The prefixes mentioned above often give people the impression that all kinds of democracy are equal and there is no essential difference. No matter what type, there is nothing wrong with pursuing democracy. What this article wants to illustrate is that different types of democracy often have essential differences. The biggest difference is that on the one hand, it is liberal democracy, on the other hand, it is illiberal autonomy, anti-liberal democracy and totalitarian democracy. Because abstract democracy does not exist, the pursuit of any democracy is the pursuit of a specific democratic model. Because all kinds of democracy are mixed together, democracy cannot be without attributes. Based on the experience and lessons that human beings have experienced in the process of democracy, democracy must be a free democracy. Why does democracy come before freedom? What is the unique significance of liberal democracy? Why is only liberal democracy an acceptable democracy? The combination of liberalism and democracy The idea of liberal democracy comes from the combination of liberalism and democracy.
Generally speaking, liberalism and democracy are two highly related but independent concepts. Political liberalism can be simply defined as the rule of law, which recognizes that some specific rights and freedoms of individuals should be protected from government infringement. Democracy is such an institutional arrangement, which is based on the right of all citizens to vote and participate in political life. Because this right of political participation is also a basic political right advocated by liberalism, liberalism and democracy are closely linked in history. Contemporary liberal democracy does not stem from a vague historical tradition, but from the intentional design of some people at a specific historical juncture and from the liberal heritage spontaneously accumulated by human beings in the process of pursuing freedom. This design is based on the specific theoretical understanding that people and human beings should implement a specific political system, and it also constitutes the theoretical source of freedom and democracy.
The thinking and design of freedom and democracy is not done by a writer independently, but based on some reasonable principles from rich ideological traditions. For example, Hobbes and Locke in Britain, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton in the United States, and the principles embodied in the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Hobbes is certainly not an advocate of democracy in the contemporary sense. He even emphasized absolute sovereignty. But he was the earliest advocate of some liberal political principles. He was the first to establish that the legitimacy of the government came from the rights of the ruled, not from the sacred monarchy, not from birth or lineage. The difference between Hobbes and Fermat, as the patriarch, is obviously greater than that between Hobbes and Locke and the authors of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The fear of death in the natural state and the need for self-protection brought Hobbes to a modern free country. Hobbes believes in the absolute sovereignty of the monarch, not because the king has inherent sovereignty, but because he believes that the monarch can rely on the consent of the people. Hobbes prefers one-man rule to democracy, which reflects the necessity of establishing a strong government, not because he opposes the principle of people's sovereignty. The deficiency of Hobbes' argument is that a legitimate monarch may quietly become an autocrat; If there is no institutional mechanism to express people's consent like elections, it is often difficult to determine whether a monarch has obtained such consent.
Locke, the pioneer of liberalism, agrees with Hobbes that self-preservation is the most basic instinct of human beings, because Locke admits that life is the most fundamental right, and all other rights are derived from it. In this way, Locke can easily modify Hobbes' sovereignty principle into parliamentary sovereignty principle based on majority rule. Although Locke didn't look at the natural state as badly as Hobbes did, he also thought that the natural state might become a state of war or anarchy, so only the government that can save mankind from its own violence is a legitimate government. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believes that a monarch with absolute power may infringe on the people's right to self-protection. In history, kings deprive their subjects of their lives and property frequently. The best way to prevent human rights violations is not an absolute monarch but a limited government, whose power comes from the consent of the ruled. The foundation of America is basically classical liberalism.
Jefferson's theory that human beings have the right to exist. The "self-evident principle" of property rights and the pursuit of happiness comes from Locke's argument of human natural human rights. The founding fathers of the United States believe that these rights that Americans should have as human beings precede any political authority established on them. All these rights and other related rights derived from them constitute a private field independent of individuals, in which the power of the state should be strictly restricted. On the practical level, starting from the record of Herodotus, an ancient Greek historian, the primary meaning of democracy refers to people's rule, and the simple democratic right refers to open, free and fair elections. The elected government may be inefficient, corrupt, short-sighted and irresponsible, dominated by a few special interest groups, and cannot carry out policy innovation according to the needs of public welfare. These consequences may make such governments unpopular, but they will not make them undemocratic. If a country holds competitive multi-party elections, we usually call it a democratic country; If citizens' political participation is significantly improved and women have the right to vote, this country will become more democratic. On the other hand, liberal constitutional theory involves not the process of choosing the government, but the purpose of the government and the means by which the government uses power. It refers to the great tradition in human history, especially in the west, which protects individual autonomy and dignity from coercion, whether it comes from the state, church or society. It is free, because it absorbs the Greek philosophical tradition that emphasizes individual freedom; It is constitutional, because it is based on the tradition of rule of law that began with the Romans.
