拉丁美洲民主政治的文化分析

拉美文化是印第安土著文化原体与欧洲天主教文化、非洲黑人文化等异质文化之间经过"挑战—回答"运动而形成的一种文化模式,它在以天主教文化为核心的同时,又具有其自身的特性,即边缘性和从属性、混合性、运动性、外源性。拉美文化的前述特征,决定了该地区民主政治的独特性——它模仿了新教文化下代议制民主的外表,却行天主教文化下委任制民主之实,纸面上的民主往往为事实上的独裁或集权所取代,这也正是该地区民主化进程曲折发展的根源之所在。     

美国压力下的阿拉伯民主化:问题与前景

随着美国“民主改造”压力的加大 ,阿拉伯国家相应做出了内部改革的政策调整。然而 ,阿拉伯国家的民主化进程却面临着诸多内部因素的制约。从主观方面看 ,阿拉伯国家当权者和民众对民主化心存疑虑 ;从客观方面看 ,相对落后的经济发展水平和社会政治结构也不利于民主的生存。阿拉伯民主化走向最终取决于内部阻力和外部压力的合力作用。     

拉丁美洲民主化与可治理性问题分析

20世纪90年代以来,关于拉美民主化进程的研究已经从关注民主转型转变为分析民主体制的巩固、质量和治理问题.民主政治体制确立以后的具体制度安排与运作是一个社会能否实现可治理性的关键因素之一.民主政治的竞争、参与、问责等诉求与民主体制的稳定、秩序和效率等要求构成某种紧张的关系,体现在拉美国家政府组织的基本形式即总统制及其与政党、选举、司法等制度的相互关系之中.这种情况在拉美各国虽有差异,但探讨其一般特征仍不失为分析民主体制现状和前途的一种思路,也是民主化以后拉丁美洲可治理性研究中首先要加以认识的问题.     

试析20世纪末以来拉美左翼执政对民主政治发展的影响

不同意识形态和政治立场的政治主体对民主模式有不同的选择。"第三波民主化"以来,拉美左翼成为民主政治的拥护者和实践者。20世纪末拉美地区政治格局"左转"对拉美民主政治的发展产生了重要影响。拉美左翼执政后进行了有效的民主治理,促进了经济社会的发展。在政权和政党更迭中,也基本遵守选举民主的竞争原则,使民主政治经受了考验。激进左翼的民主观强调民众赋权和参与,在执政后大胆推进政治体制改革,将参与制民主作为政治变革的根本目标,试图构建以参与制为主的新型民主模式,积极推进参与制民主建设,在一定时期内和一定程度上增强了民主政治的包容性。但是,激进左翼政权加强总统个人集权的行为和强硬的执政风格,弱化了代议制机构的横向问责制,加剧了政治极化,弱化了政治多元性,使得激进左翼的政治民主发展颇受诟病。温和左翼在理念和实践上都没有突破代议制民主的窠臼,使得代议制民主政治得以稳定发展。拉美左翼深化和完善民主的努力取得了一些积极成果,但仍面临诸多方面的严峻挑战。     

关于20世纪末拉美政治民主化独特性的再思考

拉美的政治民主化进程是在冷战结束前后独特的历史条件下出现的 ,因此 ,具有明显不同于近现代的西欧和北美民主模式的特点。首先 ,拉美的进步社会政治力量是反对军人独裁统治、推动政治民主化的主要因素。此外 ,在经济全球化、区域化和由美国主导的自由化的合力推动下 ,拉美形成了“第三波”世界民主化的浪潮。其次 ,拉美民主政治的形式和内容都有自己的特点。除了“选举民主”符合西方民主所谓的“最低标准”之外 ,其总统制、政党体系、政治参与等方面都按照自身的逻辑运转。再次 ,在 2 0世纪末的拉美 ,尽管民主政治取得进展 ,但以军人干政为主要特征的普力夺社会残余依然存在 ,这不仅为军人重返政坛留下了空间 ,而且不利于民主政治的全面发展。     

