西方竞争性政党体制下的政党共识及思考

西方竞争性政党体制下，政党之间除了激烈的竞争外，也存在着共识。共识是西方政党之间关系的一个重要方面。政党共识的出现是由多方面因素造成的，其中政治、社会、文化、政党自身因素起决定性作用。西方政党的共识政治对我国具有重要的启示。     

Anomalous authoritarianism: what,which, why?

Research on autocracies has gained new momentum in the last decade. One element of this research is the observation that some autocracies are characterised by structural conditions that are normally conducive for democracy. These ‘anomalous autocracies’ have high levels of socioeconomic development and democratic neighbour countries. The study of these cases might expose factors that are decisive for autocratic stability and studying them might give us a better understanding of barriers towards democratisation. This paper contributes to the growing literature on autocracies by mapping anomalous autocracies during the third wave of democratisation, thereby paving the way for systematic case selection in future studies. A large-N analysis of 159 cases (1975–2008) identifies Belarus, Chile, China, Cuba, Morocco, North Korea, Peru, Singapore, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe. In a second step, the paper lays out a theoretical framework that centres on actors and institutions. Rulers must establish elite–elite and elite–mass interaction, and this papers argues that they can do so through quasi-compliance of elites and the masses based on traditional institutions woven into a dominant party. The paper uses the framework to tentatively examine the resilience of authoritarian rule in Swaziland and Morocco, two most-different anomalous cases. In both cases, an elaborate traditional institution has co-opted government, business and rural elites and coordinated interaction within elite circles and with the masses, in turn enabling the remarkable regime resilience.     

Horses for courses: China's accommodative approach to food standard‐setting in response to the internationalization of regulation

This paper examines the evolution of China's food standard‐setting procedures from both domestic and international perspectives, particularly in the context of the internationalization of regulation. After the reform and opening‐up in 1978, state actors and leading enterprises monopolized the process of national food standard setting. With further participation in the global economy in the 21st century, China has become familiar with the international standard‐setting procedures and has modeled its domestic policymaking on these practices. This has resulted in a more transparent, inclusive, scientific, pluralized, and consensus‐based form of decisionmaking. By contrast, the standards of the strategic industries have been harmonized to the standards of international counterparts through a top‐down and authoritarian approach. This paper argues that China uses an accommodative approach, trichotomizing suitable standards and decisionmaking procedures in terms of inclusiveness and transparency, which suits the developmental needs of the domestic market, food export markets, and strategic industries.     

How authoritarian rulers seek to legitimize repression: framing mass killings in Egypt and Uzbekistan

How do authoritarian rulers legitimate repressive actions against their own citizens? Although most research depicts repression and legitimation as opposed strategies of political rule, justified coercion against some groups may generate legitimacy in the eyes of other parts of the population. Building upon this suggested link between legitimation and repression, this article studies the justifications of mass killings. To this end, framing theory is combined with recent research on the domestic and international dimensions of authoritarian rule. We contend that frames are directed towards specific audiences at home and abroad. Moreover, given the common threats at the global level and the diffusion of repressive tactics, we assume that learning processes influence discursive justifications of repression in authoritarian regimes. We provide an analysis of government rhetoric by comparing the protest crackdowns of Rabi’a ‘Adawiya Square in Egypt and Fergana Valley in Uzbekistan, taking into account the audiences and the sources of the frames that justify repression. In both cases, we find the terrorism frame to emerge as dominant.     

What autocracies say (and what citizens hear): proposing four mechanisms of autocratic legitimation

ABSTRACT

Autocratic governments make claims about why they are entitled to rule. Some autocracies are more talkative than others, but all regimes say something about why they deserve power. This article takes seriously these efforts by introducing and interrogating the concept of autocratic legitimation. After engaging in a definitional discussion, it traces the development of autocratic legitimation in modern political science by identifying major turning points, key concepts, and patterns of inquiry over time. Ultimately, this introductory article aims to not only argue that studying autocratic legitimation is important, but also to propose contexts, concepts, and distinctions for doing so productively. To this end, the article proposes four mechanisms of autocratic legitimation that can facilitate comparative analysis: indoctrination, passivity, performance, and democratic-procedural. Finally, the essay briefly introduces the five original articles that comprise the remainder of this special issue on autocratic legitimation. The article identifies avenues for further research and identifies how each article in the issue advances down productive pathways of inquiry.     

Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey

Since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002 Turkey has undergone double regime transitions. First, tutelary democracy ended; second, a competitive authoritarian regime has risen in its stead. We substantiate this assertion with specific and detailed evidence from 2015 election cycles, as well as from broader trends in Turkish politics. This evidence indeed confirms that elections are no longer fair; civil liberties are being systematically violated; and the playing field is highly skewed in favour of the ruling AKP. The June 2015 election results and their aftermath further confirm that Turkey has evolved into a competitive authoritarian regime.     

Russia’s ministry of ambivalence: the failure of civic nation-building in post-Soviet Russia

This article argues that the sources of official and societal ambivalence towards civic nationhood in today’s Russia are found in the institutional instability and personalist dynamics of hybrid regime politics in the 1990s. Successful civic nation-building should institutionalize inclusive criteria for citizenship as a basis for policymaking, which in turn should create incentives for dominant ethnicities to embrace civic nationhood. While the shifting views of Boris Yel’tsin on nationalities policy and the constant turmoil in the government’s nationalities ministry have received little scholarly attention, they illuminate the endogenous sources of regime instability in relation to civic nation-building. Russia’s experience thus challenges the traditional view of ethnic nationalism as fostering authoritarianism and civic nationalism as fostering democracy: rather, competitive authoritarianism in the 1990s confounded the regime’s own efforts toward civic nation-building and laid the groundwork for the “ethnic turn” in Russian politics under Vladimir Putin.     

关于改进和完善竞争性选拔干部方式的几点思考

竞争性选拔是干部选拔任用的重要方式之一,在促进干部队伍中优秀人才脱颖而出方面发挥了积极作用,但也存在着一些不容忽视的问题,为此,应在明确职能定位、确定适用标准、抓好关键环节、完善监督机制、构建制度体系等方面下功夫,在实践中努力改进和完善竞争性选拔干部方式。     

危险驾驶罪相关问题浅析

近几年,以危险方法驾驶机动车辆而导致的重大交通事故有增无减,无疑给人们的生命、健康和财产安全造成了极大的威胁。在这种情况下,刑法修正案（八）第二十二条规定了＂危险驾驶罪＂。这一罪名的出现,对于预防严重的交通事故,更好地维护交通秩序,保护人民群众的生命、健康和财产安全具有重要的意义。危险驾驶罪是一个新罪名,对于这一犯罪的构成和认定上还有诸多争议。本文从客观方面的＂追逐竞驶＂与＂醉酒驾驶＂、主观方面的认定以及与其他犯罪的界限几个方面解读本罪,以期更加准确的理解、掌握和运用。     

实施品牌战略提升竞争实力--以保险企业为例

在产品、服务日益同质化的时代，未来市场竞争就是品牌的较量。建立知名品牌，可以增加保险企业核心竞争力，占领更多的市场份额，使保险企业摆脱低价竞争，获取较大的经营利润，并有助于招揽优秀员工，提高雇员的忠诚度。面对国内外保险企业激烈的竞争，国内保险公司要想做大做强，提高自身的竞争实力，就必须加强诚信建设，进行产品和服务的创新，完善公司的管理体系，注重企业文化建设并能准确地进行市场定位，努力打造自己的优势品牌，提高企业的知名度和关誉度。