公民投票的民主困境及其界限规范探析

发布时间：2018-07-16 19:52

【摘要】：从古典到现代,民主政治最突出的表征之一就是“投票决”。近现代以来,投票作为一种决策方式在理论和实践层面上均已得到普遍认可,它使得抽象的“民主”价值理念,通过在现实中的具象化运作被体认和感知,使“民主”成为一种看得见摸得着的东西。但同样不容忽视的一个事实是,在现代相对成熟的民主国家,投票,特别是公民投票,作为一种“民主”,并不是也不应该是要应用于所有决策中的。无边界、无规制的公民投票决赋予了公民绝对的权力,强化了公民的绝对意志,以至于公民投票本身便足以成为其民主政治的代名词,并同时成为了一切民主乱象——多数暴政和不良决策——的主要肇事方和事故责任人。此时,公民投票作为一种民主反而使民主政治本身陷入困境,难以自拔。本文认为对于公民投票决的放纵和滥用,是古典时代雅典以后“民主”长期被西方作为一种不良政体看待的重要原因。因此,现代代议制间接民主整体上作为一种对古典直接民主模式的批判性修正和戒备性防御,从而对于公民投票这种类直接民主决策方式的使用也是甚为谨慎。从实践上看,首先,现代民主政治决策中并不是所有的事情都要诉诸投票方式解决；其次,有限的投票决定也更多地交由代议机构代理,或由代议制政府主导；最后,从现代公民投票的程序设计中我们可以鲜明地看到公民投票的发生和行使是严格受制于现代代议政治及其背后的宪政机制规范的。也即,现代公民投票决只是一种在宪政民主驯化下的类直接民主方式,居于附属性地位,是种辅助性的治理工具。由此,现代公民投票本身已不足以构成对现代民主政治威胁,而现代公民投票也不再是置民主政治于险境和困境的主要肇事方和事故责任人。现代民主政治和现代公民投票决对“多数决”的价值认知,仅限于将其视作是种有限的却又是必要的决策原则层面,而不认为它同时也应该上升为一种多数统治的实际政治社会生态,否则这既是种历史的无知——无视于古今之别,也是种历史的倒退——颠覆现代民主政治大厦,回归古典时代的城邦式民主。至于说现代公民投票为其民主政治带来了新的民主困境,即“政治冷漠”,这也是个似是而非的问题。简要地讲,与其说政治冷漠是现代民主政治发展中的问题,不如说它是现代民主政治的题中之义。虽然现代公民投票已经不再能像古典民主时期一样为其民主政治本身代言,但现代公民投票却在制度层面反映着一个国家的民主政治发展水平,彰显着其代议制政府的治理能力及其宪政机制的完备程度,凸显着一个国家的宪政公信力。本文通过对现代国家公民投票实践状况的分析,认为公民投票制度是一个国家代议制水平和宪政完备程度的重要缩影。现代公民投票的真假虚实和效用高低,很大程度上并不取决于-国或一地的公民能力,而是取自于一个国家的代议体制和宪政机制安排。在当代民主政治中,若是因为公民投票引发了动荡和不安,问题的症结其实从大革命开始就不出在“人”身上,而是出在“制度上”。虽然制度和人是必不可分的,但这仅仅是指,必须使人活在尊重人的制度中。卢梭曾言“人生来自由却无往不在枷锁中”,虽然卢梭的本意是要呼吁人们打破、挣脱出“枷锁”,只是法国大革命的悲剧却无情地证明了这些“枷锁”的必要性。所以问题从来都不是挣脱“枷锁”,而是使这层层种种的“枷锁”合理正当——相对于人性和人类发展而言。公民投票是种民主,但却未必带来真正的民主,更无法保障民主。何况,民主自身也并非完美和万能,民主的强势多是因为它凭借着大多数人的意志,但人多势众与合情合理却并不能不加审视的等同,可以说,在任何时候二者都不能被无条件地加以等同。不论是直接反映人民意志的公民投票决,还是间接代理人民意志的代议机构的投票决,作为一种“意志性”力量,投票决具备的天然攻击性都使它在与法律较量中处于强势地位,以至于在今天世界上的许多地方,民主似乎在繁荣,而自由主义的宪政却未见乐观。所以,在宪政意义上探讨民主政治中的公民投票边界和价值规范问题,具有应然性,应当成为一种实然上的构建。正确理解投票决(特别是公民投票决)的功能与局限,并对其运行规则形成共识,是健全的现代民主政治的前提。同时,也只有在代议民主政治的宪政体系下,才能更好地维护和保障公民投票决背后所代表的合理性价值预设。只有可靠的代议民主政治和健全的宪政体系安排,才是公民投票最初获得法定认可和此后赖以为继的根本保障。在现代公民投票实践相对较为活跃的国家,其背后往往拥有着可靠的宪政支撑。
[Abstract]:From classical to modern, one of the most prominent characterizations of democratic politics is "vote decision". Since modern times, voting as a way of decision-making has been universally recognized in both theory and practice. It makes the abstract "democratic" value concept be recognized and perceived through representational operation in reality and make "democracy" become one. But the same thing that can not be ignored is that in modern and relatively mature democracies, voting, especially the referendum, as a "democracy", is not supposed to be applied to all decisions. No border, unregulated public vote endows citizens with absolute power and strengthens the public. The absolute will of the people is that the referendum itself is enough to be the pronoun of its democratic politics, and at the same time it has become the main cause of all the Democratic chaos - the major offences of most tyranny and bad decision - and the responsible person of the accident. At this time, the referendum, as a democracy, has made democracy itself in trouble and difficult to extricate itself. It is believed that the indulgence and abuse of referendum is an important reason for the "democracy" that has long been treated by the West as a bad regime in the classical era of Athens. Therefore, the modern representative system of indirect democracy is a critical amendment and defensive defense of the classical direct democratic model as a whole, thus the kind of referendum. The use of direct democratic decision-making is also very cautious. In practice, in the first place, not all things in modern democratic political decision-making should be resolved by voting; secondly, limited voting decisions are made more by representative agency or by representative government; finally, the process of modern referendum is designed. We can clearly see that the occurrence and exercise of the referendum is strictly controlled by the modern representative politics and the constitutional mechanism behind it. That is, the modern referendum is only a kind of direct democratic way under the Democratic domestication of the constitutionalism, and it is an auxiliary governance tool. The ticket itself is not enough to pose a threat to modern democracy, and