不应乱扣“人民公敌”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.

对那些担心诉诸全民公投可能削弱议会民主制的人士而言，近期的事态不幸印证了这种担忧。英国高等法院裁定，只有议会有权制定和废除法律(该裁定现正接受最高法院审核)，而对这一裁定，不爱听的人们发出的歇斯底里的“人民公敌”(enemy of the people)叫骂声表明，一些退欧派人士根本不在乎议会主权。他们推崇的事业说白了就是多数人的专政。

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.

“人民公敌”的提法——用于把反对者定性为不法分子——臭名昭著且由来已久。法国大革命(French Revolution)期间，罗伯斯庇尔(Robespierre)以死亡威胁“les ennemis du peuple”(人民公敌)。苏联共产党把反对者称为“vrag naroda”。纳粹则把反对者称为“Volksverräter”。他们的目的都一样：以人民的名义建立独裁统治，从而让统治者有权剥夺反对者——作为受到人民谴责的敌人——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，“人民公敌”的标签如今正被利用来攻击司法制度的公正性。这一措辞通常被用来证明有理由剥夺反对者受程序正义保护的权利。这是一种从舆论层面攻击法治的方式。那么，还有什么比利用这一标签直接攻击法庭更高明的呢?

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.

毋庸讳言，退欧派不会这么说。他们把自己使用“人民公敌”这顶帽子包装为捍卫议会主权，使其顶住司法系统攻击之举。然而，高等法院只是裁定，只有议会——而非行政部门——可以在行使王权的过程中，移除人民的权利。这不是对议会主权的攻击，而是对其的一种保护。值得记住的是，在其创作的话剧《人民公敌》(An Enemy of the People)中，易卜生(Henrik Ibsen)认为人民的“敌人”是对的，其反对者是错的。如今也是这样。

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.

前保守党领袖、有影响力和激情的退欧派人士伊恩•邓肯•史密斯(Iain Duncan Smith)在最近一篇专栏文章中质问道，为什么“非选举产生的法官有权压倒民选议会议员的愿望，并通过议员压倒政府的愿望”。然而，这根本不是英国高等法院的作为。该法院裁定，英国政府无权不经国会表决就触发《里斯本条约》第50条退欧程序。邓肯•史密斯的观点是，议会主权意味着允许行政部门对议员完全不予理会。这相当于崇信议会主权的原则，同时掏空其大部分内容。

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.

邓肯•史密斯怎么能得出如此令人惊讶的结论?答案就在于全民公投。他认为，“人民”已经发声，因为1740万投票者今年6月选择了退欧。现在需要的只是由行政部门来贯彻这一选择，而不必再受议会制约。利用公投绕过针对行政权力行使的任何及所有制度约束，有着悠久且深刻反自由主义(的确，可以说是反民主)的历史。19世纪，路易•拿破仑(Louis Napoleon，即拿破仑三世)借助全民公投建立了独裁统治。墨索里尼(Mussolini)、希特勒(Hitler)在20世纪如法炮制。在所有这些案例中，魅力非凡的统治者都是通过这种诉诸人民的方式，使自己摆脱权力制约的行为合法化。

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，我一直认为这种情形在英国是不可想象的。但我现在没那么有信心了。认为行政部门不仅能够(而且必须)贯彻公投结果，而不必顾虑1610万投票留欧的民众以及当选议员的看法(就像一些有影响力的报纸所解释的那样)，是一种威权主义。这样做相当于褒扬19世纪法国自由主义者亚里西斯•德托克维尔(Alexis de Tocqueville)所称的“多数人的暴政”。美国宪法的起草者也怀有类似的恐惧。

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.

在实践中，只有政府能够贯彻这样一个多数群体的意志。由于举着“多数人”这面大旗的政府不再受到制约，政府有可能变成以人民之名进行统治的独裁政权。它得到的民意支持往往被用来证明消除制约、甚至镇压反对者是正当的。对司法独立的攻击常常是此类故事的一部分。这对当下的英国是一个比较遥远的危险。但我们不得忽视它。

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.

作为一种解决宪法争议的方式，诉诸全民公投会削弱议会民主。然而，英国退欧公投的结果必须被认可。

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，公投无法自我执行。公投并不授权政府单独决定退欧意味着什么。公投当然也无法证明将裁定议会监督是议会主权核心要素的法官诋毁为“人民公敌”是合理的。对司法机构发出这种恫吓是令人不安和可耻的。