不應亂扣“人民公敵”的帽子

For those who fear that resort to referendums might erode parliamentary democracy, the recent past provides unhappy confirmation. The hysterical cry of “enemies of the people” against the High Court’s decision that only parliament is entitled to make and repeal laws, now being reviewed by the Supreme Court, demonstrates that some Brexiters do not care about parliamentary sovereignty. Their cause is rather dictatorship of the majority.

對那些擔心訴諸全民公投可能削弱議會民主制的人士而言，近期的事態(tài)不幸印證了這種擔憂。英國高等法院裁定，只有議會有權制定和廢除法律(該裁定現(xiàn)正接受最高法院審核)，而對這一裁定，不愛聽的人們發(fā)出的歇斯底里的“人民公敵”(enemy of the people)叫罵聲表明，一些退歐派人士根本不在乎議會主權。他們推崇的事業(yè)說白了就是多數(shù)人的專政。

The phrase “enemy of the people” — used to turn opponents into outlaws — has an ignominious pedigree. During the French Revolution, Robespierre threatened “les ennemis du peuple” with death. The Soviet Communists labelled opponents “vrag naroda”. The Nazis labelled them “Volksverräter”. The aim was always the same: to establish a dictatorship in the name of the people, thereby entitling the rulers to deprive opponents of freedom, even their lives, as the people’s condemned enemies.

“人民公敵”的提法——用于把反對者定性為不法分子——臭名昭著且由來已久。法國大革命(French Revolution)期間，羅伯斯庇爾(Robespierre)以死亡威脅“les ennemis du peuple”(人民公敵)。蘇聯(lián)共產(chǎn)黨把反對者稱為“vrag naroda”。納粹則把反對者稱為“Volksverräter”。他們的目的都一樣：以人民的名義建立獨裁統(tǒng)治，從而讓統(tǒng)治者有權剝奪反對者——作為受到人民譴責的敵人——的自由，甚至生命。

It is significant that the label “enemy of the people” is now being employed in an assault on the probity of the judiciary. The phrase has usually been used to justify depriving opponents of the protection of due process. It is the rhetorical arm of an assault on the rule of law. What could make more sense, then, than using it to attack courts directly?

值得注意的是，“人民公敵”的標簽如今正被利用來攻擊司法制度的公正性。這一措辭通常被用來證明有理由剝奪反對者受程序正義保護的權利。這是一種從輿論層面攻擊法治的方式。那么，還有什么比利用這一標簽直接攻擊法庭更高明的呢?

This, needless to say, is not how Brexiters present it. They present it as a defence of parliamentary sovereignty against judicial attack. Yet the High Court merely ruled that only parliament and not the executive, exercising the royal prerogative, may remove rights from the people. This is not an offence against parliamentary sovereignty, but a defence of it. It is worth remembering that, in his play, An Enemy of the People, Henrik Ibsen thought the people’s “enemy” was correct and his opponents wrong. This is true now, too.

毋庸諱言，退歐派不會這么說。他們把自己使用“人民公敵”這頂帽子包裝為捍衛(wèi)議會主權，使其頂住司法系統(tǒng)攻擊之舉。然而，高等法院只是裁定，只有議會——而非行政部門——可以在行使王權的過程中，移除人民的權利。這不是對議會主權的攻擊，而是對其的一種保護。值得記住的是，在其創(chuàng)作的話劇《人民公敵》(An Enemy of the People)中，易卜生(Henrik Ibsen)認為人民的“敵人”是對的，其反對者是錯的。如今也是這樣。

In a recent column, the former Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, an influential and passionate Brexiter, asks why “unelected judges have the right to supersede the wishes of the elected members of parliament, and through them the government”. Yet that is not at all what the court did. It ruled that the government has no right to ignore parliament when triggering the Article 50 leaving process. Mr Duncan Smith’s argument is that parliamentary sovereignty allows the executive to ignore members of parliament altogether. That is to enthrone the principle while emptying it of most of its content.

