论20世纪40年代中国共产党的是主立国思想

中国共产党自“二大”提出建立民主共和国的主张以来,就一直致力于将马克思主义的民主思想与中国革命的实际相结合,在实践中创造性地发展了马克思主义的民主学说,创立了民主立国思想。主要包括民主建国论,代表式的民主体制和自治性的民主治理结构的构想,以及民主立国的原则与框架的创设等。这些思想作为中国共产党集体智慧的结晶,为新民主主义的胜利和中华人民共和国的建立奠定了坚实的理论基础。在今天。它仍有重要的政治导向意义,是当代中国民主政治发展中宝贵的思想资源。     

Oligarchy,Anarchy, and Social Justice

This article attempts to identify the problems associated with democratic organizations, and institutions. The issue of democratic, self-governing organizations, and institutions being transformed into oligarchies is addressed. Thus, the question of democratic rule being undermined by elites and their attempts to co-opt democratic organizations, specifically government, is assessed. In order to mitigate elite interests within organizations, anarchist social justice is considered (paradoxically) as a means to revitalize and transform democratic government.     

The Way We Do Europe: Subsidiarity and the Substantive Democratic Deficit

The new institutional framework of subsidiarity is expected to lower the EU democratic deficit. In contrast to this optimistic scenario, I argue that the success of subsidiarity depends on its capacity to unravel the EU's ‘substantive’ democratic deficit. Linked to the Union's functionalist institutional design, this dimension of the democratic deficit has developed due to two limitations of EU‐level politics. First, the EU functionalist design has narrowed the range of topics open to democratic debate (horizontal substantive democratic deficit). Second, the proportion of the debate which we could genuinely describe as being political is declining as a result of the de‐politicisation of EU goals, underpinned by a massive accumulation of allegedly apolitical expert knowledge (vertical substantive democratic deficit). Against this background, I contend that by involving actors relatively alien to the EU functionalist thinking, subsidiarity could offer an opportune ground for the re‐politicisation of democratic ‘blind spots’ in EU policy making.     

Prospects and Limits of Democratic Governance in the EU

The EU Treaty contains for the first time a title on democratic principles. These provisions emphasise the importance of national parliaments and the EU parliament for the democratic legitimacy of the EU. The new chapter on democratic principles does not address the central challenge of the EU polity to the traditional understanding of democratic legitimacy, the disjunction of political and economic governance as expressed by the important role of independent institutions like the Commission, the European Central Bank and agencies in EU governance . This is a consequence of the fact that the status of independent regulatory institutions in a democratic polity has not been clarified—neither in the EU nor in the Member States. However, such independent institutions exist in diverse forms in several Member States and could hence be understood as a principle of democratic governance common to the Member States. Such an understanding has not yet evolved. The central theoretical problem is that regulatory theories which explain the legitimacy of independent institutions as an alternative to traditional representation remain outside the methodology of traditional democratic theory. Economic constitutional theory, based on social contract theory and widely neglected in the legal constitutional debate, offers a methodological approach to understanding independent regulatory institutions as part of representative democratic governance.     

民主意识的现状和培养

作者从民主意识的现状和原因分析入手,论述了当前为什么要加强民主意识的培养和怎样加强民主意识的培养;加强民主意识的培养是构建和谐社会的需要。     

The European Democratic Challenge: The Forging of a Supranational Volonté Générale

This article explores in a systematic manner the different components of the democratic legitimacy of the Union from the standpoint of deliberative democratic theory. Contrary to standard accounts, it is claimed that the democratic deficit must be disaggregated, given that the Union has not only several shortcomings, but also some democratic surpluses. On the one hand, the Union was created to tackle the democratic deficit of nation states, and has been partially successful in mending the mismatch between the scope of application of their legal systems and the geographical reach of the consequences of legal decisions. Moreover, the European legal order is based on a synthetic constitutional law, which reflects the common constitutional traditions of the Member States, which lend democratic legitimacy to the whole European legal order. On the other hand, the lack of a democratically written and ratified constitution is a central part of the democratic challenge of the Union. But equally important is the structural bias in favour of certain material legal results, which stems from the interplay of the division of competences and the plurality of law-making procedures.     

