800 years ago, on June 15, 1215, King John (1167-1216) of England, who was suffering from internal and external troubles and had no other choice, visited a beautiful and peaceful village in Runnymede next to the Thames River. The meadow was forced to agree to the request of 25 noble representatives and sign the Magna Carta. Because of this world's first constitutional document, this one of the most unpopular kings in British history can go down in history forever.

(To celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the British Library in London is exhibiting for the first time the four surviving original manuscripts of the 1215 Magna Carta.)

This document is in Latin The main content of the document written on a piece of parchment paper about A3 size is to limit the power of the king and protect the rights of the nobility and free people. Subsequent historical evolution has proven that the concept of "rule of law" created by the Magna Carta is not only the cornerstone of the British constitutional monarchy, but also the source of human democratic constitutionalism.

一

There are numerous academic studies on the Magna Carta so far. I am not an expert in this field, so I have no intention of adding anything here. I just want to point out one thing, and this is also the most common knowledge about it throughout the ages: judging from the text of the Magna Carta, its biggest breakthrough lies in the denial of "absolute royal power." The Magna Carta recognized that the power of the King of England was granted by God, but refused to recognize that this "divine power" was absolute and unrestricted. Instead, it claimed that the king was only the "first among equals" of nobles and had no more power. Among the 63 articles and more than 4,000 words in the Magna Carta, the most important Article 61 (the so-called "Security Law") stipulates that a committee composed of 25 nobles can convene a meeting at any time and have the power to veto the king. The power of command; if the king's behavior violates the Magna Carta, force can be used if necessary to deprive the king of his power and property. Within the framework of medieval political legitimacy that believed in the "divine right of kings," this kind of "contract" imposed on royal power was unprecedented. Where absolute power ends is where the rule of law begins.

However, like all milestones in human history, the significance of "Magna Carta" lies not only in the spirit conveyed by its text, but also in the subsequent historical development that fortunately allowed its value to be highlight. If we search the historical records of various civilizations around the world, we will surely be able to find many events and documents similar to the Magna Carta that restricted royal power. Take China as an example. According to historical records, as early as the early years of the Yin and Shang Dynasties, a major political change occurred in which the wise minister Yi Yin "released Taijia in Tong" and returned the power to the reformed King of Yin 7 years later. This was also The story that Confucian scholars of all ages talked about is exactly the same in nature as the English nobles coercing King John to sign the Magna Carta; the Confucian classic "Shang Shu? 6? 1 Thai Oath" has "Heaven sees himself and the people see, and God hears himself and the people listen." The famous saying has almost based the political legitimacy of the ruler who is "ordered by heaven" on the consent of the ruled; even until the Ming and Qing Dynasties when the traditional autocratic centralization reached its peak, there were still scholars like Huang Zongxi who expressed doubts about absolute royal power. Launch strong criticism... But I am afraid no one will think that these historical events have laid the foundation for China's rule of law and constitutional government. Because later Chinese history did not evolve along the possibilities opened up by these events, they became accidental and isolated flashes of light, lost in the vast river of history.

The British were lucky enough to seize the opportunity and fully develop the possibilities contained in accidental events into history itself. Therefore, the true value of Magna Carta lies in its practice. In fact, after the signing of Magna Carta, many kings and rulers of England (including King John himself, who signed it) did not really take it seriously. They either want to abolish it, try to modify it, or do not intend to abide by it at all... In order to defend the rights granted to them by the Magna Carta, the British people have fought for 500 years, throwing their heads and blood one after another - they In the name of Magna Carta, they beheaded Charles I (1600-1649); under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), they overthrew the monarchy and established *** and the Republic of China; they launched the "Glorious Revolution" (1688) and reestablished the constitutional monarchy... In the end, the British successfully tamed "absolute power" and allowed the spirit of the rule of law contained in the Magna Carta to take root. , grew into a towering tree of the system. As Britain became the world's first modern country and emerged as an unprecedented "empire on which the sun never sets", this spirit of rule of law has been carried forward throughout the world.

To this day, 800 years later, the Magna Carta is still an important part of the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. Its three articles still have legal effect, namely: the king must guarantee the integrity of the British church. freedom, self-government of London and other towns, and no coercive act to deprive citizens of their rights, such as search, arrest, deportation or confiscation of property, shall be taken against citizens without a trial according to law.

It is precisely because of the success of the Magna Carta in British history that it inspired people in later generations in Britain and other parts of the world to fight unremittingly to defend their rights, and this struggle further gave it With new vitality. A British chief justice therefore wrote: "The significance of Magna Carta lies not only in what it actually said, but more importantly in what future generations claimed it said and believed it said..."

II

After the 1990s, classical liberalism, represented by Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), has gained great influence in Chinese humanities and social sciences. The world is very popular. Affected by this academic trend, a new mindset gradually formed among Chinese liberal intellectuals. It believed that the European Enlightenment was divided into two types: British-style "evolutionary rationalism" and French-style "constructive rationalism." Completely different concepts. The former is led by John Locke (1632-1704), David Hume (1711-1776) and Adam Smith (1723-1790). Representatives of the latter include René Descartes (1596-1650), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and Auguste Comte (1712-1778). 1798-1857) and others. Britain and France followed the political change models of "gradual reform" and "radical revolution" respectively, and reform was better than revolution.

I would like to briefly talk about my understanding of this issue by discussing the Magna Carta.

