現如今碎片化的英國

For a moment during the summer of 2012 it seemed that Britain had at last left behind its lingering post-imperial neuroses. Comfortable in their multi-shaded skin, a people who had once ruled nearly a third of the world had found a new role as welcoming host. The London Olympics were a celebration of a new Britishness: diverse, outward looking, mindful of tradition but eager to embrace the future. True, post-crash austerity had dented morale, but the medals collected by Jessica Ennis, Mo Farah and their fellow athletes in “Team GB” illuminated the road ahead.

2012年夏天，英國一度似乎終於將其難以擺脫的后帝國時代的神經質拋諸腦後。一個曾統治世界近三分之一疆土的民族定位了自己作爲熱情東道主的新角色，並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、銘記傳統卻也渴望擁抱未來。的確，金融危機過後的緊縮挫傷了士氣，但是“大不列顛之隊”中的傑西卡•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 in diversity has made way for the rise of the anti-immigrant populism of the UK Independence party. The economy is growing again — a lot faster than in the rest of Europe — but so too, it seems, 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爲英國獨立黨(UK Independence party)反移民的民粹主義讓路。經濟再次實現增長——增速甚至比歐洲其他地方快得多——但繁榮地區和弱勢地區之間巨大的鴻溝似乎也在進一步加深。表象背後，英國舊體制的支柱已經出現裂縫。

In spite of last year’s vote to remain within the four-nation union, Scotland could yet decide to strike out on its own. A political and cultural chasm has opened up between London, still the global hub of 2012, and a less prosperous English hinterland. The two parties that have dominated postwar politics — — David Cameron’s Conservatives and Ed Miliband’s Labour — are retreating into regional redoubts. The United Kingdom has rarely been so disunited.

儘管去年經過投票繼續留在聯合王國之中，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拉開。主導戰後政治的兩個黨派——戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)領導的保守黨以及埃德•米利班德(Ed Miliband)領導的工黨——正退守至區域陣地。聯合王國很少出現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 on national self-confidence. A swing towards introversion has been reinforced by the economic imperative to cut deficits and debt. The armed forces have returned from defeats in Basra and Helmand to the prospect of sweeping reductions in military budgets. Facing rising euroscepticism at home Mr Cameron flirts with the idea of withdrawal from the EU, much to the puzzlement of friends and allies abroad. Mr Miliband is but silent on global affairs. The British, says a report from the think-tank Chatham House, still want to hold their heads up in the world but they doubt they can make a decisive difference.

英國失去了國際支撐點。伊拉克和阿富汗戰爭沉重地打擊了英國的民族自信心。削減赤字和降低債務的必要經濟舉措又加強了英國向內向型的轉變。從伊拉克巴士拉(Basra)和阿富汗赫爾曼德(Helmand)的戰場失利中返回的軍隊，又遭遇軍費預算被全面削減的前景。面對國內升溫的歐元懷疑主義，卡梅倫玩弄着退出歐盟(EU)的概念，讓海外盟友均困惑不已。米利班德對國際事務一味保持沉默。英國著名智庫查塔姆研究所(Chatham House，又名英國皇家國際事務研究所——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 Intelligence Service, speaks of a nation stepping back from the world in much the way the US withdrew into itself after the Vietnam war. As Vladimir Putin’s Russia marches into Ukraine, a senior figure in the US Administration wonders aloud if the fabled “special relationship” between Washington and London is being hollowed out. There is real doubt, he says, “about the commitment and credibility of the UK as a partner in preserving international peace”.

外交官出身的間諜機構首腦、最近才卸任英國祕密情報局(SIS)局長的約翰•索厄斯爵士(Sir John Sawers)稱，英國從世界舞臺撤回，就像美國在越南戰爭中脫身而關注本國事務一樣。在弗拉基米爾•普京(Vladimir Putin)領導的俄羅斯進軍烏克蘭時，美國當局一位高級人物公開質疑華盛頓和倫敦之間傳說中的“特殊關係”是否只剩下空殼。他稱，“英國在維護國際和平中作爲夥伴國的承諾和信譽”確實值得懷疑。

In other circumstances, the general election set for May 7 might have galvanised the nation in a vigorous debate not just about the domestic economy and the shape of government but also about how best to adjust to a tougher, more precarious world.

