【摘要】：從古典到現(xiàn)代,民主政治最突出的表征之一就是“投票決”。近現(xiàn)代以來(lái),投票作為一種決策方式在理論和實(shí)踐層面上均已得到普遍認(rèn)可,它使得抽象的“民主”價(jià)值理念,通過(guò)在現(xiàn)實(shí)中的具象化運(yùn)作被體認(rèn)和感知,使“民主”成為一種看得見(jiàn)摸得著的東西。但同樣不容忽視的一個(gè)事實(shí)是,在現(xiàn)代相對(duì)成熟的民主國(guó)家,投票,特別是公民投票,作為一種“民主”,并不是也不應(yīng)該是要應(yīng)用于所有決策中的。無(wú)邊界、無(wú)規(guī)制的公民投票決賦予了公民絕對(duì)的權(quán)力,強(qiáng)化了公民的絕對(duì)意志,以至于公民投票本身便足以成為其民主政治的代名詞,并同時(shí)成為了一切民主亂象——多數(shù)暴政和不良決策——的主要肇事方和事故責(zé)任人。此時(shí),公民投票作為一種民主反而使民主政治本身陷入困境,難以自拔。本文認(rèn)為對(duì)于公民投票決的放縱和濫用,是古典時(shí)代雅典以后“民主”長(zhǎng)期被西方作為一種不良政體看待的重要原因。因此,現(xiàn)代代議制間接民主整體上作為一種對(duì)古典直接民主模式的批判性修正和戒備性防御,從而對(duì)于公民投票這種類(lèi)直接民主決策方式的使用也是甚為謹(jǐn)慎。從實(shí)踐上看,首先,現(xiàn)代民主政治決策中并不是所有的事情都要訴諸投票方式解決；其次,有限的投票決定也更多地交由代議機(jī)構(gòu)代理,或由代議制政府主導(dǎo)；最后,從現(xiàn)代公民投票的程序設(shè)計(jì)中我們可以鮮明地看到公民投票的發(fā)生和行使是嚴(yán)格受制于現(xiàn)代代議政治及其背后的憲政機(jī)制規(guī)范的。也即,現(xiàn)代公民投票決只是一種在憲政民主馴化下的類(lèi)直接民主方式,居于附屬性地位,是種輔助性的治理工具。由此,現(xiàn)代公民投票本身已不足以構(gòu)成對(duì)現(xiàn)代民主政治威脅,而現(xiàn)代公民投票也不再是置民主政治于險(xiǎn)境和困境的主要肇事方和事故責(zé)任人。現(xiàn)代民主政治和現(xiàn)代公民投票決對(duì)“多數(shù)決”的價(jià)值認(rèn)知,僅限于將其視作是種有限的卻又是必要的決策原則層面,而不認(rèn)為它同時(shí)也應(yīng)該上升為一種多數(shù)統(tǒng)治的實(shí)際政治社會(huì)生態(tài),否則這既是種歷史的無(wú)知——無(wú)視于古今之別,也是種歷史的倒退——顛覆現(xiàn)代民主政治大廈,回歸古典時(shí)代的城邦式民主。至于說(shuō)現(xiàn)代公民投票為其民主政治帶來(lái)了新的民主困境,即“政治冷漠”,這也是個(gè)似是而非的問(wèn)題。簡(jiǎn)要地講,與其說(shuō)政治冷漠是現(xiàn)代民主政治發(fā)展中的問(wèn)題,不如說(shuō)它是現(xiàn)代民主政治的題中之義。雖然現(xiàn)代公民投票已經(jīng)不再能像古典民主時(shí)期一樣為其民主政治本身代言,但現(xiàn)代公民投票卻在制度層面反映著一個(gè)國(guó)家的民主政治發(fā)展水平,彰顯著其代議制政府的治理能力及其憲政機(jī)制的完備程度,凸顯著一個(gè)國(guó)家的憲政公信力。本文通過(guò)對(duì)現(xiàn)代國(guó)家公民投票實(shí)踐狀況的分析,認(rèn)為公民投票制度是一個(gè)國(guó)家代議制水平和憲政完備程度的重要縮影�，F(xiàn)代公民投票的真假虛實(shí)和效用高低,很大程度上并不取決于-國(guó)或一地的公民能力,而是取自于一個(gè)國(guó)家的代議體制和憲政機(jī)制安排。在當(dāng)代民主政治中,若是因?yàn)楣裢镀币l(fā)了動(dòng)蕩和不安,問(wèn)題的癥結(jié)其實(shí)從大革命開(kāi)始就不出在“人”身上,而是出在“制度上”。雖然制度和人是必不可分的,但這僅僅是指,必須使人活在尊重人的制度中。盧梭曾言“人生來(lái)自由卻無(wú)往不在枷鎖中”,雖然盧梭的本意是要呼吁人們打破、掙脫出“枷鎖”,只是法國(guó)大革命的悲劇卻無(wú)情地證明了這些“枷鎖”的必要性。所以問(wèn)題從來(lái)都不是掙脫“枷鎖”,而是使這層層種種的“枷鎖”合理正當(dāng)——相對(duì)于人性和人類(lèi)發(fā)展而言。公民投票是種民主,但卻未必帶來(lái)真正的民主,更無(wú)法保障民主。何況,民主自身也并非完美和萬(wàn)能,民主的強(qiáng)勢(shì)多是因?yàn)樗鼞{借著大多數(shù)人的意志,但人多勢(shì)眾與合情合理卻并不能不加審視的等同,可以說(shuō),在任何時(shí)候二者都不能被無(wú)條件地加以等同。不論是直接反映人民意志的公民投票決,還是間接代理人民意志的代議機(jī)構(gòu)的投票決,作為一種“意志性”力量,投票決具備的天然攻擊性都使它在與法律較量中處于強(qiáng)勢(shì)地位,以至于在今天世界上的許多地方,民主似乎在繁榮,而自由主義的憲政卻未見(jiàn)樂(lè)觀。所以,在憲政意義上探討民主政治中的公民投票邊界和價(jià)值規(guī)范問(wèn)題,具有應(yīng)然性,應(yīng)當(dāng)成為一種實(shí)然上的構(gòu)建。正確理解投票決(特別是公民投票決)的功能與局限,并對(duì)其運(yùn)行規(guī)則形成共識(shí),是健全的現(xiàn)代民主政治的前提。同時(shí),也只有在代議民主政治的憲政體系下,才能更好地維護(hù)和保障公民投票決背后所代表的合理性價(jià)值預(yù)設(shè)。只有可靠的代議民主政治和健全的憲政體系安排,才是公民投票最初獲得法定認(rèn)可和此后賴(lài)以為繼的根本保障。在現(xiàn)代公民投票實(shí)踐相對(duì)較為活躍的國(guó)家,其背后往往擁有著可靠的憲政支撐。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D082

