Habermas on Democracy and Justice. Limits of a Sound Conception

Abstract . The author outlines limitations of the explanation capacity of Habermas's Discourse Philosophy, because of its problematic presuppositions. The main topics discussed are: (i) the legitimacy of legal systems; (ii) Habermas's concept of democracy; (iii) his theory of justice. Legitimacy cannot be based only on discourse processes, but it has to be defined by international law. Discourses in society are essential for democratic systems, but the discourses by themselves do not guarantee the optimal result as discourses may be disturbed by deceptive propaganda, by prejudices or by wrong political slogans. It is not convincing that discourse procedures guarantee impartiality and justice nor that in discourses better arguments always prevail.     

论宪法之代议制度原则

从分析宪法原理和各国民主政治制度的实践出发 ,指出代议制度应是宪法的基本原则 ,因为人民主权原则只是解决了主权的归属问题 ,并未说明民主的实现方式。在当代各国 ,基本采用代议(代表 )制的形式来实现民主 ,并且以不同的形式体现在宪法之中 ,政治体制的确立、国家机构的组成同代议 (代表 )制度原则密切联系。依据历史进程 ,对代议制度原则的内涵进行了深入的分析。各国宪法对代议制度的体现方式是各异的 ,这是由各国的国情所决定的 ,在此基础上 ,对代议制度原则进行了深入的评析     

The Idea of Deliberative Democracy. A Critical Appraisal

The deliberative conception of politics seems to be necessary for the legitimation of state power through democratic will-formation and decision-making. However, the author maintains that a complex theory of democracy cannot merely consist in procedural prerequisites for organizing the concomitant institutional settings. In particular, such a theory must comprise some substantive presuppositions, such as social and economic rights, in order to diminish existing material inequalities, especially those connected with social exploitation and domination. The author argues that a contemporary theory of democracy should reflect on the autonomization of mechanisms of egoistic action challenging not only the democratic political order, but also the very reproduction preconditions of societies all over the world. In this perspective, the model of associative democracy, which is suggested nowadays as a sort of substantive correlative to the institutional proceduralism, could not significantly rejuvenate the traditional representative democracy. Instead, democracy could only be given a fresh impulse if democratic deliberation penetrates the currently forbidden field of capitalist production and social exploitation, the locus where social inequality and effective unfreedom are endlessly reproduced.     

Reflections on Habermas on Democracy

Jürgen Habermas is a radical democrat. The source of that self-designation is that his conception of democracy—what he calls “discursive democracy”—is founded on the ideal of “a self-organizing community of free and equal citizens,” coordinating their collective affairs through their common reason. The author discusses three large challenges to this radical-democratic ideal of collective self-regulation: 1) What is the role of private autonomy in a radical-democratic view? 2) What role does reason play in collective self-regulation? 3) What relevance might a radical-democratic outlook have for contemporary democracies? The author addresses these questions by considering Habermas' answers, and then presenting alternative responses to them. The alternatives are also radical-democratic in inspiration, but they draw on a richer set of normative-political ideas than Habermas wants to rely on, and are more ambitious in their hopes for democratic practice.     

Direct democracy and bioethical choices: voting life and death at the ballot box

Direct democracy, the political process that enables citizens to draft, circulate, and enact laws, has become the refuge for grassroots organizations seeking statutory validation in a legislative arena perceived to be unresponsive or unfriendly to their concerns. One group of citizens, advocates for physician-aid-in-dying, has recently emerged on the national scene, sponsoring state ballot initiatives in three states and pledging to continue their quest for legalization of physician-assisted death throughout the country. In this Article, Professor Daar examines the interplay between direct democracy and regulation of end-of-life decision making. This examination reveals that lawmaking of physician-aid-in-dying, is no less susceptible to the ravages of political wrangling than is representative democracy. Professor Daar argues that direct democracy is best utilized as a spur to legislative action rather than as a replacement for the study and compromise unique to legislating through representative democracy. In addition, the author advocates recognition of a constitutionally protected liberty interest in choices surrounding death, thus providing a threshold level of protection to all citizens, not just those whose lawmakers or citizens are motivated to codify this fundamental right.     

