|
The procedural quality of legality, presenting itself as the legality take the shape in procedure, has procedures changed or created by procedures. Among it are the procedural quality of legislation, administration and judiciary. Since administration and judiciary are the logical extensions of legislation, we will focus on legislation, with which democracy is closely associated. We have already stated that the real meaning of democracy is people’s self-government, i.e. that a society is ruled by people themselves. People are a collection of individuals, so here need unanimity for self-government. Where can we get unanimity as it is hard to appear? Our answer is not the result of expressing, but the procedural rules of expressing (include the rule of selecting s result). Supposing the unanimous procedural rule that that 49∶50 not 50∶49 is acceptable, the actual result may be not agreeable to every one, it would nevertheless be regarded as an unanimity, and it’s thereof democratic. So if we limit the standpoint of democracy to the unanimous procedural rule of selecting a result and not the result itself, the first paradox is solved.
Pushing the ratio 49∶50 to extremes, it becomes 1∶∞ and monarchic autocracy appears: a society is ruled by opinions of one person. If the procedural rule is also in unanimity, we have to admit that the autocratic society still democratic. This is the typical autocratic democracy, to which the autocratic democracies in history are less or more close. Ancient china has been considered an sample of this autocratic democracy, just because the emperor was still necessary if let people vote, the better the more ideal, only who was the “1” in the 1∶∞ a matter. Hence what decided the autocratic democracy to be democratic autocracy is: the particular “1” appeared not from the procedural rules, but from other factors. And the autocratic democracy represented its autocratic essence the following: once the particular “1” appeared, he would not only try to maintain the extreme 1∶∞, but also the stability of himself as particular “1”.(Thus the second paradox is solved.)
Reversing the ratio 1∶∞, it becomes ∞∶1 or ∞∶0 and the ideal direct democracy appears: a society is ruled by the opinions of all. This society will not preclude conflicts, but these conflicts will be solved automatically, for the legality will be able to run itself. The opinions of all which rule the society, is absolutely not the unanimity on any substantial matter ( that is impossible and is the cause of the conflicts ), but the unanimity on the procedural rules serving solving the conflicts. Whether the unanimity is capable of being obtained depends on the systematic cogence of the procedural rules, therefore the following requirements for the society is necessary. ⑴The legality is in complete perfection: its procedural rules are capable of being systematically cogent; ⑵individuals are in perfect completion: ①as an agent of ability, he is able to undertake his responsibility, ②as an agent of morality, he is willing to undertake his responsibility. Here we have seen the reason for that the Athens’s direct democracy is inferior to today’s indirect democracy lying in the difference of legality and individual in perfection.
|
