【作者】 李德国；

【导师】 萧功秦；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 政治学理论， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 20世纪80年代以来,“治理”(governance)理论以其迅猛的态势影响着各国的政治实践,政治调控结构的网络合作、地方政治的分权治理以及社群主义的“群众路线”,把地方推上了改革的前锋线。其中,伴随着西方人们对自由主义式民主的反思而产生的协商民主理论,也逐渐从道德理想走向了经验阐述,并与地方治理的变迁构成了一股强劲的改革合力。在地方,公民正不断通过协商对话和直接讨论,以不同于以往代表制和官僚机构的决策方式,向政府显示诉求,表达不同方面的利益,以求对公共政策产生实际影响力,可以说,这正是当代地方治理的显著标志之一。在我国,相关的理论探索刚起步,经验尝试的热情在一些地区已悄然高涨。但实际上,对这种实践发展还缺乏理性而深入的探讨,人们对协商民主的认识仍有过于理想之嫌。相当部分的理论阐述缺乏严格的经验基础而难以“证实”或“证伪”,特别是对协商民主在国家(地方)治理体系中的角色和局限性认识不足。有鉴于此,本文将运用文献分析、比较分析和个案分析等方法,厘清协商民主的概念,分析中西方的实践差异,并对我国个别进行协商民主实验的地方进行考察,力图探透和论证协商民主在地方治理乃至国家治理体系中的作用和限度。从内容上看,文章主要包括以下方面的探讨:首先,文章回顾了西方地方治理演变以及协商民主介入的过程,认为从“地方政府”到“地方治理”的演变,为协商民主的介入地方政治生态埋下了伏笔;同时指出,从发生学的角度看,协商民主的兴起,主要是基于自由主义民主批判的基础上,从诞生之日起,就决定了它强烈的规范色彩。此外,还阐明了协商民主自身的主张和价值特点。其次,文章指出协商民主不仅仅贯串着哲学意志,包含着政治价值,更为重要的是,它能够作为一种技术手段,创造出一种功能性的社会治理方式。从社会治理的实践形式入手,本部分对国外应用较多的协商民主方式,如协商式民意调查、公民陪审团、二十一世纪城镇大会等进行了仔细论述,在事实层面上分析协商民主所具有的地方治理内涵。第三部分内容主要围绕着一个问题展开,即具有浓厚规范色彩的协商民主能否脱胎换骨为现实之树,并长扎于社会呢?针对这个问题,文章从协商民主所批判的投票机制入手,重新审视投票对于维护民主结构乃至协商民主的重要作用,并从价值和事实两个层面对协商民主提出相应的批判。最后,结合我国地方治理过程中协商民主的实践,分析这种实践所存在的缺陷和难以达到的目标,指出协商民主难以克服规模性的问题而无法超越地方层面。基于此,文章从草根性和地域性的角度为协商民主做出一个基本结论,认为协商民主的主要价值在于它能够为局部性公共事务的治理发挥作用,是分权化趋势下地方政府可以灵活应用的“政策工具”,而不是具有宏大抱负的“民主模式”。文章的主要创新和意义之处在于,它抛弃了单纯从规范角度认识协商民主的研究思路,从治理尤其是地方治理的角度入手研究西方乃至我国关于协商民主的实践形式,在一定程度上厘清了其应用范畴和限度。这对于我们正确对待协商民主,避免盲目仿制,并针对我国现实在地方治理过程中加以灵活运用,无疑具有重要的参考意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 The rise of the governance theory in the 1980s is of great significance in every country’s political practice. The network cooperation of the political control structure, the decentralization of local governance and the masses-orientation of communitism, all push localities to the front line of political reform. At the same time, the theory of deliberative democracy, which bases on the self-questioning of liberal democracy, has been steadily changing from moral ideal to political practice with local governance over the last few years. Through deliberative communication and direct argument, local people express their appeal and interest to the governments, exert their voices effectively in public policy, which become the most obviously mark of local governance to some extent.Accompany with the start of related research in our country, the introduction of deliberative democracy to the local governance has aroused more and more people’s enthusiasm. In fact, due to the lack of reasonable and deeply research, people’s opinion on the deliberative democracy probably be too romantic. Quite a lot of theoretical research seems to be short of empirical basis, for its verification or falsification is impossible, especially there are insufficient recognition of deliberative democracy’s role and limit in the system of state or local governance. Thereby, this paper examines the core conception of deliberative democracy and whether there is a common ground of this theory between western countries and our country. This paper also attempts to take a close look at the local experiment of deliberative democracy in our country, and explore its political possibility and limit in the system of local governance or even state governance. On the whole, this paper is divided into four main parts as follows:First of all, the paper looks back upon the process of local governance in western countries and the introduction of deliberative democracy, and holds an opinion that the shift from“local government”to“local governance”carries a foreshadowing of the introduction of deliberative democracy to local politics. In fact, the rise of deliberative democracy bases on the criticism of liberal democracy, which determines its normative roots. Besides, the paper also tries to clarify the proposals and values of deliberative democracy.Secondarily, the paper indicates that deliberative democracy not only includes philosophic meaning and political value, but also creates a functional way of social governance as a technical measure. This part discusses the empirical forms of deliberative democracy which are popular in western countries, such as deliberative opinion polls, citizens’jury and 21st century town meeting etc, and analyze its practical connotation of local governance.The third part focuses on the problem that whether the ideal of deliberative democracy can thoroughly remold itself to a realistic governance and take root in the society. Aiming at this question, this part starts with the criticism of liberal democracy to examine the voting’s role in maintaining the democratic structure or even deliberative democracy, and criticizes deliberative democracy in the level of value and verity.Finally, the paper attempts to point out the limitation and unrealistic object of the practice of deliberative democracy, combining with its current political experiment in the process of local governance in our country. Consequently, the paper will put forward a conclusion of deliberative democracy in the view of grass root and regionality. We believe that the main value of deliberative democracy lies in its function in the governance of local public affairs. It is a flexible“policy instrument”of local government in the context of decentralization, not a great and ambitious“democracy pattern”.The main innovation and significance of the paper lies in that it researches deliberative democracy in the view of governance especially local governance, avoiding the simple normative method, and more importantly, it clarifies its applied range and limitation to a certain extent. This will help us understand deliberative democracy better and avoid unrealistic copy; furthermore, it is of practical significance to the flexible use of deliberative democracy in the process of local governance in our country.更多还原