协商民主:概念价值前景

二十世纪后期，西方学术界许多学者开始关注民主理论的一种新发展，或者说民主理论的转向：协商民主。协商民主意味着政治共同体中自由、平等的公民，通过参与政治过程、提出自身观点并充分考虑他人的偏好根据条件修正自己的理由，实现偏好转换，批判性的审视各种建议，从而赋予立法和决策以合法性。协商民主可以在古希猎民主实践中发现自己的原始存在，协商民主是传统民主范式的复兴而非创新。在公民实践理性基础上，协商民主激发了理性立法，参与政治和公民自治的理想。但是协商民主也面临诸多问题与挑战。     

公共政策合法性危机的产生及其消解——基于协商民主的视角

公共政策合法性是政治合法性的重要组织部分,公共政策合法性危机影响政策的最终执行效果,危及政策主体的权威性和政治系统的合法性,进而影响到整个社会的稳定和发展。公共政策合法性危机的产生源于政策系统自身的特点以及现代社会的复杂性,公共政策价值追求模糊且冲突,政策决策者的自负和自利倾向,公共政策参与低效等原因都会引起政策合法性危机。与传统代议制民主不同,协商民主理论主张公民通过自由而平等、审慎而理性的商谈来参与公共生活,以此来赋予立法和决策以合法性。协商民主的相关理论和实践为消解政策合法性危机提供了思路和方法,有利于发挥公共政策本身的功能,促进社会的进步和发展。     

协商民主与政策执行网络

20世纪后期,西方政治理论的重要发展就是协商民主理论的兴起。协商民主是公共协商过程中自由、平等的公民通过对话、讨论、审视各种相关理由而赋予立法和决策合法性的一种治理形式。协商民主与政策执行网络之间存在着一定的内在关联。从协商民主的研究视角,我们可以看到公民社会的思想意识、精神状态以及公共利益、美德等价值观对于政策执行网络的重大意义。引入协商民主理论,倡导政策执行中的对话与协商、公民参与意识以及积极的公共精神,可以促进政府与公民、政治国家与公民社会在政策执行中的良性互动,由此也将促成政策执行网络的现实运行。     

协商民主:和谐社会治理的民主范式

以自由、平等、理性和公共协商为特征的协商民主是民主理论在当代的新发展。现阶段推行协商民主,能有效地整合民意,增强公民的政治认同感,培养有责任感的公民,激发公民政治参与和公民自治,畅通社情民意反映渠道、协调多元化利益,保护弱势群体,稳定社会秩序,对于转型时期我国民主政治发展以及和谐社会治理具有重大的现实意义。     

多层协商视域下的公民文化素质建设

社会主义协商民主是中国社会主义民主政治的特有形式和独特优势。协商民主的精髓在于突出作为社会主体的人民对社会公共事务的积极参与,正所谓"商以求同,协以成事"。党的十八大和十八届三中、四中全会强调,要积极推进协商民主广泛多层制度化发展。协商民主不仅要具有"广泛性",更应具有"多层性",即体现在政党协商、人大协商、政府协商、人民团体和社会组织协商以及基层协商等各方面。同时,协商民主制度的确立与切实发展还需要提升公民的主体意识、理性能力等方面基本素质。因此,要推进多层协商民主制度的发展还要加强公民文化素质建设,从而为这一制度的有效运转提供必要的主体支持。     

当代西方政治理论中的协商民主

协商民主是20世纪90年代以来在西方政治学界兴起的一种民主理论与民主制度。协商民主的核心是理性的公共协商,即通过讨论、审议、对话和交流,从而实现立法和决策的共识。协商民主关注民主的具体过程,在国家制度、特设论坛、公共领域等不同领域发挥着作用。协商民主具有合法性、理性、公开性、责任性特征。协商民主制度的实施激发了政治参与和公民自治,促进了决策的合法化、培养了公共精神、促进了不同文化间的理解。协商民主过程中的平等参与、达成共识、关注公共利益已成为现实的政治目标,协商民主作为一种新的民主理论与制度在人们的政治生活中发挥着重要的作用。     

西方协商民主理论的兴起及其价值启示

协商民主理论是20世纪后期西方政治学界兴起的一种新的民主理论,西方学者高度重视对它的研究,并且取得了丰硕成果。协商民主理论涉及政治合法性、决策过程中的协商、作为治理的协商等内容。协商民主理论符合新时期我国民主政治建设与发展的要求,对我国民主政治的发展有很大的启示。     

人大立法坚持“以人民为中心”的理论基础与制度表现

坚持"以人民为中心"是人大及其常委会行使立法权的基本原则。我国宪法规定的人民主权原则、人民代表大会制度的逻辑内涵以及立法的政治属性等,要求人大立法以人民的意志为中心,以民主立法获得智慧和力量,最终以人民群众的根本利益作为人大立法的根本要求。以人民为中心开展立法活动,要坚持党的领导、人民主体地位、人大主导、民主立法,以人大立法的人民属性为理念和方法,检视和改进立法制度与立法程序。     

