【赫芬顿邮报20120221】李世默：美丽的民主

lilyma06

一场关于民主的有益的对话似乎正在渐渐浮现。《南华早报》发表了一篇题为《得到被统治者的授权才是获取权力的唯一途径》的文章（2012年2月19日），它代表了概括如下的一场争论：民主制使统治者获得被统治者的认可，而这是现代社会中唯一正当的政治权力来源。中国的成功并不是其政治制度的结果，而是“世界和平、普世繁荣、外商投资、技术转让和快速通讯的产物”。从另一方面来说，民主已经真正地“在世界各地”带来成功的经济发展。因此，民主将取得成功。对一些问题和事实进行验证可能会有所帮助。
这篇文章似乎将民主制与获得被统治者认可的正统政权等同化了，这样的等同需要一些证明。即使不是全部，大部分的民意调查也显示：绝大多数通过选举上台的政府大体上都只持有50%以下的支持率（参见皮尤研究中心的数据）。他们之中的大多数政府，包括最近上台的美国政府和许多欧洲政府，在当选后支持率都持续下滑，并且这个趋势伴随着他们的整个任期。难道这就是民主国家所谓的“认可”吗？如果是的话，那么这样的“认可”似乎只是没有实质内容的过程。事实上，美国和欧洲的社会运动都表明，在民众看来政府已不再正统合法。这样看来，即使在西方这个民主的诞生地，所谓的由选举产生的认同只是一种缺乏道德授权的法律形式。在法律上是获取民众认可，但道德上的沦丧，这可不是所谓正统。
世界和平、普世繁荣和快速通讯让我们享福，这是完全正确的。但是这样的有利条件世界上大多数国家皆可得到，包括亚洲、非洲和更远的一些民主国家。那么，凭着他们的选举，这些国家怎么还是会陷在贫困和经济停滞的泥潭中，而中国却让亿万人民脱离了贫困呢？如果中国无所不能的政治制度真的那么糟糕，那为什么还有那么多资本家自愿在中国注资，自愿将技术转让至中国？或者至少从部分层面来说，它们是中国政治体制能力的结果？
说西方国家民主政府对经济发展有所贡献，这种说法似乎是正确的。存在着许多文化和历史的原因使得经济发展得以可能。但是如果将其延伸到“在世界各地”，那这种说法是最有问题的。在过去的半个世纪中，大多数跻身第一世界的非西方政体正是在专制体制（新加坡，台湾，韩国）或一党制（日本）之下取得成功的。的确，他们中的某些在变得富有之后采用了民主选举制，但他们这样做才不过经历了一代人，现在下判断还为时过早。
从20世纪开始以来，没有什么事情比历史决定论更让人类受罪了。马克思画出人类进步的蓝图，他主张人类社会必然终止于共产主义；而那些带着意识形态的狂热实行共产主义的领导人，都给人民带来了灾难，中国也在其中。历史自有其报复，苏联在烈焰中解体，而中国事实上早就放弃了把红旗插遍全球的计划。如今，民主主义者似乎继承了衣钵，宣称自由的民主是人类的天堂。他们的道德标准简直可以与苏联前辈们的相抗衡。 文章末尾说明一切：作者“对最终的结果毫不怀疑”。历史也许在重演。
作者李世默是上海的一位风险投资家

                                                                                                                                                                                Globalization 2.0: Democracy the Beautiful                                        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-x-li/globalization-20-democrac_1_b_1289779.html

A healthy debate on democracy seems to be emerging.  The South China Morning Post published an article entitled Consent of the Governed is Only Means to Assure Power (February 19, 2012).  It presents an argument that can be summarized as follows:  Democracy gives the ruler the consent of the governed, which is the only source of legitimacy for political power in modern times.  China's success is not a result of its political system but "a product of world peace, general world prosperity, foreign investment, technology transfer, and rapid communication".  On the other hand, democracy has truly brought about successful economic development "across the world".  Therefore, democracy shall triumph.  
Some questions and fact checking may be useful.
The article seems to equate democracy with political legitimacy derived from consent of the governed.  Such equation is in need of some verification.  Most, if not all, public opinion polls indicate that a vast majority of governments in the world that came to power through elections carry substantially lower than 50% approval rating (check Pew Research).  Most of them, including the recent governments of the United States and much of Europe, consistently fall below that mark soon after their elections and stay there throughout their terms.  Is this the "consent" democracies produce?  If so, such "consent" seems to be all procedure with little substance.  In fact, social movements in America and Europe point to a decisive loss of legitimacy of their governments among their populations.  It seems that even in the West, the birthplace of modern democracy, the so-called consent produced by elections is a legal form devoid of moral authority.  Legally consensual but morally bankrupt do not legitimacy make.  
It is certainly correct that world peace, general world prosperity, and rapid communications have blessed our time.  But such favorable conditions are available to most parts of the world, including many democracies in Asia, Africa, and beyond.  How come, then, many of those countries, with all their elections, are still mired in poverty and stagnation while China has been lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty?  If China's all-powerful political system were so bad, why would free-willing capitalists inject so much foreign direct investment and technology transfers into the country?  Or are they, at least in part, the results of the very capability of China's political system?
It is plausible to argue that democratic governance contributed to economic development in the Western world.  There were many cultural and historical reasons that made it possible.  But to extend that to "across the world" is problematic to say the least.  Most of the non-Western polities that achieved first-world status in the last half century did so under authoritarian regimes (Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea) or some form of one-party rule (Japan).  True, some of them have implemented electoral democracies after they became wealthy.  But barely a generation has passed since they did so - much too soon to render judgment on their outcomes.  
Ever since the onset of the 20th century, few things have caused more human suffering than historic determinism.  Karl Marx mapped out what he claimed to be an inevitable path for human society ending at Communism.  Those who implemented it with ideological fervor brought catastrophe to their peoples, the Chinese being among them.  But history had its revenge and the Soviet empire went up in flames.  China had, in practice, long since abandoned such grand end-of-history schemes.  Now democrats seem to have taken on that same mantle, claiming the inevitability of liberal democracy as man's paradise on earth.  Their moral certitude rivals that of their Soviet predecessors.   
The end of the article says it all: the author has "few doubts of the eventual outcome".  History may be repeating itself.  


该贴已经同步到 lilyma06的微博

小飞泥

不错，很简洁！！！！