《The Economist》《经济学人》中文版

Bagehot
白芝浩

There won’t be blood
血腥不再
May 21st 2009
From The Economist print edition

At a time of crisis, why are Britain’s politicians so spineless?
危急时刻，为何英国政治家如此懦弱？

Illustration by Steve O'Brien


WESTMINSTER loves the language of gore. People talk of “back-stabbings” and “assassins”; of electoral “massacres”; of paths to power “littered with corpses” and of “bloodbaths” if the powerful are crossed. In this sanguinary lexicon MPs are accounted “brave” and “heroic” for drafting a motion that calls for a parliamentary official to resign, or for writing newspaper articles that are codedly critical of their leaders.

英国议会喜欢血腥的语言。如果权势交锋，人们会说着“暗箭伤人”和“暗杀”；或者选举“大屠杀”；权利之路上“横尸遍野”还有“喋血”这些词。在这种血腥的词语中，议员们认为提议要求议会的官员辞职或者写对他们的领导人的委婉批评的文章是“大胆的”与“英勇的”。

They aren’t. It is brave to attend a protest rally in Burma. It is brave to be an independent journalist in Russia. It is brave to be a human-rights monitor in Syria. In Britain heads roll or are impaled on spikes only metaphorically. Only ink actually gets spilt: there will not be blood. The costs of sticking out a neck are pifflingly low. Ordinary Britons might well wonder why in these febrile（发热的） times so few politicians, whether commanders or foot soldiers, are willing to make a stand.

但他们并不大胆英勇。在缅甸参加反抗集会是勇敢的。在俄国做一个独立的新闻记者是勇敢的。在叙利亚当个人权纠察员是勇敢的。在英国，比喻头头们要么转动尖 状物，要么被钉在那上面。实际上只有墨水会溅出来：不再血溅。想出头的成本是相当低的。普通的英国人很可能会疑惑：在这些发热的时刻为什么那么少的政治家 愿意表明一种立场，不管是指挥官还是小兵。

Consider the three imbroglios that have paralysed politics. First, the fate of the soon to be ex-speaker, Michael Martin. On May 11th he rebuked two MPs who said things he didn’t like; attempting, on May 18th, to cling to his canopied chair, he seemed mumblingly ignorant of the procedures he is supposed to oversee. After his failings on MPs’ expenses (see article), it was painfully clear that he had to go. And on May 19th Mr Martin announced that he would. Yet only 23 MPs were “brave” enough to sign the “no confidence” motion that exhorted him to.

三个总错复杂的局面被认为是使政治瘫痪的原因。第一，就快成为前任发言人的迈克尔•马丁的命运。5月11日，他指责了两个说了他不喜欢的事情的议员；5月 18日，又试图紧占着他的位置，看似他无意无视应该监督的程序。在他在议员开支上犯的一些差错之后，痛苦的清楚知道他不得不下台了。5月19日，马丁先生 宣布他将会辞职。也仅有23位议员足够“大胆”地对劝说他这一“没有信任”的提议示意。

In fact, some of the reasons offered by those who backed the speaker had merit. Mr Martin did not force those implicated in the expenses debacle to submit dodgy claims. Why should he be sacrificed to camouflage the guilt of others?

实际上，一些支持发言人的人提出的某些理由也有可取之处。马丁先生并没有破那些牵涉开支崩溃的人们屈服于冒险的要求。为什么他就该因为隐藏他人的过错而牺牲呢？

Quite so: others should plainly go too. Some MPs worked the expenses system too disreputably to keep their seats or, in some cases, their ministerial jobs or places on the Conservative front bench. Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, who wrote a belated cheque for the amount of capital-gains tax she didn’t pay when selling what was once, for expenses purposes, her “second home”, is not the only cabinet member in this category. Those top Tories who made lucrative second-home claims on properties in spitting distance of their first homes are similarly bespattered.

的确如此：其他人也应该明白地离开。一些操纵开支系统的议员们因够声名狼藉，或者在一些事情上，因他们的部门指责和地位在保守派议会前座才保住他们的位 置。社团秘书长Hazel Blears开了一张迟到的支票，是一笔她没有支付资本收益税的款，而出售过程中就该支付的费用，至于开支的用途，她的“别居”在这类别中并不是唯一的内 阁成员。这些上头的保守党，在别居上获利最多，在他们第一个家距离很近的财产申诉上也同样地被溅污。 【不太理解这里的second-home意思，请教高手指点】

Yet, so far, a pair of the most disgraced Labour MPs have been suspended by their parliamentary party and one disposable junior minister has stepped down; on the Tory side, David Cameron jettisoned an aide, and a few backbenchers who made baronial expenses claims have said they will not stand again. Some have apologised and, like Ms Blears, brandished penitential cheques. But otherwise Gordon Brown and Mr Cameron have hidden behind scrutiny panels and regulatory reforms—classic bureaucratic responses to an essentially moral problem. Mr Brown vowed to prevent anyone who had “defied the rules” from seeking re-election, and called the antics of Ms Blears and others “unacceptable”. But neither he nor Mr Cameron has employed the obvious remedy: to sack the egregious offenders and urge specific deselections, or impose them on reluctant constituencies if necessary. And although some activists are calling for a cull, few MPs, even among the clean ones, have joined them.

