论中国传统协商文化与协商民主建设的结合

协商民主理论最早是由西方传来的,是一种典型的舶来品。如何使协商民主更好地应用到中国的民主政治中,使其本土化倾向日益突出是一个亟待解决的问题。本文探讨了协商民主理论与中国传统协商文化的内在联系,深入挖掘协商民主的历史资源与思想基础,从而更好地把中国传统协商文化融入到协商民主建设中去。     

协商民主在中国运用的传统资源

协商民主在反思自由竞争式民主的基础上,试图扭转民主过程中公民参与退化的弊端,强调公民参与协商在民主中的诉求,更多地将重点集中在公共治理的品质上。协商民主在中国的运用需要与传统资源相调和,我国传统"和"文化的"和而不同"、"民本"下的咨询协商和"治道民主"的治重于政等思想和实践,与协商民主有一定的契合性,为协商民主在中国的运用提供了良好的本土传统资源。     

中国形态协商民主的政治文化资源探析

中国的政治文化中存在着许多契合于现代协商民主的思想因子。传统优秀政治文化为中国形态协商民主建设保留了深厚的文化基础,近代政治文化为中国形态协商民主建设移植了丰富的精神资源,现当代政治文化为中国形态协商民主建设提供了系统的理论资源。发掘契合于现代中国形态协商民主的政治文化资源,对推进社会主义政治文明建设具有重要的意义。     

中国协商民主发展趋势研究

协商民主在我国经历了多年的发展后,已经日趋科学和理性化:参与主体由政治精英趋向于社会各阶层的多元化;参与方式由政治机构的商讨趋向于网络与现实相结合的多样化;参与领域由政治决策的磋商趋向于覆盖社会民生各个方面;参与制度由政治制度趋向于社会生活和管理方面的各项制度.虽然如此,但是人民政协的制度化、程序化、规范化不够;参与民主协商的各主体地位不够平等;协商民主的方式有待进一步完善;协商民主的组织管理模式尚待进一步创新.这些问题较严重地制约着我国协商民主的全面发展.要促进我国协商民主的健康发展,必须建立体系化的协商民主的各项制度,确保各协商民主参与主体的地位平等,扩大和务实协商民主的参与方式和途径,引导协商民主深入社会生活,促进社会发展的协调.只有这样,才能真正发挥社会主义协商民主的作用,提高人民群众参政议政的自觉性和主动性,确保社会和谐稳定地发展.     

论中国协商民主选择与建构的历史逻辑

协商民主作为近代中国内生的民主形式,不是按照某种民主理想和民主模式事先设计出来的,而是在救亡与启蒙的实践中应对出来的。中国共产党遵守救亡与启蒙的内在逻辑,领导各革命阶级和民主党派团结救亡、民主合作,把协商民主的必然性与可能性统一起来,使之转化为现实的基本政治制度。     

协商民主研究综述

随着中国社会主义市场经济体制的不断发展和完善,中国社会结构分化日益加剧,新的利益主体的不断涌现,社会不稳定因素增多,凸显出的一些问题与矛盾使得某些现有政治运行体制运作的乏力,日益凸显协商民主的作用.     

协商式参与与全过程人民民主的高质量发展

协商民主是中国民主独特的、独有的、独到的民主形式,其本质是协商式参与。在中国共产党领导下,协商式参与成长为实践全过程人民民主的重要形式。协商式参与不仅是全过程人民民主链条的一个重要环节,而且具有丰富实践样态,呈现为一种泛在、高频、常态化运作的民主政治形态,贯穿耦合在全过程人民民主之中。立足中国实践,沿着协商路径推进全过程人民民主,要在协商式参与中不断完善全过程人民民主制度体系、增进全过程人民民主践行能力、优化全过程人民民主运行生态、降低全过程人民民主运作成本,朝着人民合法权益深度实现、人民当家作主功能强化和民主绩效帕累托最优的目标迈进,在全过程人民民主高质量发展中开创人类政治文明新形态。     

论中国协商民主研究的马克思主义学术话语权

中国共产党对协商民主进行了长期而丰富的实践。在这一过程中,中国共产党赋予了中国协商民主独具中国特色的无与伦比的内在优势。但是,中国协商民主仍然缺乏与其长期而丰富的实践相匹配的理论构建,尤其是随着西方协商民主理论在中国广泛传播,使得西方学术话语体系日趋掌握中国协商民主诠释的学术话语权。这就倒逼着从事中国协商民主研究或相关研究的每一个理论工作者都应该担当起研究中国协商民主的理论责任。这就要求我们在明确中国协商民主的内涵、抓住中国协商民主的本质、彰显中国协商民主的优势基础上,真正掌握中国协商民主研究的马克思主义话语权。     

中国农村基层协商民主发展路径分析

随着农村经济发展,农民的生活水平得到提高,农民的民主意识与参政议政能力不断提高,农村基层协商民主实践形式多样化发展,这些都使农民想要表达政治诉求的愿望越来越强烈。当前我国农村基层协商民主发展过程中还存在很多缺陷,而这些问题需要通过发展农村经济,夯实农村物质基础;培养农村基层协商民主协商主体的民主意识,提高农民参与政治的能力;转变政府职能;创新农村基层协商民主的实践形式,开拓农民政治参与的渠道;促进农村基层协商民主的制度化、规范化、程序化发展等路径来解决。     

