Populism as a Crisis of Democratic Legitimacy:With Some References to France and the United States

Populism combines the following characteristics:a rejection of economic policies linked to globalization;a condemnation of political and economic elites perceived as allied,directly or indirectly,to globalization policies;a nationalist conception of the national interest;a mistrust of immigration,seen as a threat to identity;as for populism’s supporters,a rather popular sociological profile,and an electoral profile that tends toward the“hard right”(“droite dure”),without ruling out bridges to the“hard left”(“gauche dure”).Having said this,I propose to defend three theses:populism is not the solution to the problems of the countries where it is developing,whether in France,the United States or elsewhere;it would be dangerous,however,to ignore the crises of which populism is the product;it is essential to take the measure of the problems that favor its emergence and to try to provide answers to them.

The Relationship Between the Good and the Right in the Context of Chinese Philosophy

Ancient Chinese philosophy has explored the relationship between the good and the right in a quite distinct way from modern Western philosophy.According to its insights rooted in real life,the fundamental function of the right is neither to have little to do with the good as deontology claims,nor merely to produce more good in quantitative terms as consequentialism claims,but is to ensure the primary good and prevent the primary evil,both of which are of top importance to human life first and foremost in qualitative terms.

The Emerging Big Data Ecosystem and Digital Transformation of Poverty Governance in China

Big data technology has become increasingly prevalent in facilitating the delivery of government services and public goods in China and beyond.This article seeks to examine how big data can be leveraged in poverty governance in rural China,and what the political implications are.This phenomenon of big data-driven welfare governance is particularly salient considering the broader context of governmental digital transformation,both within China and globally.This research sheds light on how big data usage functions in poverty alleviation,highlighting general motivations and developments in Chinese data-centric welfare governance.More importantly,this article introduces the novel concept of"digital cybernetic capacity"to examine public sector modernization as big data transforms the landscape of welfare delivery and governance.By delving into the intersection between technology and social welfare,we explicate how the use of big data in social welfare policies can go beyond merely improving information capacity to redefine state capacity.This article argues that such a new governance ecosystem,driven as it is by data technologies,not only provides insights about the transformative resilience of Chinese governance but also opens a new theoretical frontier for research into other countries.

The Semantic Equivalence Between the Good and the Right:Its Support for and Challenge to Consequentialism

Viewed from the perspective of meta-ethics,there is some semantic equivalence between the good as desirability and the right as acceptability,so that we can claim that whatever is desirable for a person is also acceptable to and thus right for her or him in terms of its very goodness.In the debate with deontology,then,this equivalence gives consequentialism an advantage,because it could prove that the good on its own is always right,and the evil on its own is always wrong.Meanwhile,it also puts consequentialism at a disadvantage,because consequentialism could hardly answer a tough question:why do we seriously need another criterion of right and wrong besides the one of good and evil in evaluation?

The Introversive Political Meritocracy:A Political Possibility Beyond"The End of History"

The criticisms of the falsity of universal recognition carried| out by leftists, led by Karl Max, and the queries of its desirability proposed by rightists, represented by Friedrich Nietzsche, raise challenges to Francis Fukuyama’s theory of “the end of history” from two opposite directions. At present, Chinese-style political meritoc­racy based on the party state is a political form that combines these left-wing and right-wing challenges and has the potential to move beyond “the end of history”. However, whether it can truly surpass “the end of history” depends on whether it can form a desirable and stable alternative political form under modern condi­tions. To this end, Chinese-style political meritocracy must respond positively to the three challenges it faces under modern conditions: the tension between “debicheng- wei” (one’s virtue must have a matching position, 德必称位) and moral universal- ism, the corrosion of social justice from the hierarchical social structure caused by “weibichenglu” (one’s position must have a matching salary, 位必称禄), and the threat of social indoctrination to individual autonomy. The “introversive political meritocracy” jointly shaped by “advocating morals for the public,” “arete based on altruism,” and “introversive self-cultivation” is a desirable political form that can successfully respond to these three challenges.

Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice:Theories,Concepts,Principles and Indicators

The paper focuses on the conceptualization and measurement of global justice and discusses theories,concepts,evaluative principles,and methodologies related to the study of global justice.In this paper,we seek to clarify how to conceptualize global justice,how conceptual indicators can be selected and justified by theories,and how those indicators can be conceptually consistent with the concept of global justice.Global justice is a broad concept that is composed of multi-level and multidimensional aspects belonging to both normative and empirical realities.A coherent and integrated theoretical framework that covers the normative basis and various empirical dimensions is therefore much needed in order to address some of the basic and important questions under study.The paper seeks to synthesize the multiple theories and conceptions of global justice that exist in the academic discourse and literature into three main theoretical approaches to global justice-rights based,good based,and virtue based.These three approaches are a good sample of and reflect well the strengths of the different theoretical,intellectual and cultural traditions at play in the study of global justice.From this perspective,the synthesis of the three approaches is meant to provide us with a coherent theoretical framework that serves as the normative basis and justifies the selection of indicators for measurement.

Equal Rights Versus Equal Needs:Global Justice or Global Virtues?

According to the analytically semantic linkage of“good-right-rights-justice”formed in the real conflicts among goods and especially among people,we should not confuse the global justice principle of“equal respect for everyone’s basic rights”with the global virtue principle of“equal satisfaction of everyone’s basic needs.”Correspondingly,while global virtues and the national interest may and can be reconciled with each other,global justice should not make compromises to the national interest precisely because of its ultimate priority.

Nationalism,Egalitarianism and Global Justice

Global distributive justice requires that universal standards and values be recognized and|respected to avoid moral relativism.Egalitarianism in domestic context demands equal treatment of all persons,whereas in global context,egalitarianism means equal treatment of all nations or peoples.Nationalist appeal quite often neglects universal values and standards in dealing with global justice.Although Rawls rejected global egalitarianism in his late works,the main idea developed by his A Theory of Justice is still important for global justice.The reason why just arrangements should benefit the least advantaged domestically is parallel to that why they should benefit the poorest nations in global justice.Equality of opportunities in global context means that equal respect and treatment of all people,and nationality and religious beliefs should not obstruct anyone from getting a job or position.One of the moral arguments for benefiting the least advantaged is luck egalitarianism,and the luck/choice distinction is used for explaining personal responsibility in social and economic differences.It is bad when one person is worse off than another through no fault or choice of her own.But it is unjust when someone does better than others only because of her social class or family background.And social institutions that discriminate against persons based on arbitrary traits like nationality,gender,origin of country or region,religious beliefs,etc.,are a bad example of unjust distribution.Rawls’difference principle does not make a distinction between two reasons that cause disadvantage.Therefore,the requirement to benefit the least advantaged should embody the luck/choice distinction;people should be responsible for the cost of their choice and not for their natural assets.This principle may be extended to global justice.For those who live in poverty because of their lack of natural resources and gifts,compensation should be made to let them lead a decent life,and to those who voluntarily choose their lifestyle that causes their disadvantage,the efforts to benefit them should be to their minimal satisfaction,as a humanitarian appeal.And some nations voluntarily choose their institutions,ways of life,including working style,ways of doing business,educational efforts and political corruption,which cause lower economic development and efficiency.Social and economic equality in such circumstances is not unconditional,and international assistance should consider the choice factor.

How Could a Global Ethic Be Grounded on a Religious Foundation?

Through a case analysis of Christianity and Confucianism,this essay argues that if the world’s religions genuinely hope to establish a global ethic by jointly affirming some irrevocable and unconditional ethical directives,each on the basis of their own religious grounds,they should trust in their specific ultimate realities in a universalistic way instead of in a particularistic way;that is,they may not place these ultimate realities above the bottom-line moral principle“respecting everyone’s deserved rights”absolutely,but must assign a prior position to the latter and integrate it with their trust in their specific ultimate realities through a critical self-transformation.