Requesting an article: The relationship between elections and democratic politics

Democratic elections and electoral democracy

With the impact of another wave of democratization, people's understanding of democracy has also taken a step forward. Even so, due to the complexity of modern political life, people often fail to see the true face of the problem and are confused by its appearance. In particular, there are still many misunderstandings about the relationship between elections and democracy, and the status and role of elections in the democratization process. In real political life, many countries have held large-scale elections one after another to flaunt themselves as "democratic" countries. But are these countries that have held elections really democratic countries? It turns out not to be the case. So, how do we understand the relationship between electoral democracy and democratic elections? Clarifying this issue will undoubtedly have important theoretical and practical significance for our ongoing democratic construction. As the American political scientist Huntington pointed out, since the mid-1970s, a third wave of democratization has formed around the world. The "Dianthus Revolution" in Portugal in 1974, the political changes in the Philippines and South Korea in the mid-1980s, the great changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the wave of multi-party democracy in Africa since the 1990s, and the recent political changes in Malaysia and Indonesia and my country's political system reform, etc., are all regarded as small climaxes in the third wave of democratization. All these changes are closely related to political elections. Some people even equate the two, believing that as long as elections are held, democracy has been achieved. However, modern political life is so complicated and complex, can just one election encompass the entire connotation of democracy? What is the relationship between elections and democracy? 1. Elections are a direct manifestation of democracy. As we all know, the most basic pillar of democracy is people’s sovereignty. The literal meaning of democracy is popular rule. In Montesquieu's words, everyone is both the ruler and the ruled. But in real life, no matter what political system in any era, what people see is always that a few people rule and govern the majority. Even in Athens, where there were only tens of thousands of citizens, and the chairman of the citizens' assembly and the consul were determined by drawing lots, what was achieved was only the "turn-based rule" of citizens, not the unanimous rule of the majority. There, the status and role of political leaders, decision-makers, and leaders, that is, the minority, are still clearly visible. Because of this, the principle of "democracy" has encountered criticism and challenges from the beginning. For example, Plato once criticized democratic government and believed that "in this kind of country, if you are qualified to take power, you don't have to take power. If you are unwilling to obey orders, you can also disobey completely. There is nothing to force you." "When others are fighting, you don't have to go to the battlefield. If others want peace, you can also ask for war." Therefore, Plato publicly advocated that the best political system is "a political system of meritocracy" governed by philosophers. As for the long Middle Ages, the principle of "democracy" has almost disappeared, both in theory and in practice. In France, for example, Louis XIII not only proclaimed that his power came from God, but also proclaimed that his will was law. However, as the United States' Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of Human Rights affirm: All people are created equal after all. That being the case, everyone should have a say in their own destiny. Perhaps it is precisely because this principle is rooted in human nature that, despite being covered up and ravaged several times, in modern times, with the victory of the American War of Independence and the French Revolution, the principle of democracy was finally widely recognized again. Of course, as most Western thinkers acknowledge: democracy is not a blueprint or a commitment to a specific outcome. In fact, democracy itself guarantees nothing; it offers both the opportunity for success and the risk of failure. To paraphrase Jefferson: The promise of democracy is simply the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. However, the entire history of mankind has proven that there are more people who freely pursue their own happiness than those who are given happiness by others. This may be the reason why democracy has been widely welcomed and expected by people and why the principles of democracy have been promoted again. Since it is a principle and an ideal, there must be a certain distance between it and reality. If in Athens, with only thirty to forty thousand citizens, the principle that everyone is both the ruler and the ruled could not be realized, then in modern countries with large populations, the above principle is almost utopian. As a result, modern Western thinkers began to re-explore the meaning of "democracy". Lincoln once defined democracy as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Schumpeter