理性的国家与自由的消解——张君劢宪政思想评析

在近代中国自由主义思潮中 ,张君劢试图以理性为基础 ,在权力主义与自由主义 ,计划经济与自由经济政策之间求得一立国之中道 ,但最终在国家、民族利益面前 ,倒向国家权力主义 ,而个人自由则在其“修正的民主政治”与“计划经济”之中面临着消解的危险。     

协商民主与农村基层民主自治制度创新——一种完善农村民主政治建设的有效路径

经过多年的实践，我国农村基层民主自治制度取得了一定程度上的进步，但是仍然存在许多问题。从政治学的角度来说，加强农村基层民主协商机制的建设是完善农村民主政治建设的有效途径，是对农村基层民主自治制度的一种创新，有利于发挥农村村民的积极性和创造性，提高农民的参政质量，增进村民和基层政府的互动，构建和谐的党政关系，从而有利于社会主义和谐农村的建设和完善。     

自由与民主:宪法诉讼的价值理念探幽

自由是宪法诉讼的核心价值 ,自由价值之中镌刻着深刻的民主价值思想。宪法诉讼的自由价值表现在 :1 矫正和修饰多数形成机制本身所存在的瑕疵 ,弥合宪法既定约束和现实多数之间的冲突 ,拓展宪法中关于自由范围和内容的规定 ;2 维护公民的“反向自由” ,防御政府的“正向侵犯” ;确认公民的“正向自由” ,救济立法缺位而引起的权利虚置 ,最终实现公民“反向自由”和“正向自由”的结合。宪法诉讼自由价值的民主性表现在如下层面 :1 宪法诉讼机制对自由价值的诉求和保障实现了民主的现代转型 ,即由古代的纯粹民主向现代的自由民主之转变 ;2 反向自由的宪法定位和正向自由的个案满足使民主和自由之间保持了持久的张力和不断的平衡 ,从而使自由主义民主具备了得以实现的现实基础。     

Legitimate Force in a Particularistic Democracy: Street Police and Outlaw Legislators in the Republic of China on Taiwan

This article explores a “particularistic” concept of legitimacy important to Taiwanese democracy. This form of legitimacy, I suggest, has been instrumental for Taiwan's successful democratic consolidation in the absence of the rule of law. As evidence, I combine ethnographic observation of neighborhood police work with historical consideration of a type of political figure emergent in the process of democratic reform, which I call the “outlaw legislator.” I focus my analysis on the institutional and ideological processes articulating local policing into the wider political field. The center of these processes is a mode of popular representation that positions the outlaw legislator as a crucial hinge articulating the particularistic local order with central state powers. By analyzing the cultural content of the dramaturgical work used to reconcile low policing with higher‐level state operations, this article shows how a particularistic idiom of legitimacy helps hold Taiwanese democracy together.     

自由主义宪政观评析——兼论宪政的核心价值

上世纪90年代中期之后,自由主义宪政观理论被大量介绍进中国,为相当部分学者接受。自由主义宪政观否定宪政的核心价值是民主,主张宪政的核心价值是国家权力的有限性,是保护个人自由。他们所说的个人自由的核心权域是私有财产自由,他们所说的国家权力有限性实质是以私有财产制度为基础的经济活动自治性,自由民主政体也不是所谓共和政体而具有鲜明利益色彩,当代自由主义者将个人自由的制度保障寄托于给司法注入政治功能。我们坚持民主是宪政的核心价值,实质就是要坚持大多数人民的利益至上,规范、限制国家权力只能主要依靠民主进行,违宪审查也只能在民主制度的大框架内运作。     

The Subjects of Collectively Binding Decisions: Democratic Inclusion and Extraterritorial Law

Citizenship and residency are basic conditions for political inclusion in a democracy. However, if democracy is premised on the inclusion of everyone subject to collectively binding decisions, the relevance of either citizenship or residency for recognition as a member of the polity is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to specify the conditions for being subject to collective decisions in the sense relevant to democratic theory. Three conceptions of what it means to be subject to collectively binding decisions are identified and examined, referring to those subject to legal duties and legal powers or to those subject to legal duties and state institutions. The contrast between them is most clearly illustrated in relation to non‐residents, those not present in the territory of the state. The extraterritorial dimension of the law thus highlights a fundamental ambiguity in the theory of democracy concerning the extension of political rights.     

