Sablin Ivan
Department of History, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Parliam Estates Represent. 2019 May 10;40(1):78-96. doi: 10.1080/02606755.2019.1615672. eCollection 2020.
Drawing from (self-published) and (foreign-published) materials, this article traces the understandings of parliaments and parliamentarism in individual works by Soviet dissidents and reconstructs the authors' underlying assumptions in the application of the two ideas. It focuses on the articulations and the implications of four concepts pertaining to parliamentarism - deliberation, representation, responsibility, and sovereignty - in the dissidents' criticisms of Soviet 'parliamentarism' and their own parliamentary designs. Despite the consensus that the USSR Supreme Soviet was both a façade and pseudo parliament and the frequent appeals to popular sovereignty, only a handful of authors discussed parliamentarism as the latter's manifestation before the Perestroika. With very few dissidents placing deliberation at the centre of a post-Soviet order, the conviction that social and political systems should be based on an 'ultimate truth' and respective societal blueprints dominated the dissident discourse in which a parliament, if mentioned at all, was a rostrum rather than a forum.
本文取材于（自行出版的）和（国外出版的）资料，追溯了苏联持不同政见者个人作品中对议会和议会制的理解，并重构了作者在运用这两种理念时的潜在假设。它聚焦于与议会制相关的四个概念——审议、代表、责任和主权——在持不同政见者对苏联“议会制”的批评以及他们自己的议会设计中的阐述和影响。尽管人们一致认为苏联最高苏维埃既是门面又是伪议会，且经常呼吁人民主权，但在改革前，只有少数作者将议会制视为人民主权的体现。由于几乎没有持不同政见者将审议置于后苏联秩序的核心，认为社会和政治制度应基于“终极真理”和各自社会蓝图的信念主导了持不同政见者的话语，在这种话语中，议会（如果提及的话）是一个讲台而非论坛。
