英國去留歐盟不應通過公投決定
Like everyone else in Britain, I received last week a communication from the Electoral Commission about the coming EU referendum. The pamphlet states the case for each side and gives instructions on how to vote.
像英國所有居民一樣，最近我也收到了選舉委員會(Electoral Commission)寄來的一本關於即將舉行的英國退歐公投的小冊子，上面闡述了各方的立場緣由，並提供瞭如何投票的說明。
At first sight that process epitomises democracy in action — informing public opinion in a balanced way and seeking its judgment. On closer examination the leaflet illustrates why momentous decisions should not be made this way.
乍看上去，這一過程堪稱民主實踐的典範——以一種平衡的方式讓人民知情，尋求民意做出判斷。但仔細分析這個小冊子可以告訴我們，爲什麼做出重大決策時不應採用這種方式。
The Remain and Leave camps were given a page apiece to set out the issues, with the result that each offers a list of unsupported and mostly unsupportable assertions. Britain benefits from the EU by ￡91bn a year, claims Remain. But Leave says the UK pays more than ￡350m a week to the EU, enough to hire 600,000 nurses. (There are almost 350,000 already working in Britain, so goodness knows where they would be recruited or what they would do.) We get back from Europe 10 times as much as we contribute, says Remain.
支持留歐與支持退歐的陣營每方都有一頁紙來陳述議題，結果雙方各提供了一份清單——全是未經證實、且大都無依據的斷言。留歐陣營宣稱，英國一年從歐盟獲益910億英鎊。但退歐陣營表示，英國每週向歐盟支出逾3.5億英鎊，足夠聘請60萬名護士。（鑑於英國已經有近35萬名護士，天知道誰將聘用她們，或者她們將做什麼。）留歐陣營表示，我們從歐洲得到的好處10倍於我們做出的貢獻。
The manner in which both sides emphasise specious claims that their preferred course of action would benefit the National Health Service is a powerful illustration of an observation by Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer (Leave), that the NHS is the closest thing the English have to a national religion.
雙方都強調貌似有理的斷言，即各自倡導的行動方案都將讓英國國民醫保體系(National Health Service, NHS)受益，這有力地反映了屬於退歐陣營的英國前財政大臣尼格爾•勞森(Nigel Lawson)的結論，即NHS是最接近英格蘭人國教的事物。
Edmund Burke’s exposition of representative democracy in his 1774 speech to the electors of Bristol has never been bettered. “Government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment,” he said, “and not of inclination.” And so, he argued, “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment: and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.
在1774年對布里斯托(Bristol)的選舉人發表的演講中，埃德蒙•伯克(Edmund Burke)對代議制民主的闡釋至今無人能及。“政府和立法關乎的是理性與判斷，”他說，“而非傾向性。”因此，他主張，“你的代表對你應盡的義務不僅是他的勤奮，還有他的判斷；如果他讓自己的判斷屈從於你的觀點，那他不是在爲你服務，而是辜負了你”。
Now questions of whether Australia should remain a monarchy, or Scotland become an independent country, or New Zealand adopt a new flag, may properly be thought matters of “inclination” rather than “reason and judgment”. And the same might also be said of the question of whether Britain should seek to civilise those pesky foreigners or leave them to stew in their own juices.
相關問題——諸如澳大利亞是否應繼續實行君主制，蘇格蘭是否應該獨立，或者新西蘭是否應採用新國旗——或許可以被合理地認爲是“傾向性”，而非“理性與判斷”。同樣，對於英國是否應設法教化那些讓人討厭的外國人或是讓他們自生自滅，似乎也是這樣。
But once the issues are framed in economic terms — what is the balance of net gains and losses from British membership of the EU? How many nurses should the NHS need or afford? — then we are in the realm of reason and judgment. And the proper means of decision-making is through representatives who will trouble to muster and evaluate the relevant facts.
但是，一旦用經濟盤算來框定此類問題——英國的歐盟成員國身份帶來的淨損益平衡是什麼？NHS需要（或者僱得起）多少護士？——我們就進入了理性與判斷的範疇。而做出決策的恰當方式是通過那些代表進行，讓他們費心收集並評估相關的事實。
Few people can be induced to take an interest in the mechanics, as distinct from the principles, of democracy. Yet the mechanics matter a great deal to outcomes. The institutions of representative democracy — their purpose to secure the election of people who command wide public confidence and who can be trusted with the honest pursuit of the public good — have been undermined by the development of 24/7 news coverage, the technology that makes online petitions and online polling possible, the professionalisation of political careers, the exigencies of campaign funding and the seizure of political parties by small but passionate minorities.
很少有人能在引導之下對民主體制的運作機制（這與原則不是一回事）產生興趣。然而，這些運作機制對結果非常重要。代議制民主（旨在確保擁有廣泛公衆信任、且可以被委託誠實謀求公共利益的人士當選）的制度已被一系列新情況削弱，包括24小時全天候新聞報道、使得在線請願和在線投票成爲可能的技術、政治生涯職業化、競選經費的迫切需要，以及人少但充滿激情的少數羣體控制政黨。
Believers in representative democracy think it a mistake to suppose that more extensive and immediate responsiveness to public opinion leads to outcomes that are more democratic. Consider the paradox of the American election campaign. Were it not for the role of the “super delegates” who will give the Democratic party’s nomination to Hillary Clinton, the American people could face a choice between two candidates — her rival for the nomination Bernie Sanders and the Republican Donald Trump — both of whom are plainly unacceptable to a substantial majority of voters. The founding fathers of the United States, influenced by Burke, saw the dangers of confusing democracy with populism. And so should we.
代議制民主的信奉者認爲，對民意作出更廣泛和更迅速的響應就會帶來更民主結果的假設是錯誤的。看看美國大選競選的矛盾吧。要不是因爲有“超級代表”的存在——他們使讓希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)獲得民主黨總統候選人提名——美國人民將面臨在兩位候選人——其對手伯尼•桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)以及共和黨的唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)——之間做出選擇。但顯然，絕大多數選民都無法接受這兩人。當年受到伯克影響的美國開國先賢看到了混淆民粹與民主的危險。我們也應該看到這一點。
