The Idea of Deliberative Democracy. A Critical Appraisal

The deliberative conception of politics seems to be necessary for the legitimation of state power through democratic will-formation and decision-making. However, the author maintains that a complex theory of democracy cannot merely consist in procedural prerequisites for organizing the concomitant institutional settings. In particular, such a theory must comprise some substantive presuppositions, such as social and economic rights, in order to diminish existing material inequalities, especially those connected with social exploitation and domination. The author argues that a contemporary theory of democracy should reflect on the autonomization of mechanisms of egoistic action challenging not only the democratic political order, but also the very reproduction preconditions of societies all over the world. In this perspective, the model of associative democracy, which is suggested nowadays as a sort of substantive correlative to the institutional proceduralism, could not significantly rejuvenate the traditional representative democracy. Instead, democracy could only be given a fresh impulse if democratic deliberation penetrates the currently forbidden field of capitalist production and social exploitation, the locus where social inequality and effective unfreedom are endlessly reproduced.     

Deliberative Democracy and Liberal Rights

Many liberals cannot help distrusting deliberative democracy theory. In their view, the theory offers no sufficient guarantee that the outcomes of democratic deliberation will be respectful of individual interests generating what they conceive as basic moral rights. The purpose of this text is to provide one argument showing that liberal rights are sufficiently protected within deliberative democracy theory. The argument does not rest on the idea of moral rights or material justice. It rests on the conditions of legitimate law deliberative democracy theory presupposes, namely, the conditions that make concrete the idea of legitimacy as "actual public justification."     

Deliberative Democracy and Constitutional Review

Law and Philosophy -     

服务型政府管理中的协商民主研究

在服务型政府管理过程中发展协商民主具有必要性和可能性。要充分发挥协商民主对服务型政府建设的作用,就要在把握协商民主特点的基础上,不断克服实践过程中可能出现的问题。     

政策合法性的困境及其改善：协商民主的视角

无论是经验主义,还是规范主义,政策合法性理论在现实的政治生活中均面临着重大困境,其解决的基本方向是发展协商民主笔者在研究中发现．通过公共协商,正视和整合多元社套中的多元利益,可以使公共政策获得更为坚实的合法性基础。     

协商民主的理论及其实践：对人权保障的贡献——以协商民主的权力制约功能为分析视角

作为当代西方民主理论和实践的最新发展，协商民主强调公民通过自由而平等的理性对话、辩论、推理和审议等方式来参与公共生活，赋予立法和决策以合法性，从而保证公民自治和真实民主的实现，推动民主政治的发展。协商民主的价值理念契合了当代宪政国家人权保障的核心追求，其宪政功能突出表现在通过制约和监督国家权力以整合多元社会共识，赋予立法和决策以正当合法性，凸显宪政国家人权保障的终极目标。当前各国的乡村社会和地方城市产生了许多新的协商制度形式，为人权保障事业作出了独特贡献。     

论协商民主在行政决策机制中的引入

我国现行“公众参与、专家论证、政府决定”的行政决策机制由于“公众参与”之规定停留于一般要求,造成公众在机制中的“结构——过程”两阶段中角色断裂,进而使机制所追求的民主正当性目标落空。而强调公众参与的广泛与平等、重视理性与真诚协商、注重偏好转向的协商民主有助于修复行政决策中公众参与可能遗漏的民主性,美国行政决策中的协商民主在实践层面上验证了此种功能取向。由是,在我国行政决策机制中引入协商民主可成为一种增强决策过程民主性的选择性方案,更为重要的是,我国政治协商制度为此种引入提供了政治与制度基础。而协商民主要在行政决策中获得稳定性并持续发展,必需借助法律媒介使其制度化。     

商谈民主视野下的结社自由与社团立法

商谈民主理论认为社会公众通过协商和对话参与决策能达致在公共问题上的共识并实现民主,同时强调社团等＂商谈性配置＂的关键作用。结社自由是＂商谈性配置＂发挥作用的法律基础和保障,其内涵反映了个人与社团实现该自由的具体方式和途径。我国目前在社团立法上存在着合法性与正当性方面的不足,因此,应当从转变立法指导思想、明确结社自由的权利属性、完善社团管理体制等方面加以解决。     

协商民主视域下的社会管理创新问题思考

提 要：从协商民主视域创新社会管理是加强社会建设的基本要求与发展趋势.因此,充分认识协商民主视域下社会管理创新的时代价值,对协商民主视域下社会管理创新的现实问题作出分析,进一步明确协商民主对社会管理创新提出的新要求,努力探讨协商民主视域下社会管理创新的理论突破与实践选择,具有非常重要的现实意义.     

