Chapter 18 breasts and democracy

Without the king, the people can live as usual; without the people, the king cannot live a day.The king and the people, who is more important than the other, everyone already knows it well.It needs to be explained that although the subjects living all over the world realized this very early on and rose up to resist, it took twenty-five years for the tree of democracy to grow from the ground to flourish. century. The history of human civilization is also the history of democratic development.Democracy is an invention of human beings, but it is not a one-time invention, nor is it even limited to a certain place.However, when it comes to the origin of democracy, people still turn their attention to Athens and Rome.

Ancient Greece consisted of hundreds of independent city-states including Athens and Sparta, not a country in the modern sense.Each city-state has its own territory and autonomy.Around 507 BC, Athens adopted a system of democratically elected government, and although Athens was conquered by Macedonia two centuries later, the democracy that Athens created survived. At the same time, an elected government similar to that in Athens also emerged in ancient Rome.Rome was originally a small city-state. When it conquered many surrounding places, the Roman government even granted citizenship to those subjects in remote areas.However, due to flaws in communication and system design, the vast majority of them cannot really participate in management as citizens—because the citizen assembly as the center of power is in the Roman Forum, although it is said that "all roads lead to Rome", but for For those citizens living on the circumference of the empire, it was not an easy task to go to the Roman Forum to discuss politics in person.

Simply put, this involves the issues of "power radius" and "democratic radius".On the one hand, the chariots of the empire can easily reach the border, drawing out the radius of power of the ruler; The radius can only tightly surround the city of Rome, in a shrinking state.In this sense, in the process of a one-party state moving from inner-party democracy to democracy for the whole people, what needs to be solved most is still the problem of how to converge the radius of power and the radius of democracy. Obviously, whether in ancient Greece or ancient Rome, democracy at that time was only in its infancy.The core department of the Athens government is the Citizens' Assembly, in which every citizen can participate in the election of important officials; as for the selection of other public officials, they are selected by lottery.It is said that, based on the population density, theoretically every citizen will have a chance to be an official once in his life, which is a bit like "the village chief will take turns and come to my house next year".

Someone may ask: Does China have a democratic tradition?the answer should be confirmed.Even though many people are unwilling to admit that China has a democratic institutional tradition, there is still a democratic ideological tradition.Before China grew into the monstrous unification of the Qin Dynasty, the once-unprecedented prosperity of people-oriented thought might become the origin of democracy.It's a pity that the spark never started a prairie fire.Even, the abdication system that blossomed in the era of Yao, Shun and Yu at that time - if it is true, isn't it the embryonic form of democracy that died prematurely?It's just that due to chance and history, under the action of various combined forces, these seeds of democracy were finally carried away by birds and turned into organic fertilizers of history, but no tree of democracy has ever grown.After the dictatorship came out, the glorious thoughts of the past had no choice but to drift in the rivers and lakes and disappear in the grass.

Fortunately, there is no light in the east and light in the west. After all, human beings are looking for light in the dark. At this time, Athens is full of vitality, facing the sea and blooming in spring. It must be admitted that the development of democracy is also a process of continuous self-improvement.Democracy that has accomplished its mission is unheard of in human history.Even in those democracies that seem to be facing the wind today, the popularization of citizenship has also gone through a long struggle. For example, the US Declaration of Independence in 1776 declared that "all men are created equal", but in fact the "people" here do not include blacks and Indians, or even women who account for half of the population.The American abolitionist movement lasted for nearly ninety years, and finally through the Civil War, black slaves became free people.Black citizenship was not truly recognized until the passage of the Civil Rights Act thirty or forty years ago.

Similarly, the popularization of citizenship has the same ups and downs in France, the hometown of human rights and humanitarianism. The French Constitution of 1791 gave only 4.5 million people the right to vote, less than one-fifth of the French population at the time.Although the Constitution prefaced the "Declaration of Human Rights" and nominally abolished ranks, it adopted a policy of political segregation to divide citizens into "active citizens" and "passive citizens": all passive citizens who do not meet the property requirements have no right to vote and are excluded. suffrage.Hundreds of years later, we saw a similar logic in China—in 2004, the Hunan Personnel Department required female civil servants to have “double breast symmetry.” Didn’t it divide women’s natural breasts into “negative breasts” and “active breasts”? And on this basis, "the only civil servant who has milk"?