In western Europe and the United States, constitutional liberalism was formed as a defense of individual's right to life, property and freedom of religious speech. In order to protect these rights, it emphasizes the checks and balances on the power of each government department, equality before the law, judicial independence and justice, and separation of church and state. Its representative figures include the poet john milton. Jurists such as blackstone, politicians and scholars such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Gong Shidang, Tocqueville, J.S. Mill, Hayek, Isaiah Berlin. Constitutional liberalism holds that people have some natural (inalienable) rights and the government must accept a set of protection for these rights. The basic law that restricts one's own power. Therefore, as early as 12 15, British lords forced the king to abide by the laws with the above nature, that is, the famous Magna Carta. In the American colonies, these laws are also deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. As early as 1638, Hartford Town passed the first written constitution in modern history. The Magna Carta, the Constitution of Connecticut, the United States and the Helsinki Agreement all embody this constitutional liberalism.
What is liberal democracy? Liberalism as a national theory is modern, while democracy as a regime is ancient. From a global perspective, democracy is older than liberalism, but liberal democracy is younger than liberalism. From the history of western democratic countries, freedom usually precedes democracy. In countries like Britain and America, the liberalization of political power is far ahead of the democratization of political power. 1830, although Britain may be the most democratic country in Europe at that time, only 2% of the population had the right to vote; This figure rose to 7% in 1867; At 1880, it rose to 40%. As we all know, in the United States, blacks have long been excluded from elections. In Switzerland, women didn't get the right to vote until 197 1 By the end of 1940s, most western countries, old and new, had become mature democracies, and all adults had the right to vote. But as early as 150 years ago, most western countries had established systems to guarantee freedom, such as constitutionalism, rule of law, judicial independence and separation of powers. Limited government, private property rights, freedom of speech and publication, freedom of assembly and association, etc. What distinguishes modern western democratic countries from ancient city-state democracy or commune democracy is not their democratic color, but the above-mentioned institutional facilities for safeguarding freedom.
Liberalism and democracy are independent of each other in theoretical origin. In reality, the relationship between them is very complicated. There are many conflicts and contradictions between pure democracy and liberalism. For example, democracy has no sympathy for pluralism, while liberalism is the product of pluralism; Democracy requires the exclusion of individual freedom and equality, while liberalism requires the coordination of individual freedom and equality; Democracy centers on society and the collective, while liberalism centers on the individual. Democracy requires adhering to the state power established in in the name of people, caring about the source and ownership of power, and emphasizing the supremacy of people's sovereignty. Liberalism is more concerned with the use of power and the restriction of state power, even if this power comes from the people's power. The different collocation of liberalism and democratic ideal leads to the division between liberal democracy and non-liberal democracy. Liberal democracy means that under the rule of the elected government, individual rights and freedoms are supreme. Citizens have both the freedom of ancient people to participate in politics and the freedom of modern people to focus on their own affairs. The Constitution and laws clearly guarantee the freedom of individuals, and the Constitution also strictly limits the power of the government. Therefore, individual freedom can be protected from infringement and deprivation by the people and the government. There are two kinds of illiberal democracy. One is totalitarian democracy. The will of the people is above everything else, and of course it is higher than the freedom of the people. There can be no objection. One is collective democracy. Although these countries have free and open elections, people's political freedom and economic and other freedoms are still severely restricted. In a liberal democratic system, state power is restricted by the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), the separation of the three powers, the rule of law, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of news and public opinion. The content of restriction includes two aspects: the restriction of state power and the restriction of state functions, although these two aspects are often difficult to distinguish. The restriction of state power leads to a country based on free rights, and the restriction of state functions leads to a country with minimal functions (Minima 1 country). The right-based country corresponds to the absolute power country; The country with the smallest function corresponds to the country with the largest function (Maxima 1 state).
In a country based on rights, public power is bound by the Constitution and other fundamental laws, and can only operate within the scope prescribed by law, which itself must be based on the protection of people's basic rights, because these freedoms and rights are inviolable and inalienable. In short, liberal democracy must be constitutional in system. Governing the country according to law. * * * and; In terms of value, the highest goal must be to safeguard human freedom, rights and dignity; Institutionally, judicial independence and separation of powers are implemented. Limited government. Pluralistic politics, party politics. Represents politics. Constitutional review. Decentralized autonomy. Historically, the difference between liberal democracy and Greek democracy is obvious. The word democracy was first used by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus in the fifth century BC. The ancient Greeks regarded democracy as a product of nature, while modern liberals regarded democracy as an artificial product of human will. Greek democracy yearns for an organic collective community life, and the cornerstone of liberal democracy is individualism. Greek democracy regards the best expression of civil liberties as the right to participate in collective decision-making, while the civil liberties emphasized by modern liberal democracy are private rights against public power. In ancient Greece, democracy was regarded as the rule of the majority, but these "majorities" themselves were only a minority in society, and foreigners, women, slaves and people under 30 were not among the people. This kind of democracy still bears the color of aristocratic politics. And this variant of democracy: mob politics is the rule of the real majority, which is obviously unacceptable.