论中国基层协商民主建设

协商民主是自由平等的公民基于权利和理性,在一种由民主宪法规范的政治共同体中,通过对话、讨论、辩论等过程形成合法决策。中国的协商民主不同于西方,尤其在改革开放以来,我国基层协商民主展现出了丰富多彩的表现形式。基于目前我国国情,基层协商民主仍然存在一些问题,如法律地位不明确,参与动力不充足,参与成本不可控等,因此如何应对基层协商民主出现的问题,健全和发展我国基层协商民主制度至关重要。     

互动与融合:国家治理与协商民主的内在逻辑

国家治理的本质是协商治理,协商治理的趋向是良政善治。国家治理的旨意与协商民主的内蕴具有紧密的关联性,即利益均衡是国家治理与协商民主一致的目标追求,公平正义是国家治理与协商民主相同的价值取向,主体平等是国家治理与协商民主同一的根本原则,公民精神是国家治理与协商民主共同的理念诉求。推进国家治理现代化需要协商民主提供承接载体,反之,发展协商民主也需要国家治理现代化架设运作平台。即,一方面加强社会主义协商民主建设有利于为国家治理创造稳定的社会环境,有利于提高国家治理过程中公共决策的质量,有利于国家治理过程中公共利益的实现;另一方面,国家治理现代化能够为社会主义协商民主建设疏通协商渠道、拓展操作场域、提供坚强保障。因此,国家治理与协商民主具有逻辑上的内在契合,二者在结构上是一种互动与融合的关系。     

协商民主概念的提出及其多元认知

协商民主理论研究兴起之后,如何界定协商民主的内涵就成了学术界的研究重点。在毕塞特看来,当初美国立宪者设计的以人民主权原则为基础、以权力分立与相互制约的体制为架构、以定期选举和政党竞争为动力的代议民主体制,就是"协商民主",就是一种深思熟虑的、审慎的、尊重人民主权的民主政治。而曼宁、科恩等学者开始拓展其内涵,将合法性、追求理性自治与公民参与的政治理想赋予协商民主。吉登斯、扬、德雷泽克等学者分别从"对话民主""交往民主"和"话语民主"角度进行了新阐释。协商民主概念经历了一个逐渐丰富和发展的过程。总体上讲,协商民主就是基于人民主权原则和多数原则的现代民主体制,其中,自由平等的公民,以公共利益为共同的价值诉求,通过理性的公共协商,在达成共识的基础上赋予立法和决策以合法性。     

Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy

Five arguments in favour of deliberative democracy are considered. These focus on its educative power, on its community-generating power, on the fairness of the procedure of public deliberation, on the epistemic quality of its outcomes and on the congruence of the deliberative democratic ideal 'with whom we are'. The first four arguments are shown to be inadequate. The fifth argument, it is claimed, not only provides the most convincing defence of deliberative democracy but can also be used to decide rationally between competing interpretations of the deliberative ideal. By way of illustration, the essay concludes with a critical discussion of the rival versions proposed by Rawls and Habermas.     

New Developments in Deliberative Democracy

This paper inspects recent theoretical work in deliberative democracy. It identifies three distinct ways in which such theories attempt to justify their claims for an increase in deliberation. Each has its strengths; each has its implications for practice. If the new deliberative theories are to move beyond a critique of liberal democracy in order to articulate a legitimate and practical politics, the respective gains of these three types must be brought together.     

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.     

Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy

In the face of widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary democratic practice, there has been a growing interest in theories of deliberative democracy. However theorists have often failed to sufficiently address the question of institutional design. This paper argues that recent experiments with citizens' juries should be of interest to deliberative democrats. The practice of citizens' juries is considered in light of three deliberative democratic criteria: inclusivity, deliberation and citizenship. It is argued that citizens' juries offer important insights into how democratic deliberation could be institutionalized in contemporary political decision-making processes.     

Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice

The paper contrasts the liberal conception of democracy as the aggregation of individual preferences with the deliberative conception of democracy as a process of open discussion leading to an agreed judgement on policy. Social choice theory has identified problems - the arbitrariness of decision rules, vulnerability to strategic voting - which are often held to undermine democratic ideals. Contrary to common opinion, I argue that deliberative democracy is less vulnerable to these difficulties than liberal democracy. The process of discussion tends to produce sets of policy preferences that are 'single peaked'; and within a deliberative setting it may be possible to vary the decision rule according to the nature of the issue to be decided.     

Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy

The classic accounts of deliberative democracy are also accounts of legitimacy: 'that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question' ( Dryzek, 2001 , p. 651). And yet, in complex societies deliberative participation by all those affected by collective decision-making is extremely implausible. There are also legitimacy problems with the demanding procedural requirements which deliberation imposes on participants. Given these problems, deliberative democracy seems unable to deliver legitimate outcomes as it defines them.
Focusing on the problem of scale, this paper offers a tentative solution using representation, a concept which is itself problematic. Along the way, the paper highlights issues with the legitimate role of experts, the different legitimate uses of statistical and electoral representation, and differences between the research and democratic imperatives driving current attempts to put deliberative principles into practice, illustrated with a case from a Leicester health policy debate. While much work remains to be done on exactly how the principles arrived at might be transformed into working institutions, they do offer a means of criticising existing deliberative practice.