"Mixed and balanced regime" is a regime in which several basic components of society form a government and balance each other. Sparta has two kings, a Senate composed of 28 nobles over 60 years old and a "citizens' assembly" attended by all adult men. The king presided over the meetings and ceremonies of the polis and was responsible for foreign wars; The Senate is the center of decision-making and legislation and has the right to supervise the king; The "citizens' assembly" elects officials and approves the Senate's proposals. The main government institutions of the Roman Republic are the Senate, the Consul and the People's Assembly. The Senate is the highest decision-making body; The consul is a substitute for the king and exercises military, administrative and judicial power; The people's assembly elected consuls and other officials, and the people's assembly later gained the power to pass bills with the same effect as the decisions of the Senate. In addition, there are special tribunes who can veto the executive orders of the consul that infringe on the interests of civilians. However, Sparta and Rome are both aristocratic republics, and power is in the hands of nobles. In the later period of Roman Republic, the proportion of democratic elements was strengthened because civilians won in the struggle with nobles.
Although Sparta and Rome are aristocratic republics, they have formal institutional measures to balance the interests of all parties, so they are more just than monarchies and oligarchies. The prominent feature of ancient society was hierarchy, so the regime of mixed checks and balances of nobles was obviously suitable for the social situation at that time. In addition, nobles cherish honor and pay attention to virtue; Nobles have sufficient leisure and conditions to devote themselves to the research of public affairs, and it is easier for them to show high-level wisdom in management. As far as the wisdom level of management is concerned, as Mill said in Representative Government, "all governments in history that are famous for their constant display of wisdom and courage in management affairs are generally aristocratic", while "the aristocratic regimes that have shown a high degree of ruling ability and acted according to certain policy principles after many generations are only those in Rome and Venice." (1) Sparta, Rome and other famous aristocrats and countries have performed very well in maintaining political stability, which is undoubtedly directly related to the above factors. Among them, Sparta and China lasted for 800 years, Rome and China lasted for nearly 500 years, and Venice and China were still in full swing after short-lived contemporary minors and China. Their practice provided eye-opening materials for classical writers to explore the regime, stimulated the generation of ideological inspiration, and had a far-reaching impact on western political theory and political civilization.
[i] From Plato, through Aristotle, Polibbi, Cicero, Machiavelli, Thomas Aquinas, Verguet Leo and others, it has been the mainstream of western classical political thought to advocate a mixed and balanced regime. In his later years, Plato returned to reality from philosophical meditation on kingship, and thought that the best practical regime was the one that combined the wisdom of the monarch with the freedom of democracy. (2) Aristotle advocated the combination of democracy and oligarchy. He said that the country formed in this way is called a free country when it is strongly inclined to democracy and an aristocratic regime when it is strongly inclined to oligarchy. Noble is the better of the two, because virtue, wealth and freedom are all represented. (3) Polly's historical research shows that monarchy, aristocracy and democracy will all go to extinction and lead to turmoil, falling into a cycle of replacing one another. He believes that the "best" and "most stable" regimes are regimes that combine these three components appropriately. (4) Cicero followed the idea that the three regimes in Polibbi and Afghanistan are in mutual circulation, and praised the mixed and balanced regime in this way: it combined "the monarch's fatherly love for his subjects, the wisdom of aristocratic deliberation and the people's desire for freedom". (5)
From the practice of Sparta, ancient Rome and other republics, from the exposition of Plato, Aristotle and other writers, we can initially understand the value of a mixed and balanced regime. However, to fully reveal the concept and spirit of * * * harmony, more in-depth exploration is needed. First of all, let's discuss the etymological meaning of "* * * and the country". The English word "Republic" comes from the Latin word "res publica", which literally means "the same cause" and "the same industry". Another word that English-speaking countries often use to refer to "* * * and China" is the Commonwealth, which literally means "* * * the same wealth". In addition, the English word "republic" not only refers to "* * * and the state" and "* * and the political power", but also refers to "any group whose members enjoy equal rights". Obviously, this meaning has only recently been extended. Ancient mixed countries were based on social hierarchy, and only recognized that all classes had the right to participate in the government, without the concept that all individuals were equal. However, isn't there a relationship between class participation and individual equal participation in politics? When we face the clear water in the river, won't we sincerely admire its source?