Moreover, in modern industrial society, the poor in society no longer account for the majority of society. So Aristotle understood democracy as the poor, which no longer exists in modern society. Democracy from Greece to the end of18th century was direct democracy, while liberal democracy was indirect representative democracy. The highest ideal of ancient democracy was direct democracy, while liberal democracy denied that direct democracy was its highest ideal, because direct democracy itself had great defects. In ancient times, democracy was basically regarded as a bad thing, but now it is generally regarded as a good thing. However, liberalism has always been extremely wary of pure democracy. Freedom in liberal democracy concerns that this regime should pay attention to individual freedom and rights and limit the power of the state; Democracy focuses on the ownership of state power. Taken together, liberal democracy means that power comes from the people, but it should be restricted, that is, restricting the people and their representatives in the way and scope of legislation and decision-making. For example, laws must go through due legislative procedures, and the contents of laws must not exceed the scope stipulated by the Constitution and laws. For example, we cannot deprive people of their basic freedoms and rights through legislation. Freedom and democracy complement each other.
Whether individual freedom is guaranteed or not and whether government power is restricted is the fundamental measure that distinguishes liberal democracy from other types of democracy. Liberalism accepts democracy for self-improvement, rather than replacing liberalism with democracy. What we should pursue is not the maximum democracy, but the democracy that provides and guarantees the maximum freedom, that is, liberal democracy. If we pursue democracy instead of freedom, the price we pay will be freedom. The largest uncontrolled democracy can sponsor the most violent slavery. If people's sovereignty is not included in the track of liberalism, it may be used to demonstrate and implement unprecedented tyranny As Gong Sidang discovered, the victory of people's sovereignty theory and practice may be a disaster for the people. The consent of the majority does not legalize all acts, and some acts will never be legalized. The more oppressors the people are, the more willing they are to act with in the name of people. What are the advantages of liberal democracy? Since the emergence of liberal democracy, its success has been accompanied by many questions.
There are two difficulties in cleaning up liberal democracy: one is that the system of liberal democracy does not conform to the ideal of liberal democracy, and the other is that even the ideal of liberal democracy is not the best ideal. Extreme elitism believes that freedom and democracy have given people too much power and should not have given them so much power at all. Left-wing radicalism believes that freedom and democracy give people too little power. In reality, liberal democracy may have many defects, but its advantages are obvious compared with illiberal or anti-liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is based on the moral principle of respecting personal value and dignity, and the individual can only be an end, not a means; Liberal democracy is most suitable for free and equal individuals, and it is a political system established after such individuals voluntarily agree; Freedom runs through freedom and democracy. The principle of equality. Liberal democracy is based on the principle of limited government, emphasizing that individual freedom and rights should be protected by the state. Liberal democracy is electoral democracy, and universal suffrage is regarded as the only source of legitimacy of political authority. The elected government should be responsible to the voters and accept their supervision. However, such elections should abide by the principle of political equality. Universal suffrage and the principle of "one person, one vote". This means that any electoral system and practice should not be based on gender or race. Religion, political stance and economic situation to limit the right to vote. In addition, elections must be regular, free, open, fair and competitive. Liberal democracy means pluralistic democracy. In other words, liberal democracy recognizes and pursues political pluralism and allows different ideologies. Political philosophy, political movement. The existence of political parties. Liberalism's acceptance of political pluralism comes from its values of "tolerance". Therefore, free and fair political competition is also one of the fundamental characteristics of liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy means representative democracy. Direct democracy is a monistic political system, which is unlikely to be realized in modern society. Once realized, it is very likely to be hostile to freedom. On the other hand, representative democracy is a mixed regime that implements indirect democracy. On the one hand, it establishes the government on the basis of citizens' voluntary consent expressed through elections, and at the same time, it limits the scope of democracy as necessary. Liberal democracy means procedural democracy. As Xiong Bidai emphasized, freedom and democracy is an institutional arrangement for decision-making, rather than simply stipulating the ownership of sovereignty. This procedural arrangement can ensure a peaceful and normal transfer of power. Liberal democracy means a free market economy. There is an inherent logical connection between liberal democracy and free market economy. To a great extent, liberal democracy is the product of human pursuit and practice of economic freedom and political freedom. Liberal democracy exists only in a free market economy. Although not all countries that practice free market economy practice free democracy, there will never be political freedom and democracy without economic freedom. Having economic freedom does not mean having political freedom and democracy.