Although the principle of political equality had been accepted by the "citizens" of France in 1789, in fact, no Enlightenment thinker, including Rousseau himself, endorsed one person one vote.Obviously, the rights at this time are more for the property owners in the economic sense than for the citizens in the political sense.Rosanne Vallon, a famous French scholar who specializes in the study of the history of general elections, wrote in "The Coronation of Citizens": At this time, society is more like a large enterprise, and active citizens are shareholders of large social enterprises. They have voting rights, while Passive citizens are those who are excluded from political rights.

Domestic servants who accounted for 1/12 of the French population before and after the Great Revolution did not have the right to vote.In the eyes of many people, they have no opinion, and since the owner has already voted, their votes can only be repeated votes, as if they are "parrot citizens" who don't know what rights and ideas are.Of course, it seems "fair" that since they don't have the right to vote, they don't have to pay taxes.Those troubles caused by Thoreau's tax resistance were also avoided. In addition, women "in exile" also did not have the right to vote.Even egalitarians like Rousseau, who claim to be abandoned by mankind, still believe that women are just "flawed men" and that emancipating women will only degrade women.

As Rosanvalon pointed out, at this time, "as far as the status of women is concerned, it is not completed in anthropology; as far as the understanding of the family is concerned, it is not completed in sociology."In this world of "the paradox of lust and indulgence is also indulgence", on the one hand, men are passionately pursuing women's love and claiming to love women, but on the other hand, they let them have no power.Until 1801, there was even a law prohibiting women from reading in France. "Reason wants each sex to have its place... Reason wants women to maintain a ceremonial advantage and not to aspire to a political one."

Britain is no exception.In the middle of the seventeenth century, the British "equality" fighters were willing to sit in prison in order to realize universal male suffrage. However, even in the nineteenth century, the logic of equality was still only valid for a few people.A piece of information from the Encyclopedia Britannica shows that in 1831, nearly two hundred years after the end of the egalitarian movement, the proportion of voters over the age of 20 in the UK still only accounted for 4.4% of the total population. It was not until 1931 that this proportion expanded to 97%.It took the UK three hundred years from the egalitarian uprising to 97% turnout.

Why do cobras and doves practice democracy?Today in the 21st century, after experiencing countless historical trials, we can easily find many reasons.For example, democracy can avoid tyranny, can guarantee the basic rights of citizens, universal freedom, and independent thought, can allow human beings to grow healthily in a broad and stretched environment, and can enable society to move towards peace and prosperity under conditions of political equality, etc.The consequences of undemocracy are also obvious.In the era of extremes, "ideological massacre" and "genocide" have pushed human beings to the extreme of suffering and brought human civilization to the brink of bankruptcy. From the establishment of the world's first democratic country in the United States in 1789 to the democratization of more than 60% of the countries in the world today, the great development of democracy is obvious.Of course, there are many democracies in the world, and there are also "fake democracies". Think back to when Mr. Saddam held a gun in his hand, was majestic, and even wanted to donate money to the poor in the United States, how democratic and united Iraq was!Iraqi people can not only participate in elections, but also vote for the dictator with one heart and one mind in broad daylight.Elected unanimously? !It can be said that "give democracy a chance and give the leader a miracle"!However, everyone knows that voting at this time is nothing more than guns directing pens to hand over homework to the court.Otherwise, it would be difficult for us to understand why this Mr. President, who was supported by all the people, had no one to rescue him when the U.S. military was suppressing the border. Even the loyal Republican Guard voted with their feet—and ran away. For this fake democratic country, Robert Dahl commented in "On Democracy": "A cobra does not become a dove just because its owner says it is a dove. No matter what the leaders and propagandists of a country say As beautiful as it sounds, a country can only be called a democracy if it has all the political institutions necessary for democracy.” Without the promotion of democracy, there will be no real constitutionalism; without the persistence of constitutionalism, there will be no sustainable democracy.Today