憲政主義與民主的衝突：美國政治思想的一個側面

The Conflict between Constitutionalism and Democracy: An Aspect of American Political Thought

曾國祥(Roy Tseng)

《政治與社會哲學評論》 11期 (2004/12) Pp. 35-82

https://doi.org/10.6523/168451532004120011002

摘要

刻劃美國政治思想之最為複雜的課題之一，在於憲政主義與民主的衝突。舉例而言，對傑佛遜來說，定期的憲法修改、公民複決、甚至公民反叛都是構成功能健全之民主所不可或缺的一部分。相對地，根據麥迪遜的觀點，憲法此須被隔絕於政治的日常運作之外，而避免多數專制與政府專制的理由，即可適當地解決憲政主義的正當性問題。
傑佛遜與麥迪遜之間的辯論，一再地出現在有關憲政主義與民主之關係的討論中。例如，帶著某種「新傑佛遜主義」的口吻，沈岱爾最近便宣稱說，憲政主義格局下的程序自由主義已經在美國觸發了「民主的不滿」。在此，可以歸功於沈岱爾的一個地方是，他試圖藉著豐沛公民的行動能力與擴展公共空間的範圍，來將民主從憲政主義的框架中釋放出來。另方面，晚期的羅爾斯在《政治自由主義》之中，則是重塑了憲政主義的某種「新麥迪遜主義」的圖像。按羅爾斯所言，建立在政治領域中的憲政秩序必須超然獨立於關於社會文化的各種不同傳統之外，而公民對於政治價值所從事的公共審議，即足以證立這種「有限的」政治概念。
藉此研究，作者因此可以從某種「激進民主」的觀點，闡明憲政主義的侷限，並在相當的程度上說明，現代美國政治思想如何得以依據兩個相互抗衡的「邊界」，來進行「範疇性」的理解，這兩個「邊界」即是：憲政主義與民主。

關鍵字

憲政主義 ； 民主 ； 美國政治思想 ； 傑佛遜 ； 麥迪遜 ； 沈岱爾 ； 羅爾斯

並列摘要

One of the most intricate issues underlining American political thought consists in the conflict between Constitutionalism and democracy. For Thomas Jefferson, for example, periodic constitutional amendment, referendum and even civil rebellion all constituted a necessary part of a well-functioning democracy. By contrast, it is James Madison's view that constitution must be insulated from the ordinary functioning of politics; that the avoidance of majority tyranny and governmental tyranny would do justice to constitutionalism.
The debate between Jefferson and Madison has often been recapitulated in the discussions of the relationship between constitutionalism and democracy. With a ”neo-Jeffersonian” tone, for example, Michael Sandel has recently argued that constitutional, procedural liberalism has aroused ”democracy's discontent” in the Sates. And it is to Sandel's credit that he tries to liberate democracy from constitutionalism by empowering citizen's moral agency and by expanding the scope of the public square. On the other hand, the latter John Rawls in his Political Liberalism has reformulated a ”neo-Madisonian” picture of constitutionalism. According to Rawls, the constitutional order established in the political domain must be independent from different traditions of social culture, and the citizen's public deliberation on political values alone will justify the limits of the political.
In the course of this study, therefore, I shall cast some lights on the constraint of constitutionalism from a ”radical democratic” point of view, and go someway to explaining how modern American political thought can be ”categorically” understood in terms of two contested ”frontiers”, namely constitutionalism and democracy.

並列關鍵字

constitutionalism ； democracy ； American political thought ； Jefferson ； Madison ； Sandel ； Rawls

參考文獻

Honohan, I.(2002).(Civic Republicanism).

Holmes, S.(1993).Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy.(Constitutionalism and Democracy).

Sunstein, C.(1993).Constitutions and Democracies: An Epilogue.(Constitutionalism and Democracy).

Pangle, T. L.(1998).The Retrieval of Civic Virtue: A Critical Appreciation of Sandel`s Democracy`s Discontent.(Debating Democracy Discontent: Essays on American Politics, Law, and Public Philosophy).

Pettit, P.(1998).Reworking Sandel`s Republicanism.(Debating Democracy s Discontent: Essays on American Politics, Law and Public Philosophy).