Saturday, April 23, 2005

Varieties of Democracy

Just like the "Nationalist" has many forms,there are also many varieties of democracy.

In general, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. This contemporary understanding of democracy to a large degree differs from how the term was originally defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political regime.

The word democracy originates from the Greek wrods that means "rule by the people." The term is also sometimes used as a measurement of how much influence a people has over their government, as in how much democracy exists. Anarchism and communism are social systems that employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves.

Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case. For example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament.

Although democracy implies only a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, modern democracy can be characterized more fully by the following institutions: (Quote from Wikipedia)

1. A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.

2. Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner.

3. The right to vote and to stand for election (also Universal suffrage),

4. Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)

5. Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources Freedom of association

6. Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law

7. Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities

There is another definition of democracy. In which the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a "republic".

We have heard about the "democratization" of a nation:xxxxxx. Democratization is the transition from authoritarian or semi-authoritarian systems to democratic political systems, that have essentials of a democratic system: universal suffrage, regular elections, a civil society, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary.

It is interesting to think about what factors affect democratization. I thnk the followings are very relevant to the process of democratization.

1. Wealth. We learned from all those elections that no money means no campaign acivities, and no publicity.

2. Economic system. Fortunately, a true democracy can only be achieved if the the economy is controlled by the people as a whole rather than by private individuals.

3. A large middle class. This is a typical Gaussian Theorem. Majority of middle class acts as a buffer between the upper classes who want political power and the lower classes may want power to lift themselves up.

4. Civil society. A healthy civil society (NGOs, unions, academia, human rights organisations) are considered by some theorists to be important for democratization, as they give people a unity and a common purpose.

5. Homogeneous population. Some believe that a country which is deeply divided, whether by ethnic group, religion, or language, cannot establish a working democracy. The basis of this theory is that the different components of the country will be more interested in advancing their own position than in sharing power with each other. (This is an important factor in Taiwan)

6. Culture. It is claimed by some that certain cultures are simply more conductive to democratic values than others. Typically, it is Western culture which is cited as "best suited" to democracy, with other cultures portrayed as containing values which make democracy difficult or undesirable. This factor may play important role in countries of Asian.

7. A tradition of democracy. Democracy must evolve gradually. This argument is linked with the argument about cultural values. A country with extensive contact with Western countries will absorbing cultural values and ideals faster.

Finally, some like to use foreign intervention. They believe that foreign involvement can actively promote and foster by those countries which have democracy already. I, however, take the opposite stance, and say that democratization must come "from the bottom up", and that attempts to impose democracy from the outside are doomed to failure regardless of other factors --- Raping a woman can produce baby too but we all condem the raping.

4 comments:

Big Eagle said...

How can Democracy work? From the recent presidential election in USA and recent hot topics about the visits of party(not ruling) presidents to China and the general election of UK, I think it is very important to remember that democracy can't work if people don't remember the basic equation of this system:
Democracy = Freedom + Rule of Law,
In Chinese, it is 民主=自由+法制,

Furthermore, the equation is the foundamental definition of democratic system. Both terms on the right side of "equal sign" are important (等式右邊缺一不可)。

Big Eagle said...

由於連戰及宋楚瑜在四、五月前後率團訪問中國,陳水扁總統及獨派人士再度以連宋重提"九二共識"來批評連宋賣台的行動。民眾討論重點在"有沒有九二共識"。陳總統已幾度表決明他沒有看過"九二共識"。所以我就去Google查證一下。從以下兩項報導我們就能看出"九二共識"的由來:

(一) 辜振甫重提"九二共識"
2001年01月16日 格林尼治標準時間18:21北京時間02:21發表

BBC中文網駐台北特約記者 揚孟瑜:

曾在兩岸關係中扮演「和談者」角色的台灣海峽交流基金會(簡稱「海基會」)董事長辜振甫,自美國療養返台後,今天(16日)與國民黨主席連戰會面,兩人認為兩岸要打破僵局,必須回歸"一個中國,各自表述"的92年共識。

1992年11月中國的兩岸關係協會(海協會)與台灣的海峽交流基金會(
海基會)就解決兩會事務性商談中如何表明堅持一個中國原則的態度問題所達成的以口頭方式表達的“海峽兩岸均堅持一個中國原則”的共識。

至於「一個中國」的內涵,為了避免爭議,當時北京的立場是暫不討論,而台北的立場則是各自表述。亦因為如此,當年海基會的主要負責人,包括辜振甫先生,迄今仍一直堅持「九二共識」也就是「一中各表」。

無論「九二共識」是簡單的「一個中國」原則還是較為模糊的「一中各表」,可以肯定的是,認同中國主權未曾分裂、堅持兩岸未來必須統一是兩岸當時的基本共識,而這也是一九九三年「辜汪會談」得以順利進行的真正基礎。

前陸委會主委蘇起表示,兩岸要往來,“九二共識”是基礎和前提。因此他在2000年4月29日提出以“九二共識”的名稱,表明在1992年兩會互動往來的過程以及最後在共同的基礎上,以模糊性的概念將各方的解讀有所交集。

