Representative rupture: Rethinking the course of future democracy

Tsinghua University Humanities College professor Wang Core tip: Wang said, such as the right to vote, such as political system issues can not be compatible with the social form of democracy, it will inevitably produce a fractured society. Over the past 30 years, debates and disagreements over democracy have never ceased. The end of history concludes that democracy is the last political form and the symbol of the arrival of universal history. This narrative of democracy is accomplished by placing "People's democracy" in the category of "political despotism". The disintegration of the socialist system, however, is a profound contradiction between the war on terror, religious conflict, ecological destruction, a high-risk society and the global capitalist system exposed during the financial crisis. These contradictions also led to the crisis of "social democracy". The hollowing out of Western democracy, the internal contradictions of emerging democracies, and the democratic dilemma of the third World countries, are closely related to the crisis, and become a topic that can not be neglected in the discussion of contemporary democratic problems. Why did the two social systems that formed in the 20th century fall into crisis? Discussing the crisis of democracy is not tantamount to denying or opposing democracy, but the question is what kind of democracy we need. This is a two distinct problem that is often confused in Chinese context. Without an analysis of the democratic crisis in contemporary contexts, the question of democracy cannot be properly explored. Because of the impact of the revolution, the capitalist world produced its opposite, under the cold War conditions, "capitalism" and "socialism" opposition also produced a kind of ideological dichotomy. But as Hobsbang said, this kind of dualism is an arbitrary thinking structure that can only be understood under a certain historical space-time.　　This dualistic approach fails to grasp the institutional differences between China and the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, it is also difficult to explain the different patterns and paths between the United States, Japan, Britain, West Germany, Brazil, Northern Europe, South Korea or India, and of course, the institutional arrangements for opposing social systems in competition through observation, imitation and absorption of rivals.　　Social equality of the heritage as a prerequisite for democracy many third world countries lack equal social heritage, such as South Asia and Latin America have never completed agrarian reform, and without this equal social heritage, it is difficult to produce democratic two aspects of coordinated development, will create a new social conflict. There are different theories and practices around the issue of democracy. Prudent Democratic theorists have therefore emphasized that they are talking about some kind of democratic practice and democratic theory. However, in the contemporary context, people talk about democracy, which includes two different aspects, that is, as a political system of democracy and as a social form of democracy, the former includes universal suffrage, individual rights protection, freedom of speech, pluralism and so on, and the latter is the core of equality, mainly embodied in social security, Public goods to all social members of the open, redistribution and so on. The combination of the two is called social democracy. French political theorist Pierre Rosenwalong the two forms of democracy, saying that in the French Revolution and the American Revolution, the two aspects of democracy were completely overlapping, since the concept of equality at that time did not involve redistributionContent, but only relates to the nature of human social relations, that is, equal or hierarchical.　　The equal politics of that era is directly embodied in breaking down various identities and hierarchies, and forming a democratic social model with the relations of state-citizen. However, in the 19-20 century, as a democratic political system and social forms have been continuously differentiated. On the one hand, there is universal suffrage, freedom of the press and property rights under the protection of the law, that is, the so-called constitutional democracy, but on the other hand, the social polarization is serious, rich and poor, different forms of monopoly, class antagonism and so on, eventually led to violent social conflicts. The new social hierarchy is the root of large-scale class struggle and revolution, as well as one of the root causes of conflict among nations. From the late 19th century, especially after the two world wars, the fear of revolution and the reflection of war, as well as the competition between the two social systems during the Cold war, how to achieve social compromise and class reconciliation has become an important part of democratic practice, which plays a key role in promoting the development of the social form of democracy In social theory, there is a reflection on the individualism of atomic theory and the related social rights system, which is embodied in the RE interpretation of the relationship between rights and duties, welfare and responsibility, autonomy and unity. Today, the social democratic model is basically inseparable from the tax system, social security mechanism, legalized guild and minimum wage, labor contract law and other mechanisms. The concept of social democracy absorbs the fruits of many socialist movements and transforms them into democratic social forms through institutional design.　　