在其他環境下，定於5月7日舉行的英國大選可能已經在全國掀起了一場轟轟烈烈的討論，不僅是關於國內經濟和政府構成，還關於如何最好地適應一個更嚴峻、更不穩定的世界。

Elections should promise competing visions, alternative futures. Instead the campaigns thus far have exposed a profound disconnect between an outdated politics and the concerns and aspirations 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 at Oxford, talks of “a growing divergence between the constitutional and political forms of an earlier age and the social and economic realities of today”.

選舉應該是各路人馬提出競爭性的發展願景和不同的未來選擇。然而，目前爲止競選活動已經暴露出過時的政治主張與選民的關切和期待之間的嚴重脫節。社會和政治的步調不一致。卡梅倫年輕時在牛津大學(Oxford)的導師——倫敦大學國王學院(King's College London)政府學教授韋農•波格丹諾(Vernon Bogdanor)，就指出了“早期憲法和政治形態與當今社會和經濟現實之間日益擴大的差異”。

Labour has lost the recruits once provided by the smokestack industries and a Conservative membership card no longer bestows social cachet on the upwardly mobile middle classes.

工黨已經失去了曾由傳統工業輸送的成員，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階層賦予社會聲望。

Stranded by modernity

無法適應現代世界

This year marks the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the bargain struck between England’s King John and the medieval barons that is often seen as the foundation stone of British democracy. In moments of hubris, the English will tell you that the rule of law was the charter’s gift not just to Shakespeare’s Sceptered Isle but to the democratic world. The commemorative events were supposed to mark the constancy and stability of the habits and institutions of the nation’s unwritten constitution.

今年是《大憲章》(Magna Carta)問世800週年，這份英王約翰與中世紀貴族之間的妥協文件常被視爲英國民主的基石。在自大的時候，英國人會告訴你，法治不僅是《大憲章》爲莎士比亞筆下的“權杖之島”(Sceptered Isle)帶來的靈感，也是《大憲章》對民主世界的饋贈。紀念活動本應突出這個國家不成文憲法中的慣例與制度的恆定性和穩定性。

Yet the contemporary picture is one of a political system and set of constitutional rules that have been left stranded by modernity. Britain has outgrown its politics. For most of the postwar era the two-party (sometimes a two-and-a-half party) system delivered stable, single-party government. When Mr Cameron was obliged to go into formal coalition with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats 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. The prospect now, however, is for another inconclusive election outcome and, further ahead, for the permanent politics of minority administrations or coalitions.

然而，當代的景象卻是：英國的政治體制和憲法規則無法適應現代世界。英國的政治已經落後於這個國家。在二戰後的多數時間內，兩黨制（有時是兩黨半制）締造了穩定的一黨攬政政府。2010年大選後，當卡梅倫不得不與尼克•克雷格(Nick Clegg)領導的自由民主黨(Liberal Democrats)組建聯合政府時，這被視爲對歐洲式多黨政治的臨時借鑑，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，未來會再次出現非決定性的選舉結果，說得再遠一些，少數黨政府或聯合政府將成爲長久的政治景象。

The temptation is to treat this fragmentation — the Scottish Nationalist party and the Greens have joined Ukip in challenging the traditional order — as a fleeting phenomenon. Old political hands at Westminster talk about a natural reaction to hard economic times and to a peculiarly 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)已經同英國獨立黨一道挑戰傳統秩序——當作一種短暫現象。威斯敏斯特的政壇老手認爲，面對經濟困難時期以及格外平庸無能的一代政治領導人，這種支離破碎是自然反應。

They have half a point. Living standards have fallen. Mr Cameron is a prime minister aiming for a place in history’s footnotes. Mr Miliband yearns for a mythical age when politicians of the left had no need to compromise with grubby capitalism. Their platforms lack ambition and optimism. For its part, Mr Clegg’s party is consumed by a fight for survival. The junior partners in coalitions rarely fare well.

他們說對了一半。生活水平確實下降了。卡梅倫是一位想要名垂青史的首相。米利班德渴望的是一個左翼政客不必再向骯髒的資本主義妥協的神話時代。他們的政治綱領均缺少雄心壯志和樂觀精神。而克雷格所領導的自由民主黨爲生存鬥爭而精疲力盡。聯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-party system is falling victim to social and economic upheaval. As Mr Bogdanor writes in an essay for the 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 socially and geographically fragmented society”.

