【纽约时报20120216】为何中国政治模式是优越的
本帖最后由 woikuraki 于 2012-3-31 15:19 编辑【原文题目】Why China’s Political Model Is Superior
【中文题目】为什么中国的政治模式是优越的
【来 源】纽约时报
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opinion/why-chinas-political-model-is-superior.html?_r=2&ref=china
【发表日期】2012年2月16日
【原文作者】李世默（风投家）
【译 者】丫丫
【校 对】車幹
【译 文】
本周，奥巴马政府为中国副主席、未来领导人习近平举行了欢迎和招待。世界上最强大的选举民主制国家和最大的一党制国家在各自的政治交接期举行了会面。
许多人把这两个大国之间的竞争描述成民主和威权的斗争。实际上这是错的。美国和中国对其政治制度的态度从根本上就是不一样的：美国把民主制的政府视为政治制度的目标，而中国仅仅把它当前的政府形式或任何政治制度视为获得更大的国家利益目标的手段。
在人类跨越数千年的治理历史上，对民主的实验主要有过两种形式。第一种便是雅典对民主的实践，它维持了一百五十年。第二种就是现代西方民主。如果把民主定义为每个公民投一票，那么美国民主只能从92年前算起。实际上，若从1965年有选举权法案开始算起，那么美国的民主也只经历了47年而已——这几乎比中国历史上的许多朝代还短暂。
那么为什么有这么多人笃定地宣称他们发现了对整个人类最完美的政治制度，而且确信这种政治制度的优越将持续至永远？
要想知道答案就要探究当下民主实验的源泉。当下的民主实验开始于欧洲启蒙运动。启蒙运动的两个基本观点是：个人是理性的、天赋人权。这两个信条构筑了对现代性永恒信任的基础。而实现现代性的终极政治进程就是民主。
在早期，政治治理中的民主信仰推动了工业革命，也开辟了空前的经济繁荣与西方世界前所未有的军事实力。然而在一开始，一些引领并推动民主的人就清楚民主实验中固有的致命缺陷，而且寻求控制这种缺陷。
美国联邦党人明确表示他们在建立共和国，而非民主制，而且设计了种种方式来限制公共意志。然而，就如任何宗教一样，信念往往都比规则更加强大。
随着政治选举权的扩展，越来越多的人参与到越来越多的决策中。就如在美国他们说：“加利福尼亚就是未来。”实际上，未来就意味着无穷无尽的公投、政治瘫痪和破产。
在雅典的民主实践中，公众参与政治的不断扩大最终导致了煽动家的统治。而在今天的美国，金钱就是能促成煽动的强大力量。正如诺贝尔经济学奖获得者迈克尔·斯宾塞所说，美国已经从“一名有产男性投一票”，转变成“一名男性投一票”，又转变成“一人投一票”，现在又朝着“一美元一票”发展着。不管以哪种方式衡量，宪政共和国都只是体现在美国的名字上而已。选举出的代表没有个人的意志，只是对奇思妙想般的公众意志做出反应而已，目的是为了再次当选。特殊利益集团操纵选民投票支持降低税收，或是支持增加政府支出，有时候甚至控制选民投票支持自我毁灭式的战争。
因此，当前西方与中国的竞争并不是民主与威权之间的对峙，而是两种从根本上就有所不同的政治观的冲突。现代西方把民主和人权看成人类发展的终极目标。这种信仰是以一个绝对信念为前提的。
中国走的路就不一样了。它的领导人随时欢迎公众对政治决策的更多参与，前提是这对经济发展是有利的，对国家利益是有利的，十年来他们一直这样做着。
然而，如果国家的情况和需要发生变化，中国的领导人也会毫不犹豫地剥夺这种自由。20世纪80年代就是中国公众对国家政治参与不断高涨的时期，这对放松和打破文化大革命的意识形态枷锁起到了积极作用。但是它发展过了头，并导致了天按们广场的较大规模的叛乱行动。
1989年某月某日，这场叛乱被果断地镇压了。中华民族为这场暴力事件付出了沉重的代价，然而若不镇压，后果将会更加不堪设想。
之后的稳定开辟了一代人的经济增长和繁荣，推动中国经济走上世界第二的地位。
华盛顿与北京政治观的根本区别在于：政治权是神授的和绝对的，还是，政治权是一种可以根据国家的需要和情况而商定讨论的特权。
即使在今天，西方需要通过变得不民主一些才能存活下去的情况下，它似乎还是无法做到变得不民主些。从这个角度来说，今天的美国与过去的苏联是相似的，都把政治制度看成是终极目标。
根据历史经验，美式制度的前景视乎不太妙。事实上，基于信念的意识形态傲慢不久就会让民主坠入万丈深渊。
【原 文】
THIS week the Obama administration is playing host to Xi Jinping, China’s vice president and heir apparent. The world’s most powerful electoral democracy and its largest one-party state are meeting at a time of political transition for both.