We can say that this is a capitalist form that transcends capitalism. The social form of democracy is embodied in the concept of equality on three levels. The first equality is the so-called equality of opportunity, a concept of equality based on the formalism of the right view. The concept of equal opportunity is antithetical to the concept of equality of results. This concept is only to consider the equality of the so-called starting point, but there is a lack of monopoly and inequality in terms of unequal social conditions for so-called equal opportunities, or competition in the context of equal opportunities. If the concept of equal opportunity or the beginning of equality in the French Revolution or the American Revolution can also be called an equal form of society, then, in the development of capitalism, this concept is often disguised as the rhetoric of social inequality. Because of this, the post-war social democracy attaches special importance to the equality of distribution. The equality of distribution and the justice of distribution involve not only the allocation of resources, but also the importance of equality of results. Amartya The concept of "equality of ability" along this path in the article "What Equality". Therefore, we can at least discuss equality in the three-tier sense: Equal opportunities, equal distribution and equal capacity. If a person is deprived of his or her ability through education or other conditions and the corresponding social position because of poverty or other factors, he or she will not be able to compete. Equality of opportunity, therefore, is equal to empty promises without capacity, equality of opportunity is the legal basis for unequal social institutions (including the redistribution system)Expression。　　Democracy should contain the equality of capacity and equality in fact also relates to the status of workers in society, that is, whether he or she is a subordinate or a master of society. Many problems in the period of socialism, such as bureaucratic problems, the germination of privileges, and some mistakes in economic decision-making, need to be seriously rethought, reform is necessary. But to negate the equal achievements of this era is a completely different matter. Even in the model of European social democracy, Distributive justice is closely related to the equality of results--taxation and redistribution, social welfare and security system are the embodiment of distributive justice. More importantly: the compulsory education system formed in the period of Chinese socialism, as well as the peasant night school or other forms of civilian education, provide the educational opportunity for the fatigues and the people of different backgrounds, and thus provide the precondition for the cultivation of the ability. At that time, the proportion of college students from peasant-farmer family backgrounds was also very high. More importantly: the equality of ability not only manifests in the education, the skill and so on, but also manifests in the initiative, the autonomy and so on. The equality of competence in fact also concerns the status of the laborer in society, that is, whether he or she is a subordinate or a master of society.　　From these aspects, even according to the classical social democracy, the history of Chinese socialism not only lays a prerequisite for the achievements of the reform period, but also provides the foundation for a democratic social form. Amartya's discussion of distributive justice and capacity equality can also be considered in contrast to China and India. India was a British colony, after independence chose a democracy, there are parliaments, multi-party, universal suffrage, press freedom, but still a highly unequal society. Caste system means that only a very small number of people have the ability to enter the political field, even if the French Revolution in the era of democracy and social form of a high degree of unity, the political system and social forms of separation is also remarkable. The common language in India is English, but the English-speaking population accounts for only about 10%, and speaking English is a basic condition in India's national political space, or in highly mobile economic activity. This also means a serious lack of equal capacity, which in turn leads to the hollowing out of equal opportunities. The land relationship between India (and South Asia as a whole) is highly unequal due to the lack of deep and thorough agrarian reform, which also constitutes a significant difference between China and India on the premise of reform. Because of the disconnection between political system and social form, the function of multiparty politics, universal suffrage and press freedom has been greatly restricted. This is not to say that political democracy is unimportant, and that India is in fact sure of its own democratic system, which also provides a prerequisite for India's progress. However, if a democracy lacks the basic form of social equality, we can call this society "democratic" as a matter of fact. I recently went to India to participate in the tenth Indira Gandhi meeting, the theme of which is "social democracy", and the central issue is social justice, fair distribution, the role of the State and so on. In other words, discuss the so-called "People's livelihood"The problem is closely related to the question of democracy.　　