中国在东南亚影响力的民意调查分析

西方国家常以其透明和活泼的民主政治体制为傲,并不遗余力地在海外培植民主政权。这就会产生一个问题,即与西方政治体制不同的中国在国际舞台上崛起时,应该如何在东南亚国家树立自己的良好形象,并赢得这一经济上相对落后、政治上相对复杂地区人们的好评甚至有力的支持。本文旨在观察东南亚不同国家的民众对中国影响力的看法,并以此推断"一带一路"倡议在东南亚国家面临的机遇和挑战。笔者运用统计模型对2014年"亚洲晴雨表"数据进行分析后发现,高速发展的经济仍然是中国在东南亚国家赢得民众支持的关键所在;其次,东南亚国家民众对中国政治体制的认同程度也会左右他们对中国国际影响力的认识。     

印尼民主转型和民主化软着陆

本文讨论1998年以来印尼民主转型的进程,分析了民主化的成果以及为此而付出的代价.文章接着考察了印尼民主化过程中出现的对强人权威政权的怀念,对大选结果中反映出来的强人政治回归的现象进行了分析.最后,作者对印尼能否突破"民主--专制--再民主--再专制"的怪圈,实现民主化的软着陆提出了自己的见解.     

菲律宾与印度尼西亚民主转型原因之异同——对《第三波》转型原因观点的验证

第三波民主化浪潮已进入民主巩固阶段,对过去转型的分析有助于对现阶段民主巩固问题的理解.地处东南亚地区的菲律宾与印度尼西亚提供了可资比较的民主转型经验,以亨廷顿<第三波--20世纪后期民主化浪潮>中关于民主转型原因--威权政体政绩与合法性下降、经济发展水平提高、宗教变化、外部因素直接影响和示范效应等五个因素分析为基础,菲律宾与印度尼西亚的比较可以得出结论:威权政体政绩与合法性下降这一因素可能是第三波民主化转型的普遍原因,而经济发展水平提高、宗教变化、外部因素直接影响和示范效应等四个因素可能只是适用范围较小的民主转型原因.     

韩国的地方选举和民主巩固

民主巩固理论是用来解释第三波民主化浪潮中,部分新型民主国家民主制度的倒退或进一步深化发展的重要理论框架,其有广义和狭义之分。从狭义的角度看,执政党和总统和平轮替的次数往往被看做民主巩固程度的重要指标;从广义角度看,地方自治和作为地方自治核心组成部分的地方选举的代表性和独立性程度被看做判断民主巩固与否的重要指标。韩国是第三波民主化浪潮以后民主发展比较成功的国家,本文试图以地方选举的独立性和代表性程度来判断韩国的民主巩固程度。     

泰国政治发展的社会学分析--结构变化、精英选择与政治发展

1932年以来,泰国社会结构的变化为人们理解其政治发展提供了一个很好的线索.长时间的以小农主导地位、以保护人-被保护人关系为主要特征的社会结构为泰国军人统治提供了基础.而工商集团的逐渐崛起及其对权利和政治参与的要求,消解了军人专制统治的基础,加大了军人统治的成本,推动着军人统治逐渐放松对社会的控制,成为泰国民主政治发展的一个重要动力.而泰国精英对民主价值的选择和坚定追求则成为泰国社会结构变化推动民主政治发展的转换枢纽,直接推动了泰国民主政治的发展.     

俄共(布)党内民主问题的历史考察

一、在夺取政权的斗争中只能实行集中制 在谈到党内民主问题时,通常都把民主与集中作为一对矛盾。实际上,民主与集中各有其对立面:民主的对立面是专制,集中的对立面则是分散,然而这两对矛盾又是密切相连的。 在俄国社会民主党第二次代表大会前后,针对党内的分散的小组习气,针对俄国处于沙皇专制暴力统治之下,列宁主张建立一个以职业革命家为核心的无产阶级政党,在党内实行由铁     

影响中东国家转型的内在因素

突尼斯事件之后，中东国家爆发了一系列的示威和冲突，民众要求进行政治、经济等全方位的改革，从而形成了新一轮民主化浪潮。然而，在原有矛盾尚未解决的情况下，新矛盾的产生加剧了中东国家的动荡。要平息目前的混乱状态，实现中东国家的转型是一个重要途径。但是，中东国家的转型是一个复杂的工程，单靠民主化无法完成，因为这涉及到人口、就业...     