不过，目前，一对最不光彩的工党议员已经被他们的议会党怀疑，一个临时的年轻部长已经辞职。在保守党这边，大卫•卡梅伦丢掉了一个副手，少数做了铺张花销 的申诉的后座议员说他们将不会再站出来。有些人道了歉，比如Ms Blears，开了支票挥霍并感后悔。但是，除此之外，戈登布朗和卡梅隆先生已经藏于检查小组的背后并监管者改革——只给根本的道德问题的一个陈旧的官腔 答复。布朗先生发誓防止任何一个违反规章制度的人再次企图重新选举，并称Ms Blears女士和其他人的那种愚昧无知之举是“不能接受的”。不过，他和卡梅隆先生都没有采取明显的补救方法：解雇坏透的违规者，并极力主张明确的免 职，或者如果有必要就迫使他们到不情愿的选区去。尽管一些激进分子要求挑选出某些议员，甚至一些清白的议员，加入他们。

So to the final intrigue—the revived murmurs among Labour MPs about ditching Mr Brown himself. Before he became prime minister in 2007, few raised a squeal of protest; since then, some have been grumbling almost constantly. The arguments for and against installing another leader voiced during last summer’s aborted mutiny are again doing the rounds. Again MPs lament Mr Brown’s charmlessness and Labour’s likely electoral rout. Again they meekly look to the cabinet to lead a coup.

那么阴谋的结果就是——在工党议员中关于摆脱布朗先生的小声抱怨再次显现现。2007年，在他成为首相之前，很少有人发出尖锐的反对声；其后，一些人几乎 不断的发牢骚。在上一个夏天兵变未遂的期间发生的争论，是关于赞成还是反对使另一个领导人上任，再一次出现了。再者，议员们为布朗先生的毫无魅力可言以及 工党选举很可能溃败感到悲哀。还有就是他们软弱的想依靠内阁采取意外而成功的行动。

A time to cull
剔除的时刻到了

These different instances of collective timidity have some common explanations. In each case “boldness” has been inhibited by loyalty to friends, qualms about ruining careers and concern about constitutional niceties (it has been one of those weeks when commentators sagely bandy about medieval dates and precedents hastily garnered from Wikipedia).

这些集中了胆小的例子有一些共同的解释理由。每一个事例中的“冒失”都是对朋友的忠诚，对事业破坏的怀疑以及对体制上完善的关注所不容的（评论员明智的摆布从维基百科收集来的中世纪的日期和先例已经是数周的时间了。这里怎么读都别扭 ）

The main explanation, however, is politicians’ self-interest. Backbenchers fear the ghoulish tortures of whips and the lost chance of preferment that rudeness about the prime minister might incur. Some fear that speaking out about the need for expenses-related sackings could set off a wave of retribution that could eventually engulf them too. The party leaders are stalling, reluctant to wield their metaphorical axes until they are sure where the chopping would end. Mr Brown may worry that punishing some MPs will make him still less loved among the rest.

然而，主要的理由是政治家的自身利益。后座议员害怕残忍的鞭打刑讯和失去关于首相可能招致粗蛮的表现机会。一些人害怕说出需要相关开支证据，可能会引起应 得的惩罚风波，最后也把他们全都吞噬完。党派的领导人在拖延，不愿意运用他们隐喻般的轴，除非他们确信哪里闲言碎语已经消失。布朗先生可能会担心惩罚一些 议员也不会使他在其他人中得到多一点的爱戴。

Unfortunately, the politicians’ self-interest is unenlightened and myopic. With so little life left in the government, the cost to the careers of Labour mutineers would be nugatory; indeed, their stature might be enhanced if the plot came off. The confrontation between Mr Brown and the malcontents is less like a gunslingers’ deadly stand-off than the Monty Python sketch in which two men slap each other with fish. Meanwhile, implementing or supporting tough discipline for the most extravagant expenses artists might indeed lead to awkwardness and perhaps the odd by-election. But through their hesitancy the big parties have been tainted more than they need have been by the chancers they harbour. And they have left a space that insurgent parties and anti-sleaze independents are moving into.

不幸的是，政治家的自身利益并没有远见也不着眼当前。能呆在政府里的时间也就只有那么点了，工党哗变者的事业成本没有多少价值；事实上，如果他们密谋成 功，他们的形象有可能提升。布朗先生与不满者之间的对峙比起Monty Python有两个人鱼互相拍打的素描画，更像一个枪手要保持致命的距离。同时，对大多数铺张花销的艺术家所作的贯彻的或者支撑的严格处罚实际上可能会变 得不灵活，也许会是临时的递补选举。但是尽管他们的犹豫不决，这最大的党派已经被浑浊得超过了他们所想的，。。。。。。。。。他们已留了一个空位，叛乱党派和反。。。的独立者正往那移动。（这里不知道怎么翻译才好，请高手指教）

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that too many politicians are immobilised by a mix of inertia and spinelessness. Obstacles that are actually puny to them look Himalayan. To be snubbed in a parliamentary canteen seems as daunting as being put against a bullet-dented wall. Like many cowards, alas, they risk bringing on the fate they most fear.

太多政治家由于惰性和懦弱的混合性格而懒于移动，这样的结论是很难避免的。障碍物对他们看喜马拉雅山来说，确实是微不足道的。在议会的食堂里不被理睬看起来就和把人处于满是子弹凹坑的墙壁一样吓人。就像许多胆小鬼，他们冒险与他们最怕的命运一搏。

b50c5e4d