作者：祝正明

(二)民主政治的任务

         任何社会,要使社会生活有序化,一个重要方法就是实行法制。但是,法制社会并不等于就是民主社会,一个治理得很好的、有条不紊的社会有可能是一个完全没有人权的专制社会,其法律被作为统治者手中的一个工具,仅用于约束百姓的行为。政府官员自己制定法律,可以将政府官僚自己所有行为合法化,当统治者侵犯百姓的利益时,百姓将无处告诉,无处伸冤。因此, 只有使法律凌驾于政府之上,对政府也有约束力,才能真正有效保障百姓的利益。民主政治的任务就是建立起对政府有约束力的法律制度,当政府行为与民间利益发生冲突时,由完全独立的、 有民意代表性的第三方担任裁判者,只有这样,才能防止政府官员滥用职权,保证审判的公正性,公平合理地解决政府与百姓之间的冲突。这一法律体系能否建立,取决于全体公民是否有充分的主权在民意识,是否有充分的政治参与热情和社会正义感,公民自身的这三项素质是这一法律体系存在的支柱。

         民主法制的原则就是政府各部门的行为必须有法律依据。 在一个健全的民主国家,如果警察要逮捕公民或进行征税,他必须能证明其行为有法律依据,而不是根据他自己的意志,并能经得起独立法庭的验证。如果政府官员要扩充自己的权力,必须有立法机关的授权。 依法治理的原理在于如果一个公民受到政府的不良影响, 他应该有能力直接就行政部门行为的合法性向法院提出质疑,而不是仅限于向该部门提出抱怨。法庭必须能独立于被控告的行政机关而存在,人员、经费不受行政机关的控制,能自主决定司法行动,能够裁决,宣布行政机关的行为不公正、无效并要求其赔偿损失。任何人在法律面前一律平等,如果超越职权行事,国家首脑与普通警察一样,都要在法庭面前接受审判。

 (三)民主政体的优点

        进入本世纪以来,民主政治在全世界各国迅速普及,并以空前的速度带动了经济、文化、科技的发展,给全人类带来了幸福繁荣。概括起来,民主政体有以下几项优越性:

 

一、使国家的政治权力返回到广大民众手中,消除了国家重大政治、经济问题由个别人决策所产生的任意性,确保了国家政策能代表大多数人的利益或全社会的总体利益,避免了个别人的决策失误给全社会造成的危害。政府的职责是按照大多数人的意志为社会提供大多数人所共同需要的公共服务,而不是由政府官员去指挥命令公众按他们的意志办事。

          法律是大多数人意志的结晶,公正的立法程序能够确保法律在民众心目中的威严和地位,约束了政府官员的行为,使政府官员丧失了特权,保证了在法律面前人人平等的原则得到贯彻执行。

         1984年,美国政坛上一件不为人注意的小细节很能说明民主政治的实质问题。当时,美国总统里根担任总统已四年,是下一个四年任期连任的候选人,在里根总统和他的对手蒙代尔之间进行了一场全国性的电视辩论。辩论的规则要求,每个候选人只能在限定的时间内发言。当里根在未意识到他的时间已经用完的情况下继续发言时,讲话被一位负责协调的女士打断,她告诉他, 他已用完了所分配给他的时间,于是,里根总统只得中断了自己的发言。在专制国家,这种现象,即国家元首在对全国范围的电视观众讲话时可以被打断,并被告知不能把他的话讲完,而必须终止,几乎绝对不可能发生。然而,在民主化社会,这被认为是一件正常而合理的事被人们所接受,甚至不会引起更多的议论。 每个人都假定并期望总统能象他的对手那样遵守同样的规则,与其他人处于平等的地位。如果总统在民众面前违犯了人们的这种期望,他会发现他在政治上将遇到麻烦。

   

二、社会的法治化和公正性,增加了公民的社会责任感, 由于建立了常备有效的监督约束机制,减少了政府官员中广泛存在的贪污腐败现象,排除了不称职的领导人出现的可能,促进了社会公德的良性发展。

    公民的选票不会把一些既无才又无德的人抬上领导岗位。 人们靠运气指望能有包公为自己作主的现象成为过去,社会时刻都能有自己信得过的人在为自己服务,消除了少数人的社会寄生现象,使政府官员必须勤奋努力地为大众工作才能保住自己的饭碗。

