現(xiàn)如今碎片化的英國
2012年夏天，英國一度似乎終于將其難以擺脫的后帝國時代的神經(jīng)質(zhì)拋諸腦后。一個曾統(tǒng)治世界近三分之一疆土的民族定位了自己作為熱情東道主的新角色，并對自己的多元化感到十分愜意。倫敦奧運會是一場新“英國性”(Britishness)的慶典：多元化、外向型、銘記傳統(tǒng)卻也渴望擁抱未來。的確，金融危機過后的緊縮挫傷了士氣，但是“大不列顛之隊”中的杰西卡•恩尼斯(Jessica Ennis)、莫•法拉(Mo Farah)等許多本土運動員所贏得的獎牌，照亮了前方的路。
The moment passed. The Britain of 2015 feels a fractious and fractured place. Pride indiversity has made way for the rise of the anti-immigrant populism of the UK Independenceparty. The economy is growing again — a lot faster than in the rest of Europe — but so too, itseems, is a yawning gulf between the prosperous and the disadvantaged. Below the surface,the pillars of the old English Establishment have cracked.
那一時刻已然過去。2015年的英國體會到一種困難重重而又支離破碎的境地。對多元化的自豪之情已經(jīng)為英國獨立黨(UK Independence party)反移民的民粹主義讓路。經(jīng)濟(jì)再次實現(xiàn)增長——增速甚至比歐洲其他地方快得多——但繁榮地區(qū)和弱勢地區(qū)之間巨大的鴻溝似乎也在進(jìn)一步加深。表象背后，英國舊體制的支柱已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)裂縫。
In spite of last year’s vote to remain within the four-nation union, Scotland could yet decide tostrike out on its own. A political and cultural chasm has opened up between London, still theglobal hub of 2012, and a less prosperous English hinterland. The two parties that havedominated postwar politics — — David Cameron’s Conservatives and Ed Miliband’s Labour — areretreating into regional redoubts. The United Kingdom has rarely been so disunited.
盡管去年經(jīng)過投票繼續(xù)留在聯(lián)合王國之中，但蘇格蘭仍有可能決定自謀出路。在2012年仍是全球中心的倫敦和較不繁榮的英國腹地之間，政治和文化鴻溝已經(jīng)拉開。主導(dǎo)戰(zhàn)后政治的兩個黨派——戴維•卡梅倫(DavidCameron)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的保守黨以及埃德•米利班德(Ed Miliband)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的工黨——正退守至區(qū)域陣地。聯(lián)合王國很少出現(xiàn)過如此分崩離析的情景。
National self-confidence
民族自信心
Britain has lost its international moorings. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars took a heavy toll onnational self-confidence. A swing towards introversion has been reinforced by the economicimperative to cut deficits and debt. The armed forces have returned from defeats in Basra andHelmand to the prospect of sweeping reductions in military budgets. Facing risingeuroscepticism at home Mr Cameron flirts with the idea of withdrawal from the EU, much tothe puzzlement of friends and allies abroad. Mr Miliband is but silent on global affairs. TheBritish, says a report from the think-tank Chatham House, still want to hold their heads up inthe world but they doubt they can make a decisive difference.
英國失去了國際支撐點。伊拉克和阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭沉重地打擊了英國的民族自信心。削減赤字和降低債務(wù)的必要經(jīng)濟(jì)舉措又加強了英國向內(nèi)向型的轉(zhuǎn)變。從伊拉克巴士拉(Basra)和阿富汗赫爾曼德(Helmand)的戰(zhàn)場失利中返回的軍隊，又遭遇軍費預(yù)算被全面削減的前景。面對國內(nèi)升溫的歐元懷疑主義，卡梅倫玩弄著退出歐盟(EU)的概念，讓海外盟友均困惑不已。米利班德對國際事務(wù)一味保持沉默。英國著名智庫查塔姆研究所(ChathamHouse，又名英國皇家國際事務(wù)研究所——編者注)的一份報告稱，英國人仍然希望能在世界上昂首挺胸，但他們對自己是否能帶來決定性的影響沒有把握。
Sir John Sawers, the diplomat-turned spymaster who until recently led the Secret IntelligenceService, speaks of a nation stepping back from the world in much the way the US withdrew intoitself after the Vietnam war. As Vladimir Putin’s Russia marches into Ukraine, a senior figure inthe US Administration wonders aloud if the fabled “special relationship” between Washingtonand London is being hollowed out. There is real doubt, he says, “about the commitment andcredibility of the UK as a partner in preserving international peace”.
