供了根本遵循。     

论民主的技术

民主既是一个原则问题、价值问题 ,同时也是一个技术问题。在发展政治民主的重要性和必要性的问题解决之后 ,民主的技术问题就是一个急需解决的问题。在政治发展史上 ,人类很早就有从技术层面来解决民主问题的尝试。这些尝试为我们发展社会主义民主政治提供了有益的经验。在我们现在的政治实践中 ,由于民主技术供给的不足而对民主政治的影响应该引起我们的重视 ,因而 ,重视技术发展应该成为民主政治建设的重要组成部分。     

全过程人民民主的理论创新探析

中国与西方在民主问题上的话语之争、理念之辩和国情之异，是全过程人民民主理论创新的现实背景。这一理论的核心要义是正确处理投票与参与、过程与成果、规范与执行、人民与国家四对关系，规避选票崇拜、党派掣肘、漫天许诺等西方民主弊病。在中国共产党的领导下，人民群众通过有机衔接的制度程序实现形式丰富的参与实践，是这一理论的推进框架。全过程人民民主理论破解了西式民主的话语垄断，推动了马克思主义基本原理与中华民族优秀政治文化的结合，强化了中国特色社会主义民主政治的顶层设计，为人类民主事业发展贡献了中国智慧。     

浅析大学生参与学校民主管理的理论及实现途径

大学生参与学校民主管理是新时期高校"以学生为中心"理念贯彻实施的重要举措。分析了大学生参与学校民主管理的内涵、前提条件、适应范围等理论机理,指出了目前国内外大学生参与高校民主管理现状及一般做法,并提出了极具针对性与可操作性的大学生参与学校民主管理的实现途径。     

民主一般理论成果与民主社会样态不等性及意义

学术视野中的民主是民主理论形态和民主社会样态的统一.实现二者的整体性统一,是构建民主社会样态的最高价值追求.而客观现实是,民主一般理论成果应用于不同国家的民主实践,却呈现出各不相同的民主社会样态.即使在同一个国家,民主一般理论成果或新产生的民主理论与民主社会样态之间,也有时间上的间隔、空间上的错位、民主社会样态的不完善性.民主一般理论成果与民主社会样态之间存在不等性.这种不等性证实:(1)具有普遍意义的民主理论没有决定和选择民主社会样态的功能.(2)民主社会样态归根结底是由一个国家的国情决定的,是本国人民自己的选择.二者的等同性是相对的,不等性是必然的、绝对的,并始终存在于构建民主社会样态的全过程中.这是民主一般理论成果在社会领域应用中所产生的误差,这种误差由于人在其中的作用,是社会发展客观性所允许的.与自然科学成果的应用相比较,这是理论应用中产生的特殊情景.民主一般理论成果与民主社会样态不等性的揭示,深化了对社会民主政治建设规律性的认识,有其重要的理论应用意义.     

当代精英民主理论对经典民主理论的挑战

精英民主理论是当代西方民主理论中的一个主要流派,它的产生有其历史背景和理论渊源。韦伯、熊彼特等精英民主理论家依据实证主义分析方法,批判了经典民主理论关于“公益”和“人民意志”的假说以及理想主义的民主概念,提出了民主是一套制度化的程序和人民选择统治者的方法,也是政治家竞取领导权的过程。虽然精英民主理论也遭受了许多批评和责难,但由于它能提供分析上的准确性和经验上的参照物,因而其根基至今未受动摇     

网络民主热的冷思考

网络民主热潮的背后,折射出了现实政治的诸多困境.它的“一枝独秀”很大程度上缘于现实参与渠道的不畅通、多元民主力量的缺失以及代议机构功能不足等,它的有效治理取决于现实政治的容纳和对接,有赖于多元民主力量的壮大,以及各种民主形式之间的优势互补.     

两络问政：本质、意义及实现途径

网络问政本质上是公众通过网络表达诉求、实现参政议政的新型民主形式。建立和发展网络问政制度，对于提高信息化条件下党的执政能力、创建人民满意的的服务型政府、构建社会主义和谐社会具有重要战略意义。网络问政现象流行警示我们既有的人民群众利益表达和聚合机制功能发挥不足或严重弱化，必须进一步通过深化政治民主体制、社会管理体制改革，切实创造条件让人民安全地批评和监督政府。网络问政要取得实效必须与现有的政治制度、法律制度、政治组织形式运作紧密结合起来。     

历史唯物主义重建之下的民主观念

伍德把民主视为超越资本主义的一种力量。她虽然肯定在资本主义条件下,政治民主有所发展,但更为根本的是,经济并不是民主的,而是充满压迫与强制的。因此,民主的发展,必然要超出资本主义社会。为此,她对历史唯物主义的一些基本范畴进行了重新思考,包括经济"基础"与上层建筑的关系。她不同意把经济与政治视为截然分离的两个领域,而是把资本主义社会所特有的这种分离视为资本主义本身政治功能的分化。伍德的民主理论,是力图从马克思主义视角来回应当代资本主义的民主理论,与所谓的后马克思主义有着重大的差别。     

From partisan to pluralist ideology: the changing practices of democracy through Spain’s 20th-century constitutional moments

This article explores the practices of democracy in Spain through the lens of its 20th-century constitutional moments, namely, those around the 1931 and the 1978 constitutions, with the aim of elucidating its changing ideological significance. Whereas in 1931, supporting democracy had a strongly partisan meaning, as every endorsement of the democratic ideal entailed a conflicting understanding of the Republic’s democratic character, in 1978 it gave rise to an integrative form of pluralism. Even if the former has left a deep imprint on Spanish politics, anticipating a kind of seemingly irreconcilable opposition between left and right, the latter has proved instrumental in the consolidation of the new democratic regime. After the institutional distortion of democracy during the four-decade dictatorship’s ‘organic democracy’, since 1977 the ideal of democracy was thoroughly recast into a pluralist ideology. Unlike views describing it as a consensual regime, the article argues that the politics of consensus tested since the 1977 constitutional debates paved the way for the accommodation of democratic pluralism; furthermore, the culture of pacts it contributed to set up has continued to inspire a new form of adversarial, parliamentary politics well beyond the transition years.     

