Conclusion: Good and Defective Democracies
Conclusion: Good and Defective Democracies
复制标题
结论：好的民主国家和有缺陷的民主国家
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Wolfgang M Erkel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wolfgang M Erkel
“过渡学”和“巩固学”很少强调以规范和理论上复杂的方式定义民主的重要性。他们几乎没有经过讨论就接受了熊彼特、达尔和普热沃斯基的简约定义和优雅而简单的概念。1他们将民主简化为自由和普遍的选举竞争、纵向问责制以及最强大的政治和社会行动者根据民主制度化的规则玩政治游戏的事实。至少在含蓄的意义上，民主被认为是一种精英选举民主。无论是民主先决条件的结构性问题，还是可持续合法性的条件，都没有、也不可能在民主可持续性这一极简主义概念中发挥相关作用。但是，不仅民主的外部“嵌入”，而且民主选举制度的“内部”嵌入性也被忽视了。法治、公民权利和横向问责制被排除在民主概念之外。Guillermo O’donnell(1993) 4是第一个批评过渡学和巩固学主流的概念缺陷的人。在第三次民主化浪潮开始的30年后，经验证据揭示了极简主义“选举主义者”的理论缺陷。很明显，将丹麦、瑞典或法国归入与俄罗斯、泰国或巴西相同类型的政权——选举民主制——是一种误导。在区分不同类型的民主方面，政治学甚至有可能落后于日报的分析能力。很明显，大多数新兴民主国家不能被贴上“自由民主”的标签。普遍的、竞争性的和自由的选举结果不足以保证法治、公民权利和横向责任制。在两次选举之间，许多选举民主国家都不是民治、民享或民治的政府。很明显，民主选举需要互补的局部政权的支持，如法治、横向问责制和开放的公共领域，才能成为“有意义的”选举。民主理论再一次与民主化研究相遇。自20世纪90年代中期研究以来
‘Transitology’ and ‘consolidology’ have only rarely emphasized the importance of defining democracy in a normatively and theoretically sophisticated manner. Almost without discussion they accepted the parsimonious definition and elegant but simple concepts of Schumpeter, Dahl and Przeworski. 1 They reduced democracy to the question of free and general electoral competition, vertical accountability and the fact that the most powerful political and social actors played the political game according to democratically institutionalized rules. At least implicitly, democracy was conceived as an elitist electoral democracy. Neither the structural question of prerequisites for democracy 2 nor the conditions for sustainable legitimacy 3 played and could play a relevant role within this minimalist concept of the sustainability of democracy. But not only the external ‘embedding’ of democracy, but also the ‘internal’ embeddedness of the democratic electoral regime was neglected. Rule of law, civil rights and horizontal accountability were excluded from the concept of democracy. Guillermo O’Donnell (1993) 4 was the first to criticize that conceptual flaw of the mainstream of transitology and consolidology. Thirty years after the beginning of the third wave of democratization empirical evidence revealed the theoretical shortcomings of the minimalist ‘electoralists’. It became evident that it is misleading to subsume Denmark, Sweden or France under the same type of regime – an electoral democracy – as Russia, Thailand or Brazil. Political science ran the risk of even falling behind the analytical capacity of daily newspapers in differentiating between different types of democracy. It became clear that the majority of new democracies could not be labelled ‘liberal democracies’. General, competitive and free elections turned out to be insufficient in guaranteeing the rule of law, civil rights and horizontal accountability. Between elections many of the electoral democracies were not government by, of or for the people. It became obvious, again, that democratic elections need the support of complementary partial regimes, such as the rule of law, horizontal accountability and an open public sphere in order to become ‘meaningful’ elections. Democratic theory has once again met up with research on democratization. Since the mid-1990s studies