The Rational Consensus of the Society Ruled by Law-An Interpretation of Individual Preference Transformed by Deliberative Democracy for Example of “Twelve Citizens”
-
摘要: 多元主义政治观认为，个人偏好是外在于政治过程的、固定不变的，政治活动不过是对个人偏好的汇总；共和主义政治观认为，个人偏好与政治过程紧密关联、可以被改变，政治审议会重塑个人偏好。具体到民主决策程序层面，多元主义政治观倾向于实行票决民主，而共和主义政治观推崇审议民主。采取多数原则的票决民主，不仅无法实现对个人偏好的转化，还会对少数意见产生压制，进而极大地妨害了决策结论的正当性和稳定性。审议民主在搭建公共讨论平台、促成理性共识、塑造公民方面有着重要的价值。当代中国正处于深刻的社会转型期，公民意识高涨，社会冲突加剧，迫切需要通过恰当的方式引导公民理性表达诉求。藉由不同层面的民主审议历练，形成关心公共利益的公民文化，为深化民主进程积累经验和共识。Abstract: Pluralism politics supposes personal preference is external to political process and fixed; political activity is but a summary of personal preferences. In contrast, the republican political view is that personal preference is closely related to political process and can be changed; political council will reshape personal preference. As for the democratic decision-making process, the political pluralism outlook tends to implement democratic ballot, while the republican political outlook advocates deliberative democracy. Ballot democracy not only fails to achieve the transformation of personal preference, but also suppresses the minority's views, thereby greatly affecting the legitimacy and stability of decision making conclusions. Deliberative democracy is valuable in building a public platform for discussion, promoting rational consensus, and shaping citizens. Contemporary China is undergoing profound social transformation, civic awareness is rising, social conflicts are exacerbating, it is urgently needed to guide citizens to express their demands rational through an appropriate manner. With different levels of democratic deliberation, a civic culture focusing on public interest should be cultivated in order to accumulate experience for deepening the democratic process, and reaching a consensus.
-
Key words:
- individual preference /
- deliberative democracy /
- rational consensus /
- republicanism
-
[1] 托克维尔.论美国的民主[M]. 董果良,译. 北京:商务印书馆,2013. [2] JOHN G,PETER L. The deliberative democracy handbook:strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,2005. [3] SUNSTEIN C. Interest groups in American public law[J]. Stanford Law Review,1985(38):29-87. [4] 王晓升. 大众的崛起与民主的衰弱——政治哲学意义上的大众传媒与商议民主的关系[J]. 哲学动态,2015(11):5-12. [5] 科恩. 论民主[M]. 聂崇信,朱秀贤,译. 北京:商务印书馆,2005. [6] 哈贝马斯. 在事实与规范之间[M]. 童世骏,译. 北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2014. [7] 应奇,刘训练. 公民共和主义[M]. 北京:东方出版社,2006. [8] 赵娟. 论美国言论自由判例中的公共论坛原理——从2009年萨姆案谈起[J]. 行政法学研究,2010(4):105-111. [9] 郑海平. 表达自由案件中的"公共论坛"原理——基于美国宪法判例的分析[J]. 甘肃行政学院学报,2012(5):117-125. [10] 凯斯. 偏颇的宪法[M]. 宋华琳,毕竞悦,译. 北京:北京大学出版社,2005. [11] 徐昂,徐枫,柴斯卡,等. 当"对话"成为大银幕的主角[J]. 当代电影,2015(5):75-81. [12] 林国明. 审议民主实践的多元模式[J]. 台湾民主季刊,2007(3):191-195. [13] 凯斯. 剪裁歧见:订做民主社会的共识[M]. 尧嘉宁,译. 台北:卫城出版社,2015. [14] 黄东益,李翰林,施佳良."搏感情"或"讲道理"——公共审议中参与者自我转化机制之探讨[J]. 东吴政治学报,2007(1):44-64. [15] 马德普. 协商民主是选举民主的补充吗[J]. 政治学研究,2014(4):18-26. [16] 布鲁斯. 我们人民:宪法根基[M]. 杨智杰,译. 台北:联经出版事业股份公司,2015. [17] 李强. 改革开放30年来中国社会分层结构的变迁[J]. 北京社会科学,2008(5):52-53. -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 560
- HTML全文浏览量: 2
- PDF下载量: 517
- 被引次数: 0
下载:
