百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[什么是宪政?]
郭国汀律师专栏
·史迪威与蒋介石的命运
·腐败无能的满清屈辱史
·宛南事变真相
·西安事变真相
·到底是谁领导了抗日救亡战争?
·抗日救亡战争简史
·毛泽东再批判
·郭国汀 毛泽东批判
·国民党比共产党好得多,蒋介石比毛泽东高贵得多
·文革是人类历史上最荒唐最愚蠢最无知最残暴之举/郭国汀
·老毛和中共是中华民族的千古罪犯
·赫鲁晓夫评论毛泽东
***(31)《孙文传奇》郭国汀译著
·南郭:关于孙文评价与网友们的争论
·有关孙中山评价的争论
·孙中山、蒋介石与苏俄
·孙中山蒋介石与苏俄的原则性区别
·《孙中山传奇》郭国汀编译
·《共和革命之父孙中山》
·《共和革命之父孙中山》郭国汀编译
·《共和革命之父孙中山》1、身世
·《共和革命之父孙中山》3、孙文共和民主革命
·《共和革命之父孙中山》6、日本政要支持孙文
·《共和革命之父孙中山》8、义和拳乱
·《共和革命之父孙中山》9、革命派与改良派
·《共和革命之父孙中山》10、孙文革命与华侨和留学生
·《共和革命之父孙中山》11、晚清的改革
·《共和革命之父孙中山传奇》12、四处筹资促革命
·《共和革命之父孙中山》13、黄花岗起义
·《共和革命之父孙中山》14、保路运动
·《共和革命之父孙中山》15、武昌起义
·《共和革命之父孙中山》16、袁世凯趁虚劫权
·《共和革命之父孙中山》17、辛亥革命的意义
·《共和革命之父孙中山》18、捍卫革命精神
·《共和革命之父孙中山》19、宋教仁遇刺
·《共和革命之父孙中山》20、二次革命
·《共和革命之父孙中山》21、袁世凯破坏共和体制
·《共和革命之父孙中山》22、中华革命党
·《共和革命之父孙中山》23、袁世凯称帝闹剧
·《共和革命之父孙中山》24、袁世凯众叛亲离
·《共和革命之父孙中山》25、张勋复辟帝制
·《共和革命之父孙中山》26.孙文护宪
·《共和革命之父孙中山》27.著书立说
·《共和革命之父孙中山》28.新文化运动和五四运动
·29.新文化及五四期间的孙文
·《共和革命之父孙中山》30.东山再起
·《共和革命之父孙中山》31、孙文为何联俄容共?
·《共和革命之父孙中山》32.孙越上海宣言
·《共和革命之父孙中山》33.阴差阳错 逼上梁山
·《共和革命之父孙中山》34.以俄为师
·《共和革命之父孙中山》35.反帝遵儒
·《共和革命之父孙中山》36.关税事件
·《共和革命之父孙中山》37.国民党一大
·《共和革命之父孙中山》38.三民主义
·《共和革命之父孙中山》39.屡战屡北
·《共和革命之父孙中山》40.最后岁月
·《共和革命之父孙中山》41.壮志未酬身先死
·国际权威专家对孙文的客观公正评价
·辛亥革命重大历史与现实意义
***(32)《还原蒋介石》郭国汀译著
·郭国汀谈论毛泽东和蒋介石
·我为何研究孙文,蒋介石及中华民国史?
·《民族英雄蒋介石》
·《还原蒋介石》:身世
·《还原蒋介石》:辛亥革命中的蒋介石
·《还原蒋介石》:二次革命
·《还原蒋介石》:中华革命党
·《还原蒋介石》:袁世凯称帝与张勋复辟
·《还原蒋介石》:军阀混战
·《还原蒋介石》:南北军政府对抗
·《还原蒋介石》:辞职将军蒋介石
·《还原蒋介石》:孝子情深
·《还原蒋介石》:情深义重
·《还原蒋介石》:远见卓识 肝胆相照
·《还原蒋介石》:壮志未酬身先死
·《还原蒋介石》:列宁的对华政策
·《还原蒋介石》:中共的由来
·《还原蒋介石》:孙中山的“联俄容共”
·《还原蒋介石》:共产党篡夺国民党的领导权
·《还原蒋介石》:篡党夺权
·《还原蒋介石》:‘联俄联共,扶助农工’的骗局
·《还原蒋介石》:蒋介石领导北伐
·《还原蒋介石》:中山舰事件真相
·《还原蒋介石》:北伐雄师所向无敌
·《还原蒋介石》:中共恶意制造南京事件
·《还原蒋介石》:共产党阴谋操控反蒋运动
·《还原蒋介石》:上海三次起义
·《还原蒋介石》:汪(精卫)陈(独秀)联合宣言
·《还原蒋介石》:四一二清党真相
·《还原蒋介石》:恢复北伐
·《还原蒋介石》:宁汉政府相争
·《民族英雄蒋介石》33、汪精卫武汉政府清共
·《民族英雄蒋介石》34、南昌暴动
·《民族英雄蒋介石》35、蒋介石辞职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》36、蒋介石访日
·《民族英雄蒋介石》37、蒋(介石)宋(美玲)联姻
·《民族英雄蒋介石》38、广州暴动国民党与苏联决裂
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
什么是宪政?