it is not difficult for us to understand the close relationship between democracy and constitutionalism. Constitutionalism restricts but does not oppose democracy. It consolidates and strengthens the democratic system.However, for quite a long time, figures of the time, including Rousseau, Paine, and Jefferson, believed that democracy and constitutionalism were incompatible—because constitutionalism emphasized the present's adherence to a static state of the past, while democracy was more about Focusing on the future, it is related to change and progress, and has a dynamic perspective. Democrats who oppose constitutionalism believe that constitutionalism is designed by dead men, while democracy is participated by living people.If people have to obey the rules and regulations of constitutionalism while pursuing democracy, then it is tantamount to dreaming a "butterfly dream", letting the living be controlled by the dead and the dead torture the living.It is for this reason that constitutionalism is seen as a tool for the dead to rule the living.Jefferson, who advocated that "every generation must have a new revolution," believed that constitutionalism was anti-democratic—"The earth is for the living, not for the dead." Sitting in the prison of the ancients.In contrast to this, anti-democratic constitutionalists believe that democracy is a "rule of the mob" and that the final result is anarchism.From this point of view, the ideal of constitutionalists is to create a just and orderly government. However, this antagonism is not incorrigible.In the course of history, people will gradually reach a consensus: democracy will be protected by constitutional government and allow the latter to operate with dignity.Obviously, one of the important reasons why some transitional countries amend the constitution non-stop like Microsoft launched a new version of Windows is that they did not fully absorb public opinion and obtain a practical and forward-looking legal text during the constitution-making process. In terms of theoretical integration of democracy and constitutionalism, Florentine political scientist Blondell once made in-depth excavations.In his view, constitutionalism and democracy represent the prevention and promotion of the two natures of human beings respectively.What constitutionalism faces is the pessimistic and evil side of human nature. The purpose of constitutionalism is to constrain human beings through system construction.On the contrary, what democracy faces is the optimistic and good side of human nature. Democrats believe that through democratic participation, mankind will have a bright future.They believe that this bright future is in the hands of the majority.Today, when we look back at human history, perhaps the greatest tragedy is that we believe that the truth is in the hands of the few, and as a result the few become tyrants. In short, democracy and constitutionalism are not a pair of natural contradictions, they are designed for the good and evil of human nature, and their purpose is to "stop the evil and promote the good".For the former, people usually think that the purpose of constitutional government is to limit public rights and protect civil rights.It is not difficult to understand this.But the role of constitutionalism does not stop there, because it not only limits public power, but also sets a bottom line for democracy to prevent "tyranny of the majority".The same goal is that whether it is to restrict the "single government" or the "majority of the people", whether it is based on constitutionalism or democracy, all purposes are to protect specific individuals and enable them to have maximum freedom from the government and society. infringement. How to re-evaluate democratic socialism in China today?Advocates believe that China's criticism of democratic socialism in the past is the rigid thinking of "only one revolution", "only one society" and "only one horse". They cannot look at the world with an open eye and absorb the world. The result is socialism The road gets narrower and narrower.Xie Tao, former vice president of Renmin University of China, wrote in Yanhuang Chunqiu, pointing out that whether a system is good or not is not a theoretical issue, but a practical issue.The Chinese system could not stop the labeling of 500,000 people as "rightists," and the madness of the People's Commune and the Great Leap Forward. When the "Cultural Revolution" abolished the Chinese Constitution and stopped parliamentary activities, the Chinese system did not resist.Xie Tao believes that democratic socialism is the orthodoxy of Marxism, and only democratic socialism can save China. Where is democratic socialism?Many people have turned their attention to the social democracy implemented by the welfare state represented by the Nordic countries.This system emphasizes democracy in terms of political system, and has a common democratic bottom line like other Western countries. At the same time, it takes care of the interests