Both the recent Israel and Thailand have encountered a lot of trouble.Israel is a matter of judicial reform, and Thailand is the problem of pavilion after the election.On the surface, the problems of the two countries are not the same, but in essence, the dilemma of the two countries starts due to constitutional issues.Israel's judicial reform has touched the three rights between legislation, administration and judiciary; behind the dilemma of the Thai cabinet is a different claim for the status of the royal power.Whether it is the relationship between the three power or the king's power, it is a fundamental constitutional issue.Compared with general policy differences, the system differences arising around constitutional issues are more difficult to compromise, and the threat to political and social order is more serious.How to solve institutional differences caused by constitutional issues not only test the wisdom of politicians, but also test the beliefs of the people.
Policy differences and system differences
Democratic politics will inevitably accompany the expression and argument of different opinions.Without different opinions and disputes, the authenticity of democratic politics must draw a question mark.However, if the difference is too large or the opposition is too strong, it will affect the survival of the democratic system.
In this regard, thinkers and scholars have extensively discussed.
As early as the 18th century, the famous British thinker David Hume realized that the prerequisite for the healthy competition between political parties should not be the fundamental differences at the constitutional level: "In fact, only the following political parties are dangerous. They are for them.The essence of the government, the inheritance of the throne, or the major power that the several departments of the government should have the opposite view, there is no room for compromise or reconciliation, and this dispute is so significant, and even believes that force against the requirements of opposing the other party's request to oppose each other's requirementsIt is reasonable ... This hostility sometimes erupted into a civil war, sometimes caused a fierce revolution and continuously endangering the peace and tranquility of the country. "
At the beginning of the 20th century, American sociologist Lester Frank Ward distinguished the opinions and faith or Belief in a paper.And change, faith will not.If the differences between parties are based on the differences in religious beliefs, any compromise is actually difficult to achieve.He also insisted that any issue of government forms should not be a matter of argument between political parties, because it is difficult for political parties to reach such a compromise.
Therefore, we can distinguish between different political forces or differences between political parties into policy differences and system differences: different opinions on specific policies are policy differences, and the differences in the fundamental institutional arrangement and basic value of the country belong to the country's fundamental institutional arrangement and the basic value of the country.System differences.Policy differences are easy to solve, and system differences are difficult to compromise.When there is only policy differences without institutional differences, party parties can compete through peaceful ways.
Engels's observation of Britain made the best annotation: "In the UK, at least among the political parties that govern power in the United Kingdom, among the Hugs and the Tori Party, they have never been struggling in principle.There is only the conflict of material interests in the middle. "The reason why the Circles Party and the Cavaliers who were predered as the Hugeg party and the Tori Party were because they met in the aspects of kingquanity and religion between the two.Differential.
Conflict with the constitutional issues of Thailand
In the reform that Thailand tries to promote, the differences in system differences around the fundamental system and basic value of the country are the biggest resistance of the reform.Whether it is the relationship between the three power or the king's power, it is a fundamental constitutional issue conflict.
Since the Israeli government announced the judicial reform plan in January this year, the protest sound has lasted for more than half a year.The judicial reform measures of the Nei Tanahu government mainly include restricting the authority and power of the Supreme Court, and changing the judicial system.The purpose of administrative branch power.Regarding the above -mentioned purpose, Neganahu expressed his intention to correct "the imbalance of Israeli democracy, and the judicial institutions have obtained all the power of the administrative department and the legislature."
Different from many countries, Israel is an unwritten constitutional country, and does not clearly specify the specific power relationship between the three powers.However, the judicial reform of the Neutana government has clearly broke the political practice that has been maintaining for many years.Therefore, after the Congress passed the reform bill, the opposition appealed.The Supreme Court had to face a judicial decision on a bill that weakened its own power.This pushing judicial power to the dilemma is also a challenge to the principles of the three power relations.
Behind the predicament of the pavilion in Thailand is the prevention of conservative party reforms, and it is another positive confrontation between the old and new forces.After the leader of the Party's party, after the prime minister's election lost power, the two houses of the Congress decided to ban him from running again, which can be regarded as a conservative active attack.The emergence of this group of cabinet dilemma is mainly due to the emerging forces representing the forward party, questioning the status of the king, and also implying the emerging middle class represented by the Tower to the pursuit of equal, the rule of law, and stability.
Thailand belongs to the constitutional monarchy at the legal level, but at the reality, the king retains a lot of power.The military and the royal family who are also conservative camps often linked to each other, causing many turbulence in the Thai democratic system, which naturally caused dissatisfaction among young voters.The demands of the advanced party and the pagoda campaign are to modify the "crime of offense of the monarch", reform the army, and levy heavy tax on the rich, etc., so they are favored by young voters.The temporary measures of conservatives can play a certain role in controlling the situation, but the treatment of the standards and not the standard, the monarchy and the military's politics, which cause the dissatisfaction of young voters, will not be effectively resolved, the shadow of political turmoil will always exist.
Survival and choice of democratic system
The democratic system requires different opinions, which is the most basic condition for modern democracy.However, if the differences in different political forces are system differences rather than policy differences, the survival of the democratic system may be threatened.When the differences between different political forces are specific policy issues, especially when socio -economic issues, the space for negotiation compromises is large, so it is usually resolved by political means such as negotiation and negotiation.We can see that in mature democratic countries, quarrels between political parties are usually focusing on specific economic issues such as wages and welfare, social security.This is also the basic condition for its democracy to survive.
At the same time, we also found that if the differences between different political forces in a country are not specific policies, but fundamental differences between sovereignty and territorial, religious beliefs, ethnic relationships, and political structure.The space is not large, and the possibility of solving through political means is not great.In this case, the survival of the democratic system will become a problem.
The only result is civil war and division. "Of course, modern democracy does not leave an export to solve these fundamental problems.
For example, the issue of religious belief, this former important political issue, has been reduced in most countries as the freedom of personal belief, and reduced conflict by de -political.Many countries have stipulated high pass standards for the fundamental system -constitutional adjustment issues, such as the absolute number of parliament passed or approved by the whole people.
Israel's special thing is that it is the same as the British state, that is, there is no uniform codes of the constitution.In this case, the Israeli Parliament will inevitably cause opposition protests through a simple majority rather than an absolute majority.In order to allow major constitutional reform programs to pass the legality, Israel must reform in the future, stipulating that the passing of major constitutional reform plans must be legitimate with the absolute majority or referendum of the whole people.
The dilemma of Thailand is that although it is a constitutional state of the monarch, the royal family power is too deep in politics, and any in -depth reform will inevitably touch the interests of the royal family.At the same time, the king againIt is a national symbol that surpasses all political forces.Conservative forces maintain interests and resist change forces through binding with the royal family.The emerging social forces represented by the Tower will point to the royal family, hoping to loosen the further reform of the reform for further reform by abolishing the tight curse of the "offensive monarchy law".The key to Thailand may depend on the role of the king, that is, how to balance between the symbol of the whole people and conservative forces.
The author Zhang Jianwei is Yun Xinliang, an associate professor at the Department of Political Science and Administration of the Central and South China University of Ethnology.