民主巩固与国家能力——基于国家能力对于民主化进程影响的分析

在近代以来的多次民主化浪潮中,除少数国家之外,多数国家的民主转型和民主化进程都是一波三折,民主巩固艰难.其原因固然众多,但缺少应对和解决民主化进程中所面对的一系列问题的国家能力显然是其中非常关键的因素.本文认为,新民主政权只有有效解决转型问题、控制转型秩序、提升民主质量、促进民主文化形成,才能保障民主转型,走向民主巩固.     

论民主行政对我国行政改革的启示意义

在西方各国行政改革的浪潮下和世界民主趋势下,我国不可避免的要受到西方国家的影响。西方民主行政理论是建立在西方成熟的官僚行政基础之上的,可我国的行政生态环境与西方国家的不同。在西方民主行政理论的优势及其内在缺陷的基础上分析了民主行政理论对我国当前行政改革的启示意义。     

Nietzsche's assault on the ideal of democratic justice

The moment beckons serious scholars to critically examine Nietzsche's political thought. This study examines Nietzsche's polemics on the democratic ideal. According to Nietzsche, democratic principles have taken over the role of traditional moral and religious ideals. From a very exhausted state, the bourgeoisie revengefully have created a set of ideals which posit absolute and normative standards of behavior applicable to all. These democratic ideals reflect character traits which the bourgeoisie already have habituated. Nietzsche's greatest objection to the cultural supremacy of the democratic ideal is that its target is the aristocratic instinet and psychology. Since the democratic ideal has attained its sovereign and universal status. Nietzsche believes the truly exceptional human beings are becoming “vanquished by the leveling magic of the great number”.     

The Jury as a Translation of Democratic Participation and Political Conflict

In this response to Valerie Hans's Presidential address, I use her “legal translating” term to argue that the implementation of liberal democratic structures in new democracies opens new opportunities to translate the jury system into and onto new democratic societies. While policy makers have concerns about the strength and vibrancy of lay participation in the legal system, policy makers' decisions to adopt trial by jury are not always democratic. Nonetheless, the consequence of the translation of trial by jury furthers democratic development. Using Nicaragua, Mexico, and Russia as case studies, I suggest that one goal of policy makers who attempt to adopt trial by jury is to reduce the discretionary power of judges who remain from the prior government. Comparative trial‐by‐jury research can contribute more to our understanding of democratic development than prior research has indicated.     

新时期我国社会主义民主政治建设的新思考——现行《宪法》实施30年来我国社会主义民主政治建设的回顾与展望

人民民主是我国社会主义国家政权的本质,发展社会主义民主,实现人民当家做主是我国宪法、宪政的核心使命。秉承这一使命,我国现行《宪法》实施30年来,极大地促进了我国社会主义民主政治的发展。然而,在当前我国社会主义建设的新时期,社会主义民主政治也面临着不少问题与挑战。因此,有必要结合既有成就,正视新时期的挑战,通过进一步推进我国现行《宪法》的实施,探索社会主义民主政治发展的新路向。而培育社会主义民主文化,关注公民身份、提升公民的民主行动能力,走社会主义民主渐进发展之路,促进我国社会主义民主制度的完善与创新则是最为重要的环节。     

How Democratic is Civil Disobedience?

In her book, Conscience and Conviction, Kimberley Brownlee argues that there is nothing undemocratic about the robust, primary right to civil disobedience that she devotes most of her argument to defending. To the contrary, she holds that there is nothing paternalistic about civil disobedients opposing the will of democratic majorities, because, inter alia, democratic majorities cannot claim particular epistemic superiority, and because there are flaws inherent to democratic procedures that civil disobedience addresses. I hold that Brownlee’s arguments fail. In particular, her argument fails because it does not properly construe the nature of the epistemic claim that can be made either by democratic procedures or by civil disobedients, and because it illegitimately conflates the concern about permanent minorities that has been a constant thorn in the side of democratic theorists, with a concern with all outvoted minorities, whether permanent minorities or not.     

