【作者】 武小凯；

【导师】 虞崇胜；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 政治学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 立足于自由和民主关系的视角,回答能否以自由看待民主、怎样以自由看待民主这两大问题,是本文的宗旨。全文分为三大部分：第一部分,找到自由和民主在价值逻辑上的相关性；第二部分,论证民主在实践过程中对自由的依存性。通过这两部分的论述,回答“能否以自由看待民主”的问题。第三部分,考察民主在实践方式上和自由的疏离性,这为回答如何以自由看待民主,使自由和民主之间能够达成“应然”的关系提供借鉴。结论部分回答应该怎样以自由看待民主。自由和民主这两大政治价值之间存在着相关性,这是回答能否以自由看待民主的逻辑前提。作为政治价值,自由和民主和诸如权利、正义、平等、自治、美德、法治等政治价值一样,都是以解决个体和共同体的关系为根本任务的。这是因为,政治的终极关怀在形式上是一种价值关怀,同时,政治的终极关怀在实质上是为了解决个体和共同体的关系问题。所以,政治价值根本任务就是为了解决个体和共同体的关系。各种政治价值之所以存在区别,正是由于它们对个体和共同体关系问题的不同回答。自由和民主之所以存在关联,是由于它们二者在这个问题上的三大相同点：第一,自由和民主既不同于“权利”,这是一种解决“负相关”范畴上个体和共同体关系问题上的政治价值；也不同于“正义”,这是一种解决“正相关”范畴上的个体和共同体关系问题上的政治价值。自由和民主既要解决“负相关”又要解决“正相关”范畴上的个体和共同体关系问题。第二,自由和民主既不同于“平等”,这是一种以“集合的个体”为取向的政治价值；也不同于“自治”,这是一种以“单个的个体”为取向的政治价值。自由和民主既要以“集合的个体”,又要以“单个的个体”为价值取向。第三,自由和民主不同于“美德”,这是一种以“个体”为路径依赖的政治价值；也不同于“法治”,这是一种以“共同体”为路径依赖的政治价值。自由和民主既以“个体”又以“共同体”为路径依赖。通过这三方面的排除,论文找到了自由和民主在逻辑上发生关系的可能。然后,论文考察了民主在实践过程中对于自由的依存性,这是回答能否以自由看待民主的关键。古往今来,人们在实践中看待民主的视角从一维的“内在体验”视角演变为二维的“内在体验”加上“外在效用”视角,再发展成三维的“内在体验”加“外在效用”加“运行技术”视角。在这个过程中,“内在体验”视角从独尊的状态逐渐地走向衰落,先是“外在效用”视角崛起挑战了它的地位,再是“运行技术”视角的泛滥排挤了它的位置。既然民主有三种视角,那么哪一种是民主的根本视角呢?本论文通过对古今各种民主兴衰成败的考察,论证了一个基本观点--内在体验视角是民主的根本视角。首先,在古今民主的创立过程中,内在体验视角起到了关键性作用。在雅典民主的创立中,如果不是内在体验视角的引入,民主就无法成立。在近代以来的三大革命中,法国大革命之所以被称为现代民主的开端,是由于它不同于英美革命,将内在体验视角作为民主的观察点。第二,在民主的失败过程中,内在体验视角也是关键因素。第一种情况,在内在体验视角一维独尊型的民主中,内在体验自身的堕落是其破产的根源,雅典民主和雅各宾民主即是如此。第二种情况是,一旦内在体验视角被外在效用视角所取代了,民主也就变质了。德国、意大利和日本三大轴心国,新加坡、韩国和智利等新权威主义国家就是这样做的。第三种情况,当运行技术视角泛滥并导致它和内在体验视角脱节,民主就会走向歧途。苏联解体后的中亚五国就是这种情况,建国初期的美国也是如此。内在体验视角是民主的核心视角,而自由是打开内在体验视角之门的钥匙。因为它能够保障内在体验的自发性、自营性和自惬性。论文以英国民主的建立为实例。在英国民主的创立过程中,人身自由确保了民主内在体验的前提——自发；表达自由确保了民主内在体验的路径——自营；意志自由确保了民主内在体验的目的——自惬。通过这三方面的论证,论文说明了自由是民主内在体验视角的钥匙,而内在体验视角又是民主的核心视角。所以,论文第二部分的结论是,民主在实践过程中对自由存在着依存性。然而,在现实中自由和民主的关系并非融洽无间。在实践方式上,民主和自由矛盾重重,充满着张力。首先,论文分析了自由和民主关系的第一种模式：共和主义式积极的“在场自由”和民主的关系。“在场自由”和民主的关系是一种工具性价值和目的性价值的关系。在这种关系中,自由拔高了民主,它受到了民主的压制,两者的关系是偏执的。在历史上,古希腊人是无个人自由的。在中世纪的城市共和国中,自由和民主这种的结合是没有前途的。当代的共和主义的复兴只能是徒有外表。然后,论文分析了自由和民主关系的第二种模式：自由主义式消极的“下场自由”和民主的关系。在这种自由和民主的关系模式中,自由试图构建民主的目的性价值和工具性价值的关系,而民主则一直在抗争。两者之间的斗争总是无休无止,循环往复。这是因为,在这种关系模式中自由压制了民主,民主不甘心于这种不平等的关系。接下来,论文分析了自由和民主关系的第三种模式：唯心主义式“离场自由”和民主的关系。在这种自由和民主的关系中。由于人们不从外在社会关系中理解自由,而是从自己的内心世界中实现自由。唯心主义“离场自由”往往无视民主和专制的根本区别,成为专制、压迫的“忠实反对派”。这种自由以自我实现为终极目的,而自我实现又离不开国家的“帮助”,这就给了极权主义“搭便车”的机会。在廓清三种自由与民主关系模式的基础上,论文最后探讨了应该怎样以自由看待民主。以自由看待民主,其实就是为了维持自由和民主之间的这样的一种张力关系,在这种关系中：通过民主可以使得自由更加自由,通过自由可以使得民主更加民主,自由的发展和民主的发展可以统一在一起。所以,怎样以自由看待民主,首先要在“在场自由”中加入“下场”和“离场”的因素,保证民主能够使自由更自由；第二,在“下场自由”中加入“在场”和“离场”的因素,保证自由能够使民主更民主；第三,在“离场自由”中加入“在场”和“下场”的因素,保证自由的发展和民主的发展能够统一在一起。总之,以自由看待民主,就是要说明民主是实现自由的制度条件,自由是实现民主的价值前提。更多还原

【Abstract】 Based on the visual angle of relations between liberty and democracy, this article aims at answering two main questions-whether democracy can be looked on with liberty and how to look on democracy with liberty. This article is divided into three main parts:Part 1-Find the relativity between liberty and democracy on value logic. Part 2 Demonstrate dependency of democracy on liberty during the practice process. Through the two parts, question of "whether democracy can be looked on with liberty" is answered. Part 3-Investigate the estrangement of democracy and liberty in practice way, this part answers the question of "how to look on democracy with liberty", and provides reference for reaching "due" relations between liberty and democracy. In the end, this article discusses how to look on democracy with liberty.Relativity exists between liberty and democracy-these two main political values, which is the logic premise of looking on democracy with liberty. As the political value, liberty and democracy, such as rights, justice, equality, self-government, virtue, rule of law, have the same mission, and they both treat solving the relationship problems between individual and community as their own duties. Because ultimate political concern is a kind of value concern in form, and it is substantially to resolve the relationship problems between individual and community. Therefore, basic duty of political