著者

半沢 孝麿

出版者

日本政治学会

雑誌

年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.16, pp.204-250,en5, 1965-11-25 (Released:2009-12-21)

---

Anyone who takes a glance over the whole history of Burke studies from his death up to the present should certainly be struck at various and sometimes mutually inconsistent interpretations. We now have many Burkes, such as great statesman Burke, romantist Burke, utilitarian Burke, democrat Burke, Burke the prophet of Conservatism, Burke the natural law theorist in Thomistic tradition and so forth.The writer thinks, however, all such Burkes come from quite the same premise; the premise that we can have a political philosopher Burke free from theoretical contradictions. This article argues that it is necessary to change such a premise.The writer does not wish to describe what political philosophy Burke advocates. All that the article wishes to make clear is how he recognized the nature of the world of politics, through the inspection of his whole treatises and letters before and after 1765. At the same time, since Burke is not only an ordinary politician but also a literary man fond of talking about history and literary criticism (especially before his entrance into Parliament in 1765), the writer also tries to draw some parallelism among his ideas of political, aesthetic and historical knowledges.First. Burke's basic view on historical and aesthetic world is very near to that of his contemporary Hume. He is agnostic of the essential existence. He tries to secure the certainty of his knowledges through reducing every sensible object to the utmost of its simplicity. But, notwithstanding that method, he always has a desire, consciously or unconsciously, to know the world in the wholeness. Hence method and desire contradict each other. The result is that, for instance, his idea of the “necessity” of historical world is divided into two in its meaning; one, the necessity of mechanism composed of cognitive elements, and the other, that of transcendental will of the doers.Second. Of politics; The letters in his earlier life in Parliament show that he strongly feels that the room for choice in politics is very small to him. Very important to the writer is the fact that he extends the conclusion derived from this personal experience to the idea of the world of politics in general and says that the nature of politics is also a mechanistic necessity. Since, for instance, he sees the theory of Lockian social contract not from the side of free choice of régime by its members, but from the side of irreversibility of the state of nature, or inconveniences of the dissolution of governments.But, if it be true that the method of analysation into the ultimate elements is the only systematic way to know the nature of political world, is it also true that this nature is necessarily a mechanistic necessity? Firstly, the element of the “spirit (or temper) of people” which he often mentions always lacks concreteness in its contents. Secondly, the element of “Burke himself” is also uncertain, because, according to him, the knowledge of himself is always post facto. Thus, it is no wonder that he was “never forward in his speculation” in practical affairs.However, Burke is a flexible thinker. Through the difficulties of his party and himself at the time of the American Revolution, he gradually modifies his earlier ideas on the nature of politics, and the result appears before 1782 in the following ways. Firstly, his letters in 1778 addressed to his intimate friends emphasize the importance of the unity of his party members and the consistency of the principle. The aim is to secure the firmness of leadership in politics. This firmness will produce the cognitive element. Secondly, the same letters insist upon the necessity of “identifying with” and “inclining towards” the spirit of people as such. This assertion means that we ought to know the indefinite “elements” in politics as indefinite.

著者

半沢孝麿 [ほか] 著

出版者

有斐閣

巻号頁・発行日

1978

著者

有賀 弘 高橋 進 曽根 泰教 坂野 潤治 半沢 孝麿 佐々木 毅

出版者

東京大学

雑誌

総合研究(A)

巻号頁・発行日

1986

---

本研究の目的は, 政治過程における議会の機能を政治思想史的, 政治史的, 現状分析的に多角的に検討することにある. こうした政治学的なアプローチを駆使することによって, 単なる法制度論のレベルで終わりがちだった議会制の研究は, より一層の前進を見ることができるのである.本研究による第一の成果は, 20世紀に入ってからの行政国家化, 福祉国家化とともに議会機能が低下したという通説的な理解である議会無能論ないしは議会無用論に対して, 再検討を加えた結果, 次の点が明らかになったことである. (1)シンボル・統合機能, (2)立法機能, (3)代表機能, (4)(議院内閣制における)行政部形成機能, (5)争点明示機能, (6)行政部統制機能, (7)政治的補充機能などのすべての議会機能が一様に低下したのではない. むしろ「政治」課題や案件の増大に伴って, 政策形成や決定の機能は, 議会だけでなく行政部や政党, マス・メディアや「運動」などの政治的生体に分担されるようになったが, その多くは, 議会の媒介的機能を通じて政治の「場」に登場してきているという点である.第二の成果は, 従来の議会研究においては, 議会制民主主義のモデルとしてのイギリスや強い影響力をもつアメリカの議会がおもに歴史的視点に立って分析されてきたが,本研究においては, 両国だけでなくドイツ, イタリア, オランダそして日本の議会も分析の対象とし, しかも比較的最近の動向まで扱っているために, かなり網羅的になった点である.とくに日本の議会制については, 戦前の帝国議会と戦後の国会の双方を扱い, しかも議会機能の諸モデルの検討や代替モデルの仮説的提示, 各種の事例やデータによる分析を行っており, 包括的な検討が加えられた.本研究の成果は, 今後さらに議会研究を進める際, その重要な拠り所となるであろう.