摘要
以贝赛特为代表的精英主义的审议性民主论者与以科恩为代表的公共审议论者,代表了当代西方学界研究审议性民主的两条主要路径:前者寻求解释与再解释现存的法律和政治安排,强调其隐含的或被压制的审议性的一面;而后者则志在廓清和论证作为一种道德理想的审议性民主的合理性。而本文的主要目的就是揭示这种研究路径分歧的可能原因,在此基础上,进一步探讨《联邦党人文集》对于审议性民主理论的贡献与挑战。
In sum, the case for deliberative democracy, as typically formulated, comes in two
main variants. First, there are exercises in retrieval (represented by Bessette's works), which
seek to interpret or reinterpret existing legal and political arrangements in ways that highlight
their tacit or suppressed deliberative dimensions. Second, there are philosophical essays (rep-
resented by Joshua Cohen's), which aim to clarify and justify deliberation as an ethical ideal.
This paper tries to explain what count as reasons for the divergence of the above two ap-
proaches. Furthermore, contributions and challenges of The Federalist Papers to deliberative
democracy theories will also be explored.
出处
《开放时代》
CSSCI
2004年第4期99-116,共18页
Open Times