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王英津;民主性公民投票制度的功能及其局限[J];中國(guó)人民大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

2 于博;;德國(guó)地方層級(jí)公民投票訴訟制度與經(jīng)驗(yàn)反省[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2007年03期

3 于博;;德國(guó)地方級(jí)層公民投票訴訟制度與經(jīng)驗(yàn)反省——以公民創(chuàng)制提案申請(qǐng)拒絕之訴為研討進(jìn)路[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

4 王英津;;公民投票類(lèi)型研究的局限及解決思路[J];理論探討;2008年03期

5 海星;;危機(jī)潛伏的新喀[J];世界知識(shí);1987年20期

6 朱利江;從實(shí)踐檢視臺(tái)灣的公民投票”問(wèn)題[J];統(tǒng)一論壇;2003年04期

7 石佳友;;關(guān)于公民投票制度的一般性反思——兼論臺(tái)灣公民投票對(duì)于兩岸關(guān)系的影響[J];臺(tái)灣研究;2004年04期

8 魏貽恒;;美國(guó)公民投票制度[J];比較法研究;2006年01期

9 魏貽恒;;民國(guó)時(shí)期公民投票:理論、制度和實(shí)踐[J];法學(xué)家;2006年04期

10 王英津;;國(guó)際法上自決性公民投票芻議[J];國(guó)際關(guān)系學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 徐世i，

本文編號(hào)：2127498