本文選題：盧梭 + 密爾��； 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：近代以來,得益于“民主”與“代表”的結(jié)合,先前被冠之于“烏合之眾、賤民與暴民統(tǒng)治”之名的民主一躍成為現(xiàn)代政治生活中占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位的制度模式與實踐形式。然而,由于代表的“居間”屬性,人民與其代表之間又很容易產(chǎn)生“脫節(jié)”與“錯位”,進(jìn)而背離民主的基本原則。要想成功運(yùn)作代議制民主體制,無疑需要對民主條件下的代表理論進(jìn)行全面和科學(xué)的勘察與把握。基于盧梭與密爾在現(xiàn)代民主理論與代表理論中的重要地位、以及二人對“民主”與“代表”關(guān)系截然不同的判斷,以現(xiàn)代民主為理論背景,對盧梭與密爾的代表理論進(jìn)行深入、系統(tǒng)的比較研究,對于準(zhǔn)確理解和把握民主條件下的代表理論大有裨益。 “代表”與“民主”在歷史淵源上并無關(guān)聯(lián),代表制度起初也是作為民主制度的對立面而存在,因此,對于民主的代表理論的探究,首先應(yīng)該探究代表在現(xiàn)代民主過程中的存在價值�；趯Α肮獠豢梢员淮怼钡睦碚撜J(rèn)知、以及對“公民大會在防止行政權(quán)力濫用方面更為有效”的現(xiàn)實判斷,盧梭起初只接受行政意義上的“委任”代表,而對立法意義上的代表持完全否定的態(tài)度。然而,由于在日內(nèi)瓦的不幸遭遇,盧梭意識到公民大會其實并不能夠有效防止行政權(quán)力的濫用,同時,針對科西嘉、波蘭等規(guī)模龐大的國家,直接的公民大會也并不現(xiàn)實,因此盧梭晚年傾向于有條件地接受代表制度,即為了公意的執(zhí)行“便利”,可以實行公意“宰制”下的“委任”代表制度。密爾對于代表制度的接受則是全方位的。密爾眼中的代表是利益的代表,個人利益與社會公共利益之間的連接離不開代表的“居間”能動作用;同時,依靠具有卓越知識與道德的代表的“示范”與“領(lǐng)導(dǎo)”,普通公民也可以借此提升自身的政治才能與公共德性,進(jìn)而促進(jìn)整個社會的全面進(jìn)步。密爾認(rèn)為代議制民主也有可能導(dǎo)致政治統(tǒng)治的“智力平庸”與“階級立法”,然而,這些其實是民主本身的固有弊病,并非代表制度的過錯,通過完善代表制度,反而可以有效地克服上述弊端。盡管盧梭與密爾總體上都接受了代表制度,但在代表存在價值判斷上卻大相徑庭。盧梭認(rèn)為代表制度只是基于現(xiàn)實需要不得不為之的“必要的惡”,代表依然有可能僭越公意,需要最大限度地剝奪或削減代表與代表機(jī)構(gòu)的職權(quán)、地位和作用。密爾則認(rèn)為代表制度是現(xiàn)代民主的理想形式,必須實行之,即便其存在弊病,也可以通過調(diào)整與完善代表制度予以克服,與盧梭相反,密爾始終傾向于強(qiáng)化代表與代表機(jī)構(gòu)的地位與作用。 “民主”與“代表”的結(jié)合本質(zhì)上是民主制與代表制的結(jié)合,不同的代表理論往往會使民主制度呈現(xiàn)出迥然相異的制度取向。盧梭視代表制度為民主過程中的“必要的惡”,為了防止其僭越公意,在民主制度的排布上,盧梭總是盡可能地使具有“間接政治”屬性的代表制度能夠最大限度地體現(xiàn)“直接政治”的民主原則:選舉產(chǎn)生的只是人民主權(quán)者的“辦事員”,承擔(dān)立法職能的代議機(jī)構(gòu)只能在地方公民大會的有關(guān)決議的基礎(chǔ)上確認(rèn)法律,行政機(jī)構(gòu)也只是在公意之外享有獨(dú)立性和自由裁量權(quán)。密爾則認(rèn)為代議制民主是“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“間接”屬性,間接原則是密爾貫穿始終的一個基本制度取向:選舉產(chǎn)生的是享有充分自由裁量權(quán)的“獨(dú)立”代表,承擔(dān)立法職能的代議機(jī)構(gòu)則是以“商談”方式具體行使國家事務(wù)之最終控制權(quán),行政機(jī)構(gòu)則在其業(yè)務(wù)范圍內(nèi)同樣享有充分的獨(dú)立性。盧梭與密爾都意識到選舉在產(chǎn)生代表方面的優(yōu)越之處,也都認(rèn)識到清晰劃分立法權(quán)力與行政權(quán)力的必要性,然而二者卻采取了截然相反的制度取向,盧梭希望能夠最大限度地削弱代表的“中間性”,使其能更為直接和準(zhǔn)確地反映人民的意志,密爾則選擇通過強(qiáng)化和完善代表的“中間性”來強(qiáng)化人民對于政府的控制程度與“品質(zhì)”。 研究代表理論最終還須歸結(jié)到代表的行為方式上,盡管對于代表存在價值與代表制度取向的認(rèn)知會對代表行為產(chǎn)生深刻的影響,但直接決定代表行為方式的則是對于被代表者、代表者以及二者互動方式的不同定位與判斷。盧梭視人民為具有生命與意志的道德集合體,是一切政治權(quán)威合法性的來源,人民的代表只不過是人民主權(quán)者的“代理人”與“辦事員”,是公意的“傳達(dá)者”與“執(zhí)行者”,在二者互動過程中被代表者一方理應(yīng)占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位,因此其明顯傾向于“委任”代表說;密爾則認(rèn)為人民是一個個人本位、政治權(quán)利“普遍但分等級”、多元的社會集合體,人民的代表則是負(fù)責(zé)表達(dá)選民利益訴求、整合與“凝煉”社會公共利益、引領(lǐng)社會知識與道德風(fēng)尚的社會中堅,在二者互動過程中代表者一方應(yīng)居于主導(dǎo)地位,因此其認(rèn)同于“獨(dú)立”代表說。盧梭與密爾都將被代表者認(rèn)定為人民,都認(rèn)為代表的獨(dú)立性不應(yīng)脫離人民的控制,也都認(rèn)為普遍、積極的公民參與對于維系代表與被代表者的良性互動不可或缺。不過,二者之間的區(qū)別也是顯而易見:盧梭的人民是一個以公意為“紐帶”的、貶抑個人自主性的高度同質(zhì)化群體,而密爾的人民則是一個受利益驅(qū)使、個人本位的多元化群體;盧梭的代表只是人民主權(quán)者的一個“辦事員”與“附屬品”,在公意面前毫無獨(dú)立性,但在公意之外卻享有可觀的自由裁量權(quán),而密爾眼中的代表則是承擔(dān)著凝煉公共利益、進(jìn)行審慎立法、監(jiān)督和控制政府并促進(jìn)社會發(fā)展重任的“獨(dú)立”代表;在代表與被代表者互動方面,盧梭是以公意為中心、單向并排斥商談的互動,密爾則是以公共利益為核心、雙向并且崇尚商談的互動。 綜合言之,近代以來的民主實踐證明密爾的代表理論更為適于現(xiàn)代民主的發(fā)展要求,但盧梭的代表理論并非毫無意義。承繼盧梭衣缽的參與民主理論、審議民主理論等依然在公民參與、精英政治、政治商談等領(lǐng)域?qū)Υh制民主的主導(dǎo)地位發(fā)起挑戰(zhàn)。對此,通過對密爾代表理論的合理闡釋與發(fā)展,可以在一定程度上化解上述挑戰(zhàn)。
[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.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：B565.26;D082