of disadvantaged groups economically.In addition, the "Singapore model" that China has learned from is also a model of democratic socialism.Rajaratnam, the former deputy prime minister of Singapore, concluded that Singapore's path is political socialism and economic capitalism.Local scholars in Singapore believe that the Singapore model is more like a fusion of socialism and capitalism, that is, using capitalist means to create wealth and distributing wealth through socialist methods. The opposition directly pointed the spearhead of democratic socialism at the "bankruptcy" of the former Soviet Union.They believe that in just six years, the "democratic socialism" advocated and promoted by Gorbachev not only failed to bring true "democracy and humanity" to the Soviet people, but led to the death of the party and the country, and was thoroughly dismantled politically. fail. Debates are debates. What cannot be ignored is that no matter what kind of system is implemented, the country must defend values ​​such as democracy and freedom.In fact, Western democracies will not fall apart because of the mutual attacks and dismantling of leftists and rightists, because they have a common bottom line.In the name of human progress and happiness, it should be said that social democracy, liberalism, conservatism, and socialism all have a common bottom line.As Mr. Qin Hui said, the common bottom line is an area that cannot be compromised. In short, "power boundaries must be clearly defined", "one's own domain must be free", "group domains must be democratic", and "rights and responsibilities must be commensurate".Obviously, there is no such "common bottom line" when authoritarianism, fascism, and Stalinism are rampant, because they neither believe in democracy nor in freedom. Here, there is no need to entangle what is the only way to "save China". One thing is certain, that is, sticking to the common bottom line ensures that the happiness that has been obtained will not be lost. Democracy is a good thing?Or something bad?Related debates have been around for a long time.From the rooting and sprouting of democracy in Athens to the establishment of the Roman Republic, the course of democracy in the past twenty-five centuries has been difficult and difficult.According to historical records, Sparta's democracy was actually a hundred years earlier than that of Athens, but it died halfway, and since then it has jumped onto the stage of history with the face of autocracy. In the twentieth century, democracy experienced unprecedented fiasco, and there were no less than 70 cases where it was replaced by autocratic regimes.Until the second half of the twentieth century, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, this situation changed.Under the sweep of the "third wave" (Huntington's term) of the wave of democracy, non-democratic countries in some areas have become "enclaves" surrounded by democratic countries. As Robert Dahl said: "All the major substitutes for democracy either vanished into thin air and degenerated into grotesque remnants; Centralized monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, and oligarchy over exclusive suffrage lose their legitimacy in people's eyes, and also make those anti-democratic systems in progressive vests disappear in the ruins of wars that have brought great disasters to mankind . Democracy is a tool created by human beings to improve their own destiny, so it is not omnipotent.If some scholars point out that democratization does not necessarily bring economic growth, social peace, management efficiency, political harmony, free market and "the end of ideology", let alone lead to Francis?Fukuyama called "the end of history".However, there is no doubt that democratic regimes have good self-correction and self-organization capabilities.Regardless of oil-producing countries, almost all of the richest countries in the world are democracies, and almost all of the poorest countries, with India and one or two other exceptions, are non-democracies.Democracy is not a panacea, but it is a prerequisite for other panaceas. Whether it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing", democracy is first and foremost a "thing" for people to use.Today, history has turned a page of totalitarianism. From the perspective of value rationality, the vast majority of people believe that democracy is a good thing, but from the perspective of instrumental rationality, it is not wrong to realize that democracy can become a "bad thing" under certain conditions. It's a good thing, after all, Hitler won the power of the Third Reich through the election.Recognizing that democracy is a "good thing", people will not hesitate to take risks and stick to the value of democracy; similarly, realizing that democracy may give rise to "bad things" makes it necessary and possible to further improve democracy. The history of democratic progress is like the history of the invention of the airplane.We cannot deny human flying ideals just