   

   在政治民主化社会,人们意识到政治问题与自己的利益密切相关,意识到可以通过自己的努力去影响法律政策,人们对政治的关心与参与就会有很高的热情。国家在民众心目中占据着显耀的位置,从乡村到城市,居民关心社会的每一项事物就象关心自己的利益一样,人们以国家的光荣为荣,相信自己对国家的成就会有所贡献,感到自己随国家的兴旺而富裕,并为从全国性的繁荣中获得好处而自慰。他们对国家的感情与对自己家庭的感情类似,有一种自私的心理促使他们去关心国家。

   

三、政府只是一个全社会性的服务机构,拥有权力的人并不能将权力换变成自己的财富,而且使用这种权力受到种种限制,任何人都不能再企求在政府中任职可以获得除薪水以外的收入,官场将不再是人们竭尽全力去奋斗的人生唯一目标。

       社会的自由与平等使人的个性与创造性在工商业与科技领域得到充分施展,使每个对社会有所贡献的人都能过上富裕的日子。繁荣了社会的经济建设,促进了科技的发展。当政治运作法制化,权力的使用规范化以后,政府官员为争权夺利而消耗国力, 严重影响民众生活的现象将会消失,政府处理的大部分事务将都是与经济有关的问题。民主政体是大多数人决策的政体,任何一个社会,最富裕与最贫困的人都是社会的少数,绝大多数人是能过得上体面生活的中等收入者,因此,民主政体可以认为是一个由中等收入者控制的政体。由社会的富裕者控制的政体往往安于现状,而由社会的贫困者控制的政体则可能会作出不近乎人情的决策。中等收入者中的一部分人,可能成为富裕阶级,也可能成为贫困者,他们能更好地使法律政策兼顾各方面的利益。当然, 民主政体也会颁布许多更有利于中等收入者的法律,对此,富裕阶级尽管认为不平等,也无能为力。因此,在私有经济社会,许多富有者并不欣赏民主,他们认为民主决策效率低,易产生混乱, 时常会制定不近乎人情的法律,如向他们者征收高额税款等,如果由他们这样的少数精英分子来管理社会,他们卓越的才干可以把社会管理得更好,其中部分人甚至倾向于专制统治,具有拥护专制统治的潜意识。

       民主社会的一种倾向是,当人们在工商业界有了充分施展才能的机会后,人们就不再将官位看得非常重要。在今天的民主国家,富有阶级很少参加政治活动,他们无法在公共生活中占有他们在私人生活中占有的那种地位,所以便离开官场,埋头从事工商经营。因此,民主政体应注意的是,不应使重要政府官员的薪水过低,以免吸引不到优秀的人才。

       在一个国家的民主政体建立初期,各种思想理论和思维方式将层出不穷,国家的权力将经常易手,人事、法律和政治架构将处于飘忽不定状态,而且未必为时甚短。自由与专制不同,它通常诞生于暴风骤雨之中,甚至在内乱的痛苦中长大,只有在它已经长大成熟的时候,人们才能认识到它的好处。爱动和喜变是民主制度的本性,正如停滞和昏睡是专制君主制度的特征一样。

        在民主体制下,社会政治权力的渊源在社会的最基层,即权力来自于广大的民众,民众是权力的主人,政治决策是以民为主,政府只是民意的代理执行者。在君主专制体制下,政治权力的渊源在社会的最上层,君主是所有权力的主人,政治决策以君为主,政府是君主意志的执行者。这是民主政治和专制政治两种制度政治权力的本质区别, 如图6.1所示。

