政党、民主和反派性的理想:过去的焦虑和现在的挑战

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1017/S089267942200051X
D. Ragazzoni
{"title":"政党、民主和反派性的理想:过去的焦虑和现在的挑战","authors":"D. Ragazzoni","doi":"10.1017/S089267942200051X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay weaves together the history of political and legal thought, contemporary democratic theory, and recent debates in legal scholarship to examine the ambivalent relationship between political parties and democracy. Celebrated as a structural necessity for the mechanics of democratic government, political parties are also handled with suspicion for their hybrid nature—neither entirely public nor completely private—and for their always-possible regression into factions. Anti-factionalism, I show, has been a powerful ideal driving constitutional imagination and practice over the centuries, from antiquity (with its emphasis on parts and its horror over factions), to the age of democratic revolutions (with its signature anxieties about divisions), up through the present. However, this long historical process has not extinguished the long-lived concern with the nature and implications of party spirit, nor has it made party democracy completely safe from revamped forms of factionalism. Two manifestations of factional politics stand out in the contemporary political landscape: authoritarian regime changes and populist constitutionalism. While the former is easy to diagnose but hard to prevent, the latter exemplifies a torsion of the constitutional and democratic imagination from within. Despite their differences, both scenarios remind us that constitutions need to envision mechanisms to prevent parties from undermining the liberal democratic order they have been designed to serve. At the same time, they call for renewed attention to the study of parties in the domains of democratic theory and constitutional scholarship.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"13 1","pages":"475 - 485"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parties, Democracy, and the Ideal of Anti-factionalism: Past Anxieties and Present Challenges\",\"authors\":\"D. Ragazzoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S089267942200051X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This essay weaves together the history of political and legal thought, contemporary democratic theory, and recent debates in legal scholarship to examine the ambivalent relationship between political parties and democracy. Celebrated as a structural necessity for the mechanics of democratic government, political parties are also handled with suspicion for their hybrid nature—neither entirely public nor completely private—and for their always-possible regression into factions. Anti-factionalism, I show, has been a powerful ideal driving constitutional imagination and practice over the centuries, from antiquity (with its emphasis on parts and its horror over factions), to the age of democratic revolutions (with its signature anxieties about divisions), up through the present. However, this long historical process has not extinguished the long-lived concern with the nature and implications of party spirit, nor has it made party democracy completely safe from revamped forms of factionalism. Two manifestations of factional politics stand out in the contemporary political landscape: authoritarian regime changes and populist constitutionalism. While the former is easy to diagnose but hard to prevent, the latter exemplifies a torsion of the constitutional and democratic imagination from within. Despite their differences, both scenarios remind us that constitutions need to envision mechanisms to prevent parties from undermining the liberal democratic order they have been designed to serve. At the same time, they call for renewed attention to the study of parties in the domains of democratic theory and constitutional scholarship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & International Affairs\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"475 - 485\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & International Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267942200051X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267942200051X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文将政治和法律思想史、当代民主理论和最近的法律学术辩论结合在一起,研究政党与民主之间的矛盾关系。作为民主政府机制的结构必需品,政党也因其混合性——既不是完全公共的,也不是完全私人的——以及它们总是有可能回归派系而受到怀疑。我认为,从古代(强调部分和对派系的恐惧)到民主革命时代(对分裂的焦虑),一直到现在,反党派主义一直是推动几个世纪以来宪法想象和实践的强大理想。然而,这一漫长的历史进程并没有消除人们长期以来对党性本质和党性内涵的关注,也没有使政党民主完全免受各种形式的派系斗争的侵害。派系政治的两种表现形式在当代政治格局中尤为突出:威权政权更迭和民粹宪政。前者很容易诊断,但很难预防,后者则是宪法和民主想象从内部扭曲的例证。尽管存在差异,但这两种情况都提醒我们,宪法需要设想一些机制,以防止政党破坏它们所服务的自由民主秩序。与此同时,他们呼吁重新注意在民主理论和宪法学术领域对政党的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Parties, Democracy, and the Ideal of Anti-factionalism: Past Anxieties and Present Challenges
Abstract This essay weaves together the history of political and legal thought, contemporary democratic theory, and recent debates in legal scholarship to examine the ambivalent relationship between political parties and democracy. Celebrated as a structural necessity for the mechanics of democratic government, political parties are also handled with suspicion for their hybrid nature—neither entirely public nor completely private—and for their always-possible regression into factions. Anti-factionalism, I show, has been a powerful ideal driving constitutional imagination and practice over the centuries, from antiquity (with its emphasis on parts and its horror over factions), to the age of democratic revolutions (with its signature anxieties about divisions), up through the present. However, this long historical process has not extinguished the long-lived concern with the nature and implications of party spirit, nor has it made party democracy completely safe from revamped forms of factionalism. Two manifestations of factional politics stand out in the contemporary political landscape: authoritarian regime changes and populist constitutionalism. While the former is easy to diagnose but hard to prevent, the latter exemplifies a torsion of the constitutional and democratic imagination from within. Despite their differences, both scenarios remind us that constitutions need to envision mechanisms to prevent parties from undermining the liberal democratic order they have been designed to serve. At the same time, they call for renewed attention to the study of parties in the domains of democratic theory and constitutional scholarship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Accountability for the Taking of Human Life with LAWS in War Toward a Balanced Approach: Bridging the Military, Policy, and Technical Communities How to End a War: Essays on Justice, Peace, and Repair, Graham Parsons and Mark A. Wilson, eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2023), 207 pp., cloth $110, eBook $110. Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests, Agathe Demarais (New York: Columbia University Press, 2022) 304 pp., cloth $30, eBook $29.99. The Hegemon's Tool Kit: US Leadership and the Politics of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime, Rebecca Davis Gibbons (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2022), 240 pp., cloth $49.95, eBook $32.99.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1