从理论到实践:协商民主理论与公共新闻学

协商民主与公共新闻学是在西方政治学与新闻学领域兴起的对西方社会民主缺失的反思,二者皆强调公民作为主体参与政治的民主实质。大众传媒应促进公民参与公共生活,并对事关公共利益的问题作有意义的议题设置,引导公众思考和作出决策,提供公共论坛,呈现各种不同观点,积极地推动公共讨论和论辩,以推进民主发展。     

Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Rule of Law

The ongoing process of globalization calls out for novel forms of transnational liberal–democratic decision–making. In this spirit, David Held and a group of interlocutors (especially Daniele Archibugi) propose an ambitious model of "cosmopolitan democracy." Although the proponents of cosmopolitan democracy are right to insist that transnational liberal democracy must avoid the dangers of an excessively centralized world–state, their own efforts to do so ultimately fail. The weaknesses of their ideas about the notion of the "rule of law" generate unforeseen theoretical difficulties for their account. Any transnational network of liberal–democratic governance worth defending will need to do a better job preserving a substantial quotient of traditional rule of law virtues.     

论法治的民主功能

作为人类政治文明的伟大成果,民主更多地体现着人类社会的正向价值。作为植根于市场经济、民主政治、理性文化和社会文明的法治,内涵"良法",是近代以来各个国家的法律实践过程和追求目标。以法治的本质属性以及民主的内在需求为视域,民主蕴涵着极大的法治功能,主要表现为民主发展的"促动"功能,民主内容的"承载"功能,民主实现的"保障"功能以及民主局限的"克服"功能等。     

寻求不一致的一致——试论软法与协商民主机制的结构性耦合

卢曼认为,法律是一个使用合法/不合法的独特符号作为沟通手段的独立的规则系统,是人类行为的规范性预期的制度化。法律规范作为独立系统欲保持稳定与再生则必须在封闭运行的同时与外部环境之间保持认知的开放,其对外部环境刺激的稳定回应模式即为结构性耦合。从此视角观察,软法是一个相对而言制度化程度较低的,其稳定预期的功能相对弱化了的规则系统,它允许中间程度的效力,其创生本身具有回应性目的。软法建构的环境在国际关系和国内民主政治领域的表现形式就是协商民主。协商民主政治机制本身的出现就具有回应民主程度问题的性质,其成功的几个关键机制需要弹性的规范体系。软法能够模式化地回应协商民主的需要而与之形成结构性耦合。     

Law against the Rule of Law: Assaulting Democracy

This article examines how authoritarian contenders use law to advance an agenda geared to exclusive state power in light of a paradigmatic case: the National Socialists’ takeover of the German state apparatus in spring 1933. This case highlights two ways in which an office holder is able to expand his power in an authoritarian fashion through legal dispositions. A conjunctural use of law for authoritarian purposes draws on legal statutes to undercut the political capacity of opponents and competitors, hollow out institutional checks, and crucially hamper civil freedoms. Taking advantage of constitutional provisions that make institutional subversion from within possible (‘constitutional Trojan horses’), a structural use of legal statutes reorders the power structure by reallocating decisional rights. In both cases, law serves as a weapon against the rule of law. These considerations raise the question of the standards by which we are to judge the legality of such acts. Contemporary instances of democratic backsliding are cases in point.     

Judicial Review and Deliberative Democracy: A Circular Model of Law Creation and Legitimation

In this paper the author discusses the legitimation of judicial review of legislation. He argues that such a legitimation is not just a moral matter but is to be considered more generally in terms of societal acceptability, since it is based on a wide range of reasons including moral, social and pragmatic concerns. Moreover, the paper stresses that the legitimation of judicial decisions should be properly viewed in a circular perspective, so that the relationship between legislators and judges cannot be reduced to an absolute supremacy of those who are democratically elected over those who apply the law. On the contrary, the law is constantly made, adapted and developed in legal practice and legal decisions are basically legitimated through several processes of deliberative communication.     

论协商民主广泛多层制度化发展——从场域理论的视角

协商民主的广泛多层制度化发展是鼓励公众有序政治参与的新形式。它既与中国社会的多样性、复杂性相适应．也与发达国家的代表性理论具有一定的契合性。场域理论为协商民主广泛多层制度化发展提供了新的理论分析视角。本文根据实践场域客观存在的协商民主形式,从协商主体、主题、具体形式、方法、程序等方面对协商民主的广泛多层制度化发展提供经验支持．进而说明这一协商民主形式是当代中国民主政治发展的新观念和新实践。