政治精英選擇視角下的臺(tái)灣和新加坡民主轉(zhuǎn)型分析
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-14 16:03
【摘要】：在當(dāng)今世界范圍之內(nèi)，民主化是政治生活領(lǐng)域的一個(gè)重要趨勢(shì)，縱觀民主化的歷史進(jìn)程可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，從20世紀(jì)70年代末90年代初，在全世界范圍之內(nèi)興起了被學(xué)術(shù)界成為第三波民主化的浪潮，這次民主化席卷了數(shù)十個(gè)國(guó)家，大量的威權(quán)政權(quán)在這次浪潮中受到強(qiáng)烈沖擊，要么轟然垮臺(tái)，要么主動(dòng)或者被動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)型，開(kāi)始走上了民主化道路。其中臺(tái)灣和新加坡兩個(gè)地區(qū)，引起學(xué)術(shù)界和世人的廣泛關(guān)注。這兩個(gè)地區(qū)都屬于儒家文化圈，并且都屬于最狹義范圍上的華人社會(huì)，在20世紀(jì)80年代中后期其經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展水平、中產(chǎn)階級(jí)力量、識(shí)字率、城市化水平等一系列結(jié)構(gòu)條件都已到達(dá)民主轉(zhuǎn)型的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，然而兩個(gè)地區(qū)的民主轉(zhuǎn)型卻呈現(xiàn)天壤之別，臺(tái)灣在經(jīng)歷最初的壓制、動(dòng)亂之后，統(tǒng)治者綜合考慮壓制的成本和開(kāi)啟自由化的收益，選擇了順應(yīng)時(shí)勢(shì)，在10年之內(nèi)，較平穩(wěn)地從自由化到民主化，實(shí)現(xiàn)了民主轉(zhuǎn)型。而新加坡，卻走上了另外一條不同的道路。自始至終，執(zhí)政黨就沒(méi)有意愿與反對(duì)勢(shì)力妥協(xié)、談判，面對(duì)反對(duì)勢(shì)力的挑戰(zhàn)，執(zhí)政黨選擇的借助國(guó)家力量嚴(yán)厲打壓，恩威并施，反對(duì)力量始終處于圍追堵截之中，，一直就沒(méi)能成為政治生活中的力量，只能在具體政策層面上發(fā)表一些觀點(diǎn)或者被籠絡(luò)進(jìn)政府內(nèi)部。反對(duì)派未能成氣候發(fā)展壯大，內(nèi)部也就更難以分成激進(jìn)派 和溫和派，加上執(zhí)政陣營(yíng)中強(qiáng)硬派始終占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位，所以缺乏改革派和溫和派聯(lián)合的現(xiàn)實(shí)條件，導(dǎo)致民主化的結(jié)構(gòu)條件已經(jīng)具備，卻沒(méi)有足夠的力量去推動(dòng)民主轉(zhuǎn)型第一步的吊詭現(xiàn)象。新加坡的威權(quán)政治得以一直延續(xù)至今，成為發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家中的一個(gè)另類(lèi)。 新加坡和臺(tái)灣，在20世紀(jì)80年代末都已經(jīng)具備了結(jié)構(gòu)主義者界定的轉(zhuǎn)型條件，但是轉(zhuǎn)型結(jié)果卻截然相反。由此可見(jiàn)，結(jié)構(gòu)條件只是民主轉(zhuǎn)型的必要條件而非充分條件，它只是為民主轉(zhuǎn)型提供了可能性，但具備結(jié)構(gòu)條件并不意味著一定能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)型。當(dāng)處于民主轉(zhuǎn)型的門(mén)檻時(shí)，需要政治行動(dòng)者尤其是政治精英去推動(dòng)甚至加快這個(gè)過(guò)程，政治行動(dòng)者之間的互動(dòng)讓民主轉(zhuǎn)型變成現(xiàn)實(shí)。經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展、中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的產(chǎn)生、市民社會(huì)的不斷成熟、大眾民主訴求的增強(qiáng)等結(jié)構(gòu)條件并不能直接推動(dòng)民主化的進(jìn)程，它們要想在政治生活中發(fā)揮重要作用，就必須找到一個(gè)著力點(diǎn)和助推力，這就是政治精英的選擇和互動(dòng)。
[Abstract]:In today's world, democratization is an important trend in the field of political life. Looking at the historical process of democratization, we can find that from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, A third wave of democratization has emerged around the world, which has become the third wave of democratization by the academic community. This democratization has engulfed dozens of countries. A large number of authoritarian regimes have been strongly impacted by this wave, or collapsed. Either active or passive transformation, began to embark on the road to democratization. Among them, Taiwan and Singapore two regions, cause academic circles and the world wide attention. Both areas belong to the Confucian cultural circle, and both belong to the most narrow sense of the Chinese society. In the mid and late 1980s, their level of economic development, middle-class strength, literacy rate, A series of structural conditions, such as the level of urbanization, have reached the standard of democratic transformation. However, the democratic transformation in the two regions is quite different. After the initial repression and turmoil in Taiwan, Considering the cost of suppression and the benefits of liberalization, the rulers chose to adapt to the current situation and, within 10 years, smoothly changed from liberalization to democratization and realized the democratic transformation. Singapore, on the other hand, has embarked on a different path. From beginning to end, the ruling party did not have the will to compromise with the opposition forces, to negotiate. In the face of the challenge of the opposition forces, the ruling party chose to resort to the help of national forces to crack down severely. Has not been able to become a force in political life, can only express some views at the specific policy level or be lured into the government. If the opposition fails to grow stronger, it will be more difficult to divide the opposition into radicals and moderates internally. In addition, the hard-liners in the ruling camp have always occupied a dominant position, so they lack the realistic conditions for the combination of reformists and moderates. The structural conditions leading to democratization are already in place, but there is not enough power to promote the first step of democratic transformation. Singapore's authoritarian politics continues to this day as an alternative in the developed world. Singapore and Taiwan, in the late 1980s, already had the structural definition of the transition conditions, but the outcome of the transformation is quite the opposite. It can be seen that structural conditions are only necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions for democratic transformation. It only provides the possibility for democratic transformation, but having structural conditions does not necessarily mean that it can be realized. When we are on the threshold of democratic transformation, we need political actors, especially political elites, to promote or even speed up the process. The interaction between political actors makes democratic transformation a reality. The structural conditions of economic development, the emergence of the middle class, the constant maturity of civil society and the enhancement of popular democratic aspirations cannot directly promote the process of democratization. They want to play an important role in political life. You have to find a point and a boost, which is the choice and interaction of the political elite.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海交通大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D675.8;D733.9