编辑：黄吉洲    校对：程筱筱 翻译：沈美花

Political Democracy — Chapter 6, Sections 2–3

Author: Zhu Zhengming

(2) The Task of Democratic Politics

In any society, to bring order to social life, an important method is to implement a legal system. However, a society governed by a legal system is not necessarily a democratic society. A well-managed, orderly society may very well be a completely totalitarian society devoid of human rights, in which the law is reduced to a tool in the hands of rulers used solely to constrain the conduct of the common people. When government officials draft laws themselves, they can legitimize all of their own bureaucratic actions; when rulers infringe upon the interests of the common people, the people have nowhere to report their grievances and nowhere to seek redress. Therefore, only by placing the law above the government and making it binding upon the government can the interests of the common people be truly and effectively safeguarded. The task of democratic politics is precisely to establish a legal system that exerts binding force over the government, so that when governmental actions conflict with civilian interests, a completely independent third party representing the public will serves as the arbitrator. Only in this way can government officials be prevented from abusing their authority, the fairness of trials be ensured, and conflicts between the government and the common people be resolved equitably and reasonably. Whether this legal system can be established depends on whether all citizens possess a full awareness of popular sovereignty (zhǔquán zài mín), sufficient enthusiasm for political participation, and a strong sense of social justice. These three qualities of the citizenry themselves constitute the pillars sustaining this legal system.

The core principle of democratic rule of law is that every action taken by any government department must have a legal basis. In a healthy democratic nation, if a police officer wishes to arrest a citizen or levy taxes, he must be able to prove that his action has a legal foundation—rather than acting according to his own personal will—and it must be able to withstand verification by an independent court of law. If government officials wish to expand their powers, they must receive authorization from the legislature. The principle of governance according to law lies in the fact that if a citizen suffers an adverse impact from the government, he or she should have the capacity to directly challenge the legality of the executive department’s conduct before a court, rather than being limited to merely filing a complaint with that same department. The court must be able to exist independently of the executive body being accused; its personnel and funding must not be controlled by executive agencies; and it must be capable of autonomously deciding judicial actions, rendering verdicts, declaring the executive agency’s acts unfair or invalid, and ordering compensation for damages. Everyone is equal before the law; if acting beyond their authority, a head of state, just like an ordinary police officer, must stand trial before a court of law.

(3) Advantages of the Democratic System

Since entering this century, democratic politics has spread rapidly across nations worldwide, driving economic, cultural, scientific, and technological development at an unprecedented pace, bringing prosperity and well-being to all humanity. Summarized, the democratic system possesses the following advantages:

1. Returning Political Power to the Public

It returns the political power of the nation to the hands of the broad masses of the people, eliminating the arbitrariness that results when major national political and economic decisions are made by isolated individuals. It ensures that national policies represent the interests of the majority or the overall interests of the entire society, thereby avoiding the harm inflicted upon the whole society by individual decision-making errors. The duty of a government is to provide the public services jointly needed by the majority in accordance with the will of the majority, rather than having government officials command and order the public to act according to their personal wills.

The law is the crystallization of the majority’s will. A fair legislative process can ensure the majesty and authority of the law in the minds of the populace, restrain the conduct of government officials, strip government officials of special privileges, and ensure that the principle of equality before the law is thoroughly carried out.

In 1984, a minor, overlooked detail on the American political stage served as a very clear illustration of the essence of democratic politics. At the time, U.S. President Reagan had served four years as president and was running for re-election for the next four-year term. A nationwide televised debate took place between President Reagan and his opponent, Mondale. The debate rules mandated that each candidate could speak only within a strictly limited time. When Reagan, unaware that his time had expired, continued speaking, he was interrupted by a woman serving as the moderator, who informed him that he had used up his allotted time. Consequently, President Reagan had no choice but to stop speaking. In a totalitarian country, such a phenomenon—where a head of state delivering a speech to a nationwide television audience is interrupted and told he cannot finish his remarks, but must instead stop—would be virtually impossible to occur. Yet, in a democratized society, this was accepted by the public as a normal and reasonable occurrence, without even sparking much discussion. Everyone assumed and expected that the President should abide by the exact same rules as his opponent, standing on equal footing with everyone else. Had the President violated this public expectation, he would have found himself in political trouble.

2. Enhancing Social Responsibility and Eliminating Corruption

The rule of law and fairness within society increase citizens’ sense of social responsibility. Because a standing, effective mechanism of supervision and restraint is established, widespread corruption among government officials is reduced, the emergence of incompetent leaders is precluded, and the sound development of public morality is fostered.

