卢梭与密尔代表理论比较研究

发布时间：2018-05-05 12:28

本文选题：卢梭 + 密尔　；参考：《中国政法大学》2011年博士论文

【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。
[Abstract]:Since modern times, thanks to the combination of "democracy" and "representative", the Democratic leap formerly known as "untouchable people, untouchable people and mob rule" has become the dominant system mode and practice form in modern political life. However, because of the "residence" attribute of the representative, the people and their representatives are easily produced. "Disjunction" and "dislocation" and then deviate from the basic principles of democracy. In order to successfully operate representative democratic system, it is undoubtedly necessary to carry out a comprehensive and scientific investigation and grasp of representative theory under democratic conditions. Based on the importance of Rousseau and mill in modern democratic theory and representative theory, and the two people to "democracy" and "generation". It is of great benefit to the accurate understanding and understanding of the representative theory under the conditions of democracy in the theoretical background of modern democracy and the deep and systematic comparative study of Rousseau and mill's representative theory.
There is no relation between "representative" and "democracy" in the historical origin. At first, the representative system also exists as the opposite of the democratic system. Therefore, to explore the representative theory of democracy, we should first explore the value of the representative in the process of modern democracy. The practical judgment of the civil Congress is more effective in preventing the abuse of administrative power. At first, Rousseau only accepted the "appointed" representative in the administrative sense, and was totally negative on the representative of the legislative sense. However, because of the misfortune in Geneva, Rousseau realized that the civil Congress could not effectively prevent administrative power. At the same time, at the same time, to the large country such as Corsica, Poland and other large countries, the direct citizen assembly is not realistic, so Rousseau is inclined to accept the representative system in his later years, that is, to carry out the "convenience" for the execution of public meaning and to implement the "appointed" representative system under the "prime minister". The representation in the eyes of mil is the representative of the interests, the connection between the personal interests and the social and public interests can not be separated from the dynamic role of the representative. At the same time, by relying on the "demonstration" and "leadership" with the representative of the outstanding knowledge and morality, the ordinary citizens can also raise their own political and public virtues by this. To promote the overall progress of the whole society, mill believes that representative democracy may also lead to the "intellectual mediocrity" and "class legislation" of political rule. However, these are the inherent maladies of democracy itself, not the fault of the system. By perfecting the representative system, the malpractice can be overcome effectively, although Rousseau and mil can be effectively overcome. On the whole, the representative system is accepted, but it is quite different in the value judgment of the representative. Rousseau believes that the representative system is only based on the "necessary evil" that the reality needs to be. It is still possible for the representative to overtake the public meaning, and the power, position and function of the representative and representative institutions should be deprived or reduced to the maximum extent. The representative system is an ideal form of modern democracy and must be carried out. Even if it has its drawbacks, it can be overcome by adjusting and perfecting the representative system. Contrary to Rousseau, mil always tends to strengthen the status and role of representative and representative institutions.
The combination of "democracy" and "representative" is essentially the combination of democratic system and representative system. The different representative theories often make the democratic system present a disparate institutional orientation. Rousseau regards the representative system as a "necessary evil" in the process of democracy. In order to prevent it from overstepping the public meaning, Rousseau is always as much as possible in the arrangement of democratic system. The representative system with the attribute of "indirect politics" can embody the democratic principle of "direct politics" to the greatest extent: the election is only the "clerk" of the people's sovereign, and the agency that bears the legislative function can only confirm the law on the basis of the relevant resolutions of the local citizen assembly, and the administrative agency is only in public. In addition to its independence and discretion, mill believes that representative democracy is the "best ideal" system model, and the reason is the "indirect" attribute inherent in the system itself, and the indirect principle is a basic institutional orientation that mill runs through: the election produced is "independent" with full and free discretion. Representative, the representative agency that assumes the legislative function is the ultimate control of the state affairs in the way of "negotiation", and the administrative agency also enjoys full independence within its business scope. Both Rousseau and mill are aware of the superiority of the election in the production of Representatives, and also recognize the clear division of legislative power and administrative power. The necessity of force is necessary, however, the two have taken the opposite direction of the system. Rousseau hopes to minimize the "intermediate" of the representative so that it can reflect the will of the people more directly and accurately. Quality.
The research representative theory ultimately has to be attributed to the behavior pattern of the representative. Although the cognition of the representative existence value and the representation of the representative system will have a profound influence on the representative behavior, the direct decision to represent the behavior mode is the different orientation and judgment for the representative, the representative and the two parties' interaction. Rousseau looks at the people. The moral aggregation of life and will is the source of the legitimacy of all political authority. The representative of the people is only the "agent" and "clerk" of the people's sovereign. It is the "communicator" and the "executor" of the public, and the representative of the two parties should occupy the dominant position in the process of interaction. The "appointed" representative said that mil considered the people to be a personal standard, the political rights "universal but graded", the pluralistic social aggregation, and the people's representative is the social backbone to express the appeals for the interests of the voters, integrate and "condensed" the social public interests, lead the social knowledge and morality, and represent the two parties in the interaction process. One party should be in the dominant position, so it agrees with the "independent" representative that both Rousseau and mil will be identified as the people, and all believe that the independence of the representative should not be separated from the control of the people, and that the positive citizen participation is indispensable to the positive interaction between the representatives and the representatives. However, between the two The difference is also obvious: Rousseau's people are a highly homogenous group that belittling individual autonomy with public meaning, and mil's people are a diverse group of interests driven and personal based; Rousseau's representative is only a "clerk" and "appendage" of the people's sovereign, and is in the face of public meaning. There is no independence, but it enjoys considerable discretion in addition to public meaning, and the representative in the eyes of mil is a "independent" representative who is responsible for the condensation of public interests, prudent legislation, supervision and control of the government and the important task of social development. In the interaction between the representatives and the representatives, Rousseau is centered on the public meaning, one way and the exclusion of negotiation. In interaction, mill takes the public interest as the core, two-way and advocating the interaction of negotiation.
In general, the modern democratic practice has proved that the representative theory of mill is more suitable for the development of modern democracy, but Rousseau's representative theory is not meaningless. The participation of Rousseau's mantle of democracy theory and the deliberation of democratic theory still dominate representative democracy in the fields of civic participation, elite politics, political talks and so on. This challenge can be resolved to a certain extent by the rational interpretation and development of mill's representative theory.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：B565.26;D082

【参考文献】