外交官出身的間諜機構(gòu)首腦、最近才卸任英國秘密情報局(SIS)局長的約翰•索厄斯爵士(Sir John Sawers)稱，英國從世界舞臺撤回，就像美國在越南戰(zhàn)爭中脫身而關(guān)注本國事務(wù)一樣。在弗拉基米爾•普京(VladimirPutin)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的俄羅斯進(jìn)軍烏克蘭時，美國當(dāng)局一位高級人物公開質(zhì)疑華盛頓和倫敦之間傳說中的“特殊關(guān)系”是否只剩下空殼。他稱，“英國在維護(hù)國際和平中作為伙伴國的承諾和信譽”確實值得懷疑。
In other circumstances, the general election set for May 7 might have galvanised the nation in avigorous debate not just about the domestic economy and the shape of government but alsoabout how best to adjust to a tougher, more precarious world.
在其他環(huán)境下，定于5月7日舉行的英國大選可能已經(jīng)在全國掀起了一場轟轟烈烈的討論，不僅是關(guān)于國內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)和政府構(gòu)成，還關(guān)于如何最好地適應(yīng)一個更嚴(yán)峻、更不穩(wěn)定的世界。
Elections should promise competing visions, alternative futures. Instead the campaigns thusfar have exposed a profound disconnect between an outdated politics and the concerns andaspirations of the voters. Society and politics have fallen out of step. Vernon Bogdanor,professor of government at London’s Kings College who once tutored the young Mr Cameron atOxford, talks of “a growing divergence between the constitutional and political forms of anearlier age and the social and economic realities of today”.
選舉應(yīng)該是各路人馬提出競爭性的發(fā)展愿景和不同的未來選擇。然而，目前為止競選活動已經(jīng)暴露出過時的政治主張與選民的關(guān)切和期待之間的嚴(yán)重脫節(jié)。社會和政治的步調(diào)不一致?？穫惸贻p時在牛津大學(xué)(Oxford)的導(dǎo)師——倫敦大學(xué)國王學(xué)院(King's College London)政府學(xué)教授韋農(nóng)•波格丹諾(Vernon Bogdanor)，就指出了“早期憲法和政治形態(tài)與當(dāng)今社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)實之間日益擴大的差異”。
Labour has lost the recruits once provided by the smokestack industries and a Conservativemembership card no longer bestows social cachet on the upwardly mobile middle classes.
工黨已經(jīng)失去了曾由傳統(tǒng)工業(yè)輸送的成員，保守黨成員的身份牌也不再能給有望向社會上層流動的中產(chǎn)階層賦予社會聲望。
Stranded by modernity
無法適應(yīng)現(xiàn)代世界
This year marks the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the bargain struck between England’sKing John and the medieval barons that is often seen as the foundation stone of Britishdemocracy. In moments of hubris, the English will tell you that the rule of law was thecharter’s gift not just to Shakespeare’s Sceptered Isle but to the democratic world. Thecommemorative events were supposed to mark the constancy and stability of the habits andinstitutions of the nation’s unwritten constitution.
今年是《大憲章》(Magna Carta)問世800周年，這份英王約翰與中世紀(jì)貴族之間的妥協(xié)文件常被視為英國民主的基石。在自大的時候，英國人會告訴你，法治不僅是《大憲章》為莎士比亞筆下的“權(quán)杖之島”(ScepteredIsle)帶來的靈感，也是《大憲章》對民主世界的饋贈。紀(jì)念活動本應(yīng)突出這個國家不成文憲法中的慣例與制度的恒定性和穩(wěn)定性。
Yet the contemporary picture is one of a political system and set of constitutional rules thathave been left stranded by modernity. Britain has outgrown its politics. For most of the postwarera the two-party (sometimes a two-and-a-half party) system delivered stable, single-partygovernment. When Mr Cameron was obliged to go into formal coalition with Nick Clegg’s LiberalDemocrats after the 2010 election, it was seen as a temporary excursion into European-style,multi-party politics. The familiar, bipolar system would soon enough reassert itself. Theprospect now, however, is for another inconclusive election outcome and, further ahead, forthe permanent politics of minority administrations or coalitions.
然而，當(dāng)代的景象卻是：英國的政治體制和憲法規(guī)則無法適應(yīng)現(xiàn)代世界。英國的政治已經(jīng)落后于這個國家。在二戰(zhàn)后的多數(shù)時間內(nèi)，兩黨制(有時是兩黨半制)締造了穩(wěn)定的一黨攬政政府。2010年大選后，當(dāng)卡梅倫不得不與尼克•克雷格(Nick Clegg)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的自由民主黨(Liberal Democrats)組建聯(lián)合政府時，這被視為對歐洲式多黨政治的臨時借鑒，而英國人所熟悉的兩極政治體制會很快回歸。然而，如今看來，未來會再次出現(xiàn)非決定性的選舉結(jié)果，說得再遠(yuǎn)一些，少數(shù)黨政府或聯(lián)合政府將成為長久的政治景象。
The temptation is to treat this fragmentation — the Scottish Nationalist party and the Greenshave joined Ukip in challenging the traditional order — as a fleeting phenomenon. Oldpolitical hands at Westminster talk about a natural reaction to hard economic times and to apeculiarly lacklustre generation of political leaders.
人們很容易把這種支離破碎——蘇格蘭國民黨(Scottish Nationalist Party)和綠黨(Greens)已經(jīng)同英國獨立黨一道挑戰(zhàn)傳統(tǒng)秩序——當(dāng)作一種短暫現(xiàn)象。威斯敏斯特的政壇老手認(rèn)為，面對經(jīng)濟(jì)困難時期以及格外平庸無能的一代政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，這種支離破碎是自然反應(yīng)。
They have half a point. Living standards have fallen. Mr Cameron is a prime minister aiming fora place in history’s footnotes. Mr Miliband yearns for a mythical age when politicians of the lefthad no need to compromise with grubby capitalism. Their platforms lack ambition andoptimism. For its part, Mr Clegg’s party is consumed by a fight for survival. The juniorpartners in coalitions rarely fare well.
他們說對了一半。生活水平確實下降了?？穫愂且晃幌胍骨嗍返氖紫?。米利班德渴望的是一個左翼政客不必再向骯臟的資本主義妥協(xié)的神話時代。他們的政治綱領(lǐng)均缺少雄心壯志和樂觀精神。而克雷格所領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的自由民主黨為生存斗爭而精疲力盡。聯(lián)合政府中較弱勢的一方很少有過得好的。
Alongside the cyclical trends, however, there are deeper currents at work. The two-partysystem is falling victim to social and economic upheaval. As Mr Bogdanor writes in an essay forthe UK Constitution Society, Britain is in transition from “the société bloquée of the 1950s,dominated by large socio-economic blocs based on occupation and class, to a more sociallyand geographically fragmented society”.
然而，除了周期性趨勢的影響外，還有更深層次的趨勢在起作用。兩黨制正淪為社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)動蕩的犧牲品。正如波格丹諾在為英國憲法學(xué)會(UK Constitution Society)所寫的一篇論文中所稱，英國正在從“20世紀(jì)50年代基于職業(yè)和階級的大型社會經(jīng)濟(jì)集團(tuán)所主導(dǎo)的封閉社會，向在社會和地理層面更為碎片化的社會”轉(zhuǎn)變。
In 1951 the House of Commons counted six MPs who stood outside the two main parties. Thenumber now is 85. Class-based ties have weakened and new lines have been drawn betweenScotland and England, between young and old, and between north and south.
1951年，英國下議院只有6名議員不屬于兩大政黨。而現(xiàn)在不屬于兩大黨的下議院議員達(dá)到了85名?；陔A層的聯(lián)系已經(jīng)弱化，在蘇格蘭和英格蘭、年輕人和老年人、北部和南部之間，新的界線業(yè)已形成。
There was a time when a large slice of the population was “born” Tory or Labour. The HansardSociety, which carries out a regular audit of political engagement, says only 30 per cent ofvoters will now admit a firm party allegiance. Some 67 per cent cent say that the politicians“don’t understand the daily lives of people like us”.
有一段時間，英國的很大一部分人口“生來”就屬于保守黨或者工黨。定期評審政治參與情況的英國議會議事錄學(xué)會(Hansard Society)表示，目前只有30%的選民承認(rèn)自己堅定地支持某個政黨。67%的選民表示政界人士“不了解我們這種人的日常生活”。
The Conservatives are now a party of the prosperous south. Tory MPs are nowhere to be foundin Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham or Newcastle. Outside London — the capital defies most ofthe trends elsewhere — Labour struggles to win more than a handful of seats in England’ssouthern regions. The Conservatives have struggled in Scotland for over a generation. Now,having lost September’s referendum on independence, the nationalists threaten to trounceLabour in the contest for seats at Westminster.
保守黨現(xiàn)在成為了繁榮的南部地區(qū)的政黨。在曼徹斯特、利茲、伯明翰或者紐卡斯?fàn)枺Ｊ攸h議員無處可尋。倫敦是一個其他地方的大多數(shù)趨勢無法適用的地方，在倫敦以外的英格蘭南部地區(qū)，工黨努力爭取獲得不至于少得可憐的席位。超過25年以來，保守黨一直在努力爭取蘇格蘭地區(qū)的席位。眼下，在去年9月的獨立公投中落敗的民族主義者正威脅要在英國議會的席位爭奪戰(zhàn)中徹底打敗工黨。
Not so long ago the winning party at a general election would command the support of morethan 40 per cent of the electorate. Messrs Cameron and Miliband, each now fighting to lose lessbadly than the other, struggle to reach much above 30 per cent.
