【作者】 杨景明；

【导师】 冯绍雷；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 科学社会主义与国际共产主义运动， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 韩国和俄罗斯在当代政治转型国家具有典型的代表性,到目前为止,对这两个转型国家的宏观和个案研究已经具有相当的规模和深度。但是,从微观和比较研究的角度来观察两国政治转型却并不多见。其中,在长达十多年的政治转型进程中,政治精英在两国各自转型的不同阶段究竟扮演着什么样的角色;随着转型的推进,政治精英阶层又发生了什么样的分化;政治精英的战略选择与两国民主政治演进的轨迹和方向有何因果关系等,诸如此类的问题引起了笔者的兴趣,并试图从政治精英的微观视角来对此进行初步的研究。本论文主要从六个方面对韩国和俄罗斯转型以来的政治精英进行了比较研究:第一章概述了传统精英理论及其演变,主要分析了精英的概念、分类、政治精英的权力来源等问题,重点研究了精英与政治转型的相关性问题,进而从中得出结论:精英治理是人类社会的普遍现象,即便是在高度发达的民主政治体制中,权力的运作也只是少数精英的事情,更何况在分工日益组织化和精细化的现代社会中,精英治理更是一种不可或缺的现象,特别是转型国家的动荡和风险往往赋予威权政治以更大的合法性,民众更多地寄希望于政治精英的素质和能力来引领国家的成功转型,因此在转型国家,威权与精英具备相当适宜的社会土壤。第二章运用了比较研究的方法,分别对民主化转型前后韩国与俄罗斯精英的结构变迁进行了深入分析。主要对韩国从第三共和国到第七共和国之间(1960年代到1990年代)精英的年龄、出生地、受教育程度、职业结构等变化情况进行了比较。从韩国转型期间政治精英更替的特征,进一步把握韩国民主化的演进轨迹。相对韩国而言,尽管俄罗斯的政治转型是激进式的,但从转型前后政治精英的角色转换和结构变迁,可以看出旧的威权主义政治遗产对俄罗斯民主转型路径的影响。本章在分析俄韩两国政治精英的基础上,对转型期间两国精英的选择及其在民主化转型中的作用也进行了比较分析。第三章借用了美国学者约翰·希格利(John Higley)的两种民主转型路径,即精英妥协和无妥协的民主巩固路径。从1993年开始,韩国进入了文人执政的民主巩固阶段,从这一时期韩国政治精英的表现来看,其中的统治精英(主要指总统等统治者)与权力精英(国会议员、政府和司法机构中的上层官员)之间就转型的路径、权力更替方式等民主化的制度安排问题出现了妥协,并取得了一定的共识,使韩国的政治转型沿着民主巩固的方向演进。本章重点对韩国第15届国会议员(1996—2000年)的结构、特征及其政治倾向进行了深入研究,同时,也对1993年以来,韩国历任统治精英的政治思想进行深入分析,由此总结出政治精英在韩国民主巩固时期的关键作用。第四章对转型以来俄罗斯精英与俄式民主道路进行了专题研究,一是分析了叶利钦和普京时代权力精英的政治取向,主要包括精英对政治参与、领导和政党竞争的观点,以及精英对总统和政府权力以及民主的态度等;二是对转型以来精英价值取向变化的原因进行了分析。总体来看,俄罗斯精英阶层民主价值观发生变化的原因是多重因素相互作用的结果,既有精英自身的特点和背景因素,也有受俄罗斯传统政治文化的影响,同时还有转型以来国内经济和社会因素等;三是对俄罗斯政治精英的选择与俄式民主进行了评析,这一时期政治精英阶层就强势领导控制下的民主模式形成了普遍的共识,从而为俄罗斯式的威权主义民主政治奠定了广泛的合法性基础。第五章主要从精英的视角对转型以来俄韩两国外交走向进行解读,一是从理论层面介绍了外交决策中的精英因素,二是重点关注政治精英在两国对外关系中所起的作用,包括精英的外交思想与对外关系的变化,精英对外部世界变化的感知能力和决策水平,以及内部政治和经济转型与对外关系的相互作用。第六章主要从两个方面分析了韩国与俄罗斯政治转型的相似性和异质性。从民主政治生长的社会土壤来看,韩国与俄罗斯政治民主化转型分别是在一个缺乏民主传统的东方社会和半西方社会发展起来的,两国政治转型既有来自外部世界的影响,也受制于内部的民主压力和传统文化等诸多因素的制约,从而使两国的转型在目标和结果上均表现出一定的相似性特征。但是,从韩俄两国政治转型的深层动因、方式和具体路径来看,也显示出一定的差异性。在转型的方式上,表现为渐进式民主与激进的政权颠覆式转型反差;在转型的条件上,表现为相对发达与濒临崩溃的经济反差;在转型的基础上,表现为中产阶级和市民社会相对成熟与缺失的反差;在转型的路径上,表现为协商型民主政治与精英主导型民主道路的反差。更多还原

【Abstract】 South Korea and Russia are typical representatives among the contemporary political-transition countries. So far, Macro-research and case studies on these two transition countries have been of considerable scale and depth. However, it is rare to view this issue from the perspective of comparative study and micro-research. Such as, in the more than a decade political transition process, the political elite play exactly what kind of role at different stages of their countries’ transition; with the advance of the transition, what kind of differentiation happened among the political elites; what kind of causal relations between the strategic choice of the political elite, and the tracks and the direction of the democratic evolution, and so on. The issues above aroused my interests. I tried to study the political elites preliminarily from micro-perspective.In this dissertation, the comparative studies on political elites in South Korea and Russia have been sectioned into five chapters:Chapter I summarizes the theory of traditional elite and its evolution, analyzes the concept and classification of elite, and the source of political elite’s power, focuses on the relevance of the elite and political transition, and then draws conclusions from it: elite governance is a common phenomenon in human society, even in highly developed system of democratic politics. The operation of power is merely seized by few elites. Elite governance is necessary in the modern society, in which the organized and fined division is increasing; especially the risk and instability of transition countries endue the authoritative politics with greater legitimacy. People who live in the transition countries hope that the capable political elite can lead a successful transition. Therefore, the existence of authority and elite has its considerably suitable society soil in transition countries.Chapter II analyzes the structure changes of the elite in South Korea and Russia after their countries before and after transforming to democratization respectively by the comparative method. Specifically, it analyzes the age, birthplace, educational level, occupational structure of the elites who lived in the period of the Third Republic of Korea to the Seventh Republic of Korea (from the 1960s to the 1990s). We can grasp the evolutionary trajectory of democratization in South Korea by researching the characteristics of political elite transition during the transition of