because of occasional plane crashes.Time goes by forever, and it is not difficult to imagine that future generations watch us from the future, just like we sit on a Boeing airplane and look back at the "Aviator 1" manufactured by the Wright Brothers in 1903.Today, we have seen the crudeness of democracy in Athens, and we have also witnessed how democracy has grown today in the long river of time.As a tool, democracy is not perfect and can be continuously evolved and revised; as a value, what we see is the unswerving belief that human beings want to fly. New "Rural Surrounding Cities" At the beginning of this section, I can’t help but ask: “Will the countryside encircle the cities again?” In recent years, China’s grassroots democratic experiments and local government innovations have been brilliant.For example, in 2008, "Southern Rural Daily" reported that Jiaoling village in Guangdong had a grassroots version of "separation of powers".The connotation of this "separation of powers" system is that the villagers' congress is like the legislative body, the village committee is like the administrative body, and the board of supervisors is like the judicial or supervisory body.The three forces restrict each other, forming a rural democratic political model with Jiaoling characteristics.No matter how effective it is, the good intentions and sincerity of Chinese society to strive for progress and make progress day by day are obvious for a promising prospect.At the same time, there are many out of shape and twists and turns, which are hilarious and extremely poignant. How can democracy fail? The 2007 general election of the village committee in Daxingzhuang Village, Songzhuang Town, Tongzhou District, Beijing gave some explanations.A week before the election, there was a lively scene of openly selling voter ID cards in the village.Who can believe that in the 21st century today, the ballot as a "totem of rights" climbed up the telephone pole with twists and turns like a small advertisement for sexually transmitted diseases. The flowers of democracy are withering on the telephone poles.According to the villagers, in the local area, voter certificates are "like stocks, with several prices a day", and the highest price has risen to 600 yuan. Some people may say that this kind of consensual collusion "maximizes" the interests of both parties. The villagers who sell votes are eager to cash in on the immediate transaction, while those who buy votes are more inclined to regard this as a long-term investment.However, anyone with a little common sense of democracy knows that democratic rights, as a political right, can neither be deprived nor bought. When it comes to why the villagers are willing to sell their voter ID cards, some people can easily find "well-known reasons" - farmers are "greedy for small profits" and "short-sighted."However, after all, people live in their own experience world. If we dig deeper, it is not difficult to find that this so-called "reason" is actually the result of another reason-that is, this society has not allowed these voters See "Benefits of Democracy" for $600 and up.In other words, "democracy is not worth 600 yuan" is the current situation and dilemma that we really need to face and think about. Compared with buying and selling voter ID cards, what is worse is that village cadres "take away voter ID cards without giving any reason."Facing all kinds of "robbery of rights" that took place in broad daylight, some villagers raised a stick of chalk to "resist". Don't say anything else." This may be the most grassroots and most helpless "money and power transaction" we can see.Different from the usual understanding, the "money" here is more like a small favor, while the "right" is civil rights. It is worth questioning that the "Village Committee Organic Law" stipulates that if threats, bribes, forged ballots and other improper means are used to hinder villagers from exercising their right to vote and to be elected, and to undermine the election of villagers committees, villagers have the right to submit a complaint to the township, ethnic township, or town. When the people's congress and the people's government or the standing committee of the people's congress at the county level, the people's government and its relevant competent departments report, the relevant organs shall be responsible for the investigation and deal with it according to law.However, why do these regulations not form effective constraints on both voters and ticket buyers? The legal system is useless, and democracy has lost its meaning.When village officials and their entourage can run to villagers' homes without restraint and ask for voter ID cards, for many villagers, their confidence in democracy has been shaken.Privately, villagers think that if they don't sell their votes, others will.In this game of individuals against "organizations", the result must be that the rich and powerful ticket buyers have the last laugh. The presence of ticket buyers has