([2]) A prominent feature of the classical harmonious thought is the emphasis on "civic virtue" and "public interest". Aristotle wrote a special chapter on whether good citizens need to have special qualities different from good people and whether government officials need special qualities different from ordinary citizens. Thinkers do not have a unified and unchangeable definition of what is civic virtue. Generally speaking, civic virtue can be defined as caring for public will and public goals. (6) Among the various civic virtues listed by thinkers, what they emphasize most is to restrain self-interest and obey public welfare. American political scientist Cass R Sunstein wrote: "For * * * socialists, the task of politics is to consider ... They believe that people can avoid selfish interests through discussion and pursue public welfare as citizens." There is an extremely important reason why classical thinkers and thinkers tirelessly advocate the virtues of self-denial and self-surrender: they are faced with a painful lesson: many countries are heading for civil strife, decline and extinction in endless factional disputes. (7)
We might as well make a preliminary summary of * * *' s thought and spirit on the basis of early practice and theory. I think the basic ideas and spirits of * * * and * * are * * governance, * * * ownership and * * * enjoyment, which are peaceful, moderate and balanced. * * * Governance and enjoyment means that all social members, groups and strata have the right to participate in the government, balance each other's interests and enjoy government protection and services; * * * Yes, that is, the state should not become the private property of any individual, group or class, nor should it become a tool for any individual, group or class to oppress other individuals, groups and classes; Peace and moderation means that all members, groups and strata give up violence and power and solve their conflicts of interest through consultation, compromise and restriction in accordance with fair procedures and order. * * * is the logical premise of * * * governance and * * * enjoyment, but * * * governance is the political premise of * * * ownership and * * * enjoyment. Practically speaking, without the rule of * * *, there would be no * * * and * * *. Without * * * rule, there will be no lasting or desirable peace.
Although there are many unsatisfactory places in the practice of classical harmony, this does not prevent us from summing up the basic concept and spirit of harmony. It is these basic ideas and spirits that make some ancient republics, which are not ideal today, glow with dazzling light against the backdrop of many authoritarian countries; Harmony belongs not only to ancient times, but also to modern times and the future. With people's awakening, it has gained increasingly strong vitality. The modern democratic Republic, which implements the rule of law on the principle of human rights, better embodies these ideas and spirits, thus dividing human history into ancient and modern. These ever-changing ideas and spirits can become the eternal political principles of mankind.
Third, modern * * * and socialism.
Modern harmonious system is evolved from mixed balanced system. A basic sign that modern republicanism is different from classical republicanism is that a mixed and balanced political system has been transformed into a decentralized and balanced political system. Britain is the first modern republic in the cloak of monarchy, and the first country to complete the transition from a mixed and balanced regime to a decentralized and balanced regime. During the English Revolution in the17th century, the long-standing mixed equilibrium theory had a fierce confrontation with the later decentralization theory. (8) Decentralized government originates from mixed government, but it has different principles from mixed government. The mixed balanced regime is based on class division and participation, while the decentralized regime is based on the division of government functions. The former inevitably requires government departments representing a certain class to participate in all government functions, while the latter strongly advocates limiting all government departments to their due functions. The confrontation between these two theories led to the birth of a decentralized and balanced regime. The "mixed" factor of mixed and balanced regime has been eliminated, and the "balanced" factor continues to exist; Decentralization theory took the lead, but the final victory was not pure decentralization theory. The legislative power, executive power and judicial power of the country are distributed to three different government departments, but there is a certain degree of power mixing between government departments to achieve mutual checks and balances, to prevent any of them from usurping the power of other departments and establishing an authoritarian regime.
