【作者】 周建明；

【导师】 张桂琳；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 政治学理论， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 近代以来,得益于“民主”与“代表”的结合,先前被冠之于“乌合之众、贱民与暴民统治”之名的民主一跃成为现代政治生活中占据主导地位的制度模式与实践形式。然而,由于代表的“居间”属性,人民与其代表之间又很容易产生“脱节”与“错位”,进而背离民主的基本原则。要想成功运作代议制民主体制,无疑需要对民主条件下的代表理论进行全面和科学的勘察与把握。基于卢梭与密尔在现代民主理论与代表理论中的重要地位、以及二人对“民主”与“代表”关系截然不同的判断,以现代民主为理论背景,对卢梭与密尔的代表理论进行深入、系统的比较研究,对于准确理解和把握民主条件下的代表理论大有裨益。“代表”与“民主”在历史渊源上并无关联,代表制度起初也是作为民主制度的对立面而存在,因此,对于民主的代表理论的探究,首先应该探究代表在现代民主过程中的存在价值。基于对“公意不可以被代表”的理论认知、以及对“公民大会在防止行政权力滥用方面更为有效”的现实判断,卢梭起初只接受行政意义上的“委任”代表,而对立法意义上的代表持完全否定的态度。然而,由于在日内瓦的不幸遭遇,卢梭意识到公民大会其实并不能够有效防止行政权力的滥用,同时,针对科西嘉、波兰等规模庞大的国家,直接的公民大会也并不现实,因此卢梭晚年倾向于有条件地接受代表制度,即为了公意的执行“便利”,可以实行公意“宰制”下的“委任”代表制度。密尔对于代表制度的接受则是全方位的。密尔眼中的代表是利益的代表,个人利益与社会公共利益之间的连接离不开代表的“居间”能动作用;同时,依靠具有卓越知识与道德的代表的“示范”与“领导”,普通公民也可以借此提升自身的政治才能与公共德性,进而促进整个社会的全面进步。密尔认为代议制民主也有可能导致政治统治的“智力平庸”与“阶级立法”,然而,这些其实是民主本身的固有弊病,并非代表制度的过错,通过完善代表制度,反而可以有效地克服上述弊端。尽管卢梭与密尔总体上都接受了代表制度,但在代表存在价值判断上却大相径庭。卢梭认为代表制度只是基于现实需要不得不为之的“必要的恶”,代表依然有可能僭越公意,需要最大限度地剥夺或削减代表与代表机构的职权、地位和作用。密尔则认为代表制度是现代民主的理想形式,必须实行之,即便其存在弊病,也可以通过调整与完善代表制度予以克服,与卢梭相反,密尔始终倾向于强化代表与代表机构的地位与作用。“民主”与“代表”的结合本质上是民主制与代表制的结合,不同的代表理论往往会使民主制度呈现出迥然相异的制度取向。卢梭视代表制度为民主过程中的“必要的恶”,为了防止其僭越公意,在民主制度的排布上,卢梭总是尽可能地使具有“间接政治”属性的代表制度能够最大限度地体现“直接政治”的民主原则:选举产生的只是人民主权者的“办事员”,承担立法职能的代议机构只能在地方公民大会的有关决议的基础上确认法律,行政机构也只是在公意之外享有独立性和自由裁量权。密尔则认为代议制民主是“理想上最好”的制度模式,原因也就在于代表制度本身所固有的“间接”属性,间接原则是密尔贯穿始终的一个基本制度取向:选举产生的是享有充分自由裁量权的“独立”代表,承担立法职能的代议机构则是以“商谈”方式具体行使国家事务之最终控制权,行政机构则在其业务范围内同样享有充分的独立性。卢梭与密尔都意识到选举在产生代表方面的优越之处,也都认识到清晰划分立法权力与行政权力的必要性,然而二者却采取了截然相反的制度取向,卢梭希望能够最大限度地削弱代表的“中间性”,使其能更为直接和准确地反映人民的意志,密尔则选择通过强化和完善代表的“中间性”来强化人民对于政府的控制程度与“品质”。研究代表理论最终还须归结到代表的行为方式上,尽管对于代表存在价值与代表制度取向的认知会对代表行为产生深刻的影响,但直接决定代表行为方式的则是对于被代表者、代表者以及二者互动方式的不同定位与判断。卢梭视人民为具有生命与意志的道德集合体,是一切政治权威合法性的来源,人民的代表只不过是人民主权者的“代理人”与“办事员”,是公意的“传达者”与“执行者”,在二者互动过程中被代表者一方理应占据主导地位,因此其明显倾向于“委任”代表说;密尔则认为人民是一个个人本位、政治权利“普遍但分等级”、多元的社会集合体,人民的代表则是负责表达选民利益诉求、整合与“凝炼”社会公共利益、引领社会知识与道德风尚的社会中坚,在二者互动过程中代表者一方应居于主导地位,因此其认同于“独立”代表说。卢梭与密尔都将被代表者认定为人民,都认为代表的独立性不应脱离人民的控制,也都认为普遍、积极的公民参与对于维系代表与被代表者的良性互动不可或缺。不过,二者之间的区别也是显而易见:卢梭的人民是一个以公意为“纽带”的、贬抑个人自主性的高度同质化群体,而密尔的人民则是一个受利益驱使、个人本位的多元化群体;卢梭的代表只是人民主权者的一个“办事员”与“附属品”,在公意面前毫无独立性,但在公意之外却享有可观的自由裁量权,而密尔眼中的代表则是承担着凝炼公共利益、进行审慎立法、监督和控制政府并促进社会发展重任的“独立”代表;在代表与被代表者互动方面,卢梭是以公意为中心、单向并排斥商谈的互动,密尔则是以公共利益为核心、双向并且崇尚商谈的互动。综合言之,近代以来的民主实践证明密尔的代表理论更为适于现代民主的发展要求,但卢梭的代表理论并非毫无意义。承继卢梭衣钵的参与民主理论、审议民主理论等依然在公民参与、精英政治、政治商谈等领域对代议制民主的主导地位发起挑战。对此,通过对密尔代表理论的合理阐释与发展,可以在一定程度上化解上述挑战。更多还原

【Abstract】 Benifiting from the coordination of democracy and representation, democracy got rid of the bad reputation as“the rule of poor”and became the dominant model of democracy during modern times. Because of the mediation attribute of representation, however, people and their representatives often get divorced and misplaced, which is clearly against the basic principle of democracy. To avoid this democratic pitfall, we should investigate the relationship between representation and democracy thoroughly and scientifically. Based on the significant position Rousseau and Mill have in the theory of democracy and representation, as well as their entirely different judgments towards this theme, it would be of great benefit from an in-depth and systematic comparative study of theories of representation between Rousseau and Mill.Historically, representation and democracy was disparate, even conflicting. So we should firstly investigate the position and function of representation in modern democracy. Based on the theoretical argument of“the general will should not be represented”and practical argument that the assembly could prevent the abuse of executive power more effectively, Rousseau clearly denied the legislative representation at first. Nevertheless, influenced by the suffering in Geneva and the reality of large scale countries such as Corsica and Poland, Rousseau realized that the assembly was impractical and lately proposed a rigid mandate representation system. Representation, as for Mill, could play an essential role in the transition from individual interest to common interest. Besides, the representatives, who usually had excellent knowledge and virtue, would encourage the common citizen