天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 95|回复: 0

郭国汀:极权专制暴政下决无法治生存的余地

[复制链接]
发表于 5 天前 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 5/18/2017 12:52 编辑

开明专制极权暴政与法治--极权专制暴政下决无法治生存的余地
郭国汀
       正如所有的专制国家皆称自已是民主国家一样,世界上所有的国家,无论其是多么专制蛮横,都宣称自已是法治国家。“任何政府,毫无例外地在国际和国内事务上均宣称自已是法治,即便最残酷和臭名昭著的独裁者也会将任何他想得到的东西指向法律并使之合法化。每个政府均认为其在法治范围内,无论其是多么恐怖”。[1]胡锦涛、温家宝及秦刚之流皆大言不惭地称:我国是“法治国家”!甚至连民运理论家徐水良先生也认为:中国仅是法治服从人治因而中国也有法治!
       确实,国际上也有法学家称专制国家(君王)也可能有法治。例如:
       (1)“一般而言,法律是国家说明某种行为应受处罚或会有什么后果的规则实体。占主导地位的法治概念大多未言及法律本身的正义性,而仅涉及法律制度如何运作。按此种概念,一个非常不民主的国家,或一个不尊重人权的国家,也能够有法治,如现代好些专制国家。法治可以是民主的一项条件,但不是充要条件”。[2]

       (2)“从逻辑上看,在法治与专制主义之间并无茅盾。因为专制君主为了区分官僚作用及有效的分工的利益,他也能用法律来统治他的臣民”[3]

       (3)“法治要求一个不同的政府职能部门。但此种要求乃历史或心理的要求,而非逻辑的要求。因为法治并非逻辑的结果,即便一个专制君王也可以实行法治”。[4]

      (4)即使一个法律规定统治者的意志至上的专制国家,在形式意义上也可以基于法治,因为是法律规定统治者的权力[5]

      (5)“由于法治注重的是法律技术而非法律的内容,因此从理论意义上,专制国家也可能有法治,但在实践意义上,专制国家的法治,如果有的话,在涉及私法及刑法和行政法领域是以不直接触及政府为限”。[6]

必须指出的是:上述五种说法,姑且不论其是否正确,他们皆仅提及“专制国家”“专制君王”及“专制君主”制下也能有法治。确实被称作威权政府的新加坡不但有法治而且其法治水准在国际社会名列前茅。但是“专制国家、君主、君王”与威权政府并非同一概念,与“极权流氓暴政”更相差十万八千里,前者有可能存在开明君主或开明专制,而极权流氓暴政性质远比专制恶劣百倍。迄今从未有过任何一位法学家提及“极权流氓暴政”下也有法治之说。问题在于中共政权是否“极权流氓暴政”?!答案是肯定的!其次,上述学者在言及专制国家(君王)也可能有法治时,其“法治”概念内涵有特定限制,正如政治理论家朱迪斯(Judith N. Shklar)说,“法治一词由于意识形态的滥用和过份通常地被使用,业已变得毫无意义,但无论如何该词组过去有着特定和重要的意义”。[7]“当今许多法治理论家实质上确有拒绝区分法制理论及其法院实践的趋势”[8]。法治的实质乃是:任何权力,无论是君王的、政府的还是贵族的或是人民大众的权力,均必须限制;及立法至上,法律至高无上。开明专制国家及君王若依法限制其自身的权力且立法至上,在此意义上做到法治当然有可能,问题在于极权流氓暴政下,决无任何可能限制极权流氓当权集团的绝对权力,也根本不可能做到立法法律至上,否则它就不叫“极权流氓暴政”了。


       法治与恐怖统治两者的区别在于: “法律若无效力一文不值。为使实在法成为法律,必须使之有效力。但这并不意味着无论何时法律事实上有效力,均是法律为王(法治),因为法律亦可以仅因为恐怖为王(恐怖统治)时产生效力。仅是任何事形式上合法,并不意味着恐怖已被排除;仅是非法获取政权的事实,并不意味着法律为王(法治)不能实现。如果人民并非完全自愿遵守规则,而是由于恐惧或威胁,至少在该时,可以有法律,但没有法律为王(法治),显然仅有恐怖为王(恐怖统治)。此种恐怖统治的社会注定不稳定,因为人民之间永远相互争斗,迟早人民其中的一部份会发生分裂”。[9]

       权力与法治及恐怖统治及民主选举之间的关系如下: “如果有权力,人民不反对或不能反对它,即有法律。若仅有权力,则没有法律为王(法治),但法律被滥用作为恐怖为王(恐怖统治)的工具;假如有权力和被统治者的同意,即有法治。质言之,任何国家未能提供自由的和充满活力的竞争选举,根本不可能证明它是法律为王(法治)的体制,不可避免地结论乃是恐怖为王(恐怖统治)的体制。此种国家可以有法律,但没有任何意义上的法治”。[10] 亦即民主虽然不是法治的充要条件,但是民主确是真正意义上的法治的必要前提。没有选举民主条件下的法治是有限的不完全意义上的法治。

       “如果没有任何强制,决不会有规则和法律。在每桶苹果中总会有一些烂苹果。如果国家不保护公众对抗其公敌,公众成员将不得不自已执行。这不是法治,而是恐怖统治。而恐怖只会孳生更多的恐怖。它不是文明法律,而是丛林法则。试图取消一切强制,并未引导共产主义国家消除恐怖,而是导致永恒的恐怖”。[11]杨佳事件及日前新疆“七五”暴乱事件的根源正在于中共专制暴政下不存在法治,因为没有独立司法,当然不可能有司法公正和社会正义。而一个没有司法公正,社会正义的国度,人民只有通过自已来执行强制的自然法则,因而导致恐怖。因此,必须尽早及时终结中共一党独裁极权专制流氓暴政,才能彻底解决中华民族大家庭的和平和谐相互尊重互助互爱的民族共处问题。