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王四達(dá);梁雁秋;;論約翰·密爾民主主體性思想的理論根基——以《論自由》為中心[J];北方論叢;2007年02期

2 劉軍寧;;間接民主與直接民主[J];北京觀察;1998年10期

3 崇明;;基佐論政治權(quán)力的社會基礎(chǔ)和道德基礎(chǔ)[J];北京師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年06期

4 尹曉聞;;對約翰·密爾限制選舉權(quán)的反思[J];東莞理工學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年04期

5 周葉中;論代議制度產(chǎn)生的原因[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1995年02期

6 胡位鈞;兩種代表制理論之再評價[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1998年02期

7 叢日云,鄭紅;論代議制民主思想的起源[J];世界歷史;2005年02期

8 郭繼蘭;;走出直接民主的困境——代議制民主理論的產(chǎn)生和發(fā)展[J];哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2009年06期

9 冉昊;;代表與選民的關(guān)系:代表理論“回應(yīng)”性問題回顧[J];華中師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2009年05期

10 周光輝,彭斌;理解代表——關(guān)于代表的正當(dāng)性與代表方式合理性的分析[J];吉林大學(xué)社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2004年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 王連偉;密爾政治思想研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2004年

2 嚴(yán)俊;民主的價值及其條件[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2007年

3 彭剛;盧梭的共和主義公民理論[D];浙江大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 陳曉丹;代議制理論述評[D];東北師范大學(xué);2006年

2 李黃駿;密爾民主思想研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

3 馮雪;約翰·密爾的代議制理論探析[D];天津師范大學(xué);2009年

4 鄭雪;中西代議制原則與組織結(jié)構(gòu)分析[D];山西大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：1847691