改革完善选举制度,扩大公民有序政治参与

公民政治参与是现代社会民主制度赖以存在的基础,也是民主政治的特征之一。选举是公民政治参与的重要形式,改革完善人大选举制度和村民委员会选举制度,对于发展社会主义民主政治,保证人民当家作主具有重要意义。     

村民自治的宪政之维

村民自治是我国农村社会综合管理制度的重大创新,是保障农民依法直接行使自己的民主权利和自治权利的制度设计。中国的宪政建设不能忽视农村基层民主宪政,没有农村基层民主宪政化,就不会有整个国家的民主宪政化,村民自治自身具有丰富的宪政内涵和宪政价值。中国村民自治的研究应当突破传统思维视角和研究进路,从宪政的角度对村民自治问题进行分析和阐释,揭示村民自治的宪政价值。     

社会主义行政问责制的伦理基础

社会主义行政问责制是社会主义民主政治的重要内容,也是社会主义行政的应有之义。社会主义的行政问责制是社会主义行政伦理的本质体现。人民民主决定了社会主义行政是责任行政;公共性、民主性和公平正义是社会主义公共行政的伦理基础,建立责任政府是社会主义行政伦理的基本要求;社会主义国家的工作人员是向人民负责的公仆。     

民主政治本体论探析

民主政治是当今世界的潮流,现代民主在古代民主基础上有很大发展。现代民主概念至少包含少数服从多数、遵循程序、保护少数三个方面的内涵;现代民主政治的表征至少表现为社会关系是平等的契约关系,活力源泉是公平竞争,权力建构是均衡形式;现代民主政治的比较优势表现为具有非凡的亲和力,能够保持政治秩序的持续稳定,有利于人民参政议政,能够保证政治体系内在的活力,有利于避免错误的发生,能够保证政治体制的客观公正。     

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。     

美国疑难宪法案件司法审查的两种模式及其补充——以“个案宪法权利”的证立为视角

疑难宪法案件的形成有其思想和规范渊源。司法审查必须补充演绎正当的大前提,即证立“个案宪法权利”的正当性。宪法解释学模式通过回溯道德权利的理论渊源重构个案中的宪法权利以支持宪法裁判;恢复性民主商谈司法模式主张将制宪者达成宪法原则的民主过程嵌入宪法裁判之中,寄希望法官间通过协商方式达成低限度的理论共识支持未完全理论化司法协议作为裁判的结果。程序主义宪法观将司法审查的合法性置于民主理论的语境中,使司法审查的合法性问题能够在民主的语境中得到缓解。宪法解释学模式的一元论与恢复性民主商谈司法模式的多元论欲满足司法审查所承载的立法与裁判的双重责任,必须将司法审查视为原则的论坛、公共理性的典范,以弥合重新道德化解释与重新民主化商谈之间的裂痕。     

村民自治权利救济的法律缺失与完善

村民自治是村民实现＂民主选举、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督＂和依法保护自身合法权益的重要形式,其实质是保障村民自治权利的实现。目前,由于我国立法的缺陷、救济途径的缺失、司法实践的困难,导致村民自治权利无法真正实现或难以获得有效的法律救济。因此,本文建议,修改和完善《村民委员会组织法》,增加司法救济的相关规定;修改和完善《行政诉讼法》,扩大行政诉讼的受案范围;完善民事诉讼救济途径;建立村民自治权利的行政复议和行政调解制度。     

Democratic Inclusion,Law, and Causes

Abstract. In this article two conceptions of what it means to say that all affected persons should be granted the right to vote in democratic elections are distinguished and evaluated. It is argued that understanding “affected” in legal terms, as referring to the circle of people bound by political decisions, has many advantages compared to the view referring to everyone affected in mere causal terms. The importance of jurisdictions in deciding rights to democratic influence should hence be recognized more clearly than it currently is in democratic thinking.