Market economy is a necessary condition for freedom and democracy, but not all conditions. The new left regards direct democracy as the most thorough and primitive democracy, and thinks that real democracy only exists in non-market economy countries, which is quite reasonable, such as direct democracy under ancient natural economy. Contemporary totalitarian democracy has nothing to do with market economy. But the problem is that this has nothing to do with the market economy. Is pure democracy irrelevant to freedom necessary? Market economy and liberal democracy are the same. Under these two systems, the decision-making power is very decentralized and is in the hands of individuals. Without the freedom of market economy and property rights, political freedom and political democracy will be castles in the air. Some people think that liberal democracy is a luxury for the third world. If so, it proves that democracy and prosperity are intrinsically linked. There seems to be a "chicken and egg" relationship between liberal democracy and enriching the people and strengthening the country. Without freedom and democracy, it is difficult to make the people rich and the country strong; Without the prosperity of the people and the country, democracy lacks a solid social foundation. Can we only exercise tyranny over the poor? The more authoritarian, the more the autonomy of the poor is suppressed, and the poorer the result will be. Isn't this logic worse?
In today's world, many governments are democratically elected and are often re-elected through elections and referendums. However, this regime often ignores the constitutional restrictions on its power and deprives its citizens of their basic rights and freedoms. This is an increasingly disturbing phenomenon in international life, and illiberal democracy has emerged in the wave of democratization. In the view of liberalism, democracy only refers to liberal democracy. The symbol of this regime is not only free and fair elections, but also the rule of law. Separation of powers and checks and balances guarantee citizens' basic freedoms such as speech, assembly, association, religion, belief and property. In fact, this group of freedoms can also be called constitutional liberalism, because under constitutionalism, this group of freedoms is implemented and protected by the Constitution. There are great differences between liberalism and democracy in history and theory. Although liberalism is an idea of political freedom or an idea of economic policy, its formation is not unrelated to the rise of democracy. But liberalism and democracy must belong to two different traditions. These two traditions are intertwined to form a liberal democracy. However, in many parts of the world today, democracy seems to be flourishing, while liberal constitutionalism is not optimistic. The tension between constitutional liberalism and democracy focuses on the scope of government power.
Constitutional liberalism focuses on the restriction of power, while democracy focuses on the accumulation and use of power. Because of this, many liberals in the 18th and 19th centuries discovered a force that could disintegrate freedom in democracy. Madison pointed out in the Federalist Collection that "in a democratic system, the danger of oppression comes from the majority in society"; Tocqueville also warned people to be alert to the tyranny of the majority, and wrote: "The essence of democracy lies in the absolute sovereignty of the majority." A democratic government believes that it has absolute sovereignty and brings centralization in institutional arrangements. There are two criteria to measure freedom and democracy: first, whether it is democratic, that is, whether the government is elected through free and fair elections; Second, whether it has constitutional liberalism, that is, whether the basic freedoms of citizens are guaranteed and whether there are checks and balances on the power of the government. People who support direct democracy often blindly emphasize infinite democracy and even despise liberal elements in liberal democracy. They often doubt the liberal elements in liberal democracy, such as non-elected institutions, representative system, indirect voting, federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances, and even criticize them. Those procedures that suppress direct democracy are regarded as suppressing the voice of the people, so they are unfair and even harmful.
Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not only incomplete, but also harmful. It brought not only the disappearance of freedom, the abuse of power, the division of nationalities, but also a cruel war. It is worth noting that since liberalism is not perfect, it will never be perfect. Many anti-liberals are demanding to replace liberal democracy with post-liberal democracy, thinking that real democracy is not liberal democracy, because the latter is just a disguise of bourgeois democracy or capitalist democracy. But they don't realize that what they are pursuing is only the pre-liberal democracy that has long been replaced by liberalism. Whether we are talking about modern democracy or ancient democracy, whether it is democracy based on individual freedom or democracy that requires the collective exercise of power by all citizens' congresses, as long as freedom and democracy no longer exist, democracy will die out. It is liberalism that gives democracy lasting vitality. In ancient times, a very important reason why democracy was limited to the Greek peninsula was that there was no liberalization. Although there are many democratic models, we don't have many choices among different democratic models. Specifically, he said, it goes without saying that people can only choose between liberal democracy and illiberal democracy in the established general direction of pursuing democracy.