论文部分内容阅读
在族群政治的研究中,一个经久不衰的话题是:为什么在有的国家,民主化缓和了族群冲突,而在另一些国家反而加剧了冲突?什么样的制度安排能够更为有效地管理族群冲突?由此导致了制度工程学和选举工程学的兴起。以利普哈特为代表的协同模式,主张各个族群都有公平适度的代表性,推崇比例代表制和联邦制,鼓励族群之间的合作,建立权力分享的政府;而以霍洛维特和赖利为代表的融合模式则反对族群作为政治动员的基础,要求禁止族群型政党,鼓励多族群或非族群的结构,推崇排序复选制和单一可转移投票制。本文认为,制度工程学的“制度一精英”视角夸大了制度设计和精英动员的作用,低估了社会结构与民众心理的作用;本文则强调结构与制度、精英与民众、现实利益与历史记忆的互动,从而在一定程度上化解制度论与结构论、实在论与建构论的分歧。
In the study of ethnic politics, one enduring topic is: Why democratization mitigated ethnic conflicts in some countries, but aggravated the conflicts in others? What kind of institutional arrangements can manage ethnic groups more effectively? Conflict? This has led to the rise of systems engineering and electoral engineering. The model of cooperation represented by Lipphart advocated that all ethnic groups should have fair and moderate representation, respected proportional representation and federalism, encouraged cooperation among ethnic groups, and established a power-sharing government. In the case of Horowitz and Lai Lee as the representative of the integration model is opposed to ethnic groups as the basis for political mobilization, called for the prohibition of ethnic political parties, to encourage multi-ethnic or non-ethnic group structure, respected the sorting system and a single transferable voting system. This paper argues that institutional engineering ’s “Institutional elitism ” exaggerates the function of institutional design and elite mobilization, underestimates the role of social structure and public psychology; this article emphasizes the relationship between structure and system, elites and the general public, actual interests and history Memory of the interaction, which to some extent to resolve the system theory and structural theory, realism and constructionism differences.