actually started the process of "ballot trashing-recycling".Now that democracy has become a business for the rich, and since voters tend to think that the ballots in their hands are like waste paper, selling a piece of "waste paper" for 600 yuan is considered a sky-high price.From this perspective, it is not without inherent rationality that the villagers followed suit and made a "short-sighted" decision to sell votes.In fact, this is why in some places voters would rather exchange one vote for a few eggs—in their opinion, these few eggs are better than a "democratic duck egg". How to make democracy a starry sky above citizens and a moral law in their hearts?First, the villagers must be convinced of democracy.If voters believe that the votes in their hands have nothing to do with their own destiny, and voting is just meaningless participation, then the election will not have a positive outlook.Even if we can persuade the villagers not to actively sell their votes through some channels, it is inevitable that we will not encounter the embarrassing situation of "no one voting". Indian ecologist Anil Agarva, in Making Villages Green Again, eloquently supports the idea of ​​handing over natural resources to village-level management.In the same way, giving power to the villagers and giving them the opportunity to vote for their present and future is also to make the land of China lush and lush.However, the growth of any vegetation is inseparable from a large environment and climate. If the dual construction of democracy cannot be completed in terms of system and culture, and voters cannot be given confidence in democracy, then this piecemeal democracy will inevitably become The empty ceremony of "black box wrapped in red paper". Today, with the awakening of civil rights, when the people demand to be their own masters, the life of the "demolition party" is not so easy. The "nail households leading the people" staged in Chongqing in early 2007 really made those officials-businessmen who thought they were in charge of the "button removal" of bulldozers passive.What should I do if the demolition encounters "nail households"?After learning from the pain and thinking about demolition, some masters played "Nails and Cotton Palms" in Jiuxianqiao, Beijing-everyone go to vote, if most people agree to demolish, then pull out those few nails in one go! On June 9, 2007, the "Supplementary Opinions on Jiuxianqiao Rehabilitation Work" involving 5,473 households was the first attempt to "referendum".At 11:40 that night, under the witness of notaries and observers, the Jiuxianqiao Sub-district Office announced the final voting results, with 2451 votes in favor, 1228 votes against, and 32 invalid votes, a total of 3711 votes.The person in charge of the sub-district office said that the Jiuxianqiao dangerous renovation project will definitely continue to advance, and the developer will evaluate the voting results and come up with next-step implementation opinions. ("Jinghua Times" June 10) Not to mention the final voting results and how to "evaluate", in fact, this "referendum proposal" has been widely questioned by the public from the very beginning.Faced with such a democratic strategy of "only following the people's will", why is there no thunderous applause in the streets, online and offline, but curses instead?The answer may lie in the next question: As the owner of their own property, everyone can only be responsible for their own contract. Since I have no right to take away your bank deposits with my signature, what do you have? The right to take what is my due by signing it on a ballot? Obviously, the "piecemeal democracy" that took place in Jiuxianqiao was out of shape from the very beginning.On the surface, it seems that the final decision-making power for demolition has been transferred from the raised bucket of the bulldozer to the hands of every resident. The government and developers no longer rush to the front of the stage to coordinate and negotiate, but directly throw away the "nail house" issue. to the relocated households.However, a subtle change is that before voting, every household has the same rights. They unite as one to maximize their own rights and interests, and in a sense they are a community of interests.Once put to a "democratic" vote, the original community of interests was quickly disintegrated into two halves. Some people say that the "referendum on relocation households" can avoid unfairness to other residents caused by the emergence of "nail households".I think anyone with a little bit of common sense about property rights knows how groundless this logic of "sending warmth" is.The "constitutional bottom line" of the People's Republic of China is "citizens' legal private property is inviolable", which means that all citizens' private property rights have been recognized and protected by the country's fundamental law as a constitutional right.In this sense, the so-called "a bowl of water is flat" that disregards the constitutional