believed that "democracy is a political method", and "the democratic method is the institutional arrangement implemented for making political decisions. In this arrangement, some people obtain the power to make decisions by winning the votes of the people." ". Huntington further developed Schumpeter's ideas. He believed: "The core process of democratic politics is for the ruled people to choose leaders through competitive elections." He went on to point out, "If the use of universal suffrage to select the top decision-maker is the essence of democracy, then the democratization process The key point is to replace governments that are elected by free, open and fair elections with those that are not. "In fact, since World War II, the dominant approach has been to define democracy almost exclusively in terms of elections. Why do political scientists such as Schumpeter define "election" as the essence of democracy? This is because, no matter in history or in modern political life, literal "democracy", that is, the principle that all people are both rulers and ruled, has not and cannot be realized. In fact, modern democratic systems implement the "majority rule principle", that is, the principle of the minority obeying the majority. This is actually the "feasibility principle" of democracy in reality. In the words of American political scientist Sartori, Majority "is the procedural principle most suitable for democracy. Why is it better than the principle of unanimity? The simple and clear answer is: the majority principle avoids deadlock while allowing large groups to have a say." Any form of modern In a democratic system, citizens freely make political decisions based on the principle of majority rule. Democracy can therefore be redefined as "the rule of the majority." That being the case, when can "the rule of the majority" be realized in practice, that is, when can democracy be effectively realized? The answer is: at election time. Because in the election process, the principle of absolute majority is reflected. Whoever sides with the majority and embodies the will of the majority is the winner; conversely, whoever votes on the side of the minority or only wins the support of the minority becomes the loser. For this reason, in order to be elected, candidates lobby at all costs and agree to the opinions and demands of voters. Because they understand that in order to gain the power to come to power, they must obtain the support of the majority of voters. The interests and demands of the majority of people are fully expressed and reflected in the election process. For example, in the 43rd presidential election of the United States, voters in Florida finally decided that Bush instead of Gore would win the White House. Only then was the rule of the people fully reflected. In fact, only in places where large-scale free elections are held can citizens’ sense of “ownership” be awakened, and their enthusiasm and enthusiasm for political participation can be aroused. This active and extensive participation is the basis for the existence of democracy. In our country, as early as the Anti-Japanese War, extensive democratic elections were held. In his book "Behind Enemy Lines in North China - Shanxi-Chahar-Hebei", Mr. Li Gongpu vividly described the democratic political phenomenon he witnessed: On the days when the village chief election was held, the streets were filled with red and green slogans, and the book read "Election of the real Slogans such as "representative" and "elect progressive elements who work conscientiously and are not afraid of difficulties as village chiefs". According to Mr. Public Servant’s observation, the people in the base area actively participate in various public affairs and freely express their opinions and interests. The average voter participation rate in each village exceeds 80%. Democratic participation in politics makes them happy and energetic, with a high degree of self-esteem and a strong sense of ownership. Without such broad participation, democracy cannot occur; and even if it does occur, it will quickly wither. Perhaps it is because of the above considerations that political scientists such as Schumpeter and Huntington have elevated elections to the level of the essence of democracy. 2. Elections must be democratic. Elections are a direct manifestation of democracy. The rule of the majority is only possible through elections. Therefore, all modern democratic countries hold elections without exception. However, elections are only a necessary condition for democracy, not a necessary and sufficient condition. For example, during the Stalin period, various elections were held regularly, and Stalin was almost always unanimously approved by all voters. Yugoslav President Milosevic, who just stepped down, and Iraqi President Saddam, who is still in office, as well as many autocratic rulers in Africa, have also organized elections. In some of these elections, there may be only one candidate or a list of candidates, and electors have virtually no choice but to give their consent. Some may provide several candidates, but who is the main candidate and who is the supporting candidate are carefully arranged and controlled in advance.

