论西方国家政党法制

政党法制区别于政治学意义上所讨论的政党制度,它是立基于政党民主理念,对政党的宪法地位、政党的内部与外部活动进行宪法与法律上的分析与考量过程。本文将基于对西方主要国家政党法制的理论基础及政党性质的分析,对政党法制的立法包括形式法律规范与实质法律规范,及政党的司法审查等问题进行初步探讨,以期获取政党法制的立体与动态景观。一、政党法制的理论基础政党法制,是指政党受法律的规制,表现为以宪法与法律规范政党的内部行为与外部活动,并以司法审查政党行为合法性与合宪性的过程。政党法制的理论基础是政党民主,此前,有关政党活动…     

论政党民主与政党民主建设

政党民主是民主的价值、原则和精神在政党政治生活中的具体运用,主要包括政党的党内民主、执政民主、国内党际民主、对外党际民主等内容。政党民主建设,说的就是政党的党内民主建设、执政民主建设、国内党际民主建设、对外党际民主建设之有机联系和有机统一;其成果,主要体现在政党民主意识的增强、政党民主制度的成长和政党民主行为的养成这三位一体上。政党民主建设是受制于一定的社会生态环境的。现实社会主义国家的执政党亟需以党内民主建设为突破口,全面加强政党民主建设。     

西方主要国家政治选举与政党制度关系分析

现代西方主要国家通过政治选举来表明对民主政治的承认和公民权利的尊重。政治选举是由政党推动的。西方各国因历史文化、政治制度、政党制度的差异,政治选举具体程序和机制设计不同,从而形成不同的选举制度。不过,西方国家对选举的价值意义和一般原则的认识是比较一致的。政党制度与选举制度互为影响,而且政治选举实施效果影响民主政治的品质。21世纪以来西方政党制度为政治选举的强力所扭曲,遇到许多深层次的结构性问题。     

西方主要国家政党党纪治理的实践与启示

遵守并执行严明的政党纪律是现代政党组织规制与党内治理所必然遵循的行动路径。充沛的纪律供给与严格的纪律执行是政党自我完善的基础,也是现实政治目标的前提。在普遍实行竞争选举的政党制度下,西方主要国家因国内政治环境的差别,在党纪治理上采取了不同模式,同时又在追求政党一体性上具有共性措施。总结美、英、德、日等西方主要国家政党党纪治理实践、经验教训,可为中国共产党长期执政条件下,强化政治纪律、增强全党凝聚力和向心力,推进管党治党制度化和规范化提供参考。     

从政党与公民社会的关系看当代西方政党的发展趋势

当代西方国家基本上完成了国家和社会的分离,形成了较为成熟的公民社会。①在此背景下,从政党和公民社会的关系的视角来研究当代西方政党的发展趋势。共分为三个部分,在第一部分,简要地阐述了西方政党与公民社会的历史关系;在第二部分,主要论述了当代西方政党和公民社会的关系;第三部分,对当代西方政党的发展趋势进行了简单的探讨。     

西方政党党内民主发展趋势及其经验启示

西方政党党内民主建设的基本经验是中国共产党党内民主建设可资利用的有效资源。当前,为增强政治竞争力,西方政党党内民主建设出现了党内民主扩大化与组织专业化和权力集中化两种看似矛盾的辩证发展趋势。考察和分析西方政党党内民主的这种辩证发展趋势,并从中总结出中国共产党党内民主建设可资借鉴的经验启示,对于拓展党内民主建设的新空间、新境界无疑具有重要的现实意义。     

论中国新型政党制度对西方话语垄断的解构

西方政治文明实践的合法性话语是西方话语的根基,肇始于\"西强东弱\"的历史时代.伴随\"百年未有之大变局\"的来到,东西方\"攻守势易\"的萌芽初现,中国新型政党制度日益显露出无可比拟的优势.在这一优势的基础上,一方面,从中国新型政党制度所负载的社会主义协商民主作为全新的民主形态的角度,完成了对西方传统选举民主的去蔽;另一方面,从中国新型政党制度本身作为全新的政党制度形态,也意味着对西方竞争型政党制度的超越.正是这种去蔽与超越的双重努力使得中国新型政党制度得以深深扎根于中国土壤,有机融入了中国特色社会主义政治发展理论与实践体系的本土建构进程中,进而推动实现了中国新型政党制度对于整个西方话语垄断的解构以及对于本土阵地的复归.     

