紀要論文 選挙権は誰のものか? : S. ロッカンのマクロヨーロッパモデルと19世紀英仏選挙制度を手掛かりとして
センキョケン ワ ダレ ノ モノカ? : S. ロッカン ノ マクロ ヨーロッパ モデルト 19セイキ エイフツ センキョ セイド オ テガカリ トシテ
Who controlled the right to vote? Using S.Rokkan’s Macro-Model of Europe and the electoral systems of Britain and France in the 19th century as a lead

玉利, 泉  ,  タマリ, イズミ  ,  TAMARI, Izumi

12pp.47 - 67 , 2015-03-27 , 鹿児島大学 , カゴシマ ダイガク , Kagoshima University
ISSN:13490699
NII書誌ID(NCID):AA11950379
内容記述
The modern and current electoral system is inseparable from the democratic principle called the 'one person one vote' system given a guarantee of universal and equal suffrage. This article analyzes the electoral systems of Britain and France in the 19th century which either fulfill or do not fulfill the basic principles of universalsuffrage and equality and other suffrages, and considers the realization of the institutionalized democracy inboth countries. Then I gave attention to S.Rokkan's Macro-Model of Europe with these basic conditions to themass democracy and then present and analyze the framework of European politics through the English and French typical models. The relevant aspects of this matter are significant and deal directly with the heart of the discussion on the nstitutionalization of the English and French democratic systems. I located information on the electoral systems of Britain and France through the transverse axis of S.Rokkan's Macro-Model of Europe and the vertical axis of the basic principles of suffrage based on modern legislation. He shows the modelwhich explains how:- 'the English model of slow, step-by-step enfranchisement continued without reversals but with long periods with formal recognition of inequalities, and the French model of early and sudden universalization and the equalization of political citizenship but with frequent reversals and with tendencies towards plebiscitarian exploitation of mass support'. Then he considers the tendency which:- 'In general, the polities characterized by stronger representative traditions came closer to the English model, whereas the polities with stronger absolutist tradition came closer to the French model'. Then he further illustratesBritain and France where:- 'the resistance to the introduction of PR is likely to be stronger in larger polities where central governments are able to mobilize greater resources against the PR movements (England, France and Germany)' with examples. I think that in reality the differences between the British and French models were insubstantial and the insubstantiality resulted from the similarity of both countries in their retaining the established oligarchy. The reality and actual conditions of the English electoral system mainly depended on limited suffrage and had plural voting still occurring, and the French government continued to interfere in their electoral system and their elections which were against male universal suffrage and maintained the effect of the theory of the franchise by considering it an official duty and thereby justified the continuing restricted suffrage. And so in England, Parliament and Cabinet are composed of the predominance of the peerage and in France there is a specialization between Parliament, as well as Cabinet and upper administration, and the latter is effectively still being ruled by the upper middle class and the nobility. The propertied classes controlled the suffrage and the electoral systems of Britain and France in the 19th century. At that time the statesmen demanded the democratization of the electoral systems within the range of the compatibility of governmental necessity, but I think that the indirect democracy can not be realized as far as the oligarchy is kept as the framework of the system.
近現代の選挙制度は普通・平等選挙の保証を通じた「一人,一票」という民主主義の原則と不可分である。本稿は,普通・平等選挙等の選挙権基本原則の充足の有無を通じて19世紀英仏選挙制度を分析して両国の制度的民主主義の実現や民主主義の制度化に係る課題を検討する。この分析視角から注目したのが,ロッカンのマクロヨーロッパモデル中の大衆民主主義へいたる条件づけをもとに欧州政治の枠組を英仏の典型的モデルで提示分析した部分だった。当該部分は英仏民主主義の制度化を論ずる上で核心を突いている点に意義がある。そして筆者は横軸にロッカンのマクロヨーロッパモデルをおき縦軸に近代法上の選挙権基本原則をおいて英仏選挙制度を位置づけた。彼は「不可逆的だが不平等の公的認知期間が長く緩慢に公民権付与が進行した英型と政治的市民権の普遍化と平等化が早期かつ速やかに行われたがその過程は可逆的である仏型」というモデルを示し「代議制の伝統が強い政体は英型に近く絶対主義の伝統が強い政体は仏型に近い」傾向を持つとした。また「比例代表制導入に対する抵抗は中央政府が比例代表制運動に対して大きい資源を動員できた大きい政治組織ほど強い」として英仏を例示した。筆者は両モデルの相違は実態に踏み込むと希薄化し,それが寡頭政温存という両者の類似性に由来すると考えた。実態は英は制限選挙が主流で複票制も健在であり,仏も男性普選とは裏腹に政府の選挙干渉が存続し制限選挙を正当視する公務説が効力を保持した。また英は議会と内閣が貴族階級優位に構成され,仏も議会・内閣と上級行政職は分化しつつ後者で上層中産階級と貴族階級が権力掌握を続けていた。19世紀英仏選挙権および選挙制度を支配したのは有産者だった。当時の為政者は自らの寡頭政を維持するために選挙制度の民主化を統治の必要性との両立範囲内で求めたが,間接民主主義は寡頭政を骨格として保持する限り成立しえないと考える。
本文を読む

http://ir.kagoshima-u.ac.jp/bitstream/10232/23139/2/p47-67_地域政策科学研究-第12号.pdf

http://ir.kagoshima-u.ac.jp/bitstream/10232/23139/3/玉利 泉「選挙権は誰のものか?」正誤表.pdf

このアイテムのアクセス数:  回

その他の情報