rights of citizens is nothing more than an elegant pose, but in essence, it is a "leaky bowl" - if it continues like this, it won't take long. The water of fairness and justice may be running out. It is not difficult to find that when the bargaining between owners and developers gives way to democratic voting, it is actually a chariot that binds individual interests to group interests, and it is a "political issue" that replaces one-to-one "economic issues" with many-to-many. solve".In the face of this easy-to-use, dispensable pseudo-democratic procedure, those who reap the dividends of "public interest" must be developers and relevant power departments who sit on the mountain and watch the tiger fight.This kind of fake democracy, which is based on public opinion, has thus become a tool for calculating society, disintegrating society, and even making social groups confront each other. Democracy, like many other values, is the fruit of civilization shared by all mankind.As a late-developing country in political civilization, since the reform and opening up, China has imported a lot of democratic parts and tried to assemble them, but in the end most of them are out of shape, either the wrong parts are installed, or they are placed in the wrong place.For example, price hearings, since they were introduced into China in the 1990s, nine times out of ten it is impossible to escape the fate of "listening will increase".In many places, the price hearings not only did not really protect civil rights, but instead provided an exhaustive defense for the relevant departments to "do whatever they want" - the people need to raise prices, and the government follows the trend.Similarly, when "Supergirl Democracy" swept across the Great Wall, Heilongjiang Province also had a "Newspaper Vote Democracy" that shocked the whole country. In order to select outstanding people, an ordinary newspaper was fired for 50 yuan.When citizens' right to comment is attached to newspapers and transferred and bought out at will, the so-called "democracy" is nothing more than dog meat hanging under the head of the general will. Yu Keping said that "democracy is a good thing", which sparked controversy.In fact, no matter whether democracy is a good thing or a bad thing, democracy must first be a thing.If democracy is not even a thing, I am afraid that what should be discussed is not the question of whether democracy is good or bad, but the question of whether democracy is true or false.When the relevant departments fictitiously created an unnecessary "public interest" to allow the demolition households of Jiuxianqiao to "referendum", the process of "private rights confiscation" has actually started.Obviously, this so-called "democracy" that tries to damage the rights and interests of others through voting under the guise of the general will is not a democracy in the true sense, let alone the democracy that our generation or previous generations hoped for.According to Tocqueville's understanding, "Jiuxianqiao-style democracy" is at best a "tyranny of the majority".In my opinion, this is someone brewing a "majority moral robbery." In September 2008, Hou'anling Village, Tanghekou Town, Huairou District, Beijing started a new village representative election.Unexpectedly, what followed was that nearly twenty households in the village "divorced" at the same time.Their purpose is very clear, which is to realize the division of households between husband and wife through divorce, so as to increase votes and elect village representatives they support. This "marriage change in Hou'anling" inevitably reminds people of the story of farmers in Guizhou "dividing official seals" to limit public rights.They also all take place in rural areas, and they are also related to "calculations" of rights or power, and these "calculations" are almost crude.However, you also have to admit that it is the splitting and reorganization of these "original ecology" that unobtrusively shows us the unique separation and combination of this transformation era. Regarding the "marriage change in Hou'anling", many people interpreted a lot of positive meanings from it, thinking that it vividly reflects the grassroots people's enthusiasm for participating in the law and directly exercising their democratic rights, and shows their desire to protect their own democratic rights "at all costs" determination. In China, getting more rights through divorce is no longer news.For example, in August 2005, in order to help laid-off workers, especially single laid-off workers, the Huabei Oilfield Administration Bureau in Renqiu, Hebei Province allowed divorced laid-off workers (as single workers) to re-employ, but the divorce certificate shall prevail. ——As soon as the policy was promulgated, many employees chose "surprise divorce".Similarly, in May 2007, hundreds of couples in Geping Village, Yibin County had a "surprise divorce" one after another. Rewards and compensations will be obtained during the process of land