How does the shift from traditional to modern living conditions manifest itself in short answers?

(1) In terms of the meaning of democracy and the role of the "people" in a democracy, the democracy of "rule by the people" was transformed into the democracy of "rule by the elite".

In Ancient Greece, democracy, both conceptually and factually, was expressed in the form of "rule by the people as a whole", i.e., "self-government". In Athenian democracy, all the affairs of the city-state were decided by the citizens' assembly, and the government was no more than a kind of "amateur government" composed of non-professional officials. The fragmentation of the social structure and the increasing complexity of political affairs have forced modern man to revise this traditional conception of democracy. Schumpeter's theory of "Elitism democracy" and Dahl's theory of "Pluralism democracy" can be regarded as a manifestation of the modern conception of democracy that seeks to change. Theories of "Elitism democracy" and Dahl's "Pluralism democracy" can be seen as a manifestation of the modern conception of democracy seeking change. In their conception of modern democracy, "the democratic method is an institutional arrangement for arriving at a political decision in which certain individuals are given the power to make decisions by competing for the votes of the people". In other words, modern democracy is not "management" and "rule" by the people, but a way of ensuring that the affairs of society are effectively managed by "elite" figures (political leaders) who are more in tune with the wishes of the majority of the members of society. a way to ensure the effective management of social affairs by "elite" figures (political leaders) who are more in line with the will of the majority of the members of society. According to this conception, the difference between democracy and dictatorship is not between "majority rule" and "minority rule", but rather between a "minority" that is elected through electoral competition and subject to majority control; the role of the people is not so much a matter of "rule by the majority" or "rule by the minorities". The role of the people does not lie in managing social affairs and making political decisions themselves, but in influencing policy makers or political rulers through various forms of political participation, such as voting. Thus, the hallmark of democracy is the ability of citizens to peacefully appoint and dismiss their "bosses".

(ii) In terms of the scope of democracy, "limited" or "liberal" democracy replaces "unlimited" or "extreme" democracy. "extreme" democracy.

Democracy in ancient Greece was an "extreme democracy". The Athenians not only used voting and drawing lots to decide on army leaders and judges; they even used the same method to decide whether a person would live or die. The extremism of Athenian democracy was such that for more than 2,000 years it was denigrated as "mobocracy" or "mobocracy". The profound lesson for modern man from the practice of democracy in ancient Greece, and from some of the totalitarian politics that followed, is that in order to prevent democracy from degenerating into tyranny, it is not enough for citizens to enjoy the freedom to participate in collective activities on a broad scale, i.e., "political liberty," but that they must also be allowed to enjoy the freedom of full, non-interference in their personal lives, i.e., "civil liberties" or "civil liberties" or "civil rights. "civil liberties" or "negative liberties". On the basis of the above understanding, liberal theorists, such as Locke, Mill, Tocqueville, Popper and others, introduced the concept of "civil liberties" into the realm of democratic politics, articulated a theory of limited or liberal democracy, and fundamentally transformed the concept of democracy. According to the liberal conception of democracy, the democratic system is by far the best available, but not perfect; it must be accompanied by the necessary precautions; the greatest danger to democracy arises from the unlimited nature of public power, and in order to weaken this unlimited authority, it is necessary to set a clear and fixed limit to public power and provide a broad space for the development of private life; and it is necessary to provide a broad space for the development of private life. (a) To weaken this unlimited authority, it is necessary to establish a clear and fixed limit to public power and to provide a broad space for private life to develop. To this end, democracy must be confined to the "public sphere" to the extent that it does not infringe upon the freedom of private life, and it must be confined to the law as the norm of the public sphere to the extent that it does not give rise to the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Ancient democracy was a kind of "direct democracy", the realization of which required two basic conditions: firstly, the membership of the ****same body had to be small; secondly, the functions of the government had to be very simple, and the operation of the political process did not require specialized knowledge and training. Obviously, such conditions are no longer present in any modern state, which is far removed from the ancient Greek city-states in terms of geography, population and complexity of social affairs. The only acceptable amendment, then, is the introduction of "indirect democracy" or "representative democracy".

(4) As far as the foundation or precondition of democracy is concerned, the "spirit of tolerance" and the "independence of the individual" have become indispensable to democracy.

The ancient Greeks did not have the concept of "individual rights" or the spirit of tolerance, and their democracy tended to form a kind of "totalized society", which, in the event of opposition to an individual or to a certain Whenever a society loses interest and patience with the opposition of a certain individual or with a "discordant voice", it may impose punishment by means of social coercion. Enviable personalities are often banished by referendum to the point of capital punishment for thinking and behaving differently. In view of this, modern liberals, while vigorously advocating individualism, imported into the concept of democracy the traditional idea of equality and the spirit of tolerance of Christian culture and gave it institutional expression. According to this conception, there is no ultimate answer to social life; everyone has the right to express and insist on his own independent opinion on public affairs, but does not have the right to compel others to conform to his own opinion; in each other's independent opinions, as far as possible to seek unanimity, and to maintain the maximum tolerance; in accordance with the majority's opinion of the public affairs, at the same time, to give minorities a chance to become the majority. The embodiment of this concept in political practice is the modern party system consisting of the ruling party and the opposition party.