谁会宣称自己不是民主制的支持者呢?民主全能。民主能让人民都作主，能治腐败，能让人人平等，能让政治清明，能让世界上所有的老百姓都过上好日子。它高于家庭、高于民族、高于主权、高于人权，还高于一切非西方人的生命权。这就是目前弥漫于世人之间的民主迷信！笔者不反民主，甚至还有些喜欢民主，可也不信民主教，更不信那些虔诚的“启蒙”者能把中国人民都变成民主信徒。中国充满困境，但笔者不信民主能解决中国社会的主要困难。笔者希望回到政治文明的原点来讨论民主，讨论民主化，讨论今天的民主十字军。这么做的目的只有一个，就是提醒国人，不要从一个陷阱跳入另一个陷阱。就目前中国的情况而论，适宜建立的不是虚妄的民主，而是法治导向、由六大支柱构成的所谓“咨询型法治”。这六大支柱包括中立的文官系统；自主的司法系统；独立的反贪机构；独立的审计系统；以全国和省人民代表大会为核心的广泛的社会咨询系统；以及受法律充分保护的言论、出版、集会和结社的自由。这种法治有六大特点，即强调“法律”作主，拒绝“人民”做主；强调法的正义性，因而特别重视“法律面前人人平等”；强调严格执法的重要性，刻意增加立法难度；强调限制政府的职能和规模，造就有限政府，保障社会经济生活的自由，从而鼓励民族的创造力；强调政府行为的透明；强调追求符合中华传统的秩序与自由。本书所收论文，从法治、现代化和秩序等不同的角度讨论了上述问题。

Did the Greek gods play tennis? What is the ambassador from the land of Alchemy telling us? What secrets are being told on the shores of the Island of Venus? What is a monk doing on the Ship of Fools? What Great Paintings Say has the answers to these and many other burning questions asked about the most important and famous paintings of all time. In two volumes, a selection of history`s greatest masterpieces is presented chronologically, including works by Botticelli, Breughel, Chagall, Courbet, Degas, Delacroix, Dürer, Goya, Monet, Raphael, Rembrandt, Renoir, Rubens, Tiepolo, Titian, and many others. Each chapter focuses on one painting, with enlarged details and in-depth texts describing their significance. Taking apart each painting and then reassembling it again like a huge jigsaw puzzle, the authors reveal the history of art as a lively panorama of forgotten worlds.

In this now-classic work, one of the most celebrated political scientists of the twentieth century offers a powerful interpretation of the location of political power in American urban communities. For this new edition, Robert A. Dahl has written a new Preface in which he reflects on Who Governs? more than four decades after its publication. And in a new Foreword, Douglas W. Rae offers an assessment of Dahl’s achievement in this, Dahl’s greatest and most influential book. “Dahl is never dogmatic, and never imagines that the world stands still to accommodate either the democratic ideal or his own pluralistic theory of city politics. . . .Who Governs? is Dahl’s liveliest and most remarkable book.”—Douglas W. Rae, from the Foreword From reviews of the first edition: “A book that no one interested in politics can afford to ignore.”—Lewis A. Coser, Commentary “Anyone seriously concerned with current systematic political theory or with urban politics should read Who Governs?”—Hugh Douglas Price, Political Science Quarterly “A sophisticated and undogmatic treatise on democratic politics.”—Heinz Eulau, American Political Science Review “Dahl has illuminated a central question in political science, the problem of how men can govern themselves in complex societies. . . . Who Governs? will become a classic.”—from the citation of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award