[iii] In the process of replacing the political system of mixed checks and balances with the political system of decentralized checks and balances, the * * * doctrine has undergone almost brand-new changes. This is an internal process of * * * ism, and the political system of decentralization and checks and balances in the later period began with the mixed political system of checks and balances in the earlier period. There is a view that the theory of decentralization and checks and balances has nothing to do with the theory of mixed balanced government, which is inconsistent with historical facts. (9) The mixed balanced regime contains at least two important factors of the decentralized balanced regime: one is the separation of institutions, which is very important for decentralization; (10) Second, all departments restrict each other and realize homogenization. In addition, it is very important that the classical Republic of China greatly promoted the formation of the idea of "rule of law" and helped activists to gradually clarify the concepts of "legislative power" and "executive power", (1 1) and then consider the practical innovation of separating government functions and institutions according to the legal system. /kloc-Britain in the 0 th and 7 th centuries basically denied the mixed factors of a mixed and balanced regime, inherited its balanced factors, and restricted the parliament and the government to their respective functions. /kloc-At the beginning of the 8th century, it recognized an independent judicial department outside the legislative and administrative departments, and finally completed the transition from a mixed and balanced regime to a decentralized and balanced regime.
1at the end of the 7th century1at the beginning of the 8th century, what happened in the British Isles later proved to be of extraordinary significance in world history. 1688 "Glorious Revolution" In the same year, John Locke, a philosopher and political thinker, published the second volume of On the Government based on his own experience, which systematically and authoritatively expounded the theory of separation of powers for the first time. However, Locke only expounded the principle of separation of legislative power and administrative power, and did not mention the independence of judicial power (judicial independence was not yet completed when Locke wrote). /kloc-Montesquieu, an outstanding French enlightenment thinker in the 0 ~ (th) century, based on his understanding of British experience, comprehensively and incisively expounded the theory of checks and balances of the three powers in The Spirit of Law with wise and elegant language. 1787 American framers used Montesquieu's theory. For the first time in history, a regime of decentralization and checks and balances was constructed in the form of a constitutional code, and the theory of decentralization and checks and balances was further clarified in the process of striving for constitutional recognition. The United States has strongly inspired the enthusiasm and confidence of other countries in promoting the political system of decentralization and checks and balances, and set a far-reaching style for other countries.
However, in the process of replacing the mixed balance political system with the decentralized balance political system, has the mixed factor of the mixed balance political system completely disappeared? No, that's not true. In the modern Republic, we can still vaguely see the shadow of a mixed and balanced regime, although the mixed state based on the traditional hierarchical society is gone forever. Pointing this out will help us to look at today's Republic of * * * with a profound historical perspective and help us to understand the modern Republic of * * * more thoroughly. The president of the United States is similar to the former monarch (kingship), universal suffrage and the House of Representatives are democratic factors, and the Senate and courts are obviously aristocratic. As for Britain, as the first modern republic in the world, it has a more direct and close relationship with tradition, especially the mixed and balanced political system: she still has a monarch and a noble house today. ( 13)
After sketching out how the political system of * * * changed from a mixed equilibrium system to a decentralized equilibrium system, it is necessary to sort out some other important developments in modern * * * and China, and clarify its context.
