Since the new Bayeng government has achieved new, the United States has held several "democratic summits", calling on "democratic countries" to face the challenges, deal with them together, and once again set off the origin of "democratic discourse".In this "democratic government" almost becoming the only world of legalization mechanism, the abuse and distortion of "democracy" is not uncommon. The definition of "democracy" may largely depends on whether it has the advantages of defining the right to "democracy" and perseverance.The words of "democracy" may also become democracy and democracy, democratic for interests, and democratic ideology.In this way, the "democracy" itself is a tool from the purpose, and no longer related to pure governance models, but becomes a tool for geopolitics.Victoria, but three -dimensional.
The existing classification standards of mainstream politics lies in the two -point method of "authoritarian -democracy".According to this two -point method, whether the "public opinion" has the function of determining the existence of the regime, it becomes the difference between the two.The preset here is based on the "public opinion" as the value scale to determine whether the political system is legal or not.However, this actually constitutes a path of thinking from value, which is to classify the government based on the "what should be" based on the government and preset the priority of public opinion.Regarding the priority of "public opinion", it is essentially a psychological preference, and the "authority" and "democratic" government, in fact, do not refuse to accept this preference, and even the "autocratic" government also has the public opinion "water can carry boats to boat can carry boats., Can also cover the boat "cognitive positioning.Only when this psychological preference can be restored to reality, and can be induced, can it make sense.
Here, public opinion mainly quantifies the free elections again and again.The election itself does not constitute a separation between authoritarian regimes and democratic politics. The difference is how the prefix "freedom" that falls in the election is interpreted.Therefore, this quantitative guideline is still a kind of synonymous duplication as "what should be" to explain something "what should be".Under the "visible" standard, the difference between the difference between "authoritarian government" and "democratic government" is the political party: whether it has more than two competitive parties to bid the regime through the legal mechanism.The two -point method of "authoritarian -democracy" can only be equivalent to the two -point method of "one party -multi -party", can we get rid of value interpretation of value, from the strange circle that should be explained.Reality has become a "visible" classification standard; and the "number of political parties" constitutes the key to distinction.
But this classification itself lacks "distinction", that is, it does not constitute a real classification.
Modern politics is theoretically one -party system. This is the same in Chinese and Western. Regardless of political and doctrine, no matter how much power and doctrine are, they are one -party.The existing political party defines or follows the "pathway" to understand the party as an organization that pursues a certain ideological purpose, which is different from other "political factions";Organizations that pursue or maintain governing power are different from other "political organizations."
"Power" or "doctrine" has become the two major elements of political parties.If "power" or "doctrine" is the same or similar, the classification of political parties itself lacks distinction, which constitutes meaningless arrangement combination.The narrative of democracy and authority, except for the multi -party party that indicates democracy and a party that indicates authoritarian authority, constitutes the only "visible" distinction itself, the rest is the "what should be", it is the discourse, the position, and even the evenIt is a psychological preference; however, one party system and multi -party system are also a false category. In fact, most of us are "one -party system".
In the contemporary, mature society has the consensus of the whole people, and the consensus of the whole people is rooted in the fundamental ideology of sharing the people.The tendency to disintegrate, and under the consensus of political parties, all need to be integrated and adapted to society, causing their own survival.Therefore, the "doctrine" itself does not have fundamental distinctions within the social community, and the fundamental ideology of each other is similar or even the same; and "power" itself has no difference in any party, that is, any strength, that is, any strength is strong, that is, any strength has strength, that is, any strength has strengthThe party with willingness to be included in the party outline of the party with the ruling power.Regardless of how many political parties of power and doctrine, they are actually one party.
The existing "authoritarian -democracy" two -point method, such as removing the value of value, can actually be restored as the "one -party -party -multi -party system" standard.Any political party system in any mature society can also be restored to "one -party system".Taking the political between the two parties in the United States as an example, both sharing a set of liberal ideology and the fundamental issue of social systems has similar or even consistent understanding to achieve the adaptation of the two parties to American society itself.The main demands of the two are reflected in specific policies such as abortion, immigration, environmental protection, and tax cuts, that is, how to "implement" the spirit of constitutional government, and the latter as a policy issue does not constitute a fundamental difference and essential distinction, but it is just a matter, but it is just a matter of essence.The problem of differences in means is not consistent.
To be more accurately grasped what the political facts are, we must shift the focus from political parties to the consensus of the people.
In the concept of the consensus of the whole people in the "nation", it reflects the overall appearance of a society based on historical and cultural context, determines what a living reality is, and what is the fundamental logic of politics.
From "political parties" to "nation", it constitutes a more essential understanding of political reality.For example, Friedrich Carl Von Savigny claims that all political structures are deeply rooted in the nation."Nationality" determines what the consensus of the whole people is, and the latter constitutes the cornerstone of a series of specific social "political buildings", and the political, economic, and even geographical logic of the nation constitutes the understanding of a closer to political operation.For example, the Chinese government cannot make mistakes. Because it should not make mistakes, it will always be "correct". Only a good government that will always be correct should be ruled.Only the government that master resources can be responsible.Only based on the concept of "nation", these logical paradoxes can be truly understood from history, from culture, and from the "three -dimensional" of nationality.
The understanding of politics or politics must move from political parties to ethnic groups, from "two -dimensional" to "three -dimensional".In the process, it may help us to think more about and deeper about the government itself, and to discuss what political forms, and we can more meet our personal clothing, food, housing and transportation, and the cultural soil issues of society.
The author is an assistant researcher at the Shanghai Institute of American Issues
