民主政治的理解和定义
发布时间：2016-04-29 14:19
冷战结束后，支持民主的国际组织准备恢复民主主义作为美国对外政策的指导原则。本文探讨美国是否真的可以在世界各地传播民主的问题，美国在这个任务中所面对的民主问题，美国是成功或失败的，在试图了解美国是否真的可以说是完成任务，全球范围内传播民主和解剖中东目前的局势与美国的任务是什么？
此外，本文一方面支持美国在民主国家持续蔓延，另一方面也持否定态度。首先，我将定义民主，为什么它的搜索已经不断提高并且跨越所有国家的问题。民主实际上是很难以界定的，，有些学者已经把它定义为不确定。据乔凡尼萨托利所说，“民主是一个无法自我选择的体制，没有人通过权力赋予民主，因此，也没有人能无条件废除它和无限的权力。”菲利普施密特和特里卡尔提供下面的定义：
After the cold war, supporting the international spread of democracy seemed poised to reinstate repression as the guiding principle of U. S. foreign policy. This paper tackles the issue of whether the U. S can really spread democracy around the world, the problems facing the U. S in this task, applying cases where the U. S. succeeded or failed in attempt to understand whether America can really be said to be up to the task of spreading democracy globally and dissecting the current situation in the Middle East with the U.S in the middle of it which begs the question should the U.S attempt to or continue with spread of democracy in that region?
Philippe Schmitter and Terry Karl offer the following definition:
"Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives." [2]
Joseph Schumpeter''s influential 1942 definition saw the "democratic method" as
"that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote." [3]
The myriad attempts to define democracy are usually complicated by the differences between the democracy of ancient Greece and contemporary democracy. The former's understanding of democracy was premised on the ideals of full political participation of the populace, a strong sense of community, the sovereignty of the citizens and equality of all the people under the law. [4] Modern democracies heavily rely on elected representatives and usually tend to depict a distinction between the public and private spheres, thereby corrupting the ties of the community and nurturing individualism.
It is pivotal to embrace the fact that a lot of modern definitions of democracy are premised on some basic and common elements. Firstly, democracies infer the nations which have institutional mechanisms or elections, if you like, that allow the general citizenry to elect into power the leaders of their choice. Secondly, the leaders who intend to vie for the various leadership positions must compete for support from the public. Thirdly, the power which is vested in the government has its checks and balances based on accountability to the people. All the aforementioned are central to understanding and defining a political democracy.
Larry Diamond purports that there are extra attributes which make polity a central part of democracy, he states that a democracy must have extensive civil liberties for example, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to join and form organizations and so forth. [5] Samuel Huntington recognizes that democracy implies the existence of those civil and political freedoms to speak, publish, assemble and organize that are necessary to political debate and the conduct of electoral campaigns. [6]
Such attempts to expand the criteria and understanding of democracies postulate that there is more need to converse on the various hosts and degrees of democracy, instead of neatly dividing states into democracies and non-democracies. The reason is that some states are actually more democratic than others, and the distinction between one state and the next is usually based on a matter of judgment.
Liberal democracy and why America should spread it
From the various forms of democracies that exist, the issue that arises is which of the democracies should the U. S. spread across the world? I am of the firm view and belief that America should aim to spread liberal democracy. The policies which drive America's mission should attempt to increase the number of governments or regimes that respect the individual liberties that have liberalism as their core and elect leaders who embrace similar attributes. America should build support for liberal based principles, a majority of which are enshrined in the International Human-rights Treaties, and also lobby for free and fair elections across global states.
The aforementioned notwithstanding, America should not necessarily give priority to liberalism over the development of electoral democracy. This is because electoral democracy usually ends up contributing greatly to the spread and growth of liberalism and liberal democracy. Free and fair elections usually eject from power the leaders who are proving to be obstacles to the spread of democracy. [7]
For example, in South Africa, Haiti, and Chile, elections removed antidemocratic leaders and propelled the progression of democratisation. In most cases, the U. S should lobby for free and fair elections even in nations that are not entirely liberal. Free and fair elections will normally initiate a process of revolution towards democratisation. The U. S policy ought not to let the perfect be the adversary of the good by insisting that nations clinch noninterventionist principles before holding the free and fair elections.