their own country. Comparatively, although the Russia’s political transition is radical, but in the aspects of the role conversion and structural changes of the political elite before and after the transition, we can know that the old political legacy of authoritarianism in Russia affected the path of democratic transition. The selection of the elite and the effect of the elite during the democratic transition of their own country have also been comparativly analyzed.Chapter III discusses the political elites by the theoryof democratic consolidation path---Elite Compromise andNon-elite Compromise, by an American scholar named John Higley. Since 1993, South Korea had entered the democratic consolidation stage ruled by civilian president, from the point of view of performance of South Korean political elites during this period, the ruling elite (mainly refers to the rulers, such as President) and the power elite (such as the Members of Congress, the top officials of the Government and the Judiciary) have reached a compromise on the transition path and the way of power substitution , and have achieved a certain degree of consensus, so that the political transition of South Korea evolved toward the direction of the democracy consolidation firmly. This chapter focuses on the structure, characteristics and political tendencies of the the 15th Congress (1996-2000) members of South Korea, and at the same time analyzes the political thought of theformer ruling elites since 1993 in South Korea, and then draws a conclusion that the political elite in South Korea play a key role during the period of democracy consolidation.Chapter IV studies the Russian elite and the the road to Russia-style democracy since the transition specially. First of all, it analyzes the political orientation of the power elite in Yeltsin-and-Putin’s Time, including mainly the elite’s opinion on political participation, leadership and competition among political parties, as well as the attitudes toward president, government power and democracy, etc. Secondly, it analyzes the reasons for the changes of the elite’s values since the country transition. Overall, the reasons for the democratic values evolution of the Russian elite are the interaction of multiple factors, such as the elite’s characteristics and background, the influence of Russian traditional political culture, the condition of the domestic economy and social environment, and so on. Thirdly, it comments the selection of the Russian political elite and Russia-style democracy. The political elite in Russia made a general consensus on the democratic mode controlled by the strong leadership. It laid a broad foundation of legitimacy for the authority of the Russia-style democracy.Chapter V mainly explains the change of diplomacy about two countries from the perspective of elite since transition. First, the paper analyzed the elite factors in diplomatic decision-making from the theoretical level. The second is to focus on the role of political elites in Ruasia and South Korea foreign relations, including the elite’s diplomatic thinking and the changes in foreign relations, the perception of external world and decision-making level of Elites, and the interaction beteen Internal political and economic transformation and external relations.Chapter VI, the analysis is mainly on the homogeneity and heterogeneity concerning the political transition between South Korea and Russia. Based on the soil of society in which democracy grew, both South Korea and Russia are eastern countries, which were lack of democratic tradition, and were affected by the outside world, as well as the internal democratic pressures and traditional culture. From the point of view of results and objectives, the transition of these two countries shows homogeneity. But from the side of the underlying causes, pattern and specific path, there are obvious differences. In the aspect of transition pattern, it reflected the contrasts between gradual-evolution democracy and the radical overthrow-regime transformation. In the aspect of transition conditions, it reflected the contrasts of economy comparatively developed and on the verge of collapse. In the aspect of transition base, it reflected the contrasts between maturity of the middle class and lack of civil society. In the aspect of transition path, it reflected the contrasts of the deliberative democracy and the elite-dominated democracy.更多还原