不久以前，大選的獲勝黨還能得到超過40%選民的支持。而卡梅倫和米利班德如今正在努力不比對方輸?shù)酶鼞K，爭取讓支持率超過30%。
Loss of authority
權(quán)威的喪失
The challenge is not just to the familiar hierarchy at Westminster. Henry Fairlie, a journalistwho plied his trade during the 1950s, coined the phrase “The Establishment” to describe thenexus of traditions, institutions and powerful individuals at the apex of British society. Powerstill belonged to the landed, the Treasury and the Foreign Office, the bankers and brokers ofCity of London, the BBC and the press barons, the bishops and judges. Decisions were taken inthe oak-panelled drawing rooms of the gentlemen’s clubs in St James’s.
面臨挑戰(zhàn)的不僅是人們熟悉的英國議會。在上世紀(jì)50年代擔(dān)任記者的亨利•費爾利(Henry Fairlie)發(fā)明了“建制”(The Establishment)這個詞，來描述由傳統(tǒng)、制度和處于英國社會頂點、權(quán)勢顯赫的人物們組成的關(guān)系網(wǎng)。過去，權(quán)力屬于有大量土地的人、英國財政部和外交部、倫敦金融城(City of London)的銀行家和經(jīng)紀(jì)人、英國廣播公司(BBC)和媒體巨頭、以及主教和法官。決策發(fā)生在圣詹姆斯區(qū)(St James’s)紳士俱樂部里裝飾著橡木飾板的客廳。
There are still corners where the ancien regime thrives. For all the well-publicised troubles ofsome of her immediate family, the steadying figure of Queen Elizabeth has kept the affectionof her people and sustained the monarchy as the guardian of national unity. To adapt the19th century essayist Walter Bagehot, she has not allowed the daylight to tarnish the magic.
眼下，舊體制在某些地方依然興盛。盡管伊麗莎白二世(Queen Elizabeth)的一些直系親屬的麻煩遭到廣泛報道，女王本人穩(wěn)定人心的形象仍讓她得到了子民的愛戴，使君主制繼續(xù)成為國家統(tǒng)一的守護(hù)者。套用19世紀(jì)評論家白哲特(Walter Bagehot)的話，她沒有讓女王的魔力在日光下失色。
There are other pockets of privilege: the aides charged with writing the Tory electionmanifesto are almost all, like Mr Cameron, alumni of Eton, one of Britain’s expensive publicschools. Yet, as Britain’s power has waned so too has the authority of the Establishmentnetworks. Mr Cameron’s inner circle of well-heeled chums grates with much of the electorate.One of his own MPs casts him a “Tory posh boy” out of touch with the kitchen tablepreoccupations of the nation. The City has fallen into disgrace as a consequence of thefinancial crash and a succession of money-laundering and mis-selling scandals. Only this monthHSBC has been found colluding in tax evasion. The British Social Attitudes Survey records thatin 1983 some 90 per cent of voters thought banks were well-run institutions. By 2012 the levelof trust had fallen to 19 per cent.
還有其他一些特權(quán)的存在：負(fù)責(zé)撰寫保守黨競選宣言的助手幾乎都和卡梅倫一樣，是英國貴族公學(xué)伊頓(Eton)的畢業(yè)生。然而，隨著英國的力量漸漸衰退，“建制”網(wǎng)絡(luò)的權(quán)威也日趨式微?？穫惛挥械男母姑苡褍?nèi)圍集團(tuán)與大多數(shù)選民格格不入。他自己政黨的一位議員把他叫做“托利黨公子哥”，稱他對國民們在餐桌上關(guān)心的事情毫不知情。金融危機和一系列洗錢和不當(dāng)銷售丑聞讓倫敦金融城蒙羞。就在本月，匯豐(HSBC)被曝光幫助客戶逃稅。英國社會態(tài)度調(diào)查(British Social Attitudes Survey)的記錄表明，在1983年，約有90%的選民相信銀行是管理良好的機構(gòu)。到2012年，對銀行的信任比例已經(jīng)下跌至19%。
As for parliament, the British have always shown a healthy scepticism towards politicians butthis has curdled into deep cynicism in the wake of a series of expenses scandals. This weektwo former foreign secretaries, Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, were caught up in the furoreabout MPs’ business interests. Sir Malcolm said he would stand down at the election.