真知与偏见：亨廷顿眼中的台湾民主

在《第三波——20世纪后期民主化浪潮》一书中,亨廷顿论及台湾的民主化进程,提出了民主化的基本含义、诱因、过程、特征和前景。亨廷顿对台湾民主的分析充满着真知灼见,其预测也为后来的台湾政治民主实践所证实。但是,必须指出的是,亨廷顿从西方的价值体系出发来对全球的民主化进程进行分析,不可避免地带有一定的偏见性。     

韩国民主的美国因素

一个国家的民主化主要依赖于内部诸条件的发育成熟,但外部因素也是影响民主化进程的重要变量之一。由于特殊的历史原因,韩国民主进程受美国因素的影响特别大。在制度上,美国坚决地把韩国纳入资本主义世界体系之中,全面介入韩国的军事、经济和文化等各个方面。在政治上,美国奠定了韩国的基本政治制度,支配了韩国的主要政治人物,干预了韩国的重大政治事件。美国对韩国民主化的影响具有两面性,既促进了韩国民主化的发展,又扮演了韩国威权政权保护人的角色。美国因素的影响也是有限的。韩国民主首先应归功于韩国人民不屈不挠的民主斗争,韩国的国情使得韩国政治朝着自主性方向发展。     

近十年来国外拉美政治研究综述

拉美政治研究重点从 5 0年代的中心 -外围关系研究转向 70年代的官僚 -威权主义研究之后 ,在 80年代集中于民主转轨研究。 90年代拉美政治研究的主旋律是民主巩固。本文在大量参阅国外相关文献的基础上 ,综述了 90年代拉美政治研究 ,包括拉美的政治民主化进程及其相关理论、政府间关系、政党制度 ,以及文人与军队关系等方面。     

论伊斯兰教与民主之间不确定的关系

学术界围绕伊斯兰教与民主的纷争,实质上是关于民主是否适合于中东地区、怎样衡量伊斯兰教在该地区民主化进程中的作用的争论。从价值观和历史观来看,伊斯兰教与民主之间既存在对立,又有相容的成分。伊斯兰教对民主的影响具有不确定性特征,既可以用来支持民主的某些理念,又会被作为反对民主赖以存在的基础。伊斯兰教通过影响社会政治、经济、文化等方面来推动或束缚民主化进程。但是,在中东伊斯兰国家的民主化进程中,伊斯兰教不是惟一的、决定性的影响因素。     

探寻非洲民主之路——国际学术界对非洲民主化问题研究概述

国际学术界一直重视对非洲民主化问题的研究,并相应出现了一系列研究成果,本文将概括介绍国外学者就该问题的理论探讨。关于非洲民主化,国外学者的主要观点有法治、人权和可信的政府等是非洲民主制度的基本特征;非洲民主化进程的前景不容乐观,军队干预使民主化成为政治悲剧;市民社会成为国家权力的一种制衡力量,不同类型的市民社会对民主化进程的影响不同;非洲民主化进程实际上是各个阶级权力平衡运作的过程,民主化在一些国家形式多于实质。     

Sanctions and Democracy

How do economic sanctions affect democratization, and should the former be used to promote the latter? Imposing economic pain on large swaths of an already vulnerable population in order to nudge democratic change poses thorny issues. Does it work, in terms of securing democratic outcomes? Even if it did, is this way of achieving change justifiable? We explore the connections between the normative and positive sides of the argument for sanctions in light of theoretical and normative progress in two decades of post-Cold War research on democracy. We argue that some sanctions policies used under specific conditions are more justifiable, but there are other sanctions policies that are less justifiable.     

The European Endowment for Democracy and Democracy Promotion in the EU Neighbourhood

The European Endowment for Democracy (EED) is a recently established instrument of democracy promotion intended to complement existing EU tools. Fashioned after the US National Endowment for Democracy, the EED’s privileged area of action is the European neighbourhood. Meant as a small rapid-response, actor-oriented ‘niche’ initiative, its main task is to select those actors, from both civil and political society able to produce a change in their country. The EED represents a step forward in the EU’s capacity to foster democracy, but does not necessarily go in the direction of more rationality and effectiveness. Not all EU member states support the EED with the same enthusiasm and it is still not clear how it fits into the EU’s overall democracy promotion architecture. Its actions may be successful in a very constrained timeframe. However, recent crises at the EU’s borders would seem to call for a strategy that takes into consideration systemic hindrances, post-regime change complexities, regional dynamics and finally rival plans of autocracy promotion.     