Promoting Whole-Process People’s Democracy Following the Rule of Law

Whole-process people’s democracy profoundly reflects the features of socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics, and comprehensively and systematically reveals the concept of people’s democracy as providing important mechanisms of national and social governance. Based on the traditional democratic understanding of democracy as majority rule, whole-process people’s democracy emphasizes the universality and extensive range of democratic governance, but also has the natural value defects of democratic value itself. Therefore, we must organically combine democracy with the values of the rule of law and human rights, to build a well-defined governance order based on people’s democratic value. The whole process in the “whole-process people’s democracy” has really resolved the situation of people’s “absence” from many links of state power operation caused by over-emphasizing the election-democracy in the Western capitalist democratic system. Through the people’s extensive participation and effective supervision, the state power operation mechanism based on the fundamental political system, the people’s congress system, has been ensured to be always in the framework of people’s democratic governance. This effectively realizes the people’s sovereignty and is consistent with the declaration that “all power in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) belongs to the people,” stipulated in the Constitution of China. To improve the governance efficiency of whole-process people’s democracy in practice, we must bring it onto the rule of law, and use the rule of law philosophy and methods to reasonably and effectively resolve all kinds of theoretical and practical problems.     

The State of Freedom in Europe

The reaction to 11 September damaged the liberty of those living in Europe who found themselves targeted as suspect terrorists while seeming to do little to ensure the security of the wider community. More recently a second emergency, rooted this time in the financial and economic collapse of 2008 onwards, has caused a further unravelling of Europe's constitutional project, even threatening the gains of past generations of European idealists. In today's Europe universal liberty and security have no meaning for many even if their shape is retained in structures that in truth mock rather than deliver democracy and human rights. This article traces the origins of the crises that have afflicted so directly the breadth of liberty and human security in the Union, demonstrating their roots in ‘viruses’ that have been present from the start of the European movement but which have now spiralled out of control. The essay ends by asking what can be done to prevent the full decline of the region into a state of neo‐democratic/post‐democratic unfreedom, one in which capital unbound from democracy thrives at the expense of the people.     

陶行知治校实践中的民主与法治思想论略

为培养学生参与未来民主政治的能力,陶行知强调学校要实行民主管理.同时,陶行知也认为,学校管理中的民主与法治是不可分的.在育才学校的创办和治理实践中,陶行知从保障学校成员的权利和立法、行政、司法相制衡的角度考虑学校中管理机构、权力分配和工作程序的设计,体现了民主与法治相结合的原则.陶行知的这种治校的民主与法治思想对于当前我国提倡的依法治校实践具有多方面的启示.     

Stuntman for the State: Loughlin's Idea of Public Law

Abstract. This paper provides a critical analysis of Martin Loughlin's pure theory of public law as developed in his more recent work. I argue that the pure theory makes a series of errors and rests on a set of assumptions that make it inappropriate to provide the legal framework for any social‐democratic polity. Specifically, the theory concedes too much latitude to the functional needs of the state and organised politics, and pays too little deference to processes of political opinion and will formation in civil society. As such, it only succeeds in establishing law's connection to the public realm, at the cost of effacing its internal relationship to the rule of law and democracy.     