Many third world countries imitate Western political democracy but fail to form a democratic society, and hierarchies, despotism and monopolies often coexist with democracies, which suggests that democracy cannot be limited to one aspect. The separation of democratic and social forms is also a social feature of many countries in transition. In the process of political democratization, these countries have changed from single-party to multi-party parliamentary, and the degree of freedom of media has greatly increased, but in these societies, political democratization is entangled with the total negation of socialist history, and the result is that the social form of equality formed in socialist period is also negated. Under this condition, political democratization has become the process of unequal distribution and legalization of new forms of monopoly, thus undermining the reputation of political democracy. Because democracies, especially party politics and the media, are highly dependent on capital and money, monopolies-whether they are in the form of state or private-tend to successfully translate economic power into political and media forces. This makes the social form of oligarchy and Democracy Alliance, resulting in great equality disaster and social polarization. As competition in different social systems ceases to exist, the socialist heritage has lost legitimacy and rationality completely in the two-yuan distinction between democracy and despotism, and it is difficult to see the possibility of finding solutions outside the ballot politics.　　These experiences also prove that it is impossible to form a truly democratic society without the discussion of social forms. In the context of the disparity between the rich and the poor, the urban and rural disparities and the continuous development of regional disparities, the issue of democracy involves not only political institutions but also social forms. The equal heritage formed in the history of Chinese revolution and socialism should be treated as the precondition of democracy. Many third world countries lack equal social heritage, such as South Asia and Latin America, where land reform has never been completed, and without this equal social heritage, it is difficult to produce harmonious development in two aspects of democracy, and new social conflicts will emerge. Without substantial fairness, without the equal relations between citizens, the civil rights of political democracy become empty formalism. Therefore, it is important not to have political democracy, but how to make political democracy have the connotation of social equality. If the socialist and socialist heritage were denied, the unequal distribution would continue. Market society will not spontaneously lead to equilibrium, on the contrary, if there is no reasonable regulation, institutional security and social struggle for equality and justice, the separation and rupture between the political and social forms of democracy will be the norm.　　We have seen this very clearly. Without democratization of the economy, the democratization of the democratic economy must be achieved by raising the status of the working masses.　　After the war, the attempts of social democracy and Enterprise democracy revolve around the common management and common all of the owners, managers and laborers. The social form of democracy is closely related to the economic structure. Without the democratization of economic structure, it is impossible to say socialist democracy or social democracy. Some recent worker protests, especially the FujiThe tragic tragedy of the continuous suicides of Kang employees shows how important the reform of the enterprise system is in safeguarding the basic human rights of workers. The equality of economic forms encompasses different patterns. In addition to the justice of distribution through national taxation, the democratization of corporate governance is also an important aspect. Here are two books that have had a big impact but are gradually forgotten in the neoliberal wave. One is Michel Albert's "Capitalism against capitalism", that is, the study of "social market economy" as the main object of the Rhine model. The so-called social market economy is seen as a tool for the prosperity of the economy, requiring equitable distribution of such prosperity among all sectors of society. "From this point of view, the most advanced mechanism in the Rhine model is the common management system of large corporations, which is enforced in Germany." In accordance with the common decision system, the composition of the Board of Supervisors is half the shareholder and the other half is employee representative. "Over a long period of time, this system has not only provided a good social security system and a fairer distribution system from the corporate level, but also is more efficient." Another book is Ronald Doll's stock capitalism: Welfare Capitalism (Anglo-American Model vs.). Japanese model), which focuses on the Japanese business model, stresses that "the efficiency of an enterprise is not just the return it gives to the capital owner, but also the rewards it gives to consumers, local and national, and employees, including managers and workers."　　"The external controls that motivate managers to work more are the feedback from the consumer in the production market, rather than the financial markets, and from the internal control of the organization ..." Dole specifically mentions some of the unique organizational forms of Japanese industry, such as the permanent employee system and the "capillary" management beyond vertical corporate leadership, a large board composed of senior decision-makers (large companies reaching 50), a company's guild organization, and a corresponding accounting system. A recent article, read by Mr. Song Lei, quotes the preface to the "Democratization of enterprise trial: an idea to fix Capitalism", published in 1947 by Higashitotsuka, whose core idea can also be seen as a precursor to the aforementioned writings: "Simply put, The aim of the democratization of the economy is to enable all persons directly and indirectly involved in the operation of the enterprise to participate in the management of the enterprise without exception, and to reflect its will in the management. In other words, the operation of a country's industry should be based on the consensus and creativity of all stakeholders, and such management can only be accomplished through the responsibility and cooperation of the stakeholders. In this sense, the democratization of the economy must be achieved by raising the status of the working masses. After the war, the attempts of social democracy and Enterprise democracy revolve around the common management and common all of the owners, managers and laborers. These attempts arose from the double fear that the right-wing fear of revolution and the fear of Communism and nationalism by Democrats or liberals. The democracy of enterprise, plus the distributive justice under the State regulation, basically constitute the connotation of economic democracy. In the financial crisis, Wall Street was controlled by financial speculation, with some business owners andThe layers share the speculative gains, but let the society and the state bear the consequences.　　