value is to resolve the relationship problems between individual and community. The reason why differences exist in various political values is because the different answers on the relationship problems between individual and community. The reason why liberty and democracy have a correlation is because there are three common points when they solve relationship problems between individual and community:first, liberty and democracy are different from rights, which are the political value solving the relationship between individual and community on category of "negative correlation"; they are also different from justice, which is the political value solving the relationship between individual and community on category of "positive correlation". Liberty and democracy solve the relationship between individual and community on the mixture categories of "negative correlation" and "positive correlation". Second, liberty and democracy are different from equality, which is the political value treating "collective individual" as the value orientation; they are also different from self-government, which is the political value treating "single individual" as the value orientation. Liberty and democracy treat "collective individual" and "single individual" as double value orientations. Third, liberty and democracy are different from virtue, which is the political value treating the individual as the path dependence; they are also different from rule of law, which is the political value treating the community as the path dependence. Liberty and democracy treat both individual and community as the path dependence. Through elimination of these three aspects, this article finds the possibility for liberty and democracy to establish relationship logically.Then, this article investigates the dependency of democracy on liberty during the practice process. The visual angles people looking on democracy from ancient times to the present developed from one-dimensional "internal experience" visual angle, to two-dimensional "internal experience" + "external effectiveness" visual angle, and then to three-dimensional "internal experience" + "external effectiveness" + "operation technology" visual angle. In this process, "internal experience" visual angle begins to decline from exclusive status step by step; first, the rise of "external effectiveness" visual angle challenges its position, second, the wide spread of "operation technology" visual angle pushes out its position. Since democracy has three visual angles, but which is the basic one? Next, based on the investigation on rise and decline of various ancient and modern democracies, I will demonstrate a basic opinion- "internal experience" visual angle is the basic one. First, in the establishment process of ancient and modern democracies, " internal experience" visual angle plays an important role. In the establishment process of Athenian democracy, it couldn’t be established until "internal experience" visual angle was introduced in. In the recent three main revolutions, French Revolution is called as the beginning of modern democracy, because it is different from English and American Revolutions and it treats "internal experience" visual angle as the observation point of democracy. Second, in the failure process of democracy, "internal experience" visual angle is also the key factor. The first situation, in the one-dimensional exclusive democracy of "internal experience" visual angle, self-falling of internal experience is the root cause of broke, Athenian democracy and Jacobin democracy is such a case. The second situation, once "internal experience" visual angle is displaced by "external effectiveness" visual angle, the essence of democracy will change. German, Italia and Japan these three big axis powers, and Singapore, Korea and Chile and other neo-authoritarianism countries just do it in this way. The third situation, when "operation technology" visual angle spreads widely and comes apart from "internal experience" visual angle, democracy will go the