Such elections are in fact nothing more than a means for rulers to add a "legitimate" aura to their rule. Rather than embodying the consensus of the majority and embodying democratic principles, it is better to say that it is a mockery of democracy, or even rape. In other words, the election itself must be democratic, and only democratic elections can reflect democracy. So, what kind of elections are democratic? American scholar Jenny Kirkpatrick defines democratic elections as: "Democratic elections are not only symbolic, they are competitive, regular, extensive and decisive elections. In the elections, the main decision-makers of the government are The people elect the people, and the people enjoy broad freedom to criticize the government, express their comments and provide other choices. "In other words, whether the election is democratic depends on whether it is free, fair, widespread, and regular, and whether it is competitive. of. Democracies are established to protect people's inherent rights to freedom. People not only have freedom of speech and belief, but also the freedom to vote. Democratic elections require citizens to actively and freely vote for candidates who represent their interests. This means that citizens are free from any outside influence, can freely express their wishes, and can vote without fear of intimidation or reprisal. In real political life, in order to make the election results favorable to themselves, various interest groups, including those in power, actively intervene in the election process and attempt to influence the election through various means (including intimidation and force). For example, in the early days of the Republic of China, Yuan Shikai organized so-called "elections" and "state voting" for "national representatives" in order to find legal reasons for his "ascension to the throne." When the national congresses of various provinces held "national voting", soldiers with loaded guns and ammunition were deployed outside the venue, and surveillance personnel were deployed inside the venue. Each of the "national representatives" trembled and signed the ballot paper preprinted with the four words "constitutional monarchy." The word "agree". It can be seen that the results of this kind of unfree election are exactly contrary to public opinion. Therefore, in order to ensure the freedom and fairness of elections, the most important thing is to free the elections from the influence and control of the outside world, especially those in power. For this purpose, secret ballot boxes must be set up to conduct secret ballots (secret ballots). Openness and accountability are undoubtedly the keys to a successful democracy, but the act of voting itself is an exception. The purpose of allowing voters to vote secretly is to enable voters to freely express their opinions and views on representative candidates during elections without being discovered and retaliated by candidates and their representatives. In addition, during the electoral process, opposition parties and candidates must enjoy freedom of speech, assembly and movement. These freedoms are necessary for them to openly criticize the government and present alternative policies and candidates to voters. Simply allowing opponents the opportunity to vote is not enough; it is not democratic to prevent opponents from broadcasting, controlling their rallies, or censoring their newspapers during elections. Under the premise of freedom, elections must also be fair and equal. That is to say, when people make the final decision on policies, every member should have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and each vote of the electorate should have equal weight and will not be affected by the amount of property or power. The position varies depending on the level. In the history of elections, there have been two voting systems: equal voting and plurality voting. Equal voting means that each voter has one right to vote, and can only have one right to vote in an election; moreover, the votes cast by all voters are equally effective. In contrast, voters with special qualifications enjoy more than one vote, or the effectiveness of their votes is greater than that of ordinary voters. This is plural voting. Our country has implemented the principle of equal voting since the first general election in 1953 and has adhered to it in all general elections. Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Deng Xiaoping and others all cast a solemn vote as ordinary voters in their constituencies. In some Western countries, the number of votes cast by each person is determined by the amount of property owned. New Zealand’s electoral law stipulates that in county council elections, people with property not exceeding 1,000 pounds can vote 1; people with property exceeding 1,000 pounds but less than 2,000 pounds can vote 2; people with property exceeding 2,000 pounds can vote Vote 3. Although most modern Western countries have abolished the unfair "plural voting" system, in fact there are still various qualification restrictions, and not everyone has equal access to the right to vote and to be elected. In addition, elections must be conducted under conditions of full competition. There are no candidates selected by superiors in advance, and a differential election is implemented. The number of candidate representatives is more than the number of elected representatives. Each candidate participates in the competition equally and publicly publishes his "political platform" at the voters' meeting and answers to the voters. question.

At the same time, the ruling party and those in power can enjoy the convenience brought by their power, but they cannot manipulate elections in a direction that is beneficial to themselves through non-competitive means. In reality, many regimes often cheat in elections by formulating electoral systems that benefit the government, intimidating the opposition, and using government-controlled resources in campaigns. For example, during the decade from 1974 to 1984, the Brazilian government periodically revised its laws regarding elections, political parties, and campaigns in an attempt to prevent the opposition from growing in competitive power. The lack of open competition in elections often leads to the creation or continuation of non-democratic regimes. Therefore, open competition is an indispensable factor in ensuring electoral democracy. Since democracy means "the rule of the majority," democratic elections must also be extensive, that is, democratic elections must be conducted on the basis of the participation of the majority of the people. However, in reality, not only was the democracy of ancient Athens limited to the ruling class, but even in the process of democratization of the country in the modern sense, there has always been the tendency to separate certain groups in society, especially