to improving their political abilities and public virtue and promote the all-round development of society. Mill admitted that representative democracy could cause“the lack of intelligence”and“class legislation”among the governing group. But he considered they were the defects of democracy, not representative system. On the contrary, a well-established representative system could overcome these defects. Generally speaking, even though Rousseau and Mill both accepted representative system, they had totally different attitudes towards the value of representation. Rousseau accepted representative system because he had to and always tended to reduce the position and function of representatives. Quite the opposite, Mill considered the representative system as the best model of modern democracy and always tended to strengthen the role and function of representative system.Normally, different theories of representation would have different institutional orientations. Rousseau regarded representation as“necessary evil”and made the indirect representative system embody the direct democratic principles: the elected representatives were just popular sovereign’s delegates and subordination. Mill considered the indirect attribute of representation as a tremendous advantage and had his representative system implement the indirect principles thoroughly: the elected representatives were with considerable discretion. Both Rousseau and Mill proposed to select representatives by election. Both of them recognized it was necessary to distinguish between legislative power and executive power clearly. However, they adopted different ways and went opposite direction. Rousseau wanted to maintain popular control by reducing the mediated function of representation, while Mill wanted to enforce the popular control by strengthening the mediated function of representation.The behavior of representatives, pro-mandate or pro-independent, largely depends on the defining and positioning of the represented, representatives as well as the interaction between the represented and representatives. Rousseau regarded the represented as a unity of moral and will as well as the only source of legitimacy of all political authority, whilst the representatives were just delegate and clerk of the represented. So Rousseau obviously inclined the mandate representation. Mill considered the represented as a plural unity with sovereignty of individual, unequal political rights, while the representatives were responsible for expressing the interest of electorate, refining the public interest and promoting the development of knowledge and moral. So Mill inclined the independent representation. Rousseau and Mill both regarded people as the represented. Both of them insisted that the representatives should be under the control of people and emphasized the indispensability of general, active participation of citizens. However, there was obvious difference between them: Rousseau’s people was a highly homogenous, collective unity interlinked by general will, while Mill’s people was a plural individual unity driven by interest. Rousseau’s representatives were popular sovereign’s clerk and subordination without any independence before general will, while Mill’s representatives with tremendous independence and discretion. As for the interaction between the represented and representative, Rousseau preferred a kind of one-way, non-deliberation interaction so as to form the correct general will, while Mill proposed a bilateral, deliberative interaction so as to find the real public interest.To sum up, even though Mill’s theory of representation is more suitable for modern democracy based on the practice of modern democracy, Rousseau’s theory of representation isn’t meaningless. As a matter of fact, the participatory democracy and deliberative democracy, for example, which succeed Rousseau’s democratic theory to some extent, are always challenging the dominative position of representative democracy. In my opinion, we can defuse these challenges by explaining and developing Mill’s theory of representation correctly and properly.更多还原