民粹政治与东南亚政治精英的分化和合流

近年来,东南亚地区涌现出诸多构建“民众—精英”对立话语、塑造领袖魅力、实施跨阶层政治动员以竞争权力与资源的民粹政治现象,但是不同民粹政治进程中民粹领袖与传统精英的互动却呈现出分化合流的显著差异。探讨民粹政治中的精英政治问题是有效的切入点。民粹领袖尝试构建政治纲领、汇集民意穿透精英政治壁垒,但是由地主、资产阶级、宗教领袖以及军官团等构成的东南亚传统精英依托土地、资本、宗教权威、强制力量等要素,占据着政治权力与利益分配机制的核心位置,限制了精英分化合流的互动过程。因而,政治方略决定了民粹领袖能否实现对精英的“挟制”:再分配与制度变革取向的革新政治将会引发传统精英反制与精英分化;改良政治以利益相容与权力制衡的形式“挟制”传统精英,以合作与妥协两种方式实现精英合流。精英分化合流的现实意味着东南亚国家追求制度改革的民粹主义浪潮不仅难以打破既有政治经济秩序,而且可能陷入“精英合流”与“精英反对精英”的轮回。     

亚洲女政治领袖研究:研究范式与分析工具

亚洲女政治领袖现象不仅出现时间早,而且人数众多。在男性占据主导地位的亚洲父权社会,为什么女性能掌握最高权力?她们掌权后面临什么问题?与男领袖有何不同?国外学者对这些议题已进行深入探讨,并形成了基本的研究范式。本文对国外学界有关亚洲政治女领袖研究进行学术回顾,总结其研究范式和分析工具,并指出其存在的问题和今后研究努力的方向。     

美国陪审团废止权的历史演变——民主与现代化的矛盾

本文探讨的是美国陪审团废止权的历史演变.文章首先追溯废止权的英国起源和它在英属北美殖民地及美国建国初期的发展,然后阐述废止权在19世纪的逐渐式微和它在当代进退维谷的境地.文章认为,废止权是陪审团作为人民的直接代表能否真正参与司法的关键所在,是司法民主的重要体现,但是随着政治民主化、司法专业化和社会多元化带来的挑战,陪审团废止权弱化了,这在一定程度上是适应现代化的结果.不过,废止权在制约政府权力、纠正不当立法、反映民众心声和保证公正判决等方面所起的作用,仍然是现代美国社会的需要.如何处理好民主与现代化的关系,使民主不会因为现代化而牺牲,是美国人民长期以来所要面对的一个重要问题.     

NGO与东南亚政治社会转型

自20世纪80年代开始,NGO(非政府组织)在东南亚出现快速增长趋势.数量众多的NGO通过在扶贫开发、环境保护、女性、社会保障、人权、医疗卫生等领域的积极活动,提高和扩大了自身的社会地位和政治影响,成为促进东南亚多元社会形成,推动经济、社会和环境的全面协调发展和民主化进程的一支新生力量.     

Political Finance Regimes in Southeast Asia: Introduction

ABSTRACT

The three articles in this themed collection investigate the interplay between political finance regimes and the quality of democracy in Southeast Asia. Andreas Ufen's piece on political finance in Malaysia and Singapore argues that the semi-authoritarian regimes in both states have blocked the reform of campaign and party funding regulations in order to keep their opposition in check. The article on Indonesia, authored by Marcus Mietzner, showcases the country's dysfunctional political finance system as a major hurdle toward further democratization. In their contribution on Thailand, Napisa Waitoolkiat and Paul Chambers show that weak political finance regulations have contributed significantly to the shallowness of Thai parties. Overall, the collection demonstrates that without meaningful political finance reforms, Southeast Asia's democratic stagnation is likely to persist for many years to come.     

