|
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.
|
|