Conyac で依頼された翻訳結果を公開
[英語から日本語への翻訳依頼] 中国の村で選挙が開始されてから、20周年を迎えた。選挙は、村の委員会による基本法の制定と共に、公式に始まった。この法は、自立した管理や学習を通じた「自立政...
翻訳依頼文
The launch of village elections in China has passed its 20th anniversary. Elections officially began with the enactment of the Organic Law of Village Committees. This law promised ‘self-governance’ via self-management, self-education, which were soon reconceived as democratic election, decision making, management, and supervision. Since then, ‘grassroots democracy’ has become a term freighted with controversy for those who study Chinese politics.
Judging by procedures alone, village elections have achieved much. Surveys and direct observation by international monitors also show that the conduct of elections (including nomination procedures, competitiveness, and secret balloting) has improved over time. By many indicators, the future of grassroots democracy in China is bright, much as
Shi foresaw some years ago. When tracing the introduction of village
elections, Shi highlighted the role of democratically committed midlevel officials in
the Ministry of Civil Affairs who employed an incremental approach that focused on
extent first and quality later. This explanation accords nicely with most theories of
democratization and its diffusion, and their emphasis on the role of leaders and their
decisions.
Is rural China on the path to democracy that Shi and others have suggested? Viewing the
mountain of evidence now available in light of the literature on democratization, we re-examine the practice of self-governance and suggest that the working definition of democracy adopted by most observers, which underscores its procedural components, is incomplete. This definition, in a word, leads analysts to over emphasize form at the expense of content. Instead, we follow Sebastian and suggest a distinction between two dimensions of democratization, namely access to power and exercise of power. The introduction of elections has indeed begun to change the way in which village authorities gain power, but this has not necessarily transformed the way they exercise that power. Reducing rural democracy to well-run elections oversimplifies the complexity of the local power configuration and turns village governance into much less than it is.
Judging by procedures alone, village elections have achieved much. Surveys and direct observation by international monitors also show that the conduct of elections (including nomination procedures, competitiveness, and secret balloting) has improved over time. By many indicators, the future of grassroots democracy in China is bright, much as
Shi foresaw some years ago. When tracing the introduction of village
elections, Shi highlighted the role of democratically committed midlevel officials in
the Ministry of Civil Affairs who employed an incremental approach that focused on
extent first and quality later. This explanation accords nicely with most theories of
democratization and its diffusion, and their emphasis on the role of leaders and their
decisions.
Is rural China on the path to democracy that Shi and others have suggested? Viewing the
mountain of evidence now available in light of the literature on democratization, we re-examine the practice of self-governance and suggest that the working definition of democracy adopted by most observers, which underscores its procedural components, is incomplete. This definition, in a word, leads analysts to over emphasize form at the expense of content. Instead, we follow Sebastian and suggest a distinction between two dimensions of democratization, namely access to power and exercise of power. The introduction of elections has indeed begun to change the way in which village authorities gain power, but this has not necessarily transformed the way they exercise that power. Reducing rural democracy to well-run elections oversimplifies the complexity of the local power configuration and turns village governance into much less than it is.
eggplant
さんによる翻訳
中国の村で選挙が開始されてから、20周年を迎えた。選挙は、村の委員会による基本法の制定と共に、公式に始まった。この法は、自立した管理や学習を通じた「自立政府」を確約し、まもなく民主的な選挙や決定、運営、監督を行なうものとして、再考された。それから、「一般大衆の民主主義」という言葉が中国の政治を学ぶ人々の間で、議論を呼んだ。
順序だけを見てみると、村の選挙は多くのことを達成した。国際的な監視機関による調査や直接の観察によれば、選挙行為(指名手続き、競争性、秘密投票を含む)において延長戦が改良された。
順序だけを見てみると、村の選挙は多くのことを達成した。国際的な監視機関による調査や直接の観察によれば、選挙行為(指名手続き、競争性、秘密投票を含む)において延長戦が改良された。
Shiが数年前に予見したように、多くの指標が、中国の一般大衆の未来は明るいことを示唆している。村の選挙の導入をたどってみると、Shiは民政部の中間に位置し、当初は範囲、後々は質に焦点を向けた取り組みを増大させている、民主的に選出された役員たちの役割を強調した。この解説は正に、民主化やその普及にまつわるほとんどの学説と一致しており、その重点として、指導者や彼らの決定の役割が挙げられている。
中国の地方部はShiや他の人々が示唆したような、民主化へと進んでいるのか?我々は、民主化についての文学から、現在利用可能な手がかりの山を観察し、自立政府の実際を再検証する。
中国の地方部はShiや他の人々が示唆したような、民主化へと進んでいるのか?我々は、民主化についての文学から、現在利用可能な手がかりの山を観察し、自立政府の実際を再検証する。
観察者のほとんどが取り上げている、民主化の実用的な定義は手順としての要素を強調するばかりで、不完全であると提唱する。言い換えれば、この定義によって、分析者は内容を費やす形式を強調しすぎてしまう。代わりに、我々はSebastianに従い、民主化の2面を区別し、すなわち力と力の作用を取り上げることを提唱する。選挙の導入は実際、村の権力者が力を獲得する術に変化をもたらし始めたが、このことは必ずしも彼らの力の運用方法に変革をもたらしたわけではない。地方の民主主義を洗練された選挙にするには、地元勢力の輪郭の複雑さをめいっぱい縮小し、村の政府を今以上に小さくする必要がある。
Conyac で翻訳した結果
- 依頼文字数
- 2154文字
- 翻訳言語
- 英語 → 日本語
- 金額 (スタンダード依頼の場合)
- 4,846.5円
- 翻訳時間
- 約10時間
フリーランサー
eggplant
Starter