Great powers,civil society and authoritarian diffusion in Central Asia

ABSTRACT

This article draws on the authoritarian promotion literature to assess contending pressures for democratization and authoritarianism in Central Asia. Domestic actors ultimately determine receptivity to democracy promotion, but external pressures for democratic transformation or authoritarian persistence exist in Central Asia. A brief overview of authoritarian trends in Central Asia is followed by the theoretical arguments for authoritarian persistence, with special attention to the civil society dimension in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Western programmes supporting liberal democracy and civil society have encountered resistance from authoritarian leaders in Central Asia, though the evidence for direct influence from authoritarian external actors is limited. A process of indirect authoritarian diffusion, in combination with the region’s illiberal societies and Western democracy promotion fatigue, undermines the development of civil society and makes authoritarian persistence in Central Asia likely.     

民主在东南亚的前提条件和发展趋势

20世纪50、60年代民主政体在东南亚国家的实行均以流产而告终,威权主义代替民主政体对东南亚国家的稳定和发展起到了巨大的作用.本文认为"民主"之树移植容易,但是开花结果却需要许多前提条件.本文从经济、文化和社会基础三个角度分析东南亚国家实行"民主"所需的相应条件.并对"民主"在东南亚的发展趋势作了简短预测.     

The prospects for democratization in Southeast Asia: Local perspectives and international roles

Southeast Asia’s recent rapid economic development and the continuing growth of the middle class have both encouraged expectations about the inevitability of democratic political development. These expectations follow from considerable theorizing in the United States and Europe, but they may not be well-based on Southeast Asian political, economic, social, or cultural realities. There are serious democratic forces in Southeast Asia, but in most cases they are in a delicate balance with state, business, and class interests which may have only limited tolerance for democratic growth. Moreover, serious and persistent patterns of unequal economic development raise questions about the scope of any political democratization. Finally, the complexity of democratization issues in Southeast Asia means that outsiders, notably aid donors and foundations, must be very careful not to set back democratic development in Southeast Asia through well-intended but ill-conceived intervention.     

Deliberative democracy and the politics of traditional leadership in South Africa: A case of despotic domination or democratic deliberation?

A heated debate developed in South Africa as to the meaning of ‘deliberative democracy’. This debate is fanned by the claims of ‘traditional leaders’ that their ways of village-level deliberation and consensus-oriented decision-making are not only a superior process for the African continent as it evolves from pre-colonial tradition, but that it represents a form of democracy that is more authentic than the Western version. Proponents suggest that traditional ways of deliberation are making a come-back because imported Western models of democracy that focus on the state and state institutions miss the fact that in African societies state institutions are often seen as illegitimate or simply absent from people's daily lives. In other words, traditional leadership structures are more appropriate to African contexts than their Western rivals. Critics suggest that traditional leaders, far from being authentic democrats, are power-hungry patriarchs and authoritarians attempting to both re-invent their political, social and economic power (frequently acquired under colonial and apartheid rule) and re-assert their control over local-level resources at the expense of the larger community. In this view, the concept of deliberative democracy is being misused as a legitimating device for a politics of patriarchy and hierarchy, which is the opposite of the meaning of the term in the European and US sense. This article attempts to contextualise this debate and show how the efforts by traditional leaders to capture an intermediary position between rural populations and the state is fraught with conflicts and contradictions when it comes to forming a democratic state and society in post-apartheid South Africa.     

The National Wages Council of Singapore: Issues for consideration

There are important regional dimensions to Australia's globalisation. This article focuses on Australia's developing relations with Southeast Asia and argues that the increasing interdependence between the two regions is weakening Australia's liberal democracy while at the same time highlighting the fundamental differences in legitimacy that exist between Australia and its Southeast Asian neighbours. In this context, this article considers important aspects of Australia's military and foreign relations with the region, the state's role in weakening civil society, and the emerging pattern of conflict with Southeast Asia.     

Post-War Japan and Asianism

In recent years there has been lively debate over the concept of an Asian community. Historically, however, an Asianism that espouses the notion of “Asia for the Asians” has been around for a long time. This article examines post-war Japan's return to Asia from the perspective of Asianism. The Asianism of post-war Japan was manifested in Japan's eagerness to advance into the vacuum created by the withdrawal of the Western European nations from Southeast Asia. However, this came up against Asia's own brand of Asianism, which emphasized independence first and foremost. It was the loss of its underpinnings by this latter brand of Asianism, as from 1970 onward, colonial rule and the political leaders who shouldered independence disappeared from the face of Southeast Asia, that lent impetus to Japan's advance into the region.