frankcunninghamtheoriesofdemocracy畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯

1、文獻(xiàn)翻譯文獻(xiàn)翻譯:【CA】FrankCunningham:m:TheiesofDemocracyChapterIII：LiberaldemocracyAspartofhishighlypublicizedprovocativethesisthatafterthefallofcommunisminEuropewithitthewitheringofgrideologicalcontestshistyhasendedFrancisFukuy

2、amamaintainsthatWesternliberaldemocracyhasbecome‘thefinalfmofhumangovernment’(1992:xi).WhateverthemeritsofFukuyama’s‘endofhisty’theyhisclaimaboutliberaldemocracyhasinitsfavourthatnearlyalldemocraciesaspiringdemocraciesar

3、etypicallydescribedbothintheeticalcirclesinpopulardiscourseasliberaldemocratic.Aswillbeseennotalltheistsbelieveliberaldemocracytobeeitherthebesttheonlyfeasiblefmofdemocracybutsuchtheistsareinaminitypositionsthatevenadeca

4、deagowereadvancedinoppositiontoliberaldemocracyarenowproposedasversionsdeepeningsrealizationsofit.Fthesereasonsthischapterthenextwillbeginthebook’ssurveyofdemocratictheieswithanextendeddiscussionofliberaldemocracy.Insodo

5、ingIshallabstractfromefftstoexplainthepervasivenessofinstitutionspracticescalledliberaldemocratictofocusoncefeaturesofthethey.J.S.Mill’sfmulationInhisessaysOnLibertyConsiderationsonRepresentativeGovernmentJohnStuartMills

6、etoutwhatisoftenconsideredthefirstsystematicexplicationdefenceofliberaldemocracy.AsaprodemocratMillwelcomedtheprogressinequalityaboutwhichTocquevillewasanxiousyetinareviewofDemocracyinAmericahestillenthusiasticallyrecomm

7、endedthewktohisfellowBritonsamongotherreasonsbecausehefoundTocqueville’swarningsaboutthetyrannyofthemajitywelltaken(Mill1976[183540]:213–19).InparticularMillagreedwithTocqueville’sclaimsthatmajitymassculturestiflesfreein

8、fmedthoughtthatanomnipotentmajitycouldoppressaminity.TakentogetherMill’sessaysmayinlargepartbereadasasustainedeffttoconfrontthisproblembythestraightfwardmethodofcombiningdemocracyliberalism.InpreviouserasMillobservedtyra

9、nnywassomethingexperiencedbythemajityofanation’speopleatthehsofaminitysotherewasnodangerofthemajity‘tyrannizingoveritself.’Butwiththeemergenceoflargedemocraticnations(hecitesinparticulartheUS)aneedwascreatedfthepeople‘to

10、limittheirpoweroverthemselves’(Mill1991b[1859]:7).TheaimofOnLibertythenwastoidentifytheprinciplesinaccdwithwhichthepeopleshouldsecurethislimitation.MostoftheessayisdevotedtoexplicationdefenceofMill’sclaimthat‘theonlypurp

11、osefwhichpowercanberightfullyexercisedoveranymemberofacivilizedcommunityagainsthiswillistopreventharmtoothers.Hisowngood...isnotasufficientwarrant.’(14).Infmthisinjunctionprescribesagainstgovernmentpaternalismaswellasaga

12、instoverttyrannyinfavourofwhatisoftennowcalledthe‘pluralist’matethatcitizensthatwhenfeasibleitshouldbecombinedwithdirectparticipation.Becauseameasureofparticipatydemocracyalbeitlimitedisallowedtobepossibledesirablebythei

13、stsevenmecloselyidentifiedwithliberaldemocracythanSchumpetersuchasRobertDahl(1970a:102–31989:338–9)acasecanbemadetoconsiderthisanareaofdisagreementwithinliberaldemocratictheyratherthanasadividinglinebetweenitalternatives

14、.EqualityOtherdifferencesconcernequality.Millisofteninimptantrespectsustlyclassifiedanegalitarian.Hewasamongthefewmalesofhistimefcefullytoadvocateextensionofthefranchisetowomen(Mill1971[1869])hisviewsonthedistributionofw

15、ealthputhimtowardthesocialisticendofaspectrumofstancesonthequestionofhowfarliberaldemocratsshouldinsistonpoliticsfavouringsocialeconomicequality.RonaldDwkin(1983)mayalsobelocatedsomewhereintheegalitarian‘camp’asaccdingto

16、mostinterpretersmayJohnRawlsDahlhasmovedinthisdirectionoverthecourseofhiscareer(contrastDahl19561985).RobertNozick(whodoesnotclassifyhimselfaliberaldemocrat)insiststhatliberalprinciplesdictateantiegalitarianism(1974).The

17、lateIsaiahBerlinwhilenotexplicitlyantiegalitarianwasscepticalaboutsanctioningmethanfmalpoliticalequalityinthenameofliberaldemocracy(1969[1958]).FMill‘thepureideaofdemocracy’is‘governmentofthewholepeoplebythewholepeopleeq

18、uallyrepresented’whichrequiresproptionalrepresentationsoaminityisnotdeniedgovernmentrepresentatives(1991a[1861]:302–3).HoweverthisegalitarianismdoesnotcarryovertothevotewhereMill’sviewdifferswithmostotherliberaldemocrati

19、ctheists.Onthemainstreamviewpoliticalequalityisacentralvalueisinterpretedasequalityinthepollingbooth.Milldidnotagree:‘Idonotlookuponequalvotingasamongthethingsthataregoodinthemselves’heannouncedhewentontoexplainthatbygra

20、ntingtheeducatedtheuneducatedequalvotesademocracyharmfullydeclared‘ignancetobeentitledtoasmuchpoliticalpowerasknowledge’(ibid.:340)翻譯：第3章自由民主自由民主FrancisFukuyama提出了一個(gè)曾引起備受關(guān)注和爭(zhēng)議的觀點(diǎn)：歷史已經(jīng)在共產(chǎn)主義在歐洲實(shí)行失敗的同時(shí)以慢慢地意識(shí)形態(tài)爭(zhēng)論的停止而終結(jié)。這個(gè)理論的

21、部分中闡明，F(xiàn)rancis認(rèn)為西方的這種自由民主已成為“人類政治的最合理形式”。無(wú)論這種論證是否真實(shí)可信，但他對(duì)于自由民主的論述已經(jīng)成為流行詞，人們?cè)诿枋雒裰鲊?guó)家或追求民主的國(guó)家時(shí)，都將貼上了自由民主的符號(hào)，無(wú)論是在學(xué)術(shù)界還是在大眾語(yǔ)言中都是如此?，F(xiàn)在正像人們所看到的一樣，不是所有的學(xué)者都認(rèn)為自由民主是最好的也是唯一切實(shí)可行的民主形式，懷有這樣想法的理論家只占很少的一部分。然而，現(xiàn)如今那些十年前曾經(jīng)被認(rèn)為是反對(duì)自由民主的立場(chǎng)的觀點(diǎn)，卻被