acquisition and demolition. The development of democracy is also a process of continuous self-improvement, and it has also witnessed the transformation of "from households to people".In my opinion, this household-based election method actually revisited the defects of democratic practices such as "passive citizens" and "active citizens" in world history to a certain extent.For example, in France at the beginning of the nineteenth century, because the poor and women were deprived of the right to vote as "passive citizens", such elections were actually conducted on the basis of "rich households".From this perspective, the process of Western democracy can be summarized as expanding from "rich households" to "households" and then to every citizen. Back to Houanling.Today's distribution of votes by household as a unit is undoubtedly fundamentally different from the above-mentioned passive citizens and active citizens, but it must be admitted that in the same family, the above-mentioned "passive citizens" do not exist.Because the rights of the household as a unit are actually realized through the "patriarchal system" rather than by each specific citizen. It is this patriarchal system that puts other members of the family in a state of guardianship of minors.Of course, what is different from the past is that due to the discrimination of no household, the “passive citizens” here can become “active citizens” through divorce at any time and “open a new family”.Following this line of thought, it is not difficult to find that although this conversion is open, "divorce" is the cost that must be paid when a "passive citizen" turns into an "active citizen". The president is elected by the people, and the bad guys are also elected by the people.A few years ago, a great incident of "elected villains" happened in a technical school in Haozhou, Anhui.Due to repeated theft incidents in the school, the school held such an election when the investigation failed: vote for the thief!As a result, 6 students were on the list and were punished accordingly. Obviously, starting from the spirit of the rule of law of "no suspicion of guilt", these six students are all innocent.Yet such alienated elections actually happened. "The Elected Thief" reproduces for us the "tyranny of the majority" that occurs in our daily life in its unique and harmonious way. Some people may say that if the president can be elected by the people, why can't the bad guys?Aren't they all genuinely reflecting public opinion?The difference, I believe many people already know it well.不过，在此我们不妨再换个角度加以赘述：总统是自己报名参选的，而坏蛋并非心甘情愿。总统在当选后会兴高采烈地发表就职演说，而坏蛋却只能低头，更不会讲一些感谢国民信任之类的大话。简单说，民选坏蛋违背了“坏蛋”的意愿，所谓选举由此成为对“坏蛋”侮辱与损害的开始。 同样，民选总统会因就职领取薪水，而民选坏蛋则不一样。尽管民选坏蛋也会在当选后时常被作为反面典型用来教育民众，但是他们充其量只是在一种被动境遇中做道德建设的“义工”。如你所知，杀鸡儆猴时，鸡被杀的过程同样是鸡被工具化的过程。但是，鸡是从来不会因为自己被工具化而获得儆猴的报酬的。 之所以想起这个“民选坏蛋”的故事，是因为曾经读到的一则新闻。据《城市晚报》2008年2月26日报道，长春市公安局为了提高警察的纪律作风，将在年末抓各类反面典型，并确定了全局民警1％的比例。这些1％的待遇将是集中学习，学习不合格者将被取消其执法权。 今日中国社会的确大有进步。在过去，这种“大快人心”的消息一放出来，相信很多人都会叫好，比如显示“重拳治警”的决心云云。然而，现在不一样了，无论是面对社会生活还是权力运行，公众目光的重心已经渐渐移向了程序的正当性与具体的权利本身。长春公安局的“数目字管理”却让人满腹狐疑，为什么是1％，而不是2％或0.5％？ 曾经风行一时的计划经济的一些坏处历史早已证明。显然，那种刻舟求剑式的制度安排不仅低估了人类社会生活的复杂性，同时也大大限制或者降低了国民在日常生活中一点一滴解决问题的能力和机会。众所周知，计划盛行的时代，实际上也是权力登峰造极的时代。除了计划经济，同样也有“计划政治”。当然，这种“计划政治”并不是指现在政府做预算，而是指一种异化的计划，指的是有些执法部门或者单位，将抓坏蛋当做一种生产性行为，只需随心所欲地圈定一个比例，准备生产多少就是多少。而这种指令性生产通常都具有刚性，所以，为了完成这个比例，哪些人是合格的坏蛋还要取决于不断地定义。计划刚性导致的定义的随意性使按计划抓坏蛋变成了“打哪指哪，百发百中”的荒诞游戏。 谈到“按指标抓坏蛋”，难免让人想起那个法治荒芜甚至人治也崩溃的时代。为了狠抓右派，一些单位被下达了“右派指标”。于是乎人人挖空心思找坏蛋，社会风气恶化到无以复加的地步。而从概率上说，一个地方坏蛋越多越安全，没有坏蛋的地方反倒是人人自危。在此逻辑下，坏蛋只会越造越多。就这样，鲜有坏蛋的地方纷纷造出“民选坏蛋”“计划下的坏蛋”。 “按比例抓反面典型”之所以无人喝彩，是因为历史已经告诉未来，“按计划抓坏蛋”将会给这个社会带来多少痛苦的记忆，是因为“按计划抓坏蛋”在改革开放三十年后已经成为新时代的“反面典型”。 当然，并非所有民主实践都那么令人沮丧。2009年2月11日，《新文化报》报道了这样的一条新闻：在安徽阜阳颍州区南塘村村民新近学习应用了一种名为“萝卜白菜规则”的议事方式。据南塘兴农合作社负责人称，自从2008年11月培训以来，南塘村村民活学活用“萝卜白菜规则”，已经知道如何民主辩论与表决了。 什么是“萝卜白菜规则”？读完这则新闻才知道它指的就是早已风行世界的“罗伯特议事规则”。该规则由亨利·马丁·罗伯特撰写，于1876年出版，几经修改后于2000年出了第十版。罗伯特议事规则的内容非常详细，包罗万象，堪称会议宝典。尽管西风东渐已逾百年，但是这个规则相信绝大多数中国人都没有听过。难怪南塘村民听到这个“拗口”的外国规则时，索性就地取材直接译成了“萝卜白菜规则”。这一点想来就十分有趣，今日中国，常常有人说农民愚昧、落后，不适合民主。谁知如今他们已经先行一步，开始和国际上的会议规则接轨，都“罗伯特”了。 政治的关键之一就在于议事程序。环视古今中外，议事程序主要区别不外乎两种：一种是只有重要人物在会场上说话、训示，大多数人只顾埋头做笔记，开会变成了“听话”“学习”和“传达精神”；另一种则是每个人都有一个麦克风，都有机会发言，会场也是针锋相对的辩论场。当然，议事规则不同，话语权也就不同。比如同样是在近千年前的东方与西方，同样是英雄豪杰，欧洲有圆桌骑士，他们不分主次，每个人各占一席；东方则有梁山好汉，虽然都是自家兄弟，但还是排了108个座次，聚议之时，说话最管用的还是大哥。在过去的文章中，我之所以赞扬欧盟的旗帜，一个重要的原因就是我在这面旗帜上看到了欧洲圆桌会议的现场。 任何规则都会在客观上影响人性的呈现。众所周知，从人性的角度出发，每个人身上都潜藏着某种或善或恶的东西。至于如何向外界呈现，除了决定于内心的驱使（良知与欲望），同样受制于他与环境的互动（放纵与约束），这也是人们心悦诚服地相信“一个好的制度会使坏人变好，一个坏的制度会使好人变坏”之原因所在。 无须高深理论，即使是生活经验也在反复告诫人们一个好的规则可以帮助呈现人性之美好。比如，公共场所排队所倡导的秩序文明，灾难来临时让妇女与孩子先走的人类道德等等，这些都可以在一定程度上约束人们，劝人向善。同样，会议组织者果真秉持某种民主与开放的原则，就应负责建立并且遵循一套行之有效的议事规则，使会场真正成为公民议事的场所。而不是给权力体系拍X光，透视会场上谁更有权力说话。 转型期的中国，具有民主精神的议事规则不仅适合会场，同样适用于所有的公共辩论。今日公共空间，最不乐见却又并不少见的情形莫过于：两位辩论者交锋刚开始，很快便有一方开始怀疑对方之人格与动机，接下来吵来吵去，都说对方不配和自己辩论，一场原本可期的理性争辩终以谁都是“浑蛋”和“小人”收场。如果他们能和南塘的农民一样懂得点“萝卜白菜，各有所爱”，这种无谓的冲突定会减少很多。 回到“罗伯特议事规则”，笔者在此夸赞南塘农民，并非是说有了这个规则，农民的开会问题和民主问题就彻底解决了。就像民主既是一种制度安排，同时又是一种精神气质，“萝卜白菜规则”进入南塘的乡村会议，其意义显然并不止于民主实务本身，更在于它使会场上的农民面貌一新，让人看到农民在维护群己权利时有着怎样的风度。