the modern referendum is no longer the main cause of the peril and the plight of the democratic politics and the person responsible for the accident. The value of modern democracy and modern referendum to the "majority" is limited to a limited but necessary decision. On the other hand, it is not considered at the same time as a political and social ecology which is dominated by the majority of the political society. Otherwise, it is not only a historical ignorance but also the retrogression of the modern democratic politics and the city state democracy of the classical times. As for the modern referendum, it is its democratic politics. The new democratic dilemma, "political apathy," is a paradoxical question. In brief, political apathy is a problem in the development of modern democracy, rather than the meaning of modern democracy. Although modern referendum is no longer as democratic as it is in classical democracy itself. However, the modern referendum reflects the level of the democratic political development of a country on the system level, highlights the governance capacity of the representative government and the complete degree of its constitutional mechanism, and highlights the constitutional credibility of a country. This article, through the analysis of the practice of voting for citizens in the modern state, believes that the system of referendum is the same. An important epitome of the level of representative system and the degree of constitutionalism in a country. The true and false of the modern referendum, to a large extent, does not depend on the citizenship of the country or the one place, but from the representative system and the constitutional mechanism of a country. In contemporary democracy, if the referendum has triggered a movement The crux of the problem is that the crux of the problem is not a "man" but a "system" since the revolution. Although the system and man must be inseparable, it only means that people must live in the system of respecting people. Rousseau once said that "life comes from nothing in shackles", although Rousseau's intention is to appeal to people. They broke and earned the "shackles", but the tragedy of the French Revolution was inexorably proof of the necessity of these "shackles". So the problem was never free from "shackles", but a reasonable justification for the "shackles" all over the world. The referendum is a democracy but not necessarily brought about by the human and human development. True democracy is more unable to guarantee democracy. Besides, democracy itself is not perfect and omnipotent. Democracy is strong because it relies on the will of most people, but it is equal to the reasonable but not unconditional. It can be said, at any time, that the two cannot be equated unconditionally. The referendum of the people's will, or the vote of the representative agency that indirectly acts on the will of the people, as a "willpower" force, the natural aggressiveness of the vote has made it in a strong position with the legal contest, so that in many parts of the world, democracy seems to be flourishing, and the liberalist constitutionalism is not. It is optimistic. Therefore, to discuss the question of the referendum boundary and the value standard in the democratic politics, it should be a realistic construction. It is necessary to understand the functions and limitations of the voting decision (especially the referendum), and form a common understanding of the rules of its operation, and the premise of a sound modern democratic politics. Only under the constitutional system of democratic politics can it be better to maintain and guarantee the presupposition of rational value behind the referendum. Only a reliable representative democratic politics and a sound constitutional system arrangement are the fundamental guarantee that the referendum was initially approved by the referendum and after that. Countries with relatively active practice often have reliable constitutional support behind them.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D082

【相似文献】