“以民為本”解析（下）

林巍

[1] 為了論證君主的權威，人們就創造了“君權神授”的理論。不過為了社會安定，免得江山被傾覆，就有“屈君申天”之說，但終無“民權”。而所謂“民為貴”也無非是說“老百姓很重要”，如果沒有老百姓的“勞力”，那么“治人”的人就無法“食于人”了。

[2] 因此，我們雖然可以說孟子的“民為貴”的思想在當時社會條件下是有意義的，甚至是難能可貴的，但它確實不是我們今天所要求的“民權”。中國的封建專制社會是一種以宗法關系為紐帶的等級制社會，天子高高在上，一級一級的官僚統治著人民。

[3] 天子和各級官吏與老百姓的關系不僅是政治的統治與服從的關系，而且有著一種宗法的父母與子女的親情關系，所以在過去的社會里把各級官吏都稱為“父母官”，而“君主”更是天下人的父母了。這樣就造成了希望“君主”是“圣明天子”，各級官吏都是“青天大老爺”的幻想。

[4] 其實，老百姓只能希望得到“圣明天子”和“青天大老爺”的恩賜，最好也不過得到“當官要為民做主”的結果。說到底，中國封建社會中的所謂“民本”思想是“治民”而不是“民治”。

[5] 在現代民主政治里，“民治”或“民主”思想應該是人民做“主”，怎么能由“官”做“主”呢？ 封建時期的中國顯然是把兩者關系顛倒了。因此，現代民主思想不僅不是中國古已有之的 “民本”思想的自然發展，而是對“民本”思想的否定。

[1] To authorize emperors power， the “theory of the divine right of emperors” was created. Sometimes， for the sake of stabilizing society and avoiding its subversion， “confining emperors power to the limits of Heaven” was advocated， but never were civil rights mentioned. The true meaning of the so-called “people-oriented thought” was to say the common people are important only in the sense of being the main labors， since without them the rulers had nothing to survive.

[2] Menciuss concept of people-orientation might have some progressive and positive meanings under the social conditions of the time， but it definitely has nothing to do with todays “civil rights”. We have to realize that the feudal Chinese system was a society bound by patriarchal relations， with the emperor on top of the hierarchical structure and officials at different levels ruling the people.

[3] In ancient China， the relations between the emperor， officials and the common people were not only political （ruler-ruled）， but also patriarchal， in the way officials at different levels were honored as “parental officials”， and the emperors were parents of the world. In this way， an illusion was created in the hope of all kings ought to be wise rulers and all officials the managers with integrity.

[4] In that way “sage-emperors” and “clean officials” were actually expected， with the best results of wise rulers ruling those ruled. All in all， in feudal Chinese society， it was rule of the people but not rule by the people.

[5] In a modern democracy， however， it should be the people， rather than officials， who determine the fate of a society， how can it be otherwise？ This relationship was nevertheless reversed in ancient China， where the “people-oriented thought”， in and of itself， bore no relationship whatsoever to the concept of modern democracy， and the opposite might also be true.