ethnic minorities and different religious groups. and the exclusion of women. For example, in the history of South Africa, as a racial oligarchy, it has excluded 70% of the population from politics for a long time. Similarly, in American history, only white men who owned certain industries had the right to vote and be elected. In this way, even though elections may be competitive and open, they are only conducted on a small scale and do not reflect the will of the majority. Therefore, almost all political scientists agree that only elections under the conditions of universal suffrage can be regarded as democratic elections. Finally, elections must be held regularly. Under normal circumstances, the winner of an election often represents the interests and views of the majority of people. However, as the Chinese saying goes: "Thirty years to the east of the river, thirty years to the west of the river." In modern times when the pace of social life has accelerated significantly, we can even say "three years to the east of the river, three years to the west of the river." In other words, the interests and opinions of the people are not static. Since the people are the main body of society and the owners of sovereignty, they should of course have the right to freely change their positions and opinions as events and situations develop and change. Because of this, in real political life, the opposition between the majority and the minority is relative. As the positions and opinions of individual voters change (and every speech by a candidate during the campaign will cause this change), the majority can become the minority, and the minority can become the majority. This is "changeism" in elections. This "changeability" is also one of the important sources of vitality for modern democratic mechanisms. However, if there are no term limits for those elected, or if the term is very long, it is tantamount to allowing the initial winner of a democratic election to designate himself as the permanent winner. Caesar and Augustus in ancient Rome, Cromwell in the modern British bourgeois revolution, and Napoleon in France have all made such attempts. In modern society, it is not uncommon for people to rely on postponing elections to maintain their ruling status. It is obvious that even if the election process is very democratic, if it is "one choice", such an election is not so much the beginning of democracy as the end of democracy. Because if we deny "changeability" and deny that the majority can become a minority or that a minority can become a majority, it is actually equivalent to denying the sovereignty of the people and denying democracy. Therefore, elections must be held regularly. Governments and leaders elected to power must have clear terms of office. In order to prevent governments and rulers from abusing the people's mandate, many countries have even stipulated early elections and prohibition of re-election. Only in this way can we ensure that the will of the people is fully reflected. 3. Democratic Elections and Electoral Democracy From the above, it can be seen that elections are an important part of democracy, and free, fair, equal, competitive and regularly held elections can indeed reflect the will of the people and embody the concept of "rule by the many". in principle. Because of this, many people argue that as long as elections are achieved, democracy has been achieved. This is what is called "electoralism" in political science. However, in fact, even democratic elections are not the same as democracy. Democracy can be said to be a systematic project, and it must be realized with many institutional guarantees other than elections. For example, the presidential election in the United States ended with legal proceedings. In other words, democracy must meet certain prerequisites. The first is political freedom. Obviously, political freedom is a prerequisite for democracy. Some people even believe that freedom and democracy are mutually inclusive and necessary for each other.

For example, in ancient Greece, it was obviously impossible for slaves to participate in the citizens' assembly, otherwise, slaves would not be slaves. Since citizens are free, they have the right to "demand" and "obtain" governing status. In modern times, although people have generally gained legal freedom, the religious reform, industrial revolution, and three technological revolutions have caused societies in various countries to be divided into different classes, strata, and interest groups. The political status of these different classes, strata, and interest groups varies in different countries and at different times. The so-called political freedom means allowing different classes, strata and interest groups to form independent political parties and associations, allowing different political parties to freely express their political opinions, and allowing the existence of dissidents. Only when voters can freely choose between different political parties, different governance programs, different political opinions, and different political leaders can the will of the voters be fully reflected. For example, in the early years of the Republic of my country, during the racist rule in South Africa, and during the military dictatorship in South Korea, the rulers prohibited the existence of other political parties, assassinated or imprisoned dissidents, and then held elections. No matter how democratic the election process was, Nor can it truly reflect the will of the people. Second is freedom of press, speech and publication. In ancient Athens, almost all public affairs were discussed and decided at the citizens' assembly. Although Athens at that time had only 30,000 to 40,000 citizens, the citizens' assembly generally had about 6,000 representatives and was held forty times a year. Such frequent citizens' assemblies with such a high proportion of representatives would be impossible in modern society. Citizens' understanding of public affairs mainly comes from the news media, especially television at present. Mass media has actually become an important means of influencing voters' attitudes and influencing election results. Without freedom of press, speech, and publication, the public would not be able to understand the truth of the situation, and thus would not be able to reflect their will through elections. The third is that there must be a sound legal system. Democracy and the rule of law are two aspects that complement each other. Without the guarantee of a sound rule of law, it is impossible to implement the principles of democracy. Take elections as an example. A strict legal system must be in place to guarantee everything from the verification of voter qualifications, the formulation of election procedures, the security of voting places and ballot boxes, ballot statistics, etc. For example, the 43rd presidential