然而，除了週期性趨勢的影響外，還有更深層次的趨勢在起作用。兩黨制正淪爲社會和經濟動盪的犧牲品。正如波格丹諾在爲英國憲法學會(UK Constitution Society)所寫的一篇論文中所稱，英國正在從“20世紀50年代基於職業和階級的大型社會經濟集團所主導的封閉社會，向在社會和地理層面更爲碎片化的社會”轉變。

In 1951 the House of Commons counted six MPs who stood outside the two main parties. The number now is 85. Class-based ties have weakened and new lines have been drawn between Scotland and England, between young and old, and between north and south.

1951年，英國下議院只有6名議員不屬於兩大政黨。而現在不屬於兩大黨的下議院議員達到了85名。基於階層的聯繫已經弱化，在蘇格蘭和英格蘭、年輕人和老年人、北部和南部之間，新的界線業已形成。

There was a time when a large slice of the population was “born” Tory or Labour. The Hansard Society, which carries out a regular audit of political engagement, says only 30 per cent of voters 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”就屬於保守黨或者工黨。定期評審政治參與情況的英國議會議事錄學會(Hansard Society)表示，目前只有30%的選民承認自己堅定地支持某個政黨。67%的選民表示政界人士“不瞭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 found in Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham or Newcastle. Outside London — the capital defies most of the trends elsewhere — Labour struggles to win more than a handful of seats in England’s southern regions. The Conservatives have struggled in Scotland for over a generation. Now, having lost September’s referendum on independence, the nationalists threaten to trounce Labour in the contest for seats at Westminster.

保守黨現在成爲了繁榮的南部地區的政黨。在曼徹斯特、利茲、伯明翰或者紐卡斯爾，保守黨議員無處可尋。倫敦是一個其他地方的大多數趨勢無法適用的地方，在倫敦以外的英格蘭南部地區，工黨努力爭取獲得不至於少得可憐的席位。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中徹底打敗工黨。

Not so long ago the winning party at a general election would command the support of more than 40 per cent of the electorate. Messrs Cameron and Miliband, each now fighting to lose less badly 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得更慘，爭取讓支持率超過30%。

Loss of authority

權威的喪失

The challenge is not just to the familiar hierarchy at Westminster. Henry Fairlie, a journalist who plied his trade during the 1950s, coined the phrase “The Establishment” to describe the nexus of traditions, institutions and powerful individuals at the apex of British society. Power still belonged to the landed, the Treasury and the Foreign Office, the bankers and brokers of City of London, the BBC and the press barons, the bishops and judges. Decisions were taken in the oak-panelled drawing rooms of the gentlemen’s clubs in St James’s.

面臨挑戰的不僅是人們熟悉的英國議會。在上世紀50年代擔任記者的亨利•費爾利(Henry Fairlie)發明了“建制”(The Establishment)這個詞，來描述由傳統、制度和處於英國社會頂點、權勢顯赫的人物們組成的關係網。過去，權力屬於有大量土地的人、英國財政部和外交部、倫敦金融城(City of London)的銀行家和經紀人、英國廣播公司(BBC)和媒體巨頭、以及主教和法官。決策發生在聖詹姆斯區(St James’s)紳士俱樂部裏裝飾着橡木飾板的客廳。

There are still corners where the ancien regime thrives. For all the well-publicised troubles of some of her immediate family, the steadying figure of Queen Elizabeth has kept the affection of her people and sustained the monarchy as the guardian of national unity. To adapt the 19th 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。儘管伊麗莎白二世(Queen Elizabeth)的一些直系親屬的麻煩遭到廣泛報道，女王本人穩定人心的形象仍讓她得到了子民的愛戴，使君主制繼續成爲國家統一的守護者。套用19世紀評論家白哲特(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 election manifesto are almost all, like Mr Cameron, alumni of Eton, one of Britain’s expensive public schools. Yet, as Britain’s power has waned so too has the authority of the Establishment networks. 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 table preoccupations of the nation. The City has fallen into disgrace as a consequence of the financial crash and a succession of money-laundering and mis-selling scandals. Only this month HSBC has been found colluding in tax evasion. The British Social Attitudes Survey records that in 1983 some 90 per cent of voters thought banks were well-run institutions. By 2012 the level of trust had fallen to 19 per cent.

