忘情政治：論蕭公權的低調憲制觀

The Disinterestedness in Politics: Kung-Chuan Hsiao's Low-profile Constitutional Thought

在近代中國憲法史上，蕭公權憲制思想的地位似乎遠未得到應有的重視。不同於激進與保守的二元論調，作爲一位溫和的憲制論者，不仕不党的蕭公權自謂以一種超黨派的客觀立場對待憲制問題。這樣一種超越激進與保守的立場，導致在激進論者那裏，他似乎顯得保守；在保守論者看來，他又顯得激進。事實上，無論是激進派或保守派的標簽，都很難完整描述蕭氏憲制思想中調和與獨立、妥協與堅守的複雜面向。準確理解蕭氏的憲制思想，一方面，需要聯繫他早年接受新舊教育的經歷，特別是其“無社會依附”的知識分子身份，這是影響其憲制思想形成的外部因素；另一方面，必須意識到，僅僅分析蕭氏的具體憲制主張是遠遠不够的，這只是其憲制思想的淺層結構，還需要進一步考察作爲其憲制思想深層結構的自由觀、政治觀以及政治理論觀，並將蕭氏憲制思想的淺層結構與深層結構置於同一理論脈絡當中作整體理解。而從大的時代格局來看，激進論也好，保守論也罷，甚至蕭公權溫和審慎的低調憲制觀，都難逃作爲屠龍之術的宿命。近代中國政治的革命邏輯與知識分子的邊緣化趨勢使得他們的憲制思想最終成爲種種可望而不可即的烏托邦式理想。

Reviewing the history of modern China’s constitutions, it may be argued that Kungchuan Hsiao’s constitutional thought fails to receive due attention. Hsiao is not a member of the Kuomintang or the Nationalist government; as a moderate constitutionalist, he claims to treat constitutional issues with an ultrapartisan and objective stance, which transcends either radicalism or conservatism. This has made him appear conservative in the eyes of radicals and radical in the eyes of conservatives. However, it is quite difficult to portray the various facets of reconciliation and independence, and the complex mixture of compromise and adherence in Hsiaos constitutional thought. To understand Hsiao’s constitutional ideas precisely, on the one hand, it is necessary to explore the traditional and western educations he received in his prime, and his status as one of the “socially unattached intelligentsia”. These are external factors affecting the formation of his constitutional thought. On the other hand, it is far from enough to analyse the surface structure of Hsiao’s constitutional thought alone. The deep structure should also be examined, including his views of freedom, politics, and political theory. To achieve an overall understanding of Hsiao’s thoughts, the surface structure and the deep one should be combined in the same theoretical context. However, considering the specific era, both radicalism and conservatism were doomed to fail, and so did Hsiao’s lowprofile constitutional thought. This is because both the revolutionary logic of modern Chinese politics and the marginalisation of modern Chinese intellectuals have turned those constitutional thoughts into unrealistic, utopian ideals.