摘要： 面对西方民主衰退与政治极化的现状，我们需要重新思考自由民主社会的稳定性基础：究竟是“宪法共识”还是“重叠共识”更能有效应对“事实上的多元论”？肯定性论证表明，宪法共识不仅更具现实必要性，且已在相当程度上实现了“出于正当理由”的稳定，因而具有可欲性；否定性论证则揭示，重叠共识既缺乏现实必要性，也难以避免理论上的压制性后果，并不如其设想般可欲。通过对“合理公民”与“不合理公民”的分析可见，宪法共识能够在不排斥多元整全性学说的前提下，维护民主社会的基本团结与程序正义。在权宜之计与重叠共识之间，宪法共识作为一种兼具规范深度与现实可行性的“底线共识”，或更适宜作为当代自由民主社会稳定性基础的备选方案。

关键词: 事实上的多元论｜合理多元论｜宪法共识｜重叠共识｜底线共识

Abstract: Confronted with the current democratic recession and political polarization in the West, we need to rethink the basis of stability of liberal democratic societies: which can more effectively cope with “the fact of pluralism”? Constitutional consensus or overlapping consensus? The affirmative argument shows that constitutional consensus is not only more realistically necessary, but also achieved stability “for the right reasons” to a considerable extent, thus being desirable. The negative argument reveals that overlapping consensus lacks realistic necessity and can hardly avoid repressive consequences in theory, and is therefore not as desirable as imagined. Through the analysis of “reasonable citizens” and “unreasonable citizens”, it can be seen that constitutional consensus can maintain the basic solidarity and procedural justice of a democratic society without excluding diverse comprehensive doctrines. Between modus vivendi and overlapping consensus, constitutional consensus, as a “bottom-line consensus” that combines normative depth and realistic feasibility, may be more suitable as an alternative for the basis of stability of contemporary liberal democratic societies.

Key words: the fact of pluralism｜ reasonable pluralism｜ constitutional consensus｜ overlapping consensus｜ bottom-line consensus