英国去留欧盟不应通过公投决定

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.

像英国所有居民一样，最近我也收到了选举委员会(Electoral Commission)寄来的一本关于即将举行的英国退欧公投的小册子，上面阐述了各方的立场缘由，并提供了如何投票的说明。

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，这一过程堪称民主实践的典范——以一种平衡的方式让人民知情，寻求民意做出判断。但仔细分析这个小册子可以告诉我们，为什么做出重大决策时不应采用这种方式。

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.

支持留欧与支持退欧的阵营每方都有一页纸来陈述议题，结果双方各提供了一份清单——全是未经证实、且大都无依据的断言。留欧阵营宣称，英国一年从欧盟获益910亿英镑。但退欧阵营表示，英国每周向欧盟支出逾3.5亿英镑，足够聘请60万名护士。（鉴于英国已经有近35万名护士，天知道谁将聘用她们，或者她们将做什么。）留欧阵营表示，我们从欧洲得到的好处10倍于我们做出的贡献。

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.

双方都强调貌似有理的断言，即各自倡导的行动方案都将让英国国民医保体系(National Health Service, NHS)受益，这有力地反映了属于退欧阵营的英国前财政大臣尼格尔•劳森(Nigel Lawson)的结论，即NHS是最接近英格兰人国教的事物。

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年对布里斯托(Bristol)的选举人发表的演讲中，埃德蒙•伯克(Edmund Burke)对代议制民主的阐释至今无人能及。“政府和立法关乎的是理性与判断，”他说，“而非倾向性。”因此，他主张，“你的代表对你应尽的义务不仅是他的勤奋，还有他的判断；如果他让自己的判断屈从于你的观点，那他不是在为你服务，而是辜负了你”。

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.

相关问题——诸如澳大利亚是否应继续实行君主制，苏格兰是否应该独立，或者新西兰是否应采用新国旗——或许可以被合理地认为是“倾向性”，而非“理性与判断”。同样，对于英国是否应设法教化那些让人讨厌的外国人或是让他们自生自灭，似乎也是这样。

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，一旦用经济盘算来框定此类问题——英国的欧盟成员国身份带来的净损益平衡是什么？NHS需要（或者雇得起）多少护士？——我们就进入了理性与判断的范畴。而做出决策的恰当方式是通过那些代表进行，让他们费心收集并评估相关的事实。

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.

很少有人能在引导之下对民主体制的运作机制（这与原则不是一回事）产生兴趣。然而，这些运作机制对结果非常重要。代议制民主（旨在确保拥有广泛公众信任、且可以被委托诚实谋求公共利益的人士当选）的制度已被一系列新情况削弱，包括24小时全天候新闻报道、使得在线请愿和在线投票成为可能的技术、政治生涯职业化、竞选经费的迫切需要，以及人少但充满激情的少数群体控制政党。

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.

代议制民主的信奉者认为，对民意作出更广泛和更迅速的响应就会带来更民主结果的假设是错误的。看看美国大选竞选的矛盾吧。要不是因为有“超级代表”的存在——他们使让希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)获得民主党总统候选人提名——美国人民将面临在两位候选人——其对手伯尼•桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)以及共和党的唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)——之间做出选择。但显然，绝大多数选民都无法接受这两人。当年受到伯克影响的美国开国先贤看到了混淆民粹与民主的危险。我们也应该看到这一点。