论我国宪政模式的走向

自由民主宪政是自由原则与民主原则的复合结构 ,根源于自由宪政与民主宪政两种不同的宪政传统。巴黎公社创建了以生产资料公有制为基础的社会主义民主宪政理论模型和实践传统 ,认为宪政的实质是保障民主。迈向自由民主的社会主义中国宪政既是对传统马克思主义宪政理论的继承 ,也是这一宪政传统在新的社会形势下继续完善与发展。该宪政模式在价值上兼顾自由、民主与平等 ,反映在制度上 ,就是除继续健全人民代表大会制度以外 ,尚需加强中立机构的建设 ,并注重公民社会权利的保障 ,以实现社会主义平等价值。     

从公民参与看东亚民主转型

西方演进型民主的发展历史,昭示出自下而上的力量在通往民主的道路上扮演了不可或缺的角色。这种力量表现在民主运动中便是公民以不同形式对民主政治的参与。东亚国家和地区在民主转型过程中同样体现了这样一种趋势。民主参与不仅是一种政治活动,还是公民的基本权利,即参政权。转型社会的参与类型较为复杂,主要包括制度性参与、合法的非制度性参与和非法的参与。在权威政体松动、开始推行民主化之后,公民会逐渐远离非法的制度外参与。     

法治与人性尊严——从实践到理论的反思

作为现代民主宪政社会不可或缺的生活形态,法治的意义及其核心价值,不论在具体法律实践或抽象理论阐述上,却依然存在着极大争议。"大法官会议"以人性尊严为本的法治观点,毋宁是一种"自由民主宪政秩序"的法治观点。无论是形式合法性或民主程序的法治要件,均无法在法治的具体实践上,保证执政者或立法者不会借助法治的形式要件,来追求满足其政治野心或个人私欲的不正当目的。法治理想的追求,应当着重法律实质内容的道德论证质量。就人性尊严的内涵来说,德沃金提出的两项人性尊严原则,内在价值原则与个人责任原则,确实是值得我们反思借镜的理论资源;特别是,他对人的内在价值的诠释,亦即人具有由自然与人类共同创造的神圣、不可侵犯的客观价值,适足以填补大法官人性尊严观的论述盲点。     

Constitutional democracy and the legitimacy of judicial review

It has long been argued that the institution of judicial review is incompatible with democratic institutions. This criticism usually relies on a procedural conception of democracy, according to which democracy is essentially a form of government defined by equal political rights and majority rule. I argue that if we see democracy not just as a form of government, but more basically as a form of sovereignty, then there is a way to conceive of judicial review as a legitimate democratic institution. The conception of democracy that stems from the social contract tradition of Locke, Rousseau, Kant and Rawls, is based in an ideal of the equality, independence, and original political jurisdiction of all citizens. Certain equal basic rights, in addition to equal political rights, are a part of democratic sovereignty. In exercising their constituent power at the level of constitutional choice, free and equal persons could choose judicial review as one of the constitutional mechanisms for protecting their equal basic rights. As such, judicial review can be seen as a kind of shared precommitment by sovereign citizens to maintaining their equal status in the exercise of their political rights in ordinary legislative procedures. I discuss the conditions under which judicial review is appropriate in a constitutional democracy. This argument is contrasted with Hamilton's traditional argument for judicial review, based in separation of powers and the nature of judicial authority. I conclude with some remarks on the consequences for constitutional interpretation.I am indebted to John Rawls and Burton Dreben for their helpful advice and their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

The Legal Dimensions of Whole-Process People’s Democracy

The concept of whole-process people’s democracy can be analyzed in terms of four the rule of law dimensions: continuous democracy, authentic democracy, extensive democracy and consultative democracy. Continuous democracy means that democracy provides a continuous and uninterrupted mechanism in terms of stage, time and space, which can ensure the continuous participation of the people in the management of state and social affairs. Authentic democracy is not only embodied creation of opportunities and conditions for the people to have more channels and methods of participation in the management of state and social affairs, but is also reflected in the process of democratic practice, including the protection of legitimate rights and interests of the minority. Extensive democracy means that the people are fully and deeply involved in the management of state and social affairs as well as their own affairs, from the operation of the state system to social life at the community level, and from pre-election to post-election. Consultative democracy is a means of realizing people’s democracy in the whole process. It applies consultation and seeks truth, aiming at building consensus. Moreover, it integrates various channels of consultation, and integrates democracy into all aspects of the work of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and government and in all aspects of the people’s political and social life.