Populism as a Spectre of Democracy: A Response to Canovan

The literature on populism used to depict the phenomenon as an alternative to the standard path from traditional to modern society; as a way to enfranchise the underclass; or as an anomaly vis-à-vis class politics and liberal institutions. More recently, the debate has shifted into something of a terra incognita as a result of the growing interest in the connection between populism and democratic politics. One of the more intriguing contributions to this debate is an article by Margaret Canovan, if only because it makes this unknown territory less confusing. Her argument draws from Michael Oakeshott's claim that political modernity is characterised by the interplay of two distinct styles – the politics of faith and the politics of scepticism . She renames them the redemptive and pragmatic faces of democracy and suggests that populism arises in the gap between them. This establishes a relation of interiority between populism and democracy. The former will follow democracy like a shadow. At times, however, the theoretical status of the gap is somewhat uncertain, as it seems more appropriate for thinking politics (particularly radical politics) in general. The political valence of the shadow could also be specified further to show the undecidability between the democratic aspect of the phenomenon and its possible ominous tones. This paper looks into this in some detail to engage in a friendly interrogation of Canovan's claims.     

Accelerating down a Road to Nowhere: On Inventing the Future by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams

In Inventing the Future, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams implore those on the left not to fear automation but rather to harness it in order to overturn neoliberalism. However, their argument is built upon a controversial philosophy which goes unnamed in the body of the text: accelerationism, the first principles of which would overthrow the very understanding of human nature on which Western democracy has operated for centuries. Their vision also entails a way of doing politics and designing policy which radically differs from representative democracy and grassroots movements as they seek to engineer consent and to form a revolutionary vanguard—not just to overthrow capitalism, but to embark on a journey of continually re-engineering humanity itself.     

The Politics of the British Environment since 1945

This article examines, first, how environmental concerns have shaped British politics since 1945, making the environment an object of governance; and second, how political developments have an environmental history, focussing on the environmental demands of social democracy. It contends that environmentalism should be considered alongside other political ideologies, such as socialism and feminism, as helping to constitute the modern British state and the evolving relationship between government and the citizen. It considers how the management of the terrestrial environment became a hotly contested matter in the postwar decades, drawing a distinction between the politics of ‘landscape preservation’ and ‘nature conservation’. This discussion is related to access politics and questions of rural governance and regulation, particularly with respect to the agricultural sector. The article concludes with a discussion of some current environmental concerns, reflecting on the possible transition from today's ‘carbon democracy’ to tomorrow's ‘renewable democracy’.     

Long-term Changes in Danish Party Politics: The Rise and Importance of Issue Competition

In Denmark and Norway, major research programmes known as the 'power and democracy studies' have evaluated the functioning of the political systems and democracy in general, highlighting numerous changes in both Danish and Norwegian politics over recent decades. However, despite the broad range of studies that characterize both programmes, it is striking how little attention has been paid to changes in party politics and party competition. This article, which focuses on Danish politics, argues that attention to the development of party competition would have been warranted for two reasons. First, party competition has undergone a transformation from class to issue competition. Political parties increasingly focus their efforts on influencing the content of the political agenda rather than positioning themselves with regard to a limited number of issues deriving from their class bases. Second, this transformation arguably explains some of the findings of the power and democracy studies, especially concerning political decision making.     

论中国语境下协商民主的功能与空间——基于工资集体协商的温岭“实验场景”

社会主义民主已被确立为中国政治文明建设的发展方向。在我国社会经济体制不断变迁和社会结构多元分化的情况下，选择何种理想的民主化模式，并在中国政治发展不主张政治多元化的背景下，建立一种具有可持续性的长效机制，促进社会和谐发展，成为当前社会主义民主政治建设的一个关键性问题。协商民主的引介和发展，为扩大公民有序化参与，化解各种社会矛盾，维护社会的和谐稳定作了一些有益的探索。本文以浙江温岭围绕行业工资协商开展的一系列创造性实践为例，就协商民主在当代中国所发挥的功能与发展空间问题进行了初步性探究。     

Is Liberal Democracy Sliding into ‘Democratic Despotism’?

Post‐democracy and cognate concepts suggest that the postwar period of democratisation has given way to a concentration of power in the hands of small groups that are unrepresentative and unaccountable, as exemplified by the rise of multinational corporations and their influence on democratic politics. This article goes further to argue that this does not fully capture the triple threat facing liberal democracy: first, the rise of a new oligarchy that strengthens executive power at the expense of parliament and people; second, the resurgence of populism and demagogy linked to a backlash against technocratic rule and procedural politics; third, the emergence of anarchy associated with the atomisation of society and a weakening of social ties and civic bonds. In consequence, liberal democracy risks sliding into a form of ‘democratic despotism’ that maintains the illusion of free choice while instilling a sense of ‘voluntary servitude’ as conceptualised by Tocqueville.