It also embodies the anti-democratic character of neo-liberal economic-social model.　　The reform should be in line with the social form of democracy, such as voting rights, multi-party system and so on. If it cannot be combined with the social form of democracy, it will inevitably produce a fractured society. There is a history of socialist nationalization in China, as well as the practice of workers ' participation in management. In the market conditions, the state-owned capital in the social distribution system as a mechanism to promote social equality, is a problem worthy of discussion. Through the tax and social dividends, the state-owned enterprises become a real enterprise, forming a new type of labor relations, that is, let the workers become owners and participate in the management of enterprises, is the basic direction of this exploration. If state-owned enterprises move towards private oligopoly, speculative management and new bureaucracy, it will mean the failure of economic democracy. The form of capitalism has undergone important changes, but its fundamental contradictions, namely the private possession of public wealth, have not changed. Public ownership is a socialist heritage, but in practice there is no real solution to the problem of capital-state monopoly. A few years ago, I was involved in a textile factory restructuring survey, the workers raised the question is whether the factory is public or local government, workers are the owners of state-owned enterprises and other theoretical issues. I think that's the question of democracy raised by the workers. In private or transnational capital, labour rights are also a core issue of democracy. Honda Motor Company workers strike the fight is not only the economic interests, but also the question of enterprise democracy: whether the workers are the owners of enterprises? Does the enterprise system provide the framework and conditions for the realization of democratic governance and shared responsibility? Can the laborer become the owner at the same time, can the laborer intervene the management of the enterprise with the specific organization form? In different enterprises of all forms, can we provide a kind of industrial model beyond the traditional labor mode through the system arrangement of stock cooperation system?　　The suicide of Foxconn employees is not the problem of general working conditions, but the basic status of workers in enterprises, and is the problem of enterprise system and social system. The problem of land ownership and land transfer is not only an economic problem, but also a social form of democracy. Under the market conditions, how to let this kind of possessive relationship adapt to the market condition on the one hand, and not let the change of land relationship threaten the land social occupancy, which is the important challenge of China's state-owned land ownership and collective land ownership. In order to adapt to the economic development, some places put forward the "New Rural Comprehensive Development Association" organizational concept, according to some researchers described, "JA" by introducing collective, personal assets and government subsidies, by the professional team to operate, but unlike the general company, "Ja" Governance structure is based on the villagers ' active participation in the free election of the Autonomous Council, which is the combination of operation and social organization. China's small-scale peasant economy has a long tradition and is now facing the challenge of urbanization and modernization. Can we find a society that can accommodate different forms of agricultural practicesIn a way that allows families, communities, or JA business models to evolve at the same time? The relationship between cities and villages is a key issue in the process of modernization. How to form an equal urban-rural relationship through preservation and innovation is one of the key problems in contemporary society.　　In the early part of the last century, Kang Youwei conceived the concept of civic autonomy as a unit, which is a kind of social autonomy conceived on the basis of an imaginary community, and still deserves our consideration. In short, it is more appropriate to describe the exploration and practice of these areas in terms of the social form of democracy than the category of economic democracy, the reason is that enterprise democracy and land relations not only belong to the category of "economy", but also relate to the social status of laborers, and involve the interaction between urban and rural areas rather than the subordinate relations. In the history of capitalism, the relationship between political democracy and the social form of democracy is not inevitable, but the decline of the social form of democracy will eventually lead to the crisis of political democracy. If the political system issues such as voting rights, multi-party systems and so on can not cooperate with the social form of democracy, it will inevitably produce a fractured society. Fundamentally speaking, China, which has experienced the Chinese Revolution and socialist practice, must overcome class differentiation and create a social-political form that is different from the one that legalized exploitative relations.　　