人民同意与人民主权——西方近代以来两种民主理论传统的区别、困境与误读

西方近代以来有两种民主理论传统,一是民主主义传统,二是自由主义传统。前者的基本原则是人民主权原则,后者的基本原则是人民同意原则。学界对这两种原则存在诸多误解,如把人民主权理解为自由主义的民主原则,或者把人民主权原则与人民同意原则混淆在一起,或者把人民主权原则理解为西方政治的现实等。实际上,这两种原则存在明显的区别,前者体现的是统治的民主,即人民直接掌握立法权,后者体现的是被统治的民主,即最高权力掌握在代议机构手中。二者在实践中都存在诸多困境,其中人民主权的困境使其在西方政治中还无法成为现实,但其中的合理因素即公民对法律和公共政策制定的参与,仍可能具有克服自由主义民主弊端的潜力。当代兴起的协商民主理论在一定程度上继承了民主主义的民主传统。     

改革开放40年来我国农村基层协商民主与选举民主的协同演进及其创新发展

依据"实践发展-法律与政策指向-理论回应"的三维分析框架,改革开放40年来我国农村基层民主政治建设进程大体上经历了"选举民主主导""协商民主后来居上""协商民主与选举民主协同发展"三个发展阶段。未来农村基层民主政治建设需要在选举民主与协商民主协同发展的框架下做好两方面的工作:一方面是通过强化制度设计,在坚持协商无果必经投票表决、投票表决前充分协商沟通和重要决策投票表决与一般抉择诉诸协商相结合等原则下建立和完善协商与投票表决衔接机制,致力于促进协商与投票表决机制的有序衔接转换;另一方面是立足于基层民主自治,通过法治、问责、便利化民主参与平台建设和公民教育等途径,致力于提高农村基层民主质量。     

基层协商民主的制度优势转化为治理效能的现实路径

我国悠久的协商思想为基层协商民主奠定了政治文化之基,而新时代则赋予了基层协商民主以新的内涵和实质。基层协商民主的演进发展之路,不断凸显出基层协商民主的制度优势。基层协商民主是实现党的领导的重要方式,是实现我国社会主义民主政治的独特形式,是推进基层社会治理现代化的重要力量,体现出我国国家制度和国家治理体系的显著优势。把基层协商民主制度优势转化为治理效能的现实路径有:坚持党对基层协商民主的领导,更好发挥基层协商民主的制度优势;加强基层协商民主制度建设,强化基层协商民主制度执行力;加强基层协商民主制度自信宣传教育,培养人们积极参与基层协商的意识;建设高素质基层协商人才队伍,为把基层协商民主制度优势转化为治理效能提供人才支撑。     

乡村振兴进程中协商民主嵌入乡村治理的内在机理与路径选择

协商民主作为重要的民主制度设计和治理形式,对于优化乡村治理具有极为重要的意义与价值。将协商民主嵌入乡村治理,实现协商民主与乡村治理的有效融合,契合党和政府推动乡村振兴战略顺利实施的迫切需要。协商民主嵌入乡村治理体系和治理过程,不是单纯的制度吸纳和整合,而是包括制度嵌入、行动嵌入和认知嵌入在内的多维嵌入结构和过程。从全国各地的治理实践来看,民主协商机制尚未真正嵌入乡村治理的各个环节和各个领域,协商民主的制度优势和治理功能未得到充分发挥。为此,必须加快协商民主嵌入乡村治理的进程,将协商民主理念嵌入到广大农村基层干部和群众的认知之中,形成有事好商量的思维方式和行为习惯;不断健全与完善协商民主的各种体制机制,促进协商民主制度优势转化为乡村治理效能。     

Participatory planning as a deliberative democratic process: a response to Hodgson's critique

This paper is a response to Hodgson's recent critique of our model of participatory planning through negotiated co-ordination. His critique focused on four issues: the coherence of our distinction between market exchange and market forces; our understanding of tacit knowledge; the scope for innovation in our model; and the alleged problems of information overload and cognitive limitations. In this response we argue that Hodgson misinterprets our model as being based on the aggregation of individual preferences, whereas it is in fact a model of participatory planning through a process of deliberative democracy.     