First of all, it is inconsistent with historical reality to simply summarize the British political evolution model as "reform". As we have seen above, the British people in history did not blindly insist on reform and reject revolution. Once they feel that their rights have been violated and they cannot bear it anymore, they will not hesitate to use force to overthrow the ruler. The contemporary trend of thought that pits reform against revolution, praising the former and belittling the latter, may be a useful counterargument to the "worship of revolution" that has swept China over the past century, but it is also inconsistent with historical reality. Just as revolution is not necessarily better than reform, reform is not necessarily better than revolution. It all depends on which method causes less damage to society and makes greater progress. I would like to remind those patients with "revolutionary phobia" that the Revolution of 1911 is a "revolution" and the Meiji Restoration is a "reform". However, if we do not consider anything else, just judging from the damage they caused to society, those who died because of the Revolution of 1911 The number of people killed was far smaller than those who died during the Meiji Restoration.

Therefore, the real wisdom of the British does not lie in supporting reform and opposing revolution, but in their respect for tradition. To a certain extent, it was their persistent respect for the tradition of the rule of law established by the Magna Carta that led to the success of British modernization. The British seem to have innate doubts and fears about the heroic progressive belief that negates and breaks everything existing and completely re-plans society. For them, no matter whether they adopt reform or revolutionary means, they always have no choice. We are trying to minimize the impact it has on society. Hayek saw this correctly, but most of his Chinese fans did not deeply understand it.

Second, although ideas are important, they are not the entire driving force for social evolution as many Chinese intellectuals believe. The relationship between new ideas and social change is rather a relationship between seeds and fruits - seeds contain possibilities, but without suitable soil and climate, they cannot take root, sprout and thrive. As I mentioned in the previous article, many seeds of concepts conducive to the formation of the rule of law have been produced in human history, but almost all of them have been lost in the long river of history. The reason why "Magna Carta" became a lucky exception is not because of how "advanced" its content is, but because Britain's economic and social structure is more suitable for its development and growth than other places in the world.

Hayek extracted "British ideas" and "French ideas" and conceptualized comparative analysis of them, just for an academic abstract need. They are not complex and diverse real thoughts. history. I could easily name many English thinkers with quintessentially "French ideas", such as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jeremy Bentham ( 1748-1832); I could just as easily name numerous French thinkers with typically "British ideas", such as Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) and Alexis ?6?1 de?6?1 Tocqueville (Alexis-de Tocqueville). Therefore, in my opinion, the reason why Britain and France took completely different paths was not mainly determined by Hume and Rousseau, but was subject to the completely different economic and social structures of Britain and France. Due to space constraints, we cannot discuss this in depth here, but I think the following two points are key: first, Britain has always had a strong aristocratic power; second, the British economic structure has always relied more on commerce than farming.

From the birth process of Magna Carta itself, we should understand an important truth: the rule of law arises from the game of evenly matched interests. It is not created from scratch by some person (or organization) based on a set of ideas. Planned out.

三

Sadly, as we celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, Britain and Europe are in the bleak position of fighting for their continued existence. It made people worry about the future fate of the fruits of Magna Carta.

If Greece and the United Kingdom are the birthplaces of human democracy and modern rule of law respectively, then their simultaneous predicament is a symbol and epitome of the serious crisis that the entire Western civilization is in. Due to the continued economic downturn and a series of severe challenges such as immigration and terrorism, an unprecedentedly strong sense of skepticism and failure is permeating the spiritual world of Britain and the entire West.

Although the British general election just over a month ago confirmed the correct economic policies of the current British government, it has intensified the possibility of division between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Not only that, the unprecedented political apathy, distrust of leaders, and sense of powerlessness displayed by voters profoundly reflect the unhealthy political ecology of this country known as the "Mother of Parliaments." Only not long ago, the winning party in the general election could get the support of more than 40% of voters. Now, the winning party can only try hard not to lose worse than the other party, so that the support rate barely exceeds 30%.

Whether it is Conservative David Cameron who won re-election or Labor leader Ed Miliband who lost the election, Neither has demonstrated the leadership qualities that can lead the country into the future. Indeed, not only in Britain but throughout the West, the image and prestige of political leaders have plummeted compared to their great predecessors. Today's generation of frightened politicians who are always scolded never dare to propose a grander vision to voters. They can only follow the trend of the dire situation and make some short-term solutions that solve the headache and the pain. Behavior.

This combination of elite powerlessness and grassroots absence has caused people to gradually lose confidence in the system and trust in politicians on a larger scale, which is leading to even more unfortunate consequences. In the UK and Europe it has created a huge legal vacuum. And those anti-system populist extreme trends took advantage of it and filled the large space left by it. They capture the prevailing mood of the era and provide frustrated voters with cheap vents rather than positive solutions. They are anti-elite, anti-immigration, anti-globalization, anti-Europe... and even anti-politics.

Traditionally, the Western left-wing always positions its political ideals in a dreamy future, and their slogans usually include words like "forward"; on the contrary, the Western right-wing always positions its political ideals in a dreamy future. Their political ideals are positioned in the golden past, and their slogans usually include words like "return".

But at this critical moment of crisis, it is indeed necessary for the West to regain confidence from history and gain momentum to move forward again.

Let’s look to the other side of the Atlantic. To some extent, the weight of the Magna Carta in the minds of Americans is no less than that of the British. It is an important spiritual guide for the "Independent Revolution". A fine imitation of the Magna Carta is still displayed in the U.S. Congress. It has also been included in American textbooks. Americans funded the design and construction.

According to media reports, as the highlight of the 800th anniversary commemoration activities, in addition to the only four 800-year-old original copies of the Magna Carta currently on display at the British Library in London, There are also the draft of the Declaration of Independence handwritten by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) specially transported from the New York Public Library and the original Bill of Rights provided by the National Archives of the United States. Both rare documents have traveled across the ocean and been exhibited outside the United States for the first time.

Together they bear witness to the long and glorious history of mankind’s unremitting struggle for freedom and rights. Can they continue to illuminate the path for mankind’s future, as they have successfully done in the past few hundred years? That way?