至于議會，英國人一向?qū)φ稳耸勘憩F(xiàn)出一種良性的懷疑，但在一系列金錢丑聞后，這種懷疑已經(jīng)變成了深深的不信任。本周，兩名前外交大臣——杰克•斯特勞(Jack Straw)和馬爾科姆•里夫金德爵士(Sir MalcolmRifkind)因利用議員身份謀取商業(yè)利益而引起大眾的憤怒。里夫金德表示他將在選舉前辭職。
In the Church of England, bishops are sermonising to dwindling flocks. The press — the 18thcentury constitutionalist Edmund Burke called it the fourth estate — has been badly tarnishedby the phone-tapping revelations. After myriad economic crises, the Treasury more closelyresembles a spluttering East German Trabant than the Rolls-Royce of folklore. And ForeignOffice diplomats, once at the very top of the Whitehall establishment and powerful emissariesof Britain’s international influence, have been told by their political masters to reinventthemselves as travelling salespeople for Britain plc.
至于英國國教，聆聽主教們布道的人群正在逐漸減少。被18世紀(jì)的憲政主義者埃德蒙•伯克(Edmund Burke)稱為“第四等級”(fourth estate)的新聞界也因為電話竊聽丑聞蒙上了污名。數(shù)次經(jīng)濟(jì)危機以后，英國財政部更像是一輛嘎嘎作響的東德特拉貝特車(Trabant)，而不是一輛閃耀著傳統(tǒng)榮光的勞斯萊斯(Rolls-Royce)。英國外交部的外交官們曾一度處于倫敦政府系統(tǒng)的頂點，是展現(xiàn)英國國際影響力的強大使者。而現(xiàn)在他們的政治主人告訴他們，要把自己改造成英國企業(yè)的流動推銷員。
Prisoner of the past
歷史的囚徒
Many will bid a fond goodbye to the egregious bastions of self-perpetuating privilege. The ageof unthinking deference has passed. Yet the more general corrosion of trust in the nation’spoliticians and institutions has had unhappier consequences. As elsewhere in Europe, it leaves avacuum of legitimacy, one being filled by the “antis”: the anti-elite, the anti-European, theanti-immigrant and the anti-capitalist. The populists have caught the temper of the times inoffering disenchanted voters enemies rather than answers. Messrs Cameron and Miliband arechasing them to right and left.
許多人將依依不舍地告別永續(xù)特權(quán)最堅固的那些堡壘。不經(jīng)思考就服從的年代已經(jīng)過去。然而，人們在更大范圍上漸漸喪失對政治人士和體制的信任，引起了更不幸的結(jié)果。就像歐洲其他地方一樣，這催生了一種合法性真空，填補這種真空的正是那些“反對”陣營：反精英、反歐洲、反移民和反資本主義。民粹主義者抓住了這個時代的普遍情緒，向失望的選民提供了敵人，而非答案?？穫惡兔桌嗟聞t驅(qū)使選民走向左或者右。
The rise of nationalism in Scotland and Ukip’s success in promoting English identity politicsspeak to a union of nations that is losing the glue of Britishness. Some, such as the historianLinda Colley, suggest that this was always going to be so. Britain, after all, is an invented state,forged since the 18th century through imperial adventures, shared protestantism and commonenemies. Mr Bogdanor’s answer is a new constitutional settlement — a redistribution ofpower between, and within, the four nations of the union to match the social, economic andcultural realities of the times.
蘇格蘭民族主義的興起和英國獨立黨在推動英國身份認(rèn)同政治方面的成功，呼應(yīng)了這個正在失去“英國性”維系的民族國家聯(lián)盟。一些人，比如歷史學(xué)家琳達(dá)•科利(Linda Colley)，表示事情總是會變成這樣。畢竟，英國是一個人為構(gòu)造的國家，是在18世紀(jì)以后，通過帝國探險、共同信奉的新教主義和共同的敵人締結(jié)而成的國家。波格丹諾提出的答案是達(dá)成一種新的憲制安排——重新在這個由4個民族國家組成的聯(lián)盟之中，以及在各民族國家之間分配權(quán)力，以適應(yīng)當(dāng)代的社會、經(jīng)濟(jì)和文化現(xiàn)實。
He is right. Britain needs a new way of governing itself and a new story — a binding narrativethat affords due respect to the past but is no longer imprisoned by it. London 2012 pointed theway.
他是正確的。英國需要一種新的治理方式，一種新的表述——對過去給予恰當(dāng)?shù)淖鸪?、但不受制于過去的約束性表述。2012年倫敦奧運會為我們指明了方向。
