Why can Magna Carta make Britain's modernization successful?

800 years ago, on June 5th, 12 15, King John of England (167-1216) magna carta streamed down the Thames. Because of this first constitutional document in the world, one of the most unpopular kings in British history can go down in history forever.

To celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, the British Library in London exhibited four surviving Magna Carta manuscripts for the first time. )

The main content of this document, written in Latin on A3-sized parchment, is to limit the power of kings and protect the rights of nobles and freemen. The later historical evolution proves that the concept of "rule of law" initiated by Magna Carta is not only the cornerstone of British constitutional monarchy, but also the source of human democratic constitutionalism.

one

Today, various academic studies on the Magna Carta have been overwhelming. I am not an expert in this field, so I have no intention of gilding the lily here. I just want to point out that this is also the knowledge about it through the ages: as far as the text of Magna Carta is concerned, its biggest breakthrough lies in denying "absolute kingship". The Magna Carta recognizes that the power of the king of England is given by God, but refuses to recognize that this "sacred power" is absolute and unrestricted. On the contrary, it claims that the king is only the "head of the nobility" and has no more power. Among the 63 Magna Carta with more than 4,000 words, the most important article 6 1 (the so-called "security law") stipulates that a committee composed of 25 nobles can hold a meeting at any time and have the right to veto the king's orders; If the king's behavior violates the Magna Carta, he can also use force to deprive the king of his power and property if necessary. Within the framework of medieval political legitimacy that believed in "divine right of monarchy", this "contract" imposed on kingship was unprecedented. The place where absolute power ends is the place 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 the text itself, but also in the future historical development, which fortunately highlights its value. If we look through the historical records of various civilizations in the world, we will certainly be able to search for many events and documents that restrict kingship like Magna Carta. Take China as an example. In history, as early as the early years of Shang Dynasty, Yi Yin, a wise minister, "put too much armor on children" and returned the rights to the reformed Yin King seven years later. This is also a story talked about by Confucian scholars in previous dynasties, which is exactly the same as the nature of the British aristocracy threatening King John to sign the Magna Carta; Confucian classic "Shangshu? 6? There is a famous saying in 1 Thai oath that "Heaven takes the people as its own, and Heaven listens to the people", which almost establishes the political legitimacy of the ruler who is "ordered by heaven" on the basis of the consent of the ruled; Even in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, when the traditional autocratic centralization reached its peak, scholars like Huang Zongxi still strongly criticized the autocratic monarchy ... but I'm afraid no one would have thought that these historical events laid the foundation for the rule of law and constitutionalism in China. Because the later history of China did not evolve along the possibilities opened by these events, they became accidental and isolated flashes, lost in the vast history.

Fortunately, the British seized the opportunity to fully develop the possibility contained in the accident into history itself. So the real value of Magna Carta lies in its practice. In fact, after the signing of the Magna Carta, many British kings (including King John himself who signed it) and rulers did not really take it seriously. They either want to abolish it, or try to modify it, or they don't intend to abide by it at all ... In order to defend the rights conferred by the Magna Carta, the British people fought for 500 years-they cut down Charles I in the name of the Magna Carta (1600- 1649). They're in Oliver? 6? Under the leadership of oliver cromwell (1599- 1658), the monarchy was overthrown and a republic was established. They also launched the "Glorious Revolution" (1688) to rebuild the constitutional monarchy ... Finally, the British successfully tamed the "absolute power", which enabled the spirit of the rule of law contained in the Magna Carta to take root and grow into a towering tree of the system. With Britain becoming the first modern country in the world and rising as an "empire where the sun never sets", this spirit of rule of law is carried forward all over the world.

Today, 800 years later, Magna Carta is still an important part of British unwritten constitution, and its three contents still have legal effect, that is, the king must guarantee the freedom of churches in England and the autonomy of towns such as London, and must not take compulsory acts such as searching, arresting, exile or confiscating property without legal trial.

It is precisely because of the success of the Magna Carta in British history that people in Britain and other parts of the world have been inspired to fight tirelessly to defend their rights, which has further given it new vitality. Therefore, a British Chief Justice wrote: "The significance of the Magna Carta lies not only in what it actually says, but more importantly, later generations claim and believe what it says ..."

two

After the 1990s, Friedrich? 6? Classical liberalism represented by friedrich hayek (1899- 1992) is very popular in the humanities and social sciences in China. Influenced by this academic trend, China's liberal intellectuals gradually formed a new mindset, holding that the European Enlightenment was divided into two distinct concepts: British "evolutionary rationalism" and French "constructive rationalism". The former is John? 6? 1 Locke (John Locke, 1632- 1704), David? 6? 1 Hume (David Hume,171-1776) and Adam? 6? 1 Smith (Adam Smith, 1723- 1790) and others, the latter is René? 6? 1 Descartes (rene descartes, 1596- 1650), Jeanjacques? 6? 1 Rousseau (17 12- 1778) and August? 6? 1 Comte (1798- 1857) and others are representatives. Britain and France followed the political reform model of "gradual improvement" and "radical revolution" respectively, and improvement was better than revolution.

I want to talk about this problem briefly by discussing the Magna Carta.

First of all, it is not in line with the historical truth to simply summarize the British political evolution model as "improvement". As we have seen above, the British in history did not blindly insist on reform and reject revolution. Once they think that their rights have been violated and they can't bear it, they will not hesitate to overthrow the rulers by force. The contemporary ideological trend of opposing reform, opposing revolution, advocating reform and belittling revolution may be a beneficial rebellion against the "revolutionary worship" that swept China in the past century, but it is also not in line with the historical truth. Just as revolution is not necessarily better than improvement, and improvement is not necessarily better than revolution, everything depends on which way does less harm to society and makes greater progress. I want to remind those who have "revolutionary phobia" that the Revolution of 1911 was a "revolution" and the Meiji Restoration was an "improvement", but if nothing else is considered, only from the harm they caused to society, the number of people who died in the Revolution of 1911 was far less than that in the Meiji Restoration.

Therefore, the true wisdom of the British lies not in supporting reform and opposing revolution, but in awe of tradition. To some extent, it was their persistent respect for the tradition of rule of law established by the Magna Carta that led to the success of British modernization. The British seem to have inherent doubts and fears about the belief in heroic progress that denies and breaks everything they have and completely re-plans society. For them, no matter by means of improvement or revolution, they always try to control the shock it causes to society to a minimum. Hayek saw this correctly, but most of his fans in China didn't understand it deeply.

Second, ideas are important, but they are not all the driving forces for social evolution that many China intellectuals think. The relationship between new ideas and social change is rather the relationship between seeds and fruits-seeds contain possibilities, but without suitable soil and climate, they cannot take root and grow sturdily. As I mentioned earlier, there have been many seeds in human history that are conducive to the formation of the concept of the rule of law, but almost all of them have been lost in the long river of history. Magna Carta is a lucky exception, not because its content is "advanced", but because Britain's economic and social structure is more suitable for its development than other parts of the world.

Hayek refined "British concept" and "French concept" and compared them in concept, only for the need of academic abstraction, they are not a complex and pluralistic history of real thought. I can easily cite many British thinkers with typical "French ideas", such as Thomas? 6? 1 Hobbes (Thomas Hobbes, 1588- 1679) and Jeremy? 6? 1 bentham (Jeremy Bentham,1748-1832); I can just as easily cite many French thinkers with typical "English thoughts", such as Benjamin? 6? 1 benjamin constant (1767- 1830) and Alex? 6? 1 Germany? 6? 1 Alexis de Tocqueville. Therefore, in my opinion, the reason why Britain and France embarked on completely different roads was mainly not decided by Hume and Rousseau, but by the completely different economic and social structures of Britain and France. Limited by space, I can't discuss it in depth here, but I think the following two points are the key: first, Britain has always had a strong aristocratic power; Second, Britain's economic structure has always been more dependent on commerce than agriculture.

From the birth of the Magna Carta itself, we should understand an important truth: the rule of law comes from a close interest game, and it is not planned by anyone (or organization) from scratch according to a set of ideas.

three

Sadly, while celebrating the 800th anniversary of the publication of the Magna Carta, Britain and Europe are in a bleak situation of struggling for survival, which makes people worry about the future fate of the fruits of the Magna Carta.

If Greece and Britain are the cradles of human democracy and modern rule of law respectively, then the fact that they are in trouble at the same time is the symbol and epitome of the serious crisis of the whole western civilization. Due to the persistent economic downturn and a series of severe challenges such as immigration and terrorism, an unprecedented strong feeling of doubt and failure is permeating the spiritual world of Britain and even the whole West.

The British general election more than a month ago confirmed the correct economic policy of the current British government, but it aggravated the possibility of a split between Britain and the European Union. Moreover, the unprecedented political apathy, distrust and powerlessness of voters deeply reflect the unhealthy political ecology of this country known as the "mother of parliament". Not long ago, the party that won the general election won the support of more than 40% voters. Now the winner can only try not to lose worse than the other side, so that the support rate barely exceeds 30%.

Whether it's David, the Conservative who won re-election. 6? 1 David Cameron or the defeated Labour Party leader Ed? 6? Ed Miliband (1) did not show the leadership temperament that can lead the country to the future. Indeed, not only in Britain, but also in the whole west, the image and prestige of political leaders have plummeted compared with their great predecessors. Today's generation of frightened politicians are always scolded and never dare to put forward a bigger vision to voters. They can only go with the flow and make some piecemeal short-term behaviors.

The combination of the weakness of the elite and the absence of the grassroots makes people gradually lose confidence in the system and trust in politicians on a larger scale, which is leading to more unfortunate consequences. In Britain and Europe, this has created a huge legal vacuum. And those anti-system populist extreme thoughts just took the opportunity to fill the big space left by it. They capture the general mood of this era and provide a cheap outlet for disappointed voters, rather than a positive solution. They are anti-elite, anti-immigration, anti-globalization, anti-Europe ... and even anti-politics.

Traditionally, the left wing in the west always positions its political ideal in a dreamy future, and their slogans usually carry the words "forward"; On the contrary, the right wing in the west always positions its political ideal in the golden past, and words such as "return" are usually indispensable in their slogans.

However, at this critical moment of the crisis, the West really needs to regain its confidence from history and gain the motivation to move forward again.

Let's look across the Atlantic. To some extent, the Magna Carta is as important as the British in the eyes of Americans. It is an important spiritual guide of the "Independent Revolution", and the American Congress still displays the carefully copied Magna Carta. Also included in American textbooks; The "Magna Carta Memorial" signed in Lannimide was also designed and built at the expense of Americans.

According to media reports, as the highlight of the 800th anniversary, there are only four 800-year-old original copies of Magna Carta in Britain, and Thomas? Who was specially transported from the New York Public Library? 6? The Draft Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson (1743- 1826) and the original Bill of Rights provided by the National Archives of the United States, these two precious documents were exhibited outside the United States for the first time.

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