Many have characterized the competition between these two giants as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism. But this is false. America and China view their political systems in fundamentally different ways: whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.
In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — far more ephemeral than all but a handful of China’s dynasties.
Why, then, do so many boldly claim they have discovered the ideal political system for all mankind and that its success is forever assured?
The answer lies in the source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.
In its early days, democratic ideas in political governance facilitated the industrial revolution and ushered in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and military power in the Western world. Yet at the very beginning, some of those who led this drive were aware of the fatal flaw embedded in this experiment and sought to contain it.
The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed myriad means to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules.
The political franchise expanded, resulting in a greater number of people participating in more and more decisions. As they say in America, “California is the future.” And the future means endless referendums, paralysis and insolvency.
In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy. And in today’s America, money is now the great enabler of demagogy. As the Nobel-winning economist A. Michael Spence has put it, America has gone from “one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.
The West’s current competition with China is therefore not a face-off between democracy and authoritarianism, but rather the clash of two fundamentally different political outlooks. The modern West sees democracy and human rights as the pinnacle of human development. It is a belief premised on an absolute faith.
China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country’s national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years.
However, China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.
That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.
The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world.
The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.
The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end.
History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.
路过学习。。。。。。。。。 十八大时，成为中央委员 一切政治制度都只是“工具”，实现民富国强的“工具”！
“工具”没有道德属性，但使用“工具”的人有道德属性！ 虽然原文作者关于中国式政治观的解读略浅还不够深刻，但是“当前西方与中国的竞争并不是民主与威权之间的对峙，而是两种从根本上就有所不同的政治观的冲突”这个观点还是值得肯定的。
文中关于美式民主的由来以及当前面临的困境，剖析还是比较简明透彻的。
貌似说出了中美政治的真正差异！！！ 美国利益集团动摇了。。。中国经济的耀眼成果，已经占领华尔街民众的冲击，使美国对自己的制度产生了前所未有的动摇，利益集团看来现在就开始发动宣传机器，在民间制造舆论基础，以便不久以后就可以效法中国制度，使用纳税人的资金实行国有化，中央调控经济。其中又有多少人能够中饱私囊呢？ 反正对我国来说利大于弊 越看越觉得不可思议，
竟然不是标题党，连内容都在实实在在的讨论呢…… 这叫中国的公知精英情何以堪 难得西方媒体居然会有这样的文章出现啊。。。我个人从来不认为中国的政治制度是最优越的，但相比西方，中国并未落后。 俺们是天朝 中国和西方其实只有一个差异：中国自古是士大夫领导，不允许商人控制国家政权，美国人却是以商立国，商人就是皇帝。 落后？不要紧，至少在YY那里，它还是最先进最完美的。 落后？不要紧，至少在YY那里，它还是最先进最完美的。 afeitou 发表于 2012-2-18 15:00 static/image/common/back.gif
难得西方媒体居然会有这样的文章出现啊。。。我个人从来不认为中国的政治制度是最优越的，但相比西方，中国 ...
是中国人写的。。 中国人可以集中力量办大事，以前只认为这是一句空洞的口号，但现在越来越觉的这句话十分有道理 fuhexinqd 发表于 2012-2-17 19:41 static/image/common/back.gif
一切政治制度都只是“工具”，实现民富国强的“工具”！
“工具”没有道德属性，但使用“工具”的人有道德 ...
即便是“封建工具”里一个贤明的皇帝，都会使的社会进步显著。然而一个人的政权风险较大，一个党就不一样的，某种意义上，一党执政就是真正的精英执政（注意，这里的精英与实为loser的JY们是有本质区别的），换句话说让使用工具的人聚焦充分授权，同时又有足够的力量防止使用工具的人失控。 lilyma06 发表于 2012-2-23 17:57 static/image/common/back.gif
是中国人写的。。
就算是火星人写的，也是在纽约时报刊登的吧，至少纽约时报不是中国人的报纸。。。 什么政治制度不要紧关键是能让人们过上好生活 能生活下去 怎么有点眼熟？粗糙的俺还以为是美国人的反思呢，俺好像还就此发过言表扬美国的，:L
这个，让俺找个台阶，，，，。
只能是说：美国人居然允许这种文章刊登是美国人比较厉害的原因之一了:o
嗯，至于在中国嘛，这种人是不会比凤姐韩哥更有粉丝的了;P
页:
[1]
2