公共政策问题建构过程中的公共性研究

公共政策具有公共性,亦即处理大多数民众的问题。政策具有问题性,也就是政策以民众问题为导向,大多数民众有相同问题,政府机关将问题纳入政府议程,提出解决策略。倘若忽视公共性,公共政策就有可能变为某些个人、团体、阶层谋取私立的工具。这就要求我们在公共政策的制定和实施的过程中,必须时时关注公共性,亦即要做到在政策问题取向上的公共性。故而,首先探究公共政策问题与其公共性之意涵;其次,析探问题建构中公共性之哲学基础;最后,藉由现今流行于公共政策学界,用以展现问题建构过程中公共性的审议式民主,以及审议式民主在台湾之应用-公民会议的召开,来加以进一步说明。     

Best Laid Plans … The Institutionalisation of Public Deliberation in Scotland

Despite increasing support for participatory and deliberative principles amongst academics, practitioners and parliamentarians alike, efforts to infuse political systems with more inclusive and consensual forms of debate often founder. This article explores this conundrum by examining institutional reforms through the lens of deliberative democracy. More specifically, we scrutinise attempts to institutionalise forms of civic deliberation within the Scottish political system via the Scottish Civic Forum and the Scottish Parliament's committee system. Our analysis tells the story of how these two types of institutional reform, both designed to facilitate the move towards a more participatory and deliberative model of democracy in Scotland, have fared over a ten‐year period. In turn, this analysis allows us to comment on the ways in which deliberative and parliamentary democracy may be integrated.     

Fear's Anger: Virginia Woolf's Psychology and Deliberative Democracy

In A Room of One's Own, Virginia Woolf implicitly addresses the necessary conditions for equal participation in deliberative democracy. Woolf's analysis indicates that proponents of deliberative democracy must be attentive to the angry, unconscious resistance that is part of reasoning in a deliberative system—especially when political deliberation results in a challenge to a person's identity. Woolf's solution for women writers, the material security represented by a room of one's own, can be applied to the larger problem of political deliberation as well. This leads to an expansion of the conception of substantive equality required for a deliberative democracy. Further, Woolf's insight challenges deliberative democrats to de-center capitalist economic relations. As a way of protecting the individual from the psychological dynamic Woolf describes in A Room of One's Own, deliberative democrats should advocate a non-competitive economic space for those threatened by the powerful psychological reactions to deliberation.     

Development and Prospects of Deliberative Democracy in China: The Dimensions of Deliberative Capacity Building

Since the landmark volume The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China (Leib and He eds. 2006), a growing number of theoretical and empirical studies in the context of China have advanced our knowledge of deliberative democracy in comparative settings. This paper aims to discuss the recent development and prospects of deliberative democracy in China, with particular focus on the approach of a deliberative system that has not been adequately addressed in the context of China. This paper proposes an analytical framework for the concept of deliberative capacity building in the context of contemporary China. The paper analyses three dimensions of deliberative capacity building: social capacity, institutional capacity; and participatory capacity of a deliberative system. The three dimensions lay particular emphasis on the public sphere, empowered space, and deliberative actors respectively. The multi-dimensional framework considers deliberative capacity building as a process by which the three dimensions synergize and evolve with each other to produce a functional deliberative system incorporating isolated deliberative practices. The multi-dimensional analyses suggest that deliberative capacity building is critical to democratization in China, as it produces a stronger public sphere, more effective government responsiveness and improved participatory competence.     

Deliberative Democracy and the Deliberative Poll on the Euro

Focus on the concept of deliberative democracy has increased rapidly within recent decades. However, the concept is weakly defined, if at all. 'Deliberation' is defined as an unconstrained exchange of arguments that involves practical reasoning and potentially leads to a transformation of preferences. Throughout the 1990s several innovative democratic experiments have flourished focusing on citizens' involvement and deliberation. The Deliberative Poll in focus here is, according to many parameters, the most ambitious one. The article presents the results from the Danish National Deliberative Poll on the single currency. In August 2000, 364 repres-entative Danish citizens assembled to deliberate on Denmark's participation in the single currency. The Deliberative Poll is described as a quasi-experiment set out to explore the empirical potentials of deliberative democracy. The focus is whether the claimed potential of deliberative democracy is present in the experimental setting. The participants' answers reflect a deliberative process dominated by considerable changes in opinion, an increase in knowledge and an improved ability to form a reasoned opinion. Mutual understanding among the participants prevailed. At the same time, self-interest and domination were also part of the deliberative process. Thus, this article encourages the development of deliberative democratic theory in order to incorporate these features of politics.     

The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: Results from Four Large-Scale Trials

The goal of deliberative democracy is to revitalize civic culture, improve the nature of public discourse, and generate the political will necessary to take effective action on pressing problems. While there exists a fairly substantial amount of literature on the desired features of a deliberative democracy, there is little empirical research on the practical feasibility of convening a large-scale public deliberative process.
This article describes a model of deliberative democracy which offers a practical opportunity for all citizens to participate, provides citizens extensive information about the nature of the policy problem, engages citizens in the same problem-solving context as elected officials, and uses rigorous methods. The practical feasibility of this model is assessed through four large-scale implementations, each addressing controversial and politically charged issues in cities ranging in population from 100,000 to 400,000. The conclusion from these trials is that it is possible to convene a large-scale public deliberative process that enables local governments to take effective action on previously intractable issues.