事实与规范之间:网络反腐有效性反思

党的十八大以来,网络反腐与制度反腐、权力反腐形成呼应之势,合力形成新时期我国反腐败斗争的整体战略格局。以哈贝马斯的"言语有效性"为衡量标准,网络反腐在取得诸多成绩的同时,也存在着网络暴力、信息真假难辨、实践运行缺乏制度支撑等问题,其本质在于没有充分满足言语的正当性、真诚性或真实性条件。因此,为有效提升网络反腐的有效性应以主体间性基础上的话语论证缓冲集体非理性,在网络反腐领域中充分满足言语有效性条件,同时公共领域对国家权力的影响需要制度规范,确保网络反腐良性发展。     

Pragmatism and Radical Democracy

Abstract

This paper suggests that pragmatism makes a distinctive contribution to the theory and practice of radical democracy. It investigates the relation ship between the renewal of interest in pragmatism and the recent attempts to develop radical democratic alternatives to political liberalism. With particular reference to the contemporary critical social theory of Habermas and Honneth, the paper outlines key dimensions of the civic republican, deliberative democratic and reflexive cooperative reconstructions of John Dewey's conception of democracy. These reconstructions are shown to have explicated important pragmatist insights concerning public participation in civic associations, the discursive practices of deliberation, and the cooperative organization of the division of labour. However, it is argued that each of these reconstructions pre suppose some facet of the additional pragmatist understanding of the creativity of action and that the most distinctive contributions of pragmatism to radical democratic theory and practice derive from a notion of democracy as instituted and emergent meaning.     

Post-Marxism, Democracy and the Future of Radical Politics

This paper takes issue with the suggestion that the work of post-Marxists, largely informed by a 'post-modern' perspective, should be viewed with suspicion by those concerned with advancing a radical democratic agenda. I argue that such a reading fails to penetrate beneath the surface of the post-Marxist engagement with liberal theory, seeing their willingness to concede the necessity for a mediation between 'particular' and 'universal', individual and community as a sign of their happiness to rest within the presuppositions of classical liberal theory. In fact, the opposite is the case: only by treating seriously the question of 'mediation' can left radical demands for greater democratisation, increased equality and autonomy make sense within a modern, industrialised context. By extension, it is exploring the forms and modalities of mediation that left radical demands can become politically relevant.     

论民主与稳定的关系

社会稳定是当代中国的最高利益,是压倒一切的大局.建设高度的社会主义民主政治,是维护和发展稳定的基础.而稳定是社会主义民主政治建设的条件.将民主和稳定有机地结合起来,以民主来促进稳定,以稳定来保证民主,使它们相互制约,协调一致,形成"民主--稳定"良性循环系统,这是进行社会主义现代化建设的最佳环境.     

Millian Radical Democracy: Education for Freedom and Dilemmas of Liberal Equality

This paper returns to J. S. Mill to draw out democratic conceptions of education and equality that challenge still-current conceptions of intractable human inequalities. Mill acknowledges that individuals differ in abilities. Nonetheless, he develops a broad conception of 'education for freedom' and insists that only 'wretched social arrangements' prevent virtually all people from exercising capacities for self-government in citizenship, marriage, and industry. In the same breath, he qualifies his democratic egalitarianism with reference to a sub-class of working people whose 'low moral qualities' leave them unfit for such self-government. Modern liberal states largely dismiss Mill's more radical democratic impulse. Meanwhile, they reiterate and refine his exclusionary one through new practices for constructing and managing inequalities – for example, IQ tests, educational 'tracking', and social science categories like the 'underclass'. I reconsider this divided legacy of Mill's egalitarianism as a basis for rethinking the limits of today's 'meritocratic' egalitarianism.     

Giving Up (on) Rights? The Future of Rights and the Project of Radical Democracy

Debate over the theory of rights has recently reemerged, with a confrontation between postfoundational writings that challenge the very discourse of rights and Habermasians (and others) who insist on the foundational centrality of rights. This article will not enter such a debate directly, but rather will try to take seriously that challenge itself. The article asks what, exactly, is at stake in an argument for or against rights and queries whether this challenge to rights discourse entails giving up on rights as a tool of political leverage. In responding to such questions I indicate a future for rights and rights discourse, one found within the project of radical democracy. I not only insist that we cannot abandon the discourse of rights in contemporary theory and politics, but also go on to suggest that sustaining and reinvigorating the discourse of rights requires a significant displacement of that discourse from the dominant terms of liberalism and toward those of radical democracy.     

Power and Democracy in Denmark: Still a Viable Democracy

In its final report, the Danish Democracy and Power Study (1998–2004) pointed to a number of serious democratic problems such as declining political party membership, a growing gap between a competent and resourceful majority and a marginalised minority, the growing influence of the media, the transfer of power from the political to the judicial system, and the democratic deficit associated with European Union membership. However, the report also concluded that overall democratic development in the last 30–40 years has been surprisingly positive. This article assesses the development of democracy in Denmark in relation to the parliamentary chain of governance: the standard used in the final report of the majority of the Norwegian power study group. The conclusion is that, in the case of Denmark, democratic development has not – as the parliamentary committee initially expected – resulted in a systematic weakening of the parliamentary chain of governance.     

"民主的质和量"与党内民主建设

列宁曾提出过一个对民主建设具有重要意义的观点,这就是关于民主的质和量。民主的质就是民主的阶级规定性,民主的量则是民主的社会实现度;民主的质决定民主的量,而民主的量反过来又可以影响民主的质。因此,有着更高水平特质的党内民主,应该通过量的更大扩张,而不断地得到加强和发扬。     

Democracy as Procedure and Democracy as Regime

In the intellectual confusion prevailing since the demise of Marxism and "marxism", the attempt is made to define democracy as a matter of pure procedure, explicitly avoiding and condemning any reference to substantive objectives. It can easily be shown, however, that the idea of a purely procedural "democracy" is incoherent and self-contradictory. No legal system whatsoever and no government can exist in the absence of substantive conditions which cannot be left to chance or to the workings of the "market" but must be posited as objectives of political activity. The confusion results from a deficient understanding of what makes a society and an empty idea of "freedom". The objective of politics is not happiness, an affair to be left to the individuals, but it certainly is liberty understood as participation in the governance of the polity; it is also the pursuit of the common good, defined as the sum of the prerequisites and facilitations of individual autonomy depending on collective action, and as the realization of commonly agreed collective goals.