本文編號(hào)：2183388
[Abstract]:In today's world, democratization is an important trend in the field of political life. Looking at the historical process of democratization, we can find that from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, A third wave of democratization has emerged around the world, which has become the third wave of democratization by the academic community. This democratization has engulfed dozens of countries. A large number of authoritarian regimes have been strongly impacted by this wave, or collapsed. Either active or passive transformation, began to embark on the road to democratization. Among them, Taiwan and Singapore two regions, cause academic circles and the world wide attention. Both areas belong to the Confucian cultural circle, and both belong to the most narrow sense of the Chinese society. In the mid and late 1980s, their level of economic development, middle-class strength, literacy rate, A series of structural conditions, such as the level of urbanization, have reached the standard of democratic transformation. However, the democratic transformation in the two regions is quite different. After the initial repression and turmoil in Taiwan, Considering the cost of suppression and the benefits of liberalization, the rulers chose to adapt to the current situation and, within 10 years, smoothly changed from liberalization to democratization and realized the democratic transformation. Singapore, on the other hand, has embarked on a different path. From beginning to end, the ruling party did not have the will to compromise with the opposition forces, to negotiate. In the face of the challenge of the opposition forces, the ruling party chose to resort to the help of national forces to crack down severely. Has not been able to become a force in political life, can only express some views at the specific policy level or be lured into the government. If the opposition fails to grow stronger, it will be more difficult to divide the opposition into radicals and moderates internally. In addition, the hard-liners in the ruling camp have always occupied a dominant position, so they lack the realistic conditions for the combination of reformists and moderates. The structural conditions leading to democratization are already in place, but there is not enough power to promote the first step of democratic transformation. Singapore's authoritarian politics continues to this day as an alternative in the developed world. Singapore and Taiwan, in the late 1980s, already had the structural definition of the transition conditions, but the outcome of the transformation is quite the opposite. It can be seen that structural conditions are only necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions for democratic transformation. It only provides the possibility for democratic transformation, but having structural conditions does not necessarily mean that it can be realized. When we are on the threshold of democratic transformation, we need political actors, especially political elites, to promote or even speed up the process. The interaction between political actors makes democratic transformation a reality. The structural conditions of economic development, the emergence of the middle class, the constant maturity of civil society and the enhancement of popular democratic aspirations cannot directly promote the process of democratization. They want to play an important role in political life. You have to find a point and a boost, which is the choice and interaction of the political elite.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海交通大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D675.8;D733.9
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 趙紀(jì)河;;臺(tái)灣政治轉(zhuǎn)型過(guò)程中的選舉演變探析[J];產(chǎn)業(yè)與科技論壇;2011年05期
2 李路曲;;新加坡人民行動(dòng)黨政府的社會(huì)控制方式[J];東南亞研究;2006年04期
3 孫代堯;現(xiàn)代化進(jìn)程中的威權(quán)政治——政治社會(huì)學(xué)研究范式述評(píng)[J];華東理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期
4 林震;試論臺(tái)灣民主化的動(dòng)因[J];河海大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年02期
5 許克娟;;論臺(tái)灣轉(zhuǎn)型時(shí)期中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的興起原因[J];黑龍江史志;2010年01期
6 孫景峰;;論新加坡人民行動(dòng)黨面臨的三大挑戰(zhàn)[J];河南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年01期
7 舒紹福;;政治民主發(fā)展的政治文化分析[J];國(guó)家行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期
8 李晶;許開(kāi)軼;;比較政治學(xué)的一種分析范式:東亞威權(quán)政治轉(zhuǎn)型的路徑選擇[J];理論導(dǎo)刊;2011年09期
9 賴靜萍;;新加坡的威權(quán)政治及其歷史走向——基于政治生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的分析[J];南京師大學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年03期
10 馬奔;;民主化的基礎(chǔ)性條件之分析[J];山東大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年02期
本文編號(hào)：2183388
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/guojizhengzhilunwen/2183388.html
最近更新
教材專(zhuān)著
熱點(diǎn)文章