       “每个法律体制都必然包含某些强制和同意;如果完全不具有该两项因素,则根本不存在任何法律。没有某种强制,不存在法律,但没有被统治者的同意,便不存在法治”。[12]中共匪帮骗子国最大的问题即在于流氓中共蛮横无理盗国窃政60年来,一直凭据党卫军、及公检法司警特监狱等国家暴力机器,蛮横拒绝还政还权于民,中国实质上不存在被统治的人民的同意,因而根本没有任何法治生存的余地,而唯有恐怖统治。人民的同意必须体现为定期公开公正公平自由真实的民主选举。此种选举的对象,除了国家总统以外,所有的参众两院议员(包括省级议员),所有省长市长县长,全部必须按前述条件定期选举产生。西方自由宪政民主国家早已实现此种选举数百年。仅此一点便足以证实:中共专制暴政是个极端自私自利的流氓犯罪利益集团。中国人民决不能容忍此种下三滥的流氓犯罪团伙继续蹂躏欺凌我大中华民族!

       综上所述:开明专制国家(君主)制下有可能存在法治,没有民主选举的国家也可以有法治。真正完全意义上的法治,只有在选举民主制下才可能得以实现,而法治则能有效地保障民主政治的健康发展。民主虽然不是法治的充要条件但民主是法治的必要前提。单纯讲民主或抛开民主讲法治,既不可能有真正意义上的法治,也不可能有完全意义上的民主。无论如何,极权暴政和流氓暴政下决无任何法治生存的余地。因此,中共极权专制流氓暴政下决不可能有任何意义上的法治和民主。


2009年11月1日第191个反中共极权专制暴政争自由人权民主绝食争权抗暴民权运动日




[1] Naturally every government, without exception, claims to be under the Rule of Law, in international as well as in local affairs. Even the most ruthless and foul dictator will point to "the law" and the "legality" of everything he can think ofevery government sees itself as being within the Rule of Law, no matter how much Terror it takes to do it.

[2] Generally speaking, law is a body of rules prescribed by the state subject to sanctions or consequences.The predominant view is that the concept of "rule of law" per se says nothing about the "justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal system operates.As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one without respect for human rights can exist with a "rule of law" — a situation which may be occurring in several modern dictatorships. The "rule of law" or Rechtsstaat may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition.  

[3] Logically, there is no contradiction between Rule of Law and absolutism. As the absolute prince distinguishes bureaucratic functions in the interest of an efficacious division of labor, so also can he rule his subjects by law.

[4] the Rule of Law requires a differentiation of governmental functions.  

[5] even a dictatorship in a country where it is established law that the will of the ruler is supreme may in this formal sense be said to be based on the Rule of Law, because it is the law which gives the ruler his powers. Melvin Nord The Rule of Law, 38 U. Det. L.J.  (1960-1961)  pages 316

[6] the principles of the Rule of Law will generally only be applied, if applied at all, in respect of the system of private law and in respect of those aspects of the criminal law and of administrative law which do not touch directly on government.

[7] the phrase 'the Rule of Law' has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general overuse", but nevertheless this phrase has in the past had specific and important meanings.  

[8] It has been the tendency of many theorists of the Rule of Law to present the ideal as the actual, or at least to refuse to distinguish between the theory of rule by law and the practice of the courts.

[9] law" is meaningless without the concept of effectiveness. in order for the "positive law" to be "law" at all, it must be effective. But this does not mean that whenever "law" is in fact effective, the Reign of Law prevails, because "law" may be effective for a time even though it is in effect only through a Reign of Terror. The mere fact that everything is, in form, "legal" doesn't mean that Terror has been put aside; and the mere fact that there has been an "illegal" seizure of power doesn't mean that the Reign of Law is not in effect. If they follow them, not on the whole voluntarily, but only because they are terrorized or coerced, we have "law," at least for the time being, but we do not have the "Reign of Law" or "Rule of Law." We have, obviously, the Reign of Terror. Such societies are inherently unstable, because people are permanently pitted against each other. Sooner or later, a breakthrough of the people, or some portion of them, occurs.

[10] If there is power, and the people do not or cannot resist it, there is "law." That is so in every state, no matter how despicable its activities may be. If there is power only, this is not the Reign of Law, but is "law" abused-used as an instrument of the Reign of Terror. If there is power and the "consent of the governed," there is a Reign of Law. In other words, any country which fails to afford freely and vigorously contested elections has no way of proving that it is a Reign of Law regime, and the unavoidable conclusion is that it is a Reign of Terror regime. Such a country may have "law," but it does not have the "Rule of Law" in any meaningful sense.

[11] if there is no coercion whatever, there is no "Rule" and no "Law." There will always be some rotten apples in every barrel. If the state doesn't protect the public from these public enemies, the members of the public will have to do their own "enforcement." This is not the Rule of Law, but the Reign of Terror. And terror simply breeds more terror. It is not civilized law; it is the "law of the jungle." The attempt to have no coercion at all has not led in Communist countries to the extinction of Terror, but to the perpetuation of Terror.

[12] Melvin Nord The Rule of Law, 38 U. Det. L.J.  (1960-1961)  pages 316every system of law must contain some blending of coercion and consent; if either is completely missing, there will be no "law" at all. Without some coercion, there is no "law," but without the consent of the governed, there is no "Rule of Law."[12]



您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 5/23/2017 11:48 , Processed in 0.075773 second(s), 12 queries , Gzip On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表