成人免费午夜在线观看,伊人久久精品,一区二区三区精品

（本文同時(shí)刊載于美國(guó)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》、《赫芬頓郵報(bào)》和香港《南華早報(bào)》，作者授權(quán)觀察者網(wǎng)獨(dú)家翻譯。）

本周，在美國(guó)總統(tǒng)選戰(zhàn)步入高潮之際，中國(guó)國(guó)家副主席習(xí)近平訪問了華盛頓。中國(guó)是世界上新興的超級(jí)大國(guó)，而習(xí)近平被視為這個(gè)大國(guó)未來的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。此次訪問，意味著兩國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在政府換屆之際相遇。美國(guó)是世界上最強(qiáng)的代議制民主國(guó)家，而中國(guó)是最大的一黨制國(guó)家。許多人將中美兩大國(guó)間的理念之爭(zhēng)，曲解成民主與專制間的對(duì)抗，這一錯(cuò)誤觀念亟需消除。

人類社會(huì)的政治史長(zhǎng)達(dá)數(shù)千年，在這一歷史長(zhǎng)河中點(diǎn)綴了兩次西方式民主制度的試驗(yàn)。第一次試驗(yàn)是古希臘的城邦雅典，其民主制度從公元前6世紀(jì)維持到公元前4世紀(jì)中葉，持續(xù)了一個(gè)半世紀(jì)，實(shí)際上只能算是一次曇花一現(xiàn)的失敗。第二次試驗(yàn)是現(xiàn)代西方世界，如果把民主定義為一人一票的普選制，那么美國(guó)民主的歷史是92年，如果更嚴(yán)格地按諸事實(shí)，從1965年《選舉權(quán)法案》頒布算起只有47年。這么說來，美國(guó)民主的壽命迄今為止還比不過元朝，后者是中國(guó)古代主要王朝中最短命的一個(gè)。

既然如此，為何會(huì)有那么多人敢公然宣稱，他們已一勞永逸找到適合全人類的理想政治制度呢？

要回答這一問題，就要追本溯源，回到當(dāng)前西方民主試驗(yàn)的精神源頭。當(dāng)今西方民主的濫觴，是孕育了現(xiàn)代性的歐洲近代啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)。啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的核心思想，可以歸結(jié)為兩條基本理念：首先個(gè)人是理性的；其次個(gè)人權(quán)利是神圣不可侵犯的。這兩條理念在本質(zhì)上都是基于信仰，而非現(xiàn)實(shí)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。比如在美國(guó)《獨(dú)立宣言》中，托馬斯?杰弗遜就寫道：“人人生而平等……造物主（Creator）賦予他們?nèi)舾刹豢蓜儕Z的權(quán)利（Rights）?！?這個(gè)大寫的“造物主”是誰？當(dāng)然就是基督教信仰中的上帝。與此相對(duì)應(yīng)，“權(quán)利”一詞也用了大寫，以強(qiáng)調(diào)這條格言的神圣性。美國(guó)《獨(dú)立宣言》中的這一表述，與法國(guó)《人權(quán)宣言》中“自由、平等、博愛”的信條，一起組成了所謂的“現(xiàn)代性”信仰的基礎(chǔ)，而“現(xiàn)代性”在政治上的終極表現(xiàn)形式，就是西方式民主制度。

在最初的一段時(shí)間里，政治體制中的民主因素促發(fā)了工業(yè)革命，西方世界的經(jīng)濟(jì)和軍事實(shí)力前所未有地突飛猛進(jìn)。不過，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)西方崛起的領(lǐng)袖們從一開始，就清醒地看到民主試驗(yàn)中天然蘊(yùn)涵的致命缺陷，他們想方設(shè)法試圖遏制其消極影響。比如美國(guó)的聯(lián)邦黨人就明確提出，他們希望建立的是共和國(guó)家，而不是民主國(guó)家。為此，聯(lián)邦黨人在憲法中竭力遏制大眾意志的過度膨脹?？墒?，就像任何一個(gè)宗教一樣，信仰的力量最后總是壓倒規(guī)則。民主的結(jié)果是公民的政治權(quán)利無限膨脹，參與決策者越來越多，參與面越來越泛。在美國(guó)人們常說，加利福尼亞就是美國(guó)的未來。這個(gè)未來又是怎樣的景象呢？只有無休止的公民投票、政府癱瘓和財(cái)政破產(chǎn)。