India''s "Democracy"

Dao: After independence, India basically inherited the political system set up by British colonial rule. After half century's transformation, a "democratic" political system with "India's characteristics" has gradually taken shape in India.     

The Imperfection of Democracy

Generally speaking,democracy has promoted prosperity and peace.In most people's opinion,democracy is about respect for the individual.The vote embodies the respect we have for each other.This is not to...     

Informal Institutions and Democracy

Informal institutions have grown in relevance for the analysis of new ‘third wave’ democracies. The research strategy receives its impetus from the debate on neo‐institutionalism theory, which offers a productive perspective for structuring the field of analysis. This article explains the distinguishing factors between formal and informal institutions. It addresses five basic types of informal institutions, examines the ways in which they function and discusses their relevance in terms of democracy theory. Each type is characterized by the way in which it enacts its respective means of political influence. The study distinguishes between forms of specific relationship (clientelism), of material exchange (corruption), of violent exertion of influence (putsch threat), of civil resistance (civil disobedience) and of legal practice (custom law), and discusses their relevance to democracy. The central argument maintains that a differentiated study of informal institutions is crucial to addressing this question. The necessary typological differentiation allows us to make an appropriate assessment ‐one that does not manifest itself in a simple clear‐cut choice of affirmative or negative answers.     

Democracy and the multinationals

The relationship between western multinational corporations' perceived commercial interests and democratic quality in developing markets is more varied than habitually argued. While autocratic policy making and low-intensity democracy have been judged to provide benefits to investors, they are also increasingly recognized to generate features prejudicial to commercial operations. Many investment trends reflect the adverse impact of democratic limitations in developing markets. Multinational companies can be faulted less for a uniform effort to frustrate democratic improvements than for a failure to develop a coherent or proactive engagement in relation to the international democracy promotion agenda.     

Making Democracy Work in Bolivia

The struggle to build stable democracies in weak Latin American countries mirrors the Herculean task faced by fragile states in many other parts of the globe. Within Latin America, the fault lines between competing visions of the state, the economy, and national identity are particularly stark in Bolivia, which is divided along ethnic, geographical, and socioeconomic lines. That country's new president, Evo Morales, has the mandate that would permit him and his government to transform Bolivia in a way that would set a powerful example for countries throughout the region. The United States can and should support his efforts as long as they are designed to deepen and broaden the roles of democracy and a free-market economy in Bolivia.     

“Democracy as Civilisation”

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy has come to embody the very idea of legitimate statehood in international politics. It has done so largely through defining a new standard of civilisation, in which “democraticness” determines the limits of international society and helps to construct relations with non-democracies “beyond the pale”. Like the “classical” standard, this new version again reflects a considerable interest in the socio-political organisation of states. Central in this shift back to a more “anti-pluralist” international society has been the democratic peace thesis, which emphasises how the internal (democratic) characteristics of states influence their external behaviour. Against more optimistic interpretations, it is argued that the democratic peace is a distinctly Janus-faced creature: promoting peace between democracies, while potentially encouraging war against non-democratic others. Within the democratic peace, non-democracies become not just behaviourally threatening but also ontologically threatening. Non-democracies are a danger because of what they are (or are not). In sum, the argument presented is that democracy, positioned as the most legitimate form of domestic governance in international society, has become caught up and used in global structures of domination, hierarchy and violence. Thus, the role of “democracy” in international politics is much more complicated, and, at least in its current guise, less progressive than often portrayed.     

美国国家民主捐赠基金会

一、历史沿革与宗旨美国国家民主捐赠基金会(TheNationalEndowmentforDemocracy,缩写为NED,简称民主基金会)是美国非政府组织中的“龙头老大”,属于具有政府背景的非政府组织,地位相当特殊。民主基金会的成立直接源自1982年美国前总统里根在英国议会发表的演讲,当时他在该演讲中提议西方大国共同资助“非民主国家”的民主建设,包括自由的媒体、