From Publishers Weekly
In this acutely argued book, Columbia University political scientist Snyder challenges the American dogma that voting is a political panacea regardless of conditions or circumstances. Critically assessing American foreign policy in the 1990s, he argues that promoting free elections often produces serious conflict; he argues that where critical preconditions are not present (where there isn't, for instance, an adaptable ruling elite or institutions such as the rule of law and a free press), embracing the popular ballot often leads to the rise of a noxious nationalism, conflict and war: "Democratization produces nationalism when powerful elites within a nation need to harness popular energies to the tasks of war and economic development" yet "want to avoid surrendering real political authority." Snyder supports his theory with overwhelming evidence from a diverse array of historical situations--from revolutionary France to Nazi Germany, from Eastern Europe after the breakup of the Soviet Union to central Africa and central and southern Asia. His documentation suggests a pattern in ethnically divided authoritarian states: ethnic/nationalist conflict often bursts out just as efforts at democratization get underway. Drawing on his analysis, Snyder "prescribes ways to make democratic transitions less dangerous." The intellectual rigor of this important book distinguishes it from arguments driven by simple conservative longings for authoritarian rule; his analysis of the link between the initiation of democracy and resulting nationalism is far more convincing than the common reference to "ancient hatreds" as the source of conflict. Exceptionally well-organized and clearly written, Snyder's book provides a fresh look at the debate over the process of introducing democracy into formerly authoritarian countries. (Apr.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Review
A scholarly thesis about the perils and difficulties involved in the transition from tyranny to participatory government. Snyder (Political Science/Columbia) finds a correlation between a collapsing central authority (followed by a quickly emerging but immature democratization process) and the newly aroused ethnic conflicts that have sprung up in recent years. He suggests policies that would make such transitions safer, mainly by not rushing democratic political structures into place before the logical stages of progress have been achieved. Snyder also argues that a controlled media in the early phases of democratization may create national mythmaking, and that this may deter the development of democratic institutions (as was the case in Germany before WWI and WWII). He bases his theories upon the historical experiences of Germany, revolutionary France, Serbia, India, postcolonial Africa, and other nations with weak or nonexistent traditions of democratic government. Some of these nations democratic traditions were too weak to offset the powerful forces of ethnic nationalism that, once unleashed, brought violent conflicts against real or perceived enemies (as in Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia, etc.). The refusal of discredited ruling parties to accept electoral defeat, combined with immoderate appeals to the old ethnic groups that were once held in check by a strong central government, will inevitably present a real and profound danger to peoples not used to democracy. In contrast, Snyder argues, civic identity and civic nationalization divided people the least after the fall of communism (as in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ukraine, etc.). He believes that the preconditions of democracy must be in place in order for it to develop sanelyand in order to avoid the ethnic nationalism of hate and civil war that can be driven by manipulating political leaders. Snyder presents logical theories supported by historical studies that question the undue optimism of a rush to an immature liberal democracy at the tragic cost of bloody strife and loss of freedom. National leaders should take notice. (Kirkus Reviews)

西方民主制号称是古希腊民主政体的继承者，但古希腊民主政体对权力与知识的思考却和我们迥然相异。我们认为专家因拥有专门的知识而具有了治理他人的资格，但古希腊人却认为专业能力本身并不会使统治具有合法性。世界上首批公职人员的身份是公共奴隶，他们具备普通希腊人所欠缺的各种知识，他们的身影充斥于各个管理部门，可古希腊人很清楚知识会垄断权力。本书从各个层面剖析古希腊公共奴隶的来龙去脉，重新对权力和知识进行了一番梳理。

Selected by Choice as a 2003 Outstanding Academic Title
Selected by the American Library Association (ALA) as one of "The Best of the Best from the University Presses: Books You Should Know About," 2003
Selected as an outstanding book by University Press Books for Public and Secondary School Libraries
In this provocative book, one of our most eminent political scientists poses the question, “Why should we uphold our constitution?” The vast majority of Americans venerate the American Constitution and the principles it embodies, but many also worry that the United States has fallen behind other nations on crucial democratic issues, including economic equality, racial integration, and women’s rights. Robert Dahl explores this vital tension between the Americans’ belief in the legitimacy of their constitution and their belief in the principles of democracy.
Dahl starts with the assumption that the legitimacy of the American Constitution derives solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic governance. Dahl demonstrates that, due to the context in which it was conceived, our constitution came to incorporate significant antidemocratic elements. Because the Framers of the Constitution had no relevant example of a democratic political system on which to model the American government, many defining aspects of our political system were implemented as a result of short-sightedness or last-minute compromise. Dahl highlights those elements of the American system that are most unusual and potentially antidemocratic: the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system.
The political system that emerged from the world’s first great democratic experiment is unique—no other well-established democracy has copied it. How does the American constitutional system function in comparison to other democratic systems? How could our political system be altered to achieve more democratic ends? To what extent did the Framers of the Constitution build features into our political system that militate against significant democratic reform?
Refusing to accept the status of the American Constitution as a sacred text, Dahl challenges us all to think critically about the origins of our political system and to consider the opportunities for creating a more democratic society.