什麽是憲政?
   
   
   
   郭国汀

   
   
   
   宪政正日益成为国人的热门话题,但何谓宪政?恐怕并非人人明白。简言之,宪政即宪法至上,分权制衡限制政府权力,充分保障国民基本人权的政治体制。
   
   宪政体制有如下要素:首先,政治社会建立在人民主权这一基本概念之上;其次,定期真实的多党自由竞选;再次,通过立法、行政、司法三权分立,分权制衡的安排限制政府的权力;第四,独立司法和确实的法治,以保障司法公正;最后,国家保障国民个人的公民权和政治权力,因为这是不可剥夺让与的基本人权。宪政体制是人类社会经数千年政治实践从野蛮走向文明总结发明创造出来的最佳政府形式。宪政学者哈贝马斯认为:“宪政并非语言、文化和民族的自然而然的产物,而是人类政治意志选择的产物”。[1]质言之,宪政是人类共同政治制度财产,人人皆用权享用之。
   
   美国宪法之父第四任总统迈迪逊指出了宪政的原因:“如果人都是天使,何需任何政府;如果由天使统治人,哪还需要对政府进行任何外部或内在的控制”。他论证道“既然人非天使,为了防抑人性的弱点,提升人性善良的一面,就必须对政府设置种种内在和外部的控制,只有给予各部门主管抵制其它部门的必要法定手段及鼓励个人的积极主动性,才有可能防止某些权力逐渐集中于同一部门的情况。‘野心必须用野心制约’,要迫使处于统治地位的人行使政治权力时,只能(不是自觉)作为公众利益的保护人,而无法实践粗暴、自私的个人意志”。[2]亦即宪政的基本假设乃是人性本恶,按基督教原理,人类皆有天生的原罪诸如:贪婪、自私、懒惰、好色,若不加限制约束或限制不力,人类难免被具有强酸性质的权力所腐蚀变质,因此,高明的政治家设计出能充分制约当权者预防其滥用权力的机制。
   
   人类对绝对权力似乎拥有永恒的爱好,无论君主,还是贵族寡头,或是纯民主政府概莫能外。“我即是国家!”法国路易十六世如是说;而1793年法国革命雅格滨设立的民主绝对权力也导致暴政;俄国布尔什维克党1917年十月革命,列宁创建了人类历史上第一个共产党极权暴政;中共1949年建立的则是党天下为特征的特权寡头独裁绝对权力,因而中共政权成为极权暴政是必然的。印证了阿克顿勋爵之"绝对权力导致绝对腐败“的政治学定律的真理性。因此,无论是个人或是少数人还是多数人的专制,都是对人民生命安全和幸福快乐人生的严重威胁,宪政的目标就在于防止政府的权力腐败,保障公民个体的基本权利,因而必须限制制约政府的权力。宪政就是政府必须按照由基本法(宪法)制定的制度和法律原则在最高法律授予的范围内行使权力,因此宪政即是专门研究如何有效限制制约政府权力的理论与实践。
   
   
   
   宪政与自由、法治、人权、独立司法、民主、共和密不可分。绝对权力的政府与宪政政府的主要区别在于前者对政府权力没有任何有效力量制约,既无独立司法,也没有自由媒体,当然不可能有法治,因而独裁当权者极易滥用权力随心所欲任意妄为,演变成专制暴政;后者则政府权力受到法治约束的分权制衡机制的调整,政府权力受到自由媒体和在野反对党及公众的全面监督制约;独立司法依法治原则裁断是非,维护公道,因而多能维护社会正义与公平,较充分保障国民基本人权,从而人民生活自由快乐幸福有实质保障。
   
   中共政权之所以反动腐败无能下流无耻残暴邪恶致极,其根本原因之一正在于中共政权是个不受任何外部力量有效限制制约的绝对独裁权力,因而其必然演变成绝对腐败与绝对残暴的暴政。为了全体国人切身根本长远利益,必须尽早抛弃推翻极端反动腐败无能残暴邪恶致极的中共极权专制流氓暴政!
   
   2009年3月28日
   
   [1] Habermas, a historical mistake has already been made. The democratic, constitutional state should not be seen as naturally determined by sharing language, culture, and national fate but as a result of a deliberate act of political will. Therefore, every citizen should have had the right to vote for or against the reunification
   
   [2] Edited by J.E.Cooke, The Federalist, Wesleyan University Press (Middletown Connecticut 1961)NO.51 James Madison PP.347-353. 迈迪逊《联邦党人文集》
   
   
   
   
   
   
   附:Constitutional Government
   
   John Cameron Simonds.
   
    Determined by the quality or character of its power, government may be generally
   
    classified as either absolute or constitutional. Benjamin Constant, a publicist of the Restoration, defined absolute power "as the absence of rule. of limit, of definition:" as the absence of all limitation to supreme power, and "of all independent powers to form a counterpoise." Wherever lodged, absolute power is the same, and admits of no rule or limit from without. Whether in form a monarchy or democracy, its underlying principle is: "power is the only foundation of the right to wield it."
   
    No ancient statesman, writes Dr. Lieber, "ever doubted the extent of supreme power. If the people possessed it, no one ever hesitated in allowing to them absolute power over every one and over everything. If it passed from the people to the few, or was usurped by one, in many cases they considered the acquisition of power unlawful, but never doubted its unlimited extent." To this conception, in ancient Greece, may be ascribed the death of Socrates, and the banishment of Aristides. For monarchical government, it was expressed by Justinian in the words: "Whatever pleases the prince has the force of law;" and by Louis XIV. in his famous aphorism: "I am the state." In France, the Jacobin convention of 1793 was a striking example of democratic absolutism; as a political organization, it assumed omnipotent power, and in its name perpetrated heinous crimes against liberty and right.
   
    The very opposite of this is constitutional government; for the reason, its powers are exercised in accordance with a " system of fundamental laws and principles." The legitimate powers of such a government are those only which accord with its primary organization, and are consistent with its limitations and definitions,
   
    A constitution usually supplements existing institutions, wherein it is grounded; it presupposes an established order of things; as an organon of government, the instrument presumes certain personal and property rights which it is intended to define, to protect and to preserve. A constitution is, therefore, efficient in the precise degree to which it restrains the exercise of power, wherever lodged or however distributed.
   
    Essentially, then, whatever form a government may assume, it is constitutional only when instituted rights are protected by restrictions and guarantees. In the words of Francis Lieber: "Civil liberty does not exist when any one, or any two, or any three, or any thousand, or any million, can do what they have the mere power to do. Arbitrary power does not become less arbitrary because it is the united power of many."
   
    Again, it is barely sufficient to define a Constitutional government as one having a "system of fundamental rules, principles and ordinances." Even an Asiatic despotism must respect the customs, traditions and opinions of its subjects. It would be difficult to find a government so absolute that it could wholly disregard that which had become customary and habitual in a people.
   
    Venice was once a constitutional aristocracy, as indeed were all the so-called republics of northern Italy. Great Britain presents the best example of what may be designated a constitutional monarchy. However, in each of the instances above mentioned, some department of the state was above or without the constitution; in the Venetian state it was the directory, once so despotic and sanguinary, while in England, parliament is politically omnipotent.
   
    This is not the American idea of a constitution. In the United States, absolute power does not exist in any department of the government, whether state or federal. In other words, with us, all government is the creature of a constitution, which is the only legitimate source and measure of its power; as all powers not granted by that instrument are "reserved," our system of government is an express limitation upon the powers of political agents, who may be properly re- strained only when their authority is strictly construed. Particularly is this true of the general government. A latitudinarian construction of delegated authority must eventuate in an emasculation of reserved rights; while the form may remain, the spirit will have departed. To quote the illustrious Marshall: "To what purpose are powers limited and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing if those limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited or unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场