前保守黨領袖、有影響力和激情的退歐派人士伊恩•鄧肯•史密斯(Iain Duncan Smith)在最近一篇專欄文章中質問道，為什么“非選舉產(chǎn)生的法官有權壓倒民選議會議員的愿望，并通過議員壓倒政府的愿望”。然而，這根本不是英國高等法院的作為。該法院裁定，英國政府無權不經(jīng)國會表決就觸發(fā)《里斯本條約》第50條退歐程序。鄧肯•史密斯的觀點是，議會主權意味著允許行政部門對議員完全不予理會。這相當于崇信議會主權的原則，同時掏空其大部分內容。

How could Mr Duncan Smith reach such a surprising conclusion? The answer lies in the referendum. His view is that, since 17.4m voters chose Leave last June, “the people” have spoken. All that is now needed is for the executive to implement that choice, untrammelled by parliament. Use of referendums to bypass any and all institutional constraints on the exercise of executive power has a long and deeply illiberal, indeed anti-democratic, history. Louis Napoleon established a dictatorship by means of referendums in the 19th century. Mussolini and Hitler did the same thing in the 20th century. In all these cases, charismatic rulers legitimised the overthrow of restraints on their power by appealing to the people in this way.

鄧肯•史密斯怎么能得出如此令人驚訝的結論?答案就在于全民公投。他認為，“人民”已經(jīng)發(fā)聲，因為1740萬投票者今年6月選擇了退歐。現(xiàn)在需要的只是由行政部門來貫徹這一選擇，而不必再受議會制約。利用公投繞過針對行政權力行使的任何及所有制度約束，有著悠久且深刻反自由主義(的確，可以說是反民主)的歷史。19世紀，路易•拿破侖(Louis Napoleon，即拿破侖三世)借助全民公投建立了獨裁統(tǒng)治。墨索里尼(Mussolini)、希特勒(Hitler)在20世紀如法炮制。在所有這些案例中，魅力非凡的統(tǒng)治者都是通過這種訴諸人民的方式，使自己擺脫權力制約的行為合法化。

Until recently, I thought this was inconceivable in the UK. I am rather less confident now. The view that the executive not only can, but must, implement the outcome of the referendum, as interpreted by influential newspapers, regardless of the views of the 16.1m people who voted Remain and of elected members of parliament, is a form of authoritarianism. It exalts what the 19th century French liberal Alexis de Tocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority”. The creators of the American constitution had a similar fear.

直至不久以前，我一直認為這種情形在英國是不可想象的。但我現(xiàn)在沒那么有信心了。認為行政部門不僅能夠(而且必須)貫徹公投結果，而不必顧慮1610萬投票留歐的民眾以及當選議員的看法(就像一些有影響力的報紙所解釋的那樣)，是一種威權主義。這樣做相當于褒揚19世紀法國自由主義者亞里西斯•德托克維爾(Alexis de Tocqueville)所稱的“多數(shù)人的暴政”。美國憲法的起草者也懷有類似的恐懼。

In practice, only a government can implement the will of such a majority. As constraints upon the government are discarded, in the name of the majority, the government may become a dictatorship that rules in the people’s name. Its popularity is often used to justify the elimination of restraints and even the suppression of opponents. An assault on judicial independence is often a part of such a story. That is a remote danger in the UK today. But we must not ignore it.

在實踐中，只有政府能夠貫徹這樣一個多數(shù)群體的意志。由于舉著“多數(shù)人”這面大旗的政府不再受到制約，政府有可能變成以人民之名進行統(tǒng)治的獨裁政權。它得到的民意支持往往被用來證明消除制約、甚至鎮(zhèn)壓反對者是正當?shù)?。對司法獨立的攻擊常常是此類故事的一部分。這對當下的英國是一個比較遙遠的危險。但我們不得忽視它。

The resort to referendums as a way of deciding constitutional questions undermines parliamentary democracy. Nevertheless, the outcome of the EU referendum has to be accepted.

作為一種解決憲法爭議的方式，訴諸全民公投會削弱議會民主。然而，英國退歐公投的結果必須被認可。

Even so, the referendum does not implement itself. It does not entitle the government alone to decide what Brexit means. It certainly does not justify denigrating as “enemies of the people” judges who rule that parliamentary oversight is, after all, a central element of parliamentary sovereignty. This intimidation of the judiciary is disturbing and disgraceful.

即便如此，公投無法自我執(zhí)行。公投并不授權政府單獨決定退歐意味著什么。公投當然也無法證明將裁定議會監(jiān)督是議會主權核心要素的法官詆毀為“人民公敵”是合理的。對司法機構發(fā)出這種恫嚇是令人不安和可恥的。