党内民主与政党现代化

党内民主是政党现代化的内容和方向,政党现代化的过程也是民主价值在党内得以普适的过程。加强党内民主建设,推进政党现代化,目前要注意党内民主文化的培养,走精细化民主之路,扩大选举民主,并防控现代化风险等问题。     

走向竞争性与协商性兼容的党内民主之路——当代西方政党发展党内民主的路径与启示

一些西方政党在现代民主政治进程中,为了生存和发展的需要,对党内民主建设方面作了积极的探索,尤其突出的是把公共政治生活中的竞争性民主和协商性民主引入到党内,进一步拓展了党内民主发展路径;一方面加强党内竞争性民主制度建设,另一方面注重党内协商性民主制度建设.以协商性民主弥补竞争性民主制度的某些缺失,坚持走竞争性与协商性兼容之路,延伸和更新党内民主的传统功能,以提高政党的竞争力、生存力和凝聚力.     

当代西方政党执政模式的进步与局限

江泽民同志在党的十六大报告中明确指出:“政治体制改革是社会主义政治制度的自我完善和发展。”“要坚持从我国国情出发,总结自己的实践经验,同时借鉴人类政治文明的有益成果,绝不照搬西方政治制度的模式。”基于这一思想,我们在改革和完善党的领导方式和执政方式的过程中,有必要了解西方政党的执政模式,并对此得出科学和客观的认识,从中把握政党执政的一般规律,以更好地加强党的执政能力建设,不断提高党的领导水平和执政水平。     

Populists,Producers and the Politics of Rentiership

Populism studies finds itself in a crisis of originality. While some scholars have signalled over-usage, others have argued that by contextualising populism, we are able to specify our own ‘populist moment’ and remedy the term’s slipperiness. This article opts for the latter tactic through a comparison of two aspects of contemporary populism with late nineteenth century precedents. In the late nineteenth century, the American People’s Party pioneered a mode of mass politics anchored in agrarian and industrial labour which launched the term ‘populism’ in Western discourse. Contemporary populists show rhetorical and political overlap with this template, but also come up against two new constraints: (1) a stagnant capitalism increasingly centred on ‘rentiership’; and (2) a disorganised civil society. These factors render today’s populism resistant to analogy but also conceptually more specific, sharpening the contours of our populist moment.     

Populism and technocracy: opposites or complements?

Although populism and technocracy increasingly appear as the two organising poles of politics in contemporary Western democracies, the exact nature of their relationship has not been the focus of systematic attention. This article argues that whilst these two terms – and the political realities they refer to – are usually assumed to be irreducibly opposed to one another, there is also an important element of complementarity between them. This complementarity consists in the fact that both populism and technocracy are predicated upon an implicit critique of a specific political form, referred to in this article as ‘party democracy’. This is defined as a political regime based on two key features: the mediation of political conflicts through the institution of political parties and a procedural conception of political legitimacy according to which political outcomes are legitimate to the extent that they are the product of a set of democratic procedures revolving around the principles of parliamentary deliberation and electoral competition. This argument is made through a close analysis of works by Ernesto Laclau and Pierre Rosanvallon, chosen as exemplary manifestations of the contemporary cases for populism and technocracy, respectively.     

Right‐wing populist party supporters: Dissatisfied but not direct democrats

Right‐wing populist parties tend to combine criticism of how liberal democracy functions with calls for greater direct democracy. But do their voters share that support for direct democracy? In this article, survey data is used to examine, first, whether right‐wing populist candidates in Australia, Canada and New Zealand were more supportive of direct democracy than candidates of other parties. Second, the views of right‐wing populist voters about the functioning of democracy and direct democracy are investigated. While right‐wing populist candidates turned out to be far more likely to support direct democracy, right‐wing populist supporters did not mirror the candidates. Although these were among the most dissatisfied with how democracy worked, they did not necessarily favour referendums more than other voters. The findings have implications both for how we conceive of the relationship between populism and direct democracy and the remedies proposed for redressing populist discontent.     

Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats,stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom

This article demonstrates that two quite distinctive types of political disaffection – ‘dissatisfied democratic’ and ‘stealth democratic’ – exist among British citizens, with the former being more prevalent. While both types manifest low trust in political elites, the dissatisfied democrat is politically interested, efficacious and desires greater political participation, while the contrary is generally true of the stealth democrat. However, stealth democrats are favourably disposed towards direct democracy, which can be attributed to the populist nature of stealth democratic attitudes. Even so, when given the opportunity to take part in a national referendum, neither stealth democrats nor dissatisfied democrats showed much inclination to vote.     

The Populist Surge in Post‐Democratic Times: Theoretical and Political Challenges

Populism has often been described as a great challenge and threat to Western democracies. Not surprisingly, at a time in which we are witnessing a significant rise in populist actors in Europe and the US, scientific analyses and commentary regarding populism have become particularly popular and, indeed, necessary. My aim in this article is to offer a brief yet comprehensive overview of the ongoing debates in a bid to problematise the supposed ‘imminent threat’ of populism in light of recent developments within the political systems and societies of established democracies, especially under conditions of crisis. I understand populism as a specific type of discourse, and thus as a way—among others—of doing politics and appealing to groups of people. Thus, I highlight the varying orientations that populist movements might take, depending on the ideological traditions with which they are closely articulated and the sociopolitical environment in which they manifest. Last, I relate the ‘populist surge’ to discussions regarding post‐democracy.     

What's an Elite to Do? The Threat of Populism from Left,Right and Centre

Anthony Painter's report for Policy Network correctly describes populism as a ‘democratic argument’ which sets up a morally pure ‘people’ against vilified ‘elites’, in binary opposition. This is an argument which is increasingly prominent in political discourse, whether the elites in question are political, financial or technocratic. Painter focuses on the now‐familiar ‘radical right‐wing’ version of populism, as reflected across Europe in the rise of parties such as the UKIP. He omits discussion of other types of populism (of the left and centre), which perhaps represent the future for populist politics.     

The Extra-Parliamentary Tory Party: McKenzie Revisited

This chapter almost coincides with the fiftieth anniversary of Robert McKenzie's British Political Parties , a study which contested that power in the Tory party was centralised in its Parliamentary leadership, with its constituency members having only a marginal influence. The chapter revisits McKenzie's analysis in the light of developments since 2001, particularly the victory of Iain Duncan Smith in that year's 'democratised' Conservative leadership contest.
The chapter argues that Duncan Smith's victory strengthened McKenzie's claim that democratised parties are seldom popular, and describes how IDS, ironically, spawned reforms that diminished his extra-Parliamentary supporters. But the chapter is also an updated reminder that McKenzie underrated grass root power in certain areas - notably candidate selection - and suggests a lesson from the Tories' short-lived revival under Michael Howard, namely that long-term party recovery requires an energised party membership as well as a competent party leader.     

Do populist values or civic values drive support for referendums in Europe?

Representative democracy gives voters the right to influence who governs but its influence on policy making is only indirect. Free and fair referendums give voters the right to decide a policy directly. Elected representatives usually oppose referendums as redundant at best and as undermining their authority at worst. Democratic theorists tend to take electing representatives as normal and as normatively superior. The nominal association of popular decision making and populism has strengthened this negative view. Public opinion surveys show substantial support for holding referendums on important issues. Two major theories offer contrasting explanations for popular support for referendums; they reflect populist values or a commitment to the civic value of participation. This innovative paper tests an integrated model of both theories by the empirical analysis of a 17-country European survey. There is substantial support for all three civic hypotheses: referendum endorsement is positively influenced by attitudes towards participation, democratic ideals and whether elected representatives are perceived as responsive. By contrast, there is no support for populist hypotheses that the socioeconomically weak and excluded favour referendums and minimal support for the effect of extreme ideologies. The conclusion shows that most criticisms of referendums also apply to policy making by elected representatives. While referendums have limits on their use, there is a democratic argument for holding such ballots on major issues to see whether or not a majority of voters endorse the choice of their nominal representatives.