An important development of modern pacifism compared with classical pacifism is to regard the basic human rights of liberalism as the highest principle and fundamental goal of the political system. Driven by this principle, the theory of separation of powers and checks and balances has developed and risen to achieve this goal. Classical pacifists keep talking about freedom, but the freedom they write is the freedom that individuals unite into a collective to participate in public life, the autonomy of the city-state without foreign rule, rather than the personal freedom that is tense with the collective. At that time, there was no clear concept of personal freedom. Classical pacifists believe that the goal of a good government is the public interest, and personal interests unconditionally obey the public interest. There is no doubt that "public interest" will always be a valuable term, but "public interest" will always be a vague concept, because it lacks clear judgment and operational standards, and is abused endlessly by the rulers to obliterate personal freedom and interests. 17, 18 The rise of liberalism and human rights theory has opened a new era to effectively solve this problem. In the17th and18th centuries, many outstanding thinkers enthusiastically advocated individual freedom and rights with the thought of natural law, deeply inquired about the origin and purpose of the country, and clearly pointed out that the purpose of people organizing the government and forming a political society was to protect their inalienable and inalienable freedom and rights, and to discuss and design the form of government for this purpose, so as to prevent rulers from trampling on human dignity and deviating from public interests. This has never been the case.
Compared with the classical Republic, another important development of the modern Republic is the universal promulgation of the constitution, which specifies the form of government in detail. The Constitution contains a "Bill of Rights" proclaiming a series of basic human rights, and an independent judiciary supervises the government's compliance with the Bill of Rights. The basic human rights listed in the Bill of Rights draw insurmountable boundaries for the government and provide basic criteria for judging public interests. People often say "limited power government", the most basic meaning is that the government is restricted by the basic human rights announced by the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits the government from violating and trampling on these basic human rights under the banner of "public interest". In fact, basic human rights should be understood and respected as an extremely important part of the public interest. The protection of basic human rights and freedoms is crucial to everyone's happiness and development, to the maintenance of good morality, to the improvement of national quality, to the long-term stability of the country and to the prosperity of social economy and culture. Basic freedom and human rights are the essence of the constitutional order. If a government does not respect basic human rights, people have reason to doubt whether it is pursuing public interests. To ensure that the government respects basic human rights, the deepest strength comes from the people's control over the government, but at the same time, there must be auxiliary preventive measures (14), that is, mutual supervision and restriction between government departments.
Another remarkable development of modern * * * and polity compared with classical * * and polity is the widespread adoption of representative system, which abandons the people's congress system and can be applied to large countries with vast territory, rather than small countries in the past. The representative system is not a modern invention, and its origin is as old as the ancient Republic of China. Sparta has a Senate, Athens has a parliament of 500 people, and ancient Rome has a Senate-members are appointed by the Ombudsman. Only Sparta, Athens and Rome have mass meetings, and the mass meeting in Athens is also the highest authority. The modern Republic of China abandoned the people's parliament and adopted the representative system, which had at least three basic advantages: first, elected elites discussed politics and improved the wisdom of the government; Second, it is conducive to controlling the influence of fierce party struggles and blind emotions of the people and promoting national justice and stability; Third, all countries, big or small, can adopt a harmonious system, and the vast territory is no longer an obstacle. And as Madison, the father of the American Constitution, said, a big country is more suitable for implementing a harmonious system. A big country is more suitable to implement the * * * peace system, because it has a vast territory and a large population, including many parties and interest groups. It is not easy to form a majority group that can bully others in the country, nor is it easy to split into two hostile groups that are not * * *, and it will not fall into frequent party disputes and civil strife like many small countries in ancient times. ( 15)
After the birth of modern * * * and political system,1from the mid-9th century to the early 20th century, another revolutionary change took place, that is, from non-traditional aristocratic * * * and system to democratic * * and system. French scholar Bagair wrote in the Dictionary of Political Science published by 1840: Democracy is a modern fact, because those ancient republics are not democratic countries, and there is no equality between politics and citizens; In theory, democracy follows the principle of people's sovereignty, and in polity, it agrees with the harmonious system. (16) In fact, not only the ancient Republic of China was not a democratic country, but the modern Republic of China was not a democratic country for a long time after its birth, but an aristocratic Republic with faded aristocratic colors. After the glorious revolution in Britain, only a few citizens had the right to vote, and the House of Commons was monopolized by all the land nobles. From the beginning, the United States was built on the soil without traditional aristocrats, but at the beginning, only a few people had the right to vote because of the limitation of property qualifications. Near the middle of19th century, with the reform of parliamentary system and the expansion of voting rights, modern * * and countries began to change from aristocratic * * and aristocratic faded countries to democratic * * and countries. In Britain, the parliamentary reform of 1832 extended the right to vote to the industrial and commercial class, and then after the reforms of 1867 and 1885, universal suffrage was basically realized at the end of 19, and a "majority government" appeared. Marx once said that the western republic, like the bourgeois affairs management committee, was writing in an era when aristocrats were in transition to democracy and democracy had not yet arrived.