Such policies could be exploited by dictatorial leaders to justify their continued hold on power and to delay transparent elections that they might lose. In addition, consistent U.S's support for electoral democracy will help to bolster the emerging international norm that leaders should be accountable to their people. Achieving this goal is worth the risk that some distasteful leaders will win elections and use these victories at the ballot box to legitimize their liberal rule. [8]
Benefits of democracy to states
So what exactly are the benefits of spreading democracy? A lot of individuals believe that democracy is good and its spread would eventually be beneficial. The virtues of democracy are usually taken for granted, and as a consequence they are rarely enumerated and considered. Firstly, democracy is very good for the citizenry of the brand new democracies. Such citizens normally live and have better lives under democratic governments. They tend to experience greater individual liberty, freedom from governmental violence, political stability, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering famine unlike their counterparts in the no-democratic states. So why spread such goodness to other nations, shouldn't the United States concentrate on perfecting the lives of its general citizenry?
Well, as human beings, Americans should feel obligated to assist other human beings regardless of the fact that they are non-Americans. The bonds of humanity are not restricted at the borders of the United States. [9] These bonds are limited by the competitive nature of the international system. In a world where the use of force remains possible, no government can afford to pursue a foreign policy based on altruism. The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which borders and national identities become irrelevant. [10]
However there are a lot of possibilities for action fuelled by concern for people in other countries. In the America, persistent public concern over the rights of people in other countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental attempts to relieve food shortage, paucity, and suffering overseas, hint that Americans acknowledge some bonds of universal humanity and feel some obligations to non-Americans.
Emergence of the so-called "CNN Effect"- which infers the tendency for U.S citizens to be aroused to action by images portrayed by television of suffering people overseas-is further confirmation that cosmopolitan moral sentiments exist. If Americans mind about improving the lives of the populace of other countries, then the case for promoting egalitarianism grows stronger to the level that promoting democracy is an efficient means to achieve this end.
Further, Americans have over the years developed a particular knack for spreading democracy. The U.S was founded upon the principle of securing liberty for its populace. Its founding documents and institutions emphasize that liberty and democracy is a core value. America's identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values. [11] As Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott has argued:
"The United States is uniquely and self-consciously a country founded on a set of ideas, and ideals, applicable to people everywhere. The Founding Fathers declared that all were created equal-not just those in Britain' 13 American colonies-and that to secure the `unalienable rights'' of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, people had the right to establish governments that derive `their just powers from the consent of the governed improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the United States cannot insulate itself from the world." [12]
It may be a cliché to say that the world is becoming more interdependent, but it is undeniable that changes in communications technologies, trade flows, and the environment have opened borders and created a more interconnected world. These trends give the United States a greater stake in the fate of other societies, because widespread misery abroad may create political turmoil, economic instability, refugee flows, and environmental damage that will affect Americans.
Promoting democracy serves U.S. interests; the spread of democracy will directly advance the national interests of the United States. The growing interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas can have unpredictable consequences for the United States. [13]
Democracy leads to liberty and liberty is very good, it promotes individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and the freedom to own private property. Liberty is undoubtedly the peculiar virtue of democracy. [14] Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Freedom House's 1997 survey of "Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be classified as "free" and 39 were "partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high partly free." In contrast, only 20 of the world's 73 non-democracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not free." [15]
Liberal Democracies are less likely to use violence against their own people. [16] This finding is supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies-by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%. [17] Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments.
Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian or totalitarian: the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime. The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after 1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples. [18]
Democracies enhance long-run economic performance. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits. Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close correlation with prosperity" is one of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy. [19] Some democracies, including India and the Philippines, have languished economically, at least until the last few years. Others are among the most prosperous democracies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul democracies generally prosper. As Mancur Olson points out: "It is no accident that the countries that have reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable democracies." [20]
Democracies rarely if ever suffer famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that "one of the remarkable facts in the terrible history of famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press." [21] A good percentage of the countries tat have suffered famines in recent decades have been among the planet's least democratic nations, from the Soviet Union(Ukraine in the early 1930's), China, Somalia, Cambodia and The Sudan. History has proven that famines will always occur in many countries but rarely if ever in democracies. Joseph Collins argues that "Wherever political rights for all citizens truly flourish, people will see to it that, in due course, they share in control over economic resources vital to their survival. Lasting food security thus requires real and sustained democracy." [22]
Democracy is good for the international system; it reduces the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage wars on other democracies This absence-or near absence, depending on the definitions of "war" and "democracy" used-has been called "one of the strongest nontrivial and non-tautological generalizations that can be made about international relations." [23] The more democracies continue to grow, the more the number of potential and actual conflicts will continue to diminish. In as much as wars between democracies and non-democracies will persist in the immediate future, in the long run an international system composed of democracies would eventually result into a peaceful world.
Challenges facing the U.S in the spread of democracy
Does America really have a strategic interest in the spread of democracy or whether its announced strategic goals can be still be met by engagement with governments whose standards fall short of the democratic deal? For much of the last couple of years America, supported by Britain has argued that the spread of liberal democracy is not only an ideal but it is actually a strategic necessity.
However, the democratisation process increases the risk of war. Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder make this argument in light of the fact that countries engaged in transitions to democracy become more likely to be engaged in war. The two scholars support their arguments with statistical and empirical evidence that show a co-relation between the entire democratisation process and war. Firstly, the old garb will undoubtedly tend to lay the nationalistic card in an attempt to incite conflict so that they can get to keep their positions of power.
Secondly, emerging democracies usually do not have solid backgrounds in as far as strong democratic institutions are concerned. The new leaders will always, as if on cue, play the nationalistic card and search for alien scapegoats to blame the nation's failure on. This electoral competition will always increase the risk of both internal and international conflict. [24]
Democracies may revert to autocracy. Emerging democracies cannot enjoy a perpetual peace because of the fact that there is always the possibility of the democratic state turning out to be non-democratic. This possibility makes other democracies aware of the fact that other democracies, either emerging or already existing, will always pose a potential threat. John Mearsheimer argues that: "Liberal democracies must therefore worry about relative power among themselves, which is tantamount to saying that each has an incentive to consider aggression against the other to forestall future trouble." [25]
In other words, the realist logic of anarchy, which posits that states exist in a Hobbesian world of fear, suspicion and potential war, applies even to relations between democracies. [26]
Promoting free and fair elections may be harmful or irrelevant. It is not a secret that democratic elections often have very few if any positive effects. This is the case in nations that do not have liberal societies or other socioeconomic circumstances such as large groups and superior level of economic development. Such arguments imply that electoral democracy may be undesirable in a lot of countries and that America should not encourage the spread of the same. Similarly, it is not a wonder if democratically elected governments turn out to be illiberal regimes that rule by might, and forever oppress the general citizenry. [27] The process of holding democratic elections in multiethnic societies can fan the flames of ethnic conflict. Democracy does not guarantee economic success and may even hinder it. [28]
There is the challenge of Asian values which defy the ideological concepts of democracy. It is termed as the 'soft authoritarianism' or the 'Asian Values' argument. [29] This school of thought propounds that nations should be ruled by astute and dictatorial elite, that individual rights frequently need to be restricted for the sake of the broader society, and that the government
Proponents of this school of thought tabulate their reasons as to why America should not spread democracy in East Asia as. First, American democracy allows for too much liberty, and this excessive individual freedom causes moral decline and social collapse. U.S. divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and crime rates, are evidence of liberty run wild. [30] Secondly, spreading democracy will aggravate ethnic tensions and initiate conflict as a result within Asian nations. Thirdly, some East Asians claim that liberal democracy is in no way a suitable form of government for Asian nations, this is because Asia is endowed with a variety of cultural values that place communalism at the centre of many households.
Examples of successes and failures of America's democracy spread
Historically, most of America's allies have been democracies. In general, democracies are much more likely to ally with one another than with non-democracies. [31] As it is an established fact that democracies do not fight each other. The United States has based this fact on all its global expeditions for purposes of spreading democracy. Japan, from 1945-1949 was initially an imperialist state and an enemy to America as was evidenced by bombing of Pearl Harbour. However, after America's spreading of democracy the two nations have become great allies. The same is no different for Germany, West Germany in particular from 1945-1949 which was a fascist state.