對(duì)美國(guó)而言，這個(gè)共和國(guó)的開創(chuàng)者們有許多理由來限制民主，例如大眾素質(zhì)太低，缺乏見識(shí)，易走極端。但隨著電視和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的興起，這些壁壘都轟然倒地。歸根結(jié)蒂，既然人們都是理性的，擁有上帝賦予的不可侵犯的權(quán)利，并且一切知識(shí)都觸手可得，那么他們?yōu)楹尾荒軈⑴c一切決策？在伯羅奔尼撒戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，雅典城邦由于民眾無限參與政治，導(dǎo)致了煽動(dòng)家的上臺(tái)。煽動(dòng)家西亞比德用慷慨激昂的演說鼓動(dòng)起民眾的狂熱，讓雅典派出其強(qiáng)大的艦隊(duì)去遠(yuǎn)征敘拉古，結(jié)果被斯巴達(dá)所打敗，這次致命的出征成為雅典衰亡的開端。再回到當(dāng)下，現(xiàn)在金錢成了煽動(dòng)政治的最大推手。諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)得主邁克爾?斯賓塞一語道破天機(jī)，他說美國(guó)的民主先后經(jīng)歷了幾個(gè)歷史階段：最早是“一個(gè)有產(chǎn)男人一票”，接著是“一個(gè)男人一票”，然后是“一人一票”，現(xiàn)在正向“一美元一票”邁進(jìn)。

無論從何種意義上說，當(dāng)今美國(guó)都只是徒有虛名的憲政共和國(guó)，實(shí)際上已經(jīng)墮落為雅典式的民主政體。被選舉上臺(tái)的民眾代表們根本沒有自己的主見，其唯一關(guān)心的就是迎合一時(shí)的民意，好在下次選舉時(shí)保住位子。當(dāng)今信息的豐富和傳播的迅速，都堪稱史無前例，這誘使民眾陷入自己什么都懂的幻覺。利益集團(tuán)則從中播弄民意并操縱投票，結(jié)果是不斷減稅，提高政府支出，甚至發(fā)動(dòng)自我毀滅性的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。選舉因此淪為游戲，不同的利益集團(tuán)都在利用這個(gè)制度尋租。民主制度之所以陷入這種惡性循環(huán)，是因?yàn)檫@一試驗(yàn)的深層基因所致，即對(duì)個(gè)人理性和權(quán)利的迷信。不僅是美國(guó)如此，歐洲各國(guó)也在上演同樣的戲碼。相較于當(dāng)今風(fēng)雨飄搖的西方民主制度，古代的羅馬共和國(guó)的歷史要長(zhǎng)得多，這是因?yàn)楹笳邚奈醋燥棡槊裰?，也從無這樣的野心。

因此，西方與中國(guó)的理念之爭(zhēng)，不是出于民主與專制的對(duì)抗，而是由于對(duì)政治制度完全不同的理解。在前者看來，民主本身就是最終目的；而在后者眼中，任何政治制度都不過是工具。美國(guó)人普遍相信，民主就是好，而且越民主越好。在美國(guó)，有哪位政治家敢對(duì)民主提出質(zhì)疑呢？西方民主已走進(jìn)死胡同，或許只有控制民主的泛濫方能拯救民主本身。但在民主制度下，這一調(diào)整永遠(yuǎn)只能是天方夜譚。

相較之下，越來越多的中國(guó)民眾正在政府引導(dǎo)下參與政治決策，因?yàn)檫@可以促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展和國(guó)家利益，而近十年來的成績(jī)也恰恰證明了此點(diǎn)。但如果國(guó)情和國(guó)家需求發(fā)生變化，中國(guó)將毫不遲疑地主動(dòng)調(diào)整。在上世紀(jì)80年代，民眾政治參與度的不斷提高，有助于當(dāng)時(shí)的中國(guó)走出災(zāi)難性的“文化大革命”的陰影，擺脫意識(shí)形態(tài)的桎梏。但凡事過猶不及，爆炸性的政治參與最終引起了一場(chǎng)大規(guī)?？棺h。

最終，抗議活動(dòng)被政府平定了。誠然，這次事件令中國(guó)人民付出了慘痛的代價(jià)，但除此之外的其他選擇只會(huì)更糟糕，結(jié)果只能兩害相權(quán)取其輕。此后一代人的時(shí)間里，中國(guó)保持了政治穩(wěn)定，迎來了經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和繁榮，并躋身世界第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體。與此同時(shí)，中國(guó)在政治上日漸成熟，可以更加積極穩(wěn)妥地推動(dòng)政治改革，減少震蕩，避免極端暴力傾向。

在政治意識(shí)形態(tài)上，美國(guó)和中國(guó)之間存在根本分歧。前者認(rèn)為政治權(quán)利是上帝賦予的，因此也是絕對(duì)的；而在后者看來，政治權(quán)利的發(fā)展必須建立在國(guó)家需求和基本國(guó)情之上。

照此來看，今天的美國(guó)人與上世紀(jì)的蘇聯(lián)人并無本質(zhì)區(qū)別，他們都將自己的政治制度和意識(shí)形態(tài)當(dāng)作終極目的。中國(guó)的崛起之路，恰恰與之相反。就未來的前景看，美國(guó)人的道路并不美妙。不過迄今為止，他們還沉迷于狂妄自大的意識(shí)形態(tài)，一路狂奔，而前方就是懸崖峭壁。 

李世默是上海的一位風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家。

（朱新偉 / 譯）

英文：

DEMOCRACY’S COMING DEMISE

SHANGHAI -- As the U.S. presidential election shifts into high gear, this week Washington hosts China's Vice President Xi Jinping, heir apparent of the emergent super power. The world's most powerful electoral democracy and the largest one-party state meet at a time of political transition for both. Many have characterized the competition of ideas between the two giants as one between democracy and authoritarianism. This false perspective needs to be dispelled.

In the long history of human governance, spanning over thousands of years, there have been only two meaningful experiments in democracy, as the term is understood in the modern West. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half from sixth to the middle of fourth century B.C, - a quick failure, really. The second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one-person-one-vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting at the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- far more ephemeral than even China's shortest-lived 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 spiritual source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment, which gave birth to modernity. Two fundamental ideas informed its core: the individual is rational and the individual is endowed with unalienable rights. These two beliefs are in essence based on faith, not empirical evidence. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "All men are created equal...and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." And who was that Creator with a capital "C"? God, of course. To further emphasize the divine nature of the claim, the "R" in rights was capitalized as well. Along with claims such as "liberté, egalité, fraternité", they form the basis of a religious faith called 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, those who led this drive were aware of the fatal flaw inbred in this experiment and sought to contain it. The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed a myriad of bells and whistles to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules. The political franchise could only expand resulting in ever more people participating in ever more decisions. As they say in America, California is the future. And what is that future? Endless referendums, paralysis, and insolvency.

With the advent of television and then the Internet, whatever excuses the founders of the American republic came up with to contain democracy, such as an ignorant public and a lack of information, fall by the wayside. After all, if the people are rational and divinely endowed with rights, and all knowledge is at their fingertips, why shouldn't they be allowed to decide on everything? In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagoguery. Public fervor whipped up by Alcibiades' oratory sent its powerful fleet on that fateful mission to Syracuse, and its defeat there by Sparta started Athens' decline. Fast-forward to the present, money is now the great enabler of demagoguery. As the Nobel economist Michael Spence 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, America today is a constitutional republic in name only, and an Athenian democracy in practice. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-elections; with the abundance of information and the most efficient communication ever known to man, the public believes it knows everything; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever lower taxes and higher government spending, even supporting self destructive wars. Elections become the game through which disparate groups seek rents from the system. Such is the vicious cycle that is in the DNA of the current experiment in democracy based on the faith of rationalism and rights. A similar version of the same movie is showing in theaters everywhere in Europe. In contrast the Roman republic survived much longer because it never pretended or aspired to be a democracy.

The West's competition of ideas with China is not between democracy and authoritarianism, but between two fundamentally different outlooks on political systems. The former sees democracy as an end in itself; the latter sees any political system as barely means. It is indeed a commonly held faith in America that democracy is a good in itself and the more democratic the better. Is there a politician in America who would dare say otherwise? Western democracy is inherently incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift.

The Chinese, on the other hand, would allow greater popular participation in political decisions when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to its national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years, but would not hesitate to curtail it if the conditions and the needs of the nation change. The 1980s saw a decade of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped the nation 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 bloody event, but the alternatives would have been far worse. The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China to its position as the second largest economy in the world. As the national polity matures, political adjustments are becoming more sophisticated and pro-active, further narrowing the swings to avoid violent extremes.

The fundamental difference between Washington's view and Beijing's is whether political rights are considered as God-given and therefore absolute or should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.
In this framework, the Americans today are not dissimilar to the Soviets of the last century in that both see their political systems and their underlying ideologies as ultimate ends. The Chinese are on a different path. History does not bode well for the American path. Their faith-based ideological hubris will soon drive democracy over the cliff.

Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist in Shanghai.

本文系觀察者網(wǎng)獨(dú)家稿件，文章內(nèi)容純屬作者個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)，不代表平臺(tái)觀點(diǎn)，未經(jīng)授權(quán)，不得轉(zhuǎn)載，否則將追究法律責(zé)任。關(guān)注觀察者網(wǎng)微信guanchacn，每日閱讀趣味文章。