Another remarkable change and development in modern Republic of China was the emergence of an orderly competition system of political parties and active interest groups. Modern harmony has flooded into the trend of pluralism, but the public welfare principle advocated by classical harmony is still full of vitality. Modern pacifists are more realistic and humane than classical pacifists, unlike the latter who only emphasize public interests and ignore private interests. The partisanship between ancient factions and domestic selfish desires made some early modern pacifists very worried about repeating past tragedies. In ancient times and China, the party was a private gang. Although modern party politics is disgusting and ugly, it is obviously different from the party struggle in ancient times and China. Burke, a British thinker, once said that modern political parties "are a group of people who unite with their concerted efforts to promote national interests according to certain specific principles they have agreed upon." (17) Political parties in the modern Republic of China, as the media to convey public opinion to the government and the tools to organize people to participate in and discuss state affairs on the legal track, played a very positive role in promoting social vitality and national peace and stability. In addition to political parties, there are many interest groups in the modern Republic. Of course, a political party is also an interest group in terms of its own interests. In the modern Republic of China, where interest groups were diverse and extremely active, it became a prominent problem to prevent unprincipled political transactions from harming public interests. The Constitution and the judiciary defending it have played a vital role in answering this question. (18) Pluralism and the principle of public welfare, therefore, can coexist and organically combine to a higher degree. It can be said that from the orderly competition of political parties and the activities of various interest groups, we have seen a new type of mixed and balanced country.
Four. Harmony and democracy
Anyone familiar with the history of western political thought knows that outstanding ancient thinkers generally hold fierce criticism and distrust of democracy. Socrates and Plato condemned the mental retardation of democratic governments. Aristotle believes that democratic government is one of the three extremely bad regimes, in which the highest power is in the hands of the majority, that is, the poor. However, after the middle of19th century, democracy became popular. Democracy is not only admired by people day by day, but also its meaning tends to be surprisingly generalized. In contemporary times, democracy has become "a religion, a form of government, a philosophy and a way of life". (19) Almost all governments in the world, whether democratic or not, call themselves democratic governments and use the word "democracy" to defend their legitimacy. Many people, including scholars who study politics and law, put the beautiful principles of modern government system, such as human rights, the rule of law, the separation of powers, checks and balances, under the door of "democracy", and democracy has become synonymous with modern government system and something that seems to accommodate all rivers. The voice of democracy makes people forget that * * * and "* * and the country" are used everywhere, but few people think and ask what "* * * and" are. Really * * * and democracy are the same thing? Can we just talk about democracy and not talk about * * *? Is the criticism of democracy by ancient thinkers really the voice of the old times, completely out of date? Can democracy really cover so much? Can we really understand the modern government system from the perspective of democracy? One of my main purposes in writing this article is to give democracy a proper place on the basis of a long-standing tradition; Follow the wisdom of many thinkers and scholars in ancient and modern times and reiterate some tendencies that democracy needs to be vigilant; Not only can it not contain other important principles of modern democracy, but it also has profound conflicts with them.
