The Boundary Of Democracy Game

Democracy is thought as an ideal model for good politics. However, anyone will be shocked by the difference between the developed countries’ democracy state and developing countries’, and then, a puzzle will appear, why the democracy gets rich and stability, vigor and order for developed countries but poverty and wither, violence and turbulence? Just because democracy is born in west? I think we should know what democracy is and should be in west first, when we argue democracy is universal or exceptive. So we should read and examine the history of developed countries’ democratization to know how the democracy grows up, not just only observe the democracy performance now.Democracy has been more than2500years old in west since archaic Athens. In the long history, democracy model has changed form classic which resides in mini polis or city-state and insists citizen participating in politics directly to modern which plays in huge national state and claims participating indirectly. However, no matter how democracy change and what kind of political community it lives, democracy is troubled by a disease when born, that’s faction problem. People will see faction threatening the normal politics form ancient to now, and be shocked by its dangerous outcome, most politician ponder how to cure this public disease all the time.People will find two methods to treat the faction problem in political thoughts history, one is ideal way called eradication, the other is realistic way called control or tame. Eradicative way wants to wipe off the condition faction grow and expand absolutely though cultivating citizen’virtues and making public interests embedding in hearts, the trait of this way is emphasizing indifference and equality in property, value point, religion, and so on. But that ideal method becomes impossible and infeasible in modern society, so the realistic scheme is a better alternative. James Madison is representative of realistic scheme, he proves control and minimize ruinous outcome of factions thought expand commonwealth’ scope and size. However, this idea neglects the factional organizing and mobilizing capability. For modern democracy, if it wants to tame faction successfully, it needs not only expanding countries’scale, but also constructing a kind of consensus system, of course, it has to use law and coerce to tame factions and regular parties for the consensus system safety until consensus system becomes a type of path-dependence, and anyone accepts it voluntarily.This paper wants to find out and prove that modern democracy should have two sides by reading and analyzing the democratization history of developed countries in west, we can call them ’contestation’ and ’consensus’. Contestation displays the participating nature of democracy, and supplies the routes and space for any party or actor in politic realm, it includes three aspects which is reorganizing government, arguing or revising public policies, and debating on any kind of public issues in political competition. Consensus means parties or other participators should understand and identify with nation-state, democratic institution, democratic election procedure and rules. Consensus is precondition and safeguard for modern democracy well work in logical, contestation is mechanism to show vigor of democracy, the two parts consist of modern democracy. Democracy could result in factions’unprincipled competition, and lead political disturbs and chaos, even die finally, if it just owns contestation but without consensus. Similarly, democracy will lose the energy and impetus, even fall in autarchy, if it just owns consensus but without contestation.Three parts in consensus is lexical order as John Rawls said, that means consensus of nation-state is supreme absolutely, then is consensus of democratic institution, last is election procedures and rules. But even consensus of nation-state exist, consensus of democratic institution or election procedures and rules will not exist at same time. So these three consensus, not anyone only could keep the contestation work well. The pates of contestation is similar in logical, simply speaking, any party opposes the government, it must be against public policies and public issues government produced. Reversely, opposing public issues not means opposing public policies or government self, but it will become reality if the government can’t response effetely.Consensus not only tells us the difference between factions and parties but also is a mechanism for taming factions. Contestation could show the vigor of democracy, but it also breeds factions, especial for Fundamentalism parties. So democracy will die in its contestation without consensus. However, mainstream theory about democracy in west represented by Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Giovanni Sartori and Robert Alan Dahl just stresses the contestation side, neglect the consensus side. That idea about democracy should charge for democratization in developing countries, because democracy without consensus results in factional behaviors, produces hatred mobilization and inspires primordial loyal Clifford Geertz said in contestation. Corruption and loser doesn’t accept failure in election make the election procedures and rules become ineffective. Their democratization often falls in political disturb and violence clash, finally in Praetorian Samuel P. Huntington said, this affords an opportunity for autocracy. Although autocracy could construct consensus, but it can’t produce contestation, modern democracy can’t live in this earth easily.Developing countries should study experience from democratization history of developed countries, they should construct the consensus, and strive for balance consensus and contestation. If they do in this way, they not only enter the spring of modern democracy, but also can share the fruit of modern democracy.