Reciprocity, the two‐sided social norm of fairness that involves a duty to return favors, as well as the permission to return injuries, is widely recognized as a fundamental norm “not only for primitive but for all societies.”11 Gouldner 1960, p. 162. Similarly, “[r]eciprocity is widely recognized as a core principle of democracy.”22 Gutmann and Thompson 2004, p. 98. Modern democracy is a system of conflict resolution that rests on reciprocal restraints: norm compliance by all actors is mutual and contingent on compliance by others. The animating spirit of democratic norms is neither sacrifice nor exploitation, but reciprocity. Good democrats are neither suckers nor scoundrels, but fair fighters.

Despite the apparent consensus on the fundamental relevance of democratic reciprocity, the normative demands it entails have remained opaque, particularly its normative demands in the face of potential or actual transgressions of democratic norms. Normative theories of democracy tend to conceive democracy as a system of mutual cooperation which is sustained by norms of mutual cooperation (“positive reciprocity”). Empirical theories of democracy tend to conceive democracy as a system of mutual cooperation which is endangered by norms of mutual retaliation (“negative reciprocity”). With the exception of debates on militant democracy and civil disobedience, normative theorists have thought little about the demands of reciprocity in situations of “partial compliance,” where adherence to democratic norms is problematic. Empirical scholars, by contrast, have assumed these demands to be absolute. If one actor breaks the rules, they have observed, others follow suit and reciprocate normative breaches in the name of justice and self‐protection. They initiate spirals of retaliation that put democratic equilibria at risk. Partial compliance opens the door to democratic breakdown.

The cooperative demands of reciprocity are straightforward in ideal situations of universal compliance; they direct all citizens to do their “fair share” and cooperate with everybody else who is doing the same. By contrast, in a world where adherence to democratic norms is problematic, the normative demands of reciprocity likewise become problematic. They enter into tension with the demands of democratic preservation. The notion of “democracy‐preserving reciprocity” which I introduce in this article recognizes this normative tension and proposes to resolve it through a balancing act that accepts the normative force of “negative reciprocity,” yet subordinates it to the imperatives of democratic preservation.

Democratic reciprocity thus understood is not a simple normative principle. To prevent the unraveling of democratic cooperation in vicious circles of mutual punishment, it does not permit symmetrical moves of “tit for tat,” direct retaliation in the biblical sense of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” In the service of democracy preservation, it is instead a complex principle that asks for the self‐restrained and self‐reflexive balancing of “conflicting imperatives.”33 Gould 1999. It responds to the competitive, as well as to the cooperative, demands of democracy. Accepting the logic of political self‐preservation, it permits actors to protect their competitive capacities. Yet, imposing the primacy of regime preservation, it compels them to protect the cooperative foundations of democracy. After outlining the animating logic of democratic reciprocity, I will lay out its self‐limiting demands in two contrasting contexts: democratic normality and democratic subversion.

互惠，这是一种涉及到回馈义务和允许伤害返还的公平的两面社会规范，被广泛认为是“不仅对于原始社会而且对于所有社会”的基本准则。1 Gouldner，1960年，第2页。162。 同样，“ [r]互惠被广泛认为是民主的核心原则。” 22 Gutmann和Thompson，2004，p。98。现代民主是一种基于相互限制的解决冲突的制度：所有行为者的规范遵守是相互的，并取决于其他人的遵守。民主规范的生气勃勃的精神既不是牺牲也不是剥削，而是互惠互利。好的民主主义者既不是傻瓜也不是坏蛋，而是公平的战士。

尽管就民主互惠的根本意义达成了明显的共识，但它所带来的规范要求仍然是不透明的，特别是在面对潜在或实际违反民主规范的情况下其规范要求。民主的规范理论倾向于将民主视为相互合作的制度，这种制度由相互合作的规范（“积极互惠”）维持。经验主义的民主理论倾向于将民主视为相互合作的制度，这种制度受到相互报复的规范（“负互惠”）的威胁。除了关于好战民主和公民抗命的辩论外，规范理论家对“部分遵守”情况下的互惠要求几乎没有考虑，在这种情况下，遵守民主规范存在问题。相比之下，经验学者 认为这些要求是绝对的。他们观察到，如果一个行为者违反了规则，则其他行为者会以司法和自我保护的名义效仿并回应规范性的违反行为。它们引发了报复漩涡，使民主均衡处于危险之中。部分合规为民主崩溃打开了大门。

在普遍遵守的理想情况下，互惠的合作要求是直截了当的；他们指示所有公民尽其“公平的份额”，并与其他所有这样做的人合作。相比之下，在一个遵守民主规范的世界中，互惠性的规范要求同样也成为一个问题。他们因维持民主的要求而陷入紧张状态。我在本文中介绍的“保持民主互惠”的概念认识到了这种规范张力，并建议通过一种平衡行动来解决这一紧张局势，这种平衡行为接受“负互惠”的规范力量，但将其服从于民主维护的必要性。

这样理解的民主互惠并不是一个简单的规范原则。为了防止在相互惩罚的恶性循环中破坏民主合作，它不允许“以牙还牙”的对​​称举动，即在圣经中“以眼还眼，以牙还牙”的直接报复行动。为了维护民主，相反，这是一个复杂的原则，要求对“冲突的命令”进行自我约束和自我反思。33古尔德1999年。它回应了民主的竞争和合作要求。接受政治自我保护的逻辑，它允许参与者保护自己的竞争能力。然而，强加政权维护是最主要的条件，它迫使他们保护民主的合作基础。在概述了民主互惠的生气蓬勃的逻辑之后，我将在两个相反的背景下提出其自我限制的要求：民主常态和民主颠覆。