(二) 美官員背景簡報:兩岸92年確曾達「最小且必要的共識」
【聯合報】2001/11/21

一位不能具名的布希政府官員19日表示,根據美國政府的檔案資料和他與相關人士的訪談,兩岸在1992年確實達成了促成會談「最小且必要的共識(the minimum necessary consensus)」,而當時中華民國政府的「國家統一綱領」在「一個中國」的議題上,也說得非常清楚。

美官員並說,九二年促使兩岸關係向前推進的理解(understanding),現在還是足以讓兩岸關係再向前,但「有人必須決定他們願意這樣做。」

這位官員在一場為部分台灣駐華府記者舉行的背景簡報中,作以上表示。針對記者提出陳水扁總統日前表示兩岸並沒有文件顯示有所謂「九二共識」的問題,他說,「是否有份明確的文件並不知道」,「但確實有某種讓兩岸會面的『共識』存在。」

這位官員說,公開的文件應足以說明當時台灣的立場就是「一個中國,各自表述」,兩岸也的確各自說了些不完全相同的話,但當時卻足以成為「共識」。

他說,根據美國政府的檔案與他個人和相關人士的訪談,原本1992年的辜汪的新加坡會談,因為兩岸對「一個中國」的詮釋各有意見,才拖到1993年舉行。

這位官員說,在這段等待會談期間,台灣的國統會在1991年2月通過國統綱領,並在1992年8月1日對「一個中國」的涵義作進一步的詮釋,因此兩岸會談才有往前推進的足夠基礎。

在這項當時由總統李登輝主導的國統會第八次會議通過的「關於『一個中國』的涵義」說明中表明,兩岸均堅持「一個中國」的原則,但雙方所賦予的涵義有所不同。中共認為「一個中國」就是「中華人民共和國」;但台灣方面認為「一個中國」指1912年成立的中華民國,其主權及於中國大陸,但目前治權僅及台澎金馬,台灣與大陸都是中國的一部分。

Big Eagle said...

As I look back to the equation I listed in the first comment:

Democracy = Freedom + Rule of Law

I feel the inter-relation of these three elements are not quite well presented by an algebraic equation. It would be more meaningful when we use the Group Theory to present their relationship. Therefore, the relation should be :

(Democracy,*) = (Freedom, Rule of Law, *), where

(Freedom,*) and (Rule of Law,*) are subgroups of Group (Democracy, *)

:))

Big Eagle said...

賣台 獨裁語言 自由敵人
【2005/05/08 聯合報】
林火旺/台大哲學系教授(台北市)

連戰出訪,綠營使用最多的字眼就是「賣台」;宋楚瑜儘管有陳水扁總統的加持,仍難逃類似撻伐;昨天李前總統仍是痛批兩人「賣台」。陳總統前天的回應則令人激賞:不同的聲音是台灣多元民主的驕傲,並呼籲國人應有度量尊重不同政黨的政治主張。

自由的社會,人民對公共事務有不同的想法本就正常,美國哲學家羅爾斯晚期特別強調其理論是政治的自由主義,其中最重要的概念之一就是合理多元的事實。自由社會的特質是,合理的主張不是只有一個,即使具有充分理性的人真心誠意進行自由討論,他們對同一件事仍然會有不同的判斷。不允許理性辯論、堅持自己的主張是惟一真理,而用詆譭或暴力脅迫不同意見的人,就是不合理的人。

筆者在七年前參與台北市長選舉輔選,被民進黨一重量級人士批為「新賣台集團」成員,事實上其中羅列的成員,有些我從沒見過面,但是言者卻信誓旦旦的指出會面的時間地點。現在證明這種羞辱他人人格的說法根本子虛烏有,但是抹黑者從來沒有澄清,更甭談道歉。這次連宋出訪,「賣台」聲浪又起,這些激情指控者不是不懂自由民主,就是為了一己之私。

約翰彌勒是「自由」最重要的捍衛者,他指出,民主社會對個人自由最大的威脅不是政府,而是操弄大眾媒體抵制或醜化不同意見。因為前者的獨裁牴觸民主政治,不會被大眾允許;後者的獨裁是無形的,透過「背離人民利益」、「出賣國家」等抽象且具有情緒性語言,譴責和自己想法不同的人,以壓迫他人放棄或改變想法,或讓不同意見者噤若寒蟬,這就是多數暴力。

盧梭亦曾說:放棄自由等於放棄人性,因此剝奪一個人的自由等於剝奪他身為一個人的尊嚴和權利。如果民主政治最可貴的是「每一個人都有權利決定自己的未來」,自由就是民主政治的前提。

「賣台」是賣國賊的作為,這是何等嚴厲的道德指控。用這樣的字眼對付想法不一樣的人,如果根據彌勒的論點,這種排他行徑和獨裁無異;如果根據盧梭的主張,這種作法不但沒有尊重他人的人格尊嚴,而且也侵蝕民主政治最重要的價值。因此「賣台」是獨裁者的語言,是自由的敵人。
------------------------------
BigEagle had raised the similar arguement in earlier posting on the right to express one's opinion in a democratic society. I am glad to see Prof. Lin emphasized this point.