The votes of citizens will not elevate individuals devoid of both talent and virtue into leadership positions. The phenomenon where people rely on luck and hope for a “Lord Bao” (Bao Gong, an idealized righteous official) to make decisions on their behalf becomes a thing of the past. Society has people it trusts serving it at all times, eliminating social parasitism by a minority and requiring government officials to work diligently and conscientiously for the public in order to keep their jobs.

In a politically democratized society, people realize that political matters are closely bound up with their own interests, and they recognize that they can influence laws and policies through their own efforts. Consequently, people display high enthusiasm and concern for political participation. The nation occupies a prominent place in the hearts of the populace: from rural villages to cities, residents care for every civic affair just as they care for their personal interests. People take pride in the nation’s glory, believe they can contribute to the nation’s achievements, feel themselves growing prosperous alongside the nation’s rise, and derive comfort from benefiting from national prosperity. Their feelings toward the nation resemble their feelings toward their own families, driven by an enlightened self-interest that compels them to care for the country.

3. Transforming the Nature of Government and Encouraging Innovation

The government becomes merely a society-wide service institution. Those holding power cannot convert power into personal wealth, and the exercise of such power is subject to various restrictions. No one can expect to obtain income beyond their official salary by holding a government position, and the political bureaucracy will no longer be the sole life goal for which people exhaust their energies to strive.

The freedom and equality of society allow individual personality and creativity to be fully displayed in the fields of commerce, technology, and science, enabling everyone who contributes to society to lead a affluent life. This prospers the social economy and accelerates scientific and technological progress. When political operations are governed by law and the use of power is standardized, the phenomenon of government officials consuming national strength through power struggles—severely disrupting public life—will disappear, and the vast majority of matters handled by the government will be economic issues.

A democratic system is one governed by majority decision-making. In any society, the wealthiest and poorest individuals constitute minorities, while the overwhelming majority consists of middle-income earners capable of leading a decent life. Therefore, a democratic regime can be viewed as a regime controlled by middle-income earners. A regime controlled by the wealthy often settles for the status quo, whereas a regime controlled by the poor may make harsh, unfeeling decisions. Middle-income earners—some of whom may ascend into the wealthy class or fall into poverty—are better equipped to ensure that laws and policies balance the interests of all sides. Of course, a democratic regime will also enact many laws that are more favorable to middle-income earners; against this, the wealthy class, though they may consider it unequal, can do nothing. Therefore, in a private-property economy, many wealthy people do not appreciate democracy. They believe democratic decision-making is inefficient, prone to chaos, and frequently formulates unfeeling laws—such as levying high taxes on them. They feel that if society were managed by elite minorities like themselves, their superior talents could manage society much better; some among them even incline toward totalitarian rule, harboring a subconscious affinity for autocratic governance.

In a democratic society, a tendency emerges: once people have full opportunities to display their talents in commerce and industry, they no longer view government posts as paramount. In today’s democratic countries, the wealthy class rarely participates directly in politics; since they cannot occupy the same elevated status in public life as they do in their private lives, they leave the political arena and immerse themselves in business operations. Therefore, democratic regimes must take care not to set the salaries of key government officials too low, lest they fail to attract outstanding talent.

In the initial stages of establishing a democratic regime in a country, various schools of thought and modes of thinking will emerge in endless streams; national power will frequently change hands; and personnel, legal, and political structures will remain in a fluid, uncertain state—a period that may not necessarily be short. Freedom differs from despotism: it is typically born amid violent storms, and even grows up amidst the pains of civil strife. Only when it has grown to maturity can people truly appreciate its benefits. A love of dynamism and change is the inherent nature of a democratic system, just as stagnation and torpor are the defining traits of an autocratic monarchical system.

Under a democratic system, the source of social and political power resides at the grassroots level of society—that is, power originates from the broad masses of the people. The people are the masters of power, political decisions are centered on the people’s will (yǐ mín wéi zhǔ), and the government is merely the executing agent of the public will. Under an autocratic monarchical system, the source of political power resides at the apex of society: the monarch is the master of all power, political decisions are centered on the monarch’s will (yǐ jūn wéi zhǔ), and the government is the executor of the monarch’s will. This is the fundamental structural distinction between democratic politics and autocratic politics in terms of political power, as illustrated in Figure 6.1.

Editor: Huang Jizhou

Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao

Translator: Shen Meihua