美國《外交事務》雙月刊今年創刊100周年；出版了一本《外交事務一世紀：美國與世界》。由於我是訂戶，大概一個月前收到它；書中選集了15篇該刊一百年來的評論。

以下是其中扎卡瑞阿先生《「不自由」的民主政治之興起》一文的節譯、譯述、及摘錄。此文發表於1997年11/12月，近6,600字。我主要選擇了他說明「憲政自由制度」意涵的一小部分，以及比較「民主制度」與「憲政自由制度」的兩小段。

文中討論兩種制度部分，可與拙作《探討民主政治》對照比較。拙作中將「『不自由』的民主政治」翻譯為「『悖於自由主義路線』政府」；那一個翻譯比較信、達，或有其它更適當中譯，還請各位指教。文末附上一篇和該文主題相關論文的連結。

節譯部分沒有加上括號，譯述部分則加上括號來區別。我的中譯用了一些引號為原文所無；有些英文字依其在原文脈絡中的意義，我會用不同的中文字、詞來表示以求信、達和文意順暢。譯文的超連結是我加上。此外，原文子標題我以紅色字體顯示；藍色子標題則是我的提示。正文內紅色字體是我用來使原文中的名詞、概念、或意思更加醒目。

《「不自由」的民主政治之興起》     節譯和譯述

作者：扎卡瑞阿，《外交事務》，1997年11/12月

各國政體趨勢

(目前(1997)許多國家普選產生的領袖，就任後開始逾越憲法對行政權力所訂定的限制並侵犯人民自由。)

「『自由』的民主政治」與「憲政自由制度」的內涵

過去近一百年來，「西方式民主」指的是「『自由』的民主政治」；它的特點不只是公開、自由的選舉制度，它還包含：依法治理，三權分立，以及保障人民的基本自由 – 例如言論自由、集會和結社自由、宗教自由、以及擁有財產的自由。事實上，最後這些「自由」可以稱之為「憲政自由制度」；它在理論上和歷史發展過程中都截然不同於「民主制度」。… 西方式民主中結合在一起的這兩種政治思想傳統，目前在世界其他各地政府體制開始分道揚鑣；「民主制度」欣欣向榮，「憲政自由制度」則江河日下。

(敘述世界各地「民主國家」政權對人民自由的壓制和迫害。)

(「『不自由』的民主政治」體制中，許多國家的選舉不但可說是公開和大多數人民都參與，而且也的確代表著大多數人民的意願。)

…

民主與自由

什麼是「民主制度」？

從希羅多德起，「民主」一詞的做根本意義就是「主權在民」。從托克維爾到熊彼德到達爾等學者們這個把「民主制度」看成是一種(人民)選擇政府程序的觀點，現在被社會科學家普遍採用。(以下略去作者引用杭亭頓教授對「民主制度」所作定義和分析。)

...

… 但在以上(杭亭頓教授)這個最起碼的定義之上，認為「民主制度」必須保證一系列的社會、政治、經濟、和宗教權利，相當於把「民主制度」看成是一個榮譽標誌而不是一個分類標籤。… 主觀的把「民主制度」定義為「一個『好』政府」，會使它在研究政府體制上變得毫無意義。

什麼是「憲政自由制度」？

另一方面，「憲政自由制度」跟選擇政府的程序並不相關；它關注的是「建立政府的目的」。「憲政自由制度」指的是：深植於西方歷史中，保障個人對抗強制行為的自主權和人格尊嚴；不論此「強制行為」來自政府、教會、或社會。它結合了兩個相輔相成的觀念：「自由」源自希臘文化強調「個人自由」的哲學思想；「憲政」則基於古羅馬「依法治理」這個傳統。「憲政自由制度」在西歐和美國的發展史和維護個人的生存權和財產權，以及維護宗教和言論自由兩者息息相關。為了捍衛這些權利，它強調：政府各機構不得任意擴權，法律之前人人平等，公正不阿的法庭和仲裁機關，以及政、教分離。

到「『自由』的民主政治」之路

(敘述西歐「民主制度」發展簡史。) 近代史上大多數時間中，歐洲和北美「政府」和其他地區「政府」最大的不同，不在於兩者實行的「民主制度」不同，而在前者實行了「憲政自由制度」。「西方式民主」的特色不在投票權的普及，而在公平和公正的法官。

(描述和分析東亞、非洲、和拉丁美洲地區各國「民主政府」的演變。)

…

絕對權力

…

多數暴力

「憲政自由制度」和「民主制度」兩個概念不完全相容的原因在於「政府權威範圍」這個議題。前者聚焦於「對權力的限制」；後者則聚焦於「權力的累積與應用」。因此，許多十八、十九世紀的自由派人士已經覺察「民主制度」中有一股力量可能危及到(民眾的)「自由」。麥迪森在《聯邦主義者論文集》中說：

「民主制度中『(一般人)被壓迫的危險』來自『社群中的多數(派)』。」

托克維爾則寫道：

「民主制度的本質在於多數人擁有絕對權力。」

下略

相關論文

The Illiberal Tide: Why the International Order Is Tilting Toward Autocracy

Alexander Cooley and Daniel H. Nexon, the Foreign Affairs, 03/26/21

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy 摘錄

By Fareed Zakaria, the Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997

THE NEXT WAVE

…

It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy—a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms—what might be termed constitutional liberalism—is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. As the political scientist Philippe Schmitter has pointed out, "Liberalism, either as a conception of political liberty, or as a doctrine about economic policy, may have coincided with the rise of democracy. But it has never been immutably or unambiguously linked to its practice." Today the two strands of liberal democracy, interwoven in the Western political fabric, are coming apart in the rest of the world. Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not.

Today, 118 of the world's 193 countries are democratic, encompassing a majority of its people (54.8 percent, to be exact), a vast increase from even a decade ago. … Instead there is a growing unease at the rapid spread of multiparty elections across south-central Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, perhaps because of what happens after the elections. Popular leaders like Russia's Boris Yeltsin and Argentina's Carlos Menem bypass their parliaments and rule by presidential decree, eroding basic constitutional practices. The Iranian parliament—elected more freely than most in the Middle East—imposes harsh restrictions on speech, assembly, and even dress, diminishing that country's already meager supply of liberty. Ethiopia's elected government turns its security forces on journalists and political opponents, doing permanent damage to human rights (as well as human beings).

…

DEMOCRACY AND LIBERTY

From the time of Herodotus democracy has meant, first and foremost, the rule of the people. This view of democracy as a process of selecting governments, articulated by scholars ranging from Alexis de Tocqueville to Joseph Schumpeter to Robert Dahl, is now widely used by social scientists.

…

But to go beyond this minimalist definition and label a country democratic only if it guarantees a comprehensive catalog of social, political, economic, and religious rights turns the word democracy into a badge of honor rather than a descriptive category. … To have democracy mean, subjectively, "a good government" renders it analytically useless.

Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source—state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. …

THE ROAD TO LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

…  For much of modern history, what characterized governments in Europe and North America, and differentiated them from those around the world, was not democracy but constitutional liberalism. The "Western model" is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite but the impartial judge.

…

ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY

…

The tension between constitutional liberalism and democracy centers on the scope of governmental authority. Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy about its accumulation and use. For this reason, many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals saw in democracy a force that could undermine liberty. James Madison explained in The Federalist that "the danger of oppression" in a democracy came from "the majority of the community." Tocqueville warned of the "tyranny of the majority," writing, "The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority."

…