election in the United States actually ended in legal proceedings. It can be said that without the protection of the legal system, no election can be conducted normally. The significance of the rule of law is not limited to or even mainly limited to protecting the electoral process, but rather protecting the election results and the implementation and enforcement of public opinion. The subjects of the rule of law are of course the people, and the objects of the rule of law can be said to be state civil servants in a sense, that is, "officials", including "officials" elected through democratic elections. There are two opposing views on this issue. One is represented by Hobbes. He believed that in order to escape from the "state of nature", people made a unanimous agreement with each other: everyone gave up all their power and handed it over to one person or a meeting of some people. The person or meeting who is granted power is the sovereign. The power of the sovereign is absolute and supreme. Once other people surrender their power, they can only be the subjects of the sovereign. Obviously, the political system established thereby must be an authoritarian government. Another view is represented by Rousseau. Rousseau believed that sovereignty is constituted by the general will and public opinion, and government officials only exercise power entrusted by the people. The people can limit, change, or take back the powers delegated to officials. The so-called rule of law refers to the people's restriction, change or withdrawal of the power of elected officials. Otherwise, even democratic elections can only mean the beginning of autocracy or dictatorship, such as the Hitler regime. A sound legal system not only means that people have the power to supervise, restrict, and recall their elected officials, but it also means that the rights of minorities must be fully guaranteed. Because an operational principle in the modern democratic system is 50% + 1, that is, the "majority rule principle". However, although the minority must obey the opinions of the majority, the rights and status of the minority should not be deprived. They must be protected by law. For example, in Western countries that implement multi-party systems, the party that obtains a majority of seats in the parliament has the right to form a cabinet and govern. However, the ruling party cannot use its ruling status to persecute, destroy, or dissolve minority parties. The status of minority parties as opposition parties must be protected by law. . Otherwise, the "majority rule" will evolve into "majority tyranny" and, in the words of Madison and Jefferson, "electoral tyranny." This means that respecting and protecting the interests of minorities should be an integral part of democracy.

A true democracy not only reflects the interests of the majority, but also respects and protects the rights of the minority. Only in this way can the power and mechanisms of democracy be maintained. As Rousseau advocated, citizens in a representative democracy do not lose their freedom when voting because they can decide at any time to transfer their support for the majority opinion to the minority opinion. Allowing for change of opinion is not only the basis for lasting freedoms for citizens, but also enables democracy to endure as an open, self-adjusting polity. Minority rights are a sine qua non of the democratic process itself. Therefore, a true democracy must ensure that the interests of minorities are not infringed not only in law but also in practice. Of course, a sound legal system should also mean that democratically elected officials and leaders can independently exercise their power in accordance with the law. This seems self-evident in most developed countries. However, in some countries, unelected spiritual leaders, behind-the-scenes political leaders, military leaders, senior civilian officials, etc. often act independently of elected officials, and they often actually control the political power. In such cases, democratically elected officials are effectively just puppets. An election held under such conditions is obviously nothing more than a rip-off. Another most important prerequisite for democracy is a certain level of economic and cultural development. Although most political scientists call the political system of ancient Athens democratic, Athenian democracy was based on slavery and was a democracy of the minority. It cannot be compared with the liberal, constitutionalist popular democracy we are discussing today. The kind of liberal, constitutionalist, and popular democracy we are discussing today is the product of human society, human civilization, especially the development of the productive forces of human society to a certain extent. In today's world, except for a few exceptions, almost all developed countries and all rich countries have implemented democracy politically, while almost all developing countries, especially those very poor countries, have not yet been able to achieve it. , at least failed to fully realize political democracy. This close correlation between economic and cultural levels and political democracy is not actually a mystery, but the simplest and most basic fact, which is what Engels pointed out long ago: people must first eat, drink, and live. , wear, and only then can you engage in political, philosophical, and religious activities and strive for rule. For the African refugees who have suffered from war and have no clothes or food to eat, democratic elections are nothing more than a mirage, a plum in a picture and a pie in the picture. Similarly, people in various European countries have had heated discussions on whether to join the European Union, whether to join the euro, etc., and some countries have even held multiple rounds of referendums on this issue. The attitudes and strategies of different political parties towards the EU and the euro also directly determine whether voters support them. This is because European voters have their own judgment and understanding of the development trends of these events and the possible pros and cons. Therefore, national discussions and referendums are very meaningful. In China, it would not only be meaningless but also almost ridiculous to hold a referendum on whether to join the WTO or for all voters to decide who will form the government and who will be the president. Because most voters in China don’t even know what the WTO is and have no understanding and judgment of their own. In this sense, democracy cannot be transplanted. We cannot transform a non-democratic country into a democratic country overnight by transplanting a constitution or an electoral method. Democracy is the product of the development of human social civilization to a certain stage. Politicians should not sit back and talk about democracy, but they should not encourage it or rush for success.