wrong way. The five Central Asian countries after the disintegration of the Soviet Union are under this situation, so is America in the early founded stage. "Internal experience" visual angle is the core visual angle of democracy, and liberty is the key to open "internal experience" visual angle, because liberty can ensure the spontaneity, autotrophism and self-satisfaction of the internal experience. This article takes the establishment of British democracy as the instance. In the establishment process of British democracy, personal liberty ensures the premise of the internal experience of democracy-spontaneity; liberty of expression ensures the path of the internal experience of democracy-autotrophism; liberty of will ensures the purpose of the internal experience of democracy-self-satisfaction. Through the demonstration on these three aspects, this article explains that liberty is the key of "internal experience" visual angle of democracy, while "internal experience" visual angle is the core visual angle of democracy. Therefore, the conclusion of the second part is that the democracy has dependency on liberty during the practice process.However, the relationship between liberty and democracy in real life is not harmonious. In practical way, the relationship between liberty and democracy has insuperable contradictions, and is full of tension. First, this article analyzes the first mode of the relationship between liberty and democracy:relationship between republican and active "liberty of presence" and democracy. The relationship between "liberty of presence" and democracy has instrumental value and purpose value. In this relationship, liberty enhances democracy and is suppressed by democracy, their relationship is bigoted. In the history, ancient Greeks have no individual liberty. In the medieval city republic, combination of liberty and democracy is futureless. Revival of modern republicanism is just specious. Then, this article analyzed the second mode of the relationship between liberty and democracy:relationship between negetive "liberty of depature" and democracy. In this relationship mode, liberty is trying to construct the relationship between liberty and democratic purpose value and instrumental value, but democracy always resists. Struggle between them is always endless and circulating. Because in this relationship mode liberty suppresses democracy and democracy is not reconciled to this unequal relationship. Next, this article analyzed the second mode of the relationship between liberty and democracy:relationship between idealistic "liberty of absence" and democracy. In this relationship mode, people never understand liberty based on the external social relationship, but realize liberty from their own inward worlds. Idealistic "presence liberty" always ignores the basic distinction between democracy and autocracy, and becomes the autocratic and compressive "loyal opposition". Besides this, this liberty takes self-realization as final purpose, and self-realization can’t be separated from "assistance" of the nations, and then the totalitarianism gets a "hitchhike" opportunity.From the alienation of liberty and democracy in the practical way, this article finally discusses how to look on democracy with liberty. Looking on democracy with liberty is to maintain such a relationship between liberty and democracy. In the relationship: democracy makes liberty more free, and liberty makes democracy more democratic, liberty development and democratic development can be unified together. Therefore, on the question of "how to look on democracy with liberty", there are three ways:first, add "absence" and "departure" factors in "liberty of presence", and ensure that democracy makes liberty more free. Second, add "presence" and "absence" factors in " liberty of departure ", and ensure that liberty makes democracy more democratic. Third, add "absence" and "presence" factors in " liberty of departure", and ensure that free development and democratic development can be unified together.更多还原