Great was the fascism in the country that they build a wall, the Wall of Berlin, to literally separate East Germany from West Germany. This was the case for a good twenty eight years, after which the wall was brought down due to U.S democratic intervention and reach. Today, the Germany is a good friend of the United States.
A lot of, if not all, democratic states in the world today have ties with the U.S. The nations which are their enemies, for example Libya, Sudan, North Korea just to mention but a few have dictatorial regimes as a common denominator. Even China, which is considered as a future enemy of America has a dictatorial regime.
Critics of the democratic peace point to apparent wars between democracies as evidence that there is no democratic peace. They frequently cite the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, Finland's decision to align with Germany against the Western powers and the Soviet Union during World War Two, the American Civil War, World War One, and the wars that followed the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. At least 17 conflicts have been cited as potential wars between democracies. [32]
The only area in which America has failed in its attempt to spread democracy is the Middle East. Terrorism is allegedly brewed in these regions and America, or its allied nations are always the target. For as long as America's spread of democracy does not reach these nations, the possibility of war will always be rife.
The situation in the Middle East
After the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson spoke on national television and explained the reasons of the U.S for fighting in the war. The main reason was to make the world safe for democracy. At the end of the Second World War, America imposed democratic governments on its defeated former adversaries. Among the nations where they did so was in West Germany and Japan, mainly to galvanise the fact that the states never threatened them in any way. [33]
After the bombing of the Twin towers in New York, the administration of George Bush took the process a step further. They literally flew halfway the globe to invade Iraq, all in the name of bringing to an end dictatorial leadership to an end and replace it with liberal democracy. But the question is whether they actually succeeded? Well, they publicly executed the president of Iraq, one Mr. Saddam Hussein. But still, is it ethical to bring democracy from the bare barrels of guns? The situation in the middle east is ambiguous, on one hand, the U.S's actions have brought with them some form of awakening in terms of democratic leadership, as has been evidenced by the recent uprisings in Arab countries and Muslim societies.
On the other hand, America's position in the Middle East is at an alarming low, mainly because the invasion of Iraq was viewed by the world as lacking legitimacy. Meanwhile, the future of Iraqi's democracy is uncertain. So, emphasis is placed on whether, U.S can actually bring democracy without force or pressure. Well, it really remains to be seen. Because when the United States was founded in 1789, slavery was legal and widespread, women lacked the right to vote, and presidents were not elected based on popularity. Again begging the question, was the United States a democracy then in the sense that it is today? Going by the manner it handled itself in Iraq; a lot of doubt arises as to its continued attempt sin spreading democracy. [34]
Conclusion
The many critiques of America's attempts to promote democracy, in my view, have not presented a convincing case that pursuing global democracy is in any a bad idea. The spreading of Democracy onto a world stage will offer many benefits to the emerging democracies and of course to the United States. The proposition on democratic peace appears robust, in as much as scholars need to continue and come up with multiple explanations and theories of why democracies rarely, if ever, engage in acts of violence or go to war.
The proof of whether democratisation increases the danger of war is mixed, at best, and treaties or policies can be formulated to reduce any risks of potential conflict in these cases. The issue of illiberal democracy has been exaggerated to say the least; in essence, democratic or free and fair elections usually do more good than harm. Therefore, the United States should lobby relentlessly for liberal values as well as electoral egalitarianism. The soft authoritarian challenge to liberal democracy, again in my view, is not persuasive. This was the case long before the Asian economic turmoil of 1997 and 1998 diluted claims for the dominance of true Asian values.
Cementing the fact that promoting democracy is advantageous does not, however, answer all the questions that encase U.S. attempts to increase democracy. These questions include: Can the United States encourage the spread of democracy or must democracy always develop indigenously? How can the United States promote democracy in other countries? Which policies work and under what circumstances do they work? Any comprehensive case for why the United States should promote democracy must address these questions. [35]
本文编号：37718
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenshubaike/lwfw/37718.html