Is the so-called people-oriented, not in overcoming all bondage and dependency relationship can be achieved?　　Representative fault is the core representative fault of contemporary political crisis, which embodies the triple crisis of democratic politics, namely the crisis of party politics, the crisis of public domain (media) and the crisis of legal system. The exploration of the social forms of democracy is not to replace or abolish the debate on the political system of democracy. Democratization must be a participatory democratic process, and if the public as citizens is excluded from the process of democratization, there can be no real democracy. The question of political democracy, one is the need to analyze its form and structure, the need to discuss its effectiveness, not to guarantee the participation of citizens and the sharing of the political form-no matter what form it takes-is not true democracy. Since the end of the cold war, the democratic political system has not undergone significant changes in form, but there has been a general crisis in social democracy. What forces have led to a mutation in the social conditions of democracy? I have summed up the following points: first, after the end of the cold war, the threat of mass wars and class revolutions has been eliminated, and as the Cold War ended with a triumph of a social system, competition between the two social systems ceased to exist.　　This change in macro conditions has led to a weakening of the external dynamics of Democratic Self-renewal. Second, with globalization and global industrial transfer, industrial powers such as Britain and the United States have gone through the process of industrialization, with the result that the power of the working class has been greatly weakened. The working class is an important force in the pursuit of social equality, and its change also means that the motivation of the state to adopt a compromise and conciliatory form of governance has declined. (If Germany and the United States are to be asked why Germany's social democracy is a little better than in the US, one reason is that Germany, while developing financial capitalism,, and retained a larger industrial-industrial existence to ensure that workers ' strength is relatively stable. In contrast, the Western industrial transfer also led to the large-scale industrialization of the country, including China, the rapid growth of the working class, industrial transfer also means class relations and the transfer of classes, but also precisely at this moment, the proletarian party is "neutral" quickly.　　The new working class has no representation in the political sphere. Third, the financial capital, as an industrial capitalist companion, is more speculative than ever, refusing to take responsibility for any society; Political democracy, as a political system based on citizenship, is difficult to respond comprehensively to this new situation of globalization.　　This means that there is a contradiction between globalization and political democracy based on the political premise of nation-state. Forth, it is the contradiction and break between the High-tech industry and the traditional industry and the interest group that the financial capital is involved in all fields. (for example, according to the report of the research Group on "East Asian Political development", Fang Ning and others, in Thailand, Thaksin represents the High-tech industry, the interest group clashed with the old industrial monopolies, and he turned to rural farmers, as a result of the confrontation between urban and rural areas and the continuing political unrest and social conflicts based on this.　　The social compromise and reconciliation formed under the condition of industrialization cannot cover this new interest relationship, as a social-political arrangement, social democracy faces the reorganization of interests. The latter socialist countries are mostly influenced by neo-liberalism, privatization, marketization and globalization are accompanied by the decline of state-owned welfare system. This dual process leads to a disconnect between political democratization and the social form of democracy. If democratization becomes a complete negation of the original socialist distribution system and the equal inheritance, the parliamentary multi-party system becomes the political framework of the new oligarchy relationship, and the multiparty democracy is connected with the Oligopoly property distribution systems. In this kind of democratic transition, there are countless political parties, in which the majority of the seats in parliamentary politics are political parties that gain monopolistic interests in the redistribution of wealth. The result is clear: the general public is excluded from the process of political democratization. The polarization of the rich and the poor, the oligarchy and the political democratization go together, and the political democratization transforms from a social emancipation process into an exclusionary and oligopoly process.　　This is the main reason for the rapid discoloration of the "Color Revolution". These elements are the external motives of the democratic crisis. As far as the crisis of democratic practice itself is concerned, I think the "representative rupture" may be the most appropriate generalization. The break between political elites, economic elites, cultural elites and their interests and society is the social basis of this representative fault, while the political party, media and legal system-no matter how prevalent the claim of its use-cannot represent the corresponding social interests and public opinions is the direct manifestation of this representative fault. Representative fault is directly embodied in the triple crisis of democratic politics, that is, the crisis of political party politics, publicThe crisis of the common domain (media) and the legal system.