As mentioned above, the long-term mainstream of western political philosophy is the mixed balanced regime, and the idea of mixed balanced regime has spawned a new theory of modern decentralized balanced regime. Mixed and balanced regime is a political scheme to avoid the disadvantages of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy, which itself contains a considerable degree of distrust and restraint on democracy. In a mixed and balanced regime, democracy is only one of the factors, which is manifested in the composition of the citizens' assembly and the election of government officials. Moreover, democratic factors only played an auxiliary role in ancient schools and middle schools with mixed and balanced political systems, because the highest government organ was not the people's parliament, but the aristocratic parliament (Senate). When the mixed and balanced regime was transformed into a decentralized and balanced regime in modern times, the people's parliament disappeared in the regime. The democratic factor is firstly manifested in the election of officials and representatives by the people, and secondly, it can be said that the elected parliament exercises legislative power. However, the modern Republic can only be said to have democratic factors at the beginning, and it cannot be said to be a democratic Republic. Democracy requires universal suffrage to establish people's authority. When the Republic of China implemented universal suffrage in modern times, the broad masses of people had enough control over the government, and democracy was born. This is an epoch-making event in human history. But that's just the process that the democratic factors in the harmonious system gradually expand and eventually rise to the leading factor; Democracy is still an integral part of the * * * system, not the whole of it.
If the democratic factors go beyond their proper position and become the totality of the * * * harmonious system, or more than the * * * harmonious system, democracy will degenerate into autocracy, and the * * * harmonious system will cease to exist. The basic principles of the modern Republic, such as separation of powers, judicial independence, rule of law and constitutionalism, cannot be explained and accommodated by democracy, but there are also tensions and conflicts with them, and they often call for abolition. Democrats can ask: Parliament is the representative organ of the people. What power does the president have to veto the laws he passes, and what power does the cabinet have to dissolve the parliament? In order to ensure the independent trial of judges, the modern Constitution of the Republic of China stipulates that judges are not elected by the people or parliament, but Democrats have repeatedly demanded that judges be elected by the people or parliament, or even be re-elected regularly. The fiercest controversy occurred in the unconstitutional review, which is an important measure of checks and balances and the rule of law in modern Republic. From the standpoint of democracy, people often criticize the court for overthrowing and abolishing parliamentary laws according to the Constitution, and accuse the court of violating the principle of majority decision and parliamentary supremacy when exercising this power. (20) These radical democrats forget that democracy is not sacred and irresistible, and there must be some countermeasures to put democracy under the control of morality and constitution. People make mistakes, which means they make mistakes. Of course, judges and presidents make mistakes. But using power to curb power and ambition to fight ambition can reduce mistakes. If the will of parliament is everything, parliament may become a tyrant who tramples on everything.
[vi] These radical democrats are not talking about direct democracy, but their democratic spirit is no different from the "pure democracy" severely condemned by ancient writers. Aristotle said that there is a kind of democracy, "it is the people who rule, not the law;" Because everything is decided by the majority vote, not the law ... the people have the power to rule by the king; They are supreme, not as individuals but as a group. " (2 1) "Political affairs are determined by the will of the majority, and the will of the majority is justice." (22) The will of most people is the real justice. Don't you make mistakes when there are many people? Don't these words also apply to indirect "pure democracy" and parliaments that are not controlled by other departments? (23) In modern countries where the representative system has replaced the people's congresses, if people's will is endlessly upheld, the government is not given the necessary independent judgment and the public interests are safeguarded, will these words be impossible to continue to be fulfilled? Isn't justice the will of the majority? Won't the demagogues in ancient writers' works who tried their best to flatter and please the people and used blind obedience and short-sightedness to display their personal ambitions come again and trample on justice itself with seemingly just words?
Government.
[7]
Justice is a universal principle and a correct and reasonable command. Not necessarily on the side of the majority, just as not necessarily on the side of the minority, we can't simply judge by the number of people. Many critics have pointed out that a danger that democratic society is particularly prone to is that the majority oppresses the minority. Therefore, a democratic republic that adheres to the principle of "* * * and harmony" must contain some balanced measures against democracy and provide procedures and institutional arrangements for the minority against the majority based on justice. (24) In ancient countries such as Athens, where the mass meeting system was implemented, the people were the highest government organs. So the majority autocracy has only one meaning, and that is the majority autocracy among the people. In the modern Republic where representative institutions replace the people's parliament, the people are separated from the government, and the majority autocracy seems to have a double meaning: the majority autocracy in the parliament and the majority autocracy within the people. And most people often need the help of parliament to raise their will into law, so in a sense, two kinds of autocracy can be simplified into one, that is, parliamentary majority autocracy. There is a majority class in any society, so it is always very important for democracy and the country to prevent parliament from making class legislation that violates morality. However, when talking about parliamentary majority autocracy, we should not only look at the class, but also see the complicated situation brought by many interest groups smaller than the class. These interest groups are not the majority of the people, but they can make use of the majority in the parliament through out-of-court activities to formulate legislation that is not conducive to other interest groups, resulting in a situation in which a few oppress other minorities.
Ancient Greece left two far-reaching traditions: Sparta and Athens. Athens city-state may be the best organized democratic country in ancient times, but it is still notorious in the history of western political thought for a long time. Madison, the father of American Constitution, defined * * * and regime as representative regime, while Athens and other ancient small countries where people's congresses exercised the highest governance power were called democratic countries. Historians of thought have noticed that the division of Madison is meaningful, although scholars have not used the word "* * * and" so strictly since then. As an elf of modern socialism, Madison's view on democracy is obviously the same as that of classical thinkers. This article does not exclude Athens from the Republic of China, just because many people are so broad. Feel free to use the word * * * and. In fact, I appreciate the strict and precise definitions of "harmony" and "democracy". There must be some differences between "* * * and" and "democracy" in principle, otherwise it is impossible to understand why two terms are needed at the same time. For a long time, political science and constitutional law have not discussed the difference between them enough, which is a serious defect. In my opinion, it is not enough to fully reveal the difference between * * * and democracy only from the perspective of whether representative system is implemented, because representative system does not necessarily mean parting ways with "pure democracy". It must also be linked with "mixed checks and balances" and "decentralized checks and balances" in order to grasp the respective spirits of "* * *" and "democracy" more deeply and accurately. Harmony is not only a criticism of monarchy and oligarchy, but also of democracy. Strictly speaking, it is incompatible with all centralized, autocratic and extreme regimes, whether individuals, a few people or the majority.
It is necessary to further distinguish the important similarities and differences between * * * and democracy, so as to reveal the program of * * * and democracy more comprehensively and systematically.
In addition to the above conflicts, there is also an important conflict between them, that is, the conflict between the spirit of nobility or elite and the spirit of civilians or ordinary people. One aspect of Athenian democracy strongly criticized by ancient thinkers is that citizens draw lots to decide government positions. All male citizens "sit in the village in turn", regardless of the virtue and intelligence needed to be qualified for public office. Mainstream or strictly * * * and political power have long been aristocratic political power in history, showing higher management wisdom. Both Sparta and Rome have popular congresses, but they are only supporting roles relative to the aristocratic parliament. In modern China, the traditional aristocracy finally died out, but the aristocratic spirit did not die out together, but continued in a new form. Tenure judges are obviously very similar to traditional nobles. The electoral system of modern Republic is aristocratic system. Manny, a contemporary American political philosopher, pointed out that the method of selecting officials in democracy should be lottery rather than competitive election, and the essence of election is to select "outstanding" people; Elected representatives have tenure security, which is quite independent from voters, similar to the aristocrats in the past; Therefore, the representative figures are modern aristocrats, elected aristocrats or democratic aristocrats. ](25)
Therefore, the representative system of the modern Republic cannot be understood only from the perspective of democracy, and it has the dual attributes of "nobility" and "democracy". That is, the aristocratic system has accepted the transformation of the democratic system, both of which are