觀點全球政治

Democracy works better when there is less of it
民主並不是越多越好

Autocracy is not the only alternative to the status quo
加內什:和以前一樣,政府與被統治者之間的距離遠一點,既可以提高前者的質量,又能夠讓後者最終掌權。

As the Athens tourist board seldom mentions, their fair city was not just the cradle but also the mausoleum of democracy. The ancients defined “rule by the people” with a literalism that has mostly not endured: direct votes in mass gatherings, issue-by-issue, eyeball-to-eyeball. When the US founders balked at the D-word (it is not in the constitution) it was because the meaning was still the Greek one. The indirect vote that now governs their republic and much of the world is as far from that as modern architecture is from the Doric order.

正如雅典旅遊局很少提到的,他們的美麗城市不僅是民主(democracy)的搖籃,也是民主的陵墓。古人以字面含義來定義「民治」(這種定義在很大程度上未能延續下來):舉行羣衆集會,一個議題接一個議題,面對面地直接投票。美國的國父們迴避了這個字母「D」開頭的詞語(美國憲法裏並不包含這個詞),那是因爲當時這個詞仍然採用古希臘的那種定義。時至今日,美利堅合衆國和世界許多其他地區採用的間接投票制度與古希臘民主之間的差異,就像現代建築與多立克柱式(Doric order)的差異一樣大。

您已閱讀12%(783字),剩餘88%(5621字)包含更多重要資訊,訂閱以繼續探索完整內容,並享受更多專屬服務。
版權聲明:本文版權歸FT中文網所有,未經允許任何單位或個人不得轉載,複製或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵權必究。
設置字型大小×
最小
較小
默認
較大
最大
分享×