還有其他一些特權的存在：負責撰寫保守黨競選宣言的助手幾乎都和卡梅倫一樣，是英國貴族公學伊頓(Eton)的畢業生。然而，隨着英國的力量漸漸衰退，“建制”網絡的權威也日趨式微。卡梅倫富有的心腹密友內圍集團與大多數選民格格不入。他自己政黨的一位議員把他叫做“託利黨公子哥”，稱他對國民們在餐桌上關心的事情毫不知情。金融危機和一系列洗錢和不當銷售醜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。英國社會態度調查(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。到2012年，對銀行的信任比例已經下跌至19%。

As for parliament, the British have always shown a healthy scepticism towards politicians but this has curdled into deep cynicism in the wake of a series of expenses scandals. This week two former foreign secretaries, Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, were caught up in the furore about MPs’ business interests. Sir Malcolm said he would stand down at the election.

至於議會，英國人一向對政治人士表現出一種良性的懷疑，但在一系列金錢醜聞後，這種懷疑已經變成了深深的不信任。本週，兩名前外交大臣——傑克•斯特勞(Jack Straw)和馬爾科姆•裏夫金德爵士(Sir Malcolm Rifkind)因利用議員身份謀取商業利益而引起大衆的憤怒。裏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 18th century constitutionalist Edmund Burke called it the fourth estate — has been badly tarnished by the phone-tapping revelations. After myriad economic crises, the Treasury more closely resembles a spluttering East German Trabant than the Rolls-Royce of folklore. And Foreign Office diplomats, once at the very top of the Whitehall establishment and powerful emissaries of Britain’s international influence, have been told by their political masters to reinvent themselves as travelling salespeople for Britain plc.

至於英國國教，聆聽主教們佈道的人羣正在逐漸減少。被18世紀的憲政主義者埃德蒙•伯克(Edmund Burke)稱爲“第四等級”(fourth estate)的新聞界也因爲電話竊聽醜聞蒙上了污名。數次經濟危機以後，英國財政部更像是一輛嘎嘎作響的東德特拉貝特車(Trabant)，而不是一輛閃耀着傳統榮光的勞斯萊斯(Rolls-Royce)。英國外交部的外交官們曾一度處於倫敦政府系統的頂點，是展現英國國際影響力的強大使者。而現在他們的政治主人告訴他們，要把自己改造成英國企業的流動推銷員。

Prisoner of the past

歷史的囚徒

Many will bid a fond goodbye to the egregious bastions of self-perpetuating privilege. The age of unthinking deference has passed. Yet the more general corrosion of trust in the nation’s politicians and institutions has had unhappier consequences. As elsewhere in Europe, it leaves a vacuum of legitimacy, one being filled by the “antis”: the anti-elite, the anti-European, the anti-immigrant and the anti-capitalist. The populists have caught the temper of the times in offering disenchanted voters enemies rather than answers. Messrs Cameron and Miliband are chasing them to right and left.

許多人將依依不捨地告別永續特權最堅固的那些堡壘。不經思考就服從的年代已經過去。然而，人們在更大範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。卡梅倫和米利班德則驅使選民走向左或者右。

The rise of nationalism in Scotland and Ukip’s success in promoting English identity politics speak to a union of nations that is losing the glue of Britishness. Some, such as the historian Linda 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 common enemies. Mr Bogdanor’s answer is a new constitutional settlement — a redistribution of power between, and within, the four nations of the union to match the social, economic and cultural 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同政治方面的成功，呼應了這個正在失去“英國性”維繫的民族國家聯盟。一些人，比如歷史學家琳達•科利(Linda Colley)，表示事情總是會變成這樣。畢竟，英國是一個人爲構造的國家，是在18世紀以後，通過帝國探險、共同信奉的新教主義和共同的敵人締結而成的國家。波格丹諾提出的答案是達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盟之中，以及在各民族國家之間分配權力，以適應當代的社會、經濟和文化現實。

He is right. Britain needs a new way of governing itself and a new story — a binding narrative that affords due respect to the past but is no longer imprisoned by it. London 2012 pointed the way.

他是正確的。英國需要一種新的治理方式，一種新的表述——對過去給予恰當的尊崇、但不受制於過去的約束性表述。2012年倫敦奧運會爲我們指明瞭方向。