摘要
「民之父母」應是春秋時代之前即已同時流傳於民間以及官方的說法，因儒家思想盛行而數千年流傳不衰，成為某種寓而不宣的「人國之禮」的主要觀念素材。本文藉著上博《民之父母》楚簡出土，檢視先秦受人重視而攜入墓內陪葬的「民之父母」的詳細解釋，參酌若干近年新出土的先秦簡書，以及原已廣為流傳的先秦儒家政治思想的材料，用以考察其與西方限制權力的憲政思想合致與分歧的所在。五至、三無、五起之說，與儒家一貫的中心思想吻合，揭示了人君對人民的道義責任，也同時賦予人君對於人民所具有的道德身分。但是既未提供君主為何願意善盡其道義責任的理由，也未交待不盡道義責任時，能否繼續維持其道德身分。大體言之，「民之父母」是用樹立人君之善的標竿來處理人君有惡的現實；此點不脫成德意識中過於樂觀的道德理想主義。「民之父母」直接為君父思想舖路，拉近了天命觀裡的「君」與血緣親裡的「父」之間的差距；也為傳賢政治與傳子政治的觀念衝突創造了有利於傳子政治的和緩出路。
民之父母的說法與西方憲政思想都在嘗試解決人君之惡的問題，但是手段顯然有異。「民之父母」之說是言說者與現實人君的一種妥協。此種妥協，表現在民本思想與民主思想的差異之中。「民之父母」的言說者「與君共舞」，是承認君王存在而表述其所當為；在民主制度中，其實容納不下為民父母的君王存在。民之父母的說法，也可能促成君民不平等的觀念牢不可拔；此點與西方憲政思想以強調個人平等做為建制基礎有著顯著的不同；西方民主強調民意在政治權力來源上的絕對重要性，「民之父母」之說則將儒家之以民意決定天命歸屬的思想淡化，影響了民治思想萌芽的機會。此外，民之父母的身分，不適禪讓或定期改選，藉用定期選舉以防制權力為惡的制度，在「民之父母」的思想下，乃無出現的空間。
綜之，《民之父母》的篇章，在儒家的禮制思想上，似乎並不居於顯赫的位置，但對於當代憲政思想的主要脈絡之所以不在中國古代出現，卻顯然具有關鍵性的影響。
The conception of the Parent King did not originate from Confucius, but from a popular viewpoint both in the private sector and the ruling class before the Spring and Autumn Period. Because of the dominance of Confucianism, this conception has lasted for thousands of years, forming an implicit foundation for li (禮) of an individual and the State.
In light of the newly published text of Chu Slips of the Parent King by Shanghai Museum, this paper examines its detailed interpretation by Confucius, which was important enough to be buried in tombs in the pre-Qin era, together with a number of other recently discovered pre-Qin slips, as well as other existing materials of popular pre-Qin Confucian political thoughts, so as to explore whether the concept is in parallel or conflict with western constitutionalism, which sets forth limited governments. The Parent King concept, exemplified in the analysis of "five reaches," "three withouts," and "five effects," is completely compatible with the central theme of Confucianism, imposing the king's moral duties toward the subjects, and meanwhile confers upon the king a moral identity toward the subjects. It, however, fails to explain why a king would be willing to undertake his moral duties, and says nothing about whether the king can retain his moral identity if he fails to fulfill his duties. The Parent King concept basically sets forth for kings a benchmark of good deeds towards the subjects to cope with the political reality in which kings are guilty of wrongdoing. The methodology does not deviate from that of optimistic moral idealism. The Parent King concept paves the way to the paternalism government, closes the concept gap between the heavenly chosen king and the biological father, and champions the advocates for kinship politics in their long-term debate with those who espouse having an elite to reign as the successor to a deceased king instead of the king's son.
Both the Parent-King concept and western constitutionalism are to find solutions to eliminate evils of the monarch system, but with different answers for the solutions. The Parent-King concept is a compromise offered by the advocates in light of the very existence of monarch kings, and the compromise underscores the major difference between the concept of people being the foundation of the State (民本思想) and that of democracy. The thinker behind the Parent-King concept decided to "dance" with the monarch, recognized its legitimacy and prescribed an "ought-to" list for the monarch, while democracy seeks to abolish the monarch system. The concept may lead to perpetuation of inequality between the monarch and the subjects, thus distinguishing it from what western constitutionalism considers fundamental-man being created equal. Another major difference lies at the ultimate significance of popular support in the legitimacy of government power as emphasized by western constitutionalism. The Parent-King concept pulls away the theoretical pillar of people's will as the determining factor in identifying the heavenly choice of human kings, thus hindering the possibility of conceptual development in establishing a government by the people. Moreover, a Parent King, stepping into the shoes of a parent, will not step down from the post voluntarily, nor would have periodical elections associated thereto. The concept does not create any room for development of a regime of periodical elections to curb the abuse of power.
In sum, the passage of Parent King may not have occupied a prominent place in the Confucianist materials in discussions of li (禮); it, however, plays a pivotal role for us to understand why modern constitutionalism was not fully developed in ancient China.
關鍵詞
民之父母、憲政思想、人國之禮、人君之惡、平等